Search

This white paper offers an approach for using a theory of action as an outline to develop the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Phase II evaluation questions and plan that will guide the SSIP work in Phase III and beyond. Key areas of focus include generating evaluation questions at each level of outcomes, identifying essential steps and checkpoints when implementing identified improvement strategies, and creating evaluation questions for determining the degree to which each step in the process is achieved. The paper describes the relationship between SSIP Phases I and II and explains three types of performance indicators of progress linked to a hierarchy of outcomes, including short-term outcomes that measure participation, reaction, and learning outcomes; intermediate outcomes that measure action outcomes; and long-term outcomes that measure the desired results.

This is the final external evaluation report prepared by SRI International for the Rural Math Excel Partnership (RMEP) project, an investing in innovation (i3) development project funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Operated by Virginia Advanced Study Strategies, Inc. (VASS), the RMEP project included six rural school districts (LEAs) in five Virginia counties as partners. The project goal was to develop and implement a model of shared responsibility among families, math teachers, and communities in rural areas to prepare students enrolled in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and Algebra Functions and Data Analysis (AFDA) courses for success in advanced high school and postsecondary STEM studies. The long term outcome was for students to leave school ready, at a minimum, to enroll in postsecondary programs focused on technician-level careers in STEM-related fields considered important to the regional rural economy. Due to low levels of implementation by some teachers in project years 1 and 2, in fall 2015 (year 3) the RMEP team focused their supports and services on a group of 24 high-implementation teachers in the seven middle and seven high schools. Key implementation and impact findings were the RMEP team completed five of the six core implementation activities meeting the standard of performance set by the evaluation team; student and family access to technology did not meet performance standards. It was difficult and time consuming to locate students and families in need of tablets and broadband access at the 14 schools and then to provide these individuals with the necessary services in their homes. Furthermore, district firewalls, teacher comfort level with technology, and registration requirements for the MARi online video platform created significant delays for the RMEP project throughout Year 2. By the end of the project's third year, however, RMEP provided technology access to all the students and their families of the 24 teachers. Willingness of individual teachers to perform their role in the model of shared responsibility varied, especially in the number of videos that teachