Your search found 4396 results.

Descriptors:
Public Agencies; State Government; Financial Support; State Aid; Smoking; Health Promotion; Health Programs; Program Evaluation; Training; Role; Evaluators; Technical Writing; Reports; Information Utilization; Attitudes; Stakeholders; Accountability; Program Effectiveness; Test Construction; Scoring

Abstract:
Nearly all private, government and non-governmental organizations that receive government funding to run social or health promotion programs in the United States are required to conduct program evaluations and to report findings to the funding agency. Reports are usually due at the end of a funding cycle and they may or may not have an influence on the continuation of program funding. The final evaluation report (FER), as the end-of-funding-cycle report is often called, generally relates the intervention and evaluation results of the funding period and has a dual purpose. It is considered an element of accountability and should give the program and its stakeholders direction for the future. All too often though, this is not the case. Evaluators have voiced myriad concerns about the many issues related to reports and their usage. In their study of a random sample of American Evaluation Association members, Torres et al. (1997) found that evaluators are generally discontent about reporting and about the fact that their reports are often misused or not used at all. Evaluation reports could be a valuable instrument for moving projects forward if stakeholders and project staff would make good use of evaluation findings. The Tobacco Control Evaluation Center (TCEC) (2006) at the University of California at Davis developed scoring measures for final report writing for over 100 local tobacco control projects in California but found 2007 reports lacking in quality. In 2010, it conducted a training campaign in the hope that the projects themselves, the funding government agency and TCEC may make better use of the reports. The response to the training call was overwhelming, and comparing scores from 2007 and 2010, participating agencies made statistically significant improvements but non-participants did not. Results relating to the mode of training were inconclusive. The pre- and post-score comparison proved to be a valuable measuring tool, and the 1-day face-to-face training was a useful training mode. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Educational Finance; Income; Public Policy; Enrollment Trends; Tax Allocation; Tax Effort; Tuition; Trend Analysis; Educational Trends; Predictor Variables; Educational Resources; Statistical Data; State Aid; Resource Allocation; Expenditure per Student; Financial Support; School Support; State Surveys; Comparative Analysis; Interstate Programs; Tables (Data); School Taxes; School Funds; Local Government; State Government; Student Financial Aid; Costs; Operating Expenses; Public Colleges; Medical Schools; Rural Extension; Economic Climate; Educational Policy

Abstract:
The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in the report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and non-tax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data among states and over time; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent fiscal year. Appended are: (1) Grapevine Media Tables; (2) Glossary of Terms; (3) State Data Providers; and (4) SSDB Collection Instructions. (Contains 12 figures, 13 tables, and 13 footnotes.) [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2011," see ED530332.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (15644K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Tennessee's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) revamped its approach to project management to ensure meaningful project oversight and revised project work plans and goals that focus on measuring project performance and impact at the State educational agency (SEA) level. The State also participated in partnership meetings with local educational agencies (LEAs) to build relationships focused on data and collaborative problem solving. These meetings reinforced the State's goal of transitioning from compliance monitoring to a more collaborative role as LEAs implemented their Race to the Top plans. Although Tennessee made excellent progress in Year 2, it still faced challenges as it rolled out the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), built data systems to support instruction, and expanded its science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) network. Moving into Year 3 of its grant, Tennessee plans to build on its accomplishments and address its challenges from Year 2. The State is reassessing its implementation plans in several reform areas to ensure continuous improvement and effective implementation. For example, the State is making changes to its educator evaluation system to address feedback from teachers and principals. In addition, TDOE is enhancing its existing Field Service Centers (FSCs) to provide content-specific supports to LEAs and schools. The FSCs will now be called Centers of Regional Excellence (COREs) and will leverage the existing strengths of FSCs and add additional capacities to provide support to LEAs as they implement the CCSS and the new evaluation system. The State's plans for Years 3 and 4 rely heavily on effective CORE implementation, highlighting the need for the State to establish high-quality centers and mechanisms to assess their effectiveness. A glossary is included. (Contains 20 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Tennessee Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529330.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1550K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Rhode Island's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) and local educational agencies (LEAs) created curricular resources to assist educators in transitioning to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), including 10 model curricula in core subjects. RIDE exceeded its goal of training 4,100 educators on CCSS; 5,800 educators attended Study of the Standards sessions during the first two years of Race to the Top implementation. Additionally, the State developed four modules to train educators in formative assessment practices and piloted these modules in six schools in SY 2011-2012. Although RIDE exceeded its CCSS training goals, it is unclear whether all LEAs will be ready to fully implement the CCSS by SY 2013-2014, particularly those LEAs that did not participate in the State's curricular development work. RIDE made revisions to the educator evaluation system to increase the weight of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) component, a change that will require RIDE to provide additional support to ensure that educators and LEAs implement SLOs rigorously and consistently. According to the State's Race to the Top plan, in Year 3 Rhode Island will continue to support LEAs and improve its Race to the Top program oversight and monitoring through EdStat and the CLO process. LEAs will take critical steps toward implementing the CCSS by developing CCSS-aligned units of study for use in classrooms. In addition, LEAs will fully implement new educator evaluation systems that use student growth data, differentiate educators into performance levels, and suggest professional growth supports for educators. The State will also take steps toward rewarding effective educators by developing and piloting new compensation structures. Additionally, it will place more educators certified through alternative routes in schools and will continue its efforts to transform persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools through interventions and support. A glossary is included. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Rhode Island Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529328.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1533K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Ohio's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, Ohio built on its Year 1 successes. In its transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the State created a high school and IHE committee to align college and career standards with colleges' and universities' entrance requirements. To improve educator data access and allow the State to track students once they exit the kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) system, the State worked with an external vendor to assign statewide student identifiers (SSIDs) to all high school seniors and freshmen attending State public IHEs (institutions of higher education). The State also created structures to ensure that participating local educational agencies (LEAs) receive frequent Race to the Top updates. During Year 2 Ohio faced some difficulty aligning ODE (Ohio Department of Education) and OBR (Ohio Board of Regents) efforts, as well as developing comprehensive contractor oversight processes. In addition, the State grappled with how to provide support to non-traditional persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools, namely community and virtual schools. Ohio continues to focus on ways to ensure sustainability of its Race to the Top reforms and high levels of LEA engagement. During Year 3, Ohio plans to assess and revise its structures to ensure quality implementation of all of its projects. As part of this work, Ohio developed an expanded statewide engagement strategy for educators and other stakeholders such as the general public and policymakers. In addition, Ohio plans to reevaluate its curriculum and assessment resources, as well as how LEA professional development plans are submitted, reviewed, and approved. Finally, in Year 3, participating LEAs will pilot or implement the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) and the Ohio Principal Evaluation System (OPES) to support full implementation of both systems no later than SY 2013-2014. A glossary is included. (Contains 18 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Ohio Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529325.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1444K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of North Carolina's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, North Carolina continued the progress it made in Year 1 in all areas of its comprehensive reform plan and reached several implementation milestones. North Carolina made progress in implementing a qualifying evaluation system for teachers and principals by modifying its existing statewide evaluation system, the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES). The State also continued to prepare its educators to fully implement the updated North Carolina Standard Course of Study in SY 2012-2013 by providing professional development and disseminating curricular materials. Delays impacted several of the State's Race to the Top initiatives. The Instructional Improvement System (IIS) and Virtual Blended STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) Courses projects were delayed in order to refine project plans and requirements and as a result of lengthy procurement processes; these projects now have condensed implementation timeframes. The State's extensive Year 2 preparations laid the groundwork for full implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and NCEES in Year 3. The State's comprehensive professional development offerings, including more than 90 regional face-to-face sessions and online resources, will support educators as they implement these and other key initiatives. North Carolina will also continue to support teacher and leader pipelines through its Regional Leadership Academies, Distinguished Leadership in Practice program, Teach For America partnership, and the North Carolina Teacher Corps. North Carolina will continue to build readiness in the field for and begin implementing components of its two major technology initiatives, the Cloud and Home Base. A glossary is included. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. North Carolina. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529322.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1373K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of New York's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. New York completed its first year of transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), encouraging educators to implement at least one CCSS-aligned unit each semester. It field tested items that it will use on CCSS-aligned Year 3 assessments and provided curricular documents through the EngageNY.org website, including thirteen LEA-developed exemplar curriculum modules. New York struggled to stay on track with timeframes in its approved Race to the Top plan in Year 2. The State made numerous adjustments to timelines and approach to account for delays and other issues, which are described in further detail in this report and in the approved amendment letters posted on the Department's website. By the end of its Year 2 budget period, June 30, 2012, the State reported expenditures totaling 7.59 percent of its Race to the Top grant. The slow pace of spending is reflective of delays in the work, and indicative of the accelerated pace that will be required for New York to complete key grant activities prior to the end of the grant period. In Year 3, all New York local educational agencies (LEAs) will implement new teacher and principal evaluation systems. The State's grades three through eight (3-8) English language arts (ELA) and mathematics assessments will reflect the CCSS. In school year (SY) 2012-2013, the State has asked high school teachers to implement two CCSS units each semester. In SY 2013-2014, the State's Algebra I, Geometry, and English high school Regents exams will reflect the CCSS. In SY 2014-2015, the State's Algebra II high school Regents exam will reflect the CCSS. New York State Education Department (NYSED) and LEAs will continue to develop curricular materials to support effective implementation. NYSED plans to launch the EDP and release EngageNY.org 2.0, an upgraded version of the current EngageNY.org website. Nine new clinically-rich graduate teacher preparation programs will join the two programs that launched in Year 2. A glossary is included. (Contains 8 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. New York Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529326.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1454K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
The State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Massachusetts' Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, Massachusetts continued to implement strong systems to track progress of projects, assess risk, and provide support of project implementation as needed. The State fully implemented project management structures through the Delivery approach, which regularly assesses project progress and identifies potential problems based on predetermined goals and objectives. The Delivery process allows for a candid assessment of project risks and timely application of action plans for projects that may be getting off track. The State demonstrated a strong understanding of its progress and the areas that required additional support. Additionally, the State proactively collaborated with key stakeholders throughout the development of major components of its Race to the Top reform efforts, which resulted in greater buy-in from educators during implementation. While Massachusetts has put concerted time and resources into efforts to implement the schools interoperability framework (SIF) in order to improve the data collection process, there continued to be significant delays in this project. The State fell short of meeting its performance measure for this project for the first two years of the grant. In SY 2011-2012, the State reported that 100 percent of local educational agencies (LEAs) implemented the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which are incorporated into the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics. LEAs faced challenges finalizing local collective bargaining agreements in time to prepare for implementation of educator evaluation systems in SY 2012-2013. The State reported in October 2012 that 88 of the 236 participating LEAs had ESE-approved evaluation system plans that align with the State's regulations. Massachusetts plans to fully implement the 2011 Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, which incorporate the CCSS, in Year 3. In addition, all Race to the Top participating LEAs will implement new educator evaluation systems. The State will continue to develop data systems and curricular materials that support these initiatives and will provide further guidance to LEAs as they roll out their new curricula and evaluations. A glossary is included. (Contains 11 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Massachusetts Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529318. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1467K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Maryland's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. Maryland's Year 2 accomplishments included implementing support and monitoring processes for local educational agencies (LEAs) for the purposes of Race to the Top implementation, developing CCSS-aligned model units and lessons, holding summer professional development academies across the State, and providing instructional and leadership support services through the Breakthrough Center to lowest-achieving schools in Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) and Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS). While Maryland made some progress implementing its Race to the Top initiatives in Year 2, the State struggled to find adequate qualified staff to conduct project activities related to the State's technology and instructional improvement system (IIS) projects. This challenge, along with the State procurement process, led to delays in many projects that had already experienced delays in Year 1. During Year 3 Maryland will continue preparing educators to fully implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in SY 2013-2014 and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessments in SY 2014-2015. Building on the model units and lessons that Maryland educators developed for each grade in ELA and mathematics in Year 2, the State will develop additional English language arts (ELA) and mathematics and create social studies and science curriculum resources. Additionally, all LEAs will participate in another pilot of the new teacher and principal evaluation system in Year 3 in preparation for full implementation in SY 2013-2014. The State's Curriculum Management System and Learning Management System, both key aspects of its IIS, will also be available for use in Year 3. A glossary is included. (Contains 13 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Maryland Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529320.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1553K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Hawaii's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, Hawaii worked to revise its Race to the Top plan to align with approved amendments and accelerate its forward trajectory in response to the Department placing the State's grant on high-risk status. The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) central office reorganized in January 2012, drafted a new Strategic Plan, and revised program-specific communications plans. In March 2012, HIDOE began planning and training to establish Academic Review Teams (ARTs) in each Complex Area and school for SY 2012-2013. While the State took several steps in the right direction following its designation as a high-risk grantee, Hawaii continues to face challenges and delays. HIDOE developed a new strategic plan, which delayed the creation of metrics to measure progress against the Race to the Top plan and the strategic plan at the State, Complex Area, and school levels. In addition, after a one-year delay, the State is only in the beginning phases of creating systematic structures and processes to gather information about implementation from schools and Complex Areas. Now called Academic Review Teams (ARTs), these structures have additional importance in the Zones of School Innovation (ZSI) where HIDOE is piloting many new strategies. In Year 3, Hawaii will make routine new performance management and monitoring processes, as well as changes to its communications plan. The State will continue its transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) by vetting curricular materials to inform statewide purchases, providing job-embedded professional development for all teachers, and monitoring CCSS implementation using new tools. The State will also pilot a new principal evaluation system. Finally, under a one-year supplemental agreement, students in the ZSI will benefit from extended learning time and educators will have additional professional development days. A glossary is included. (Contains 7 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Hawaii Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529316.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1295K)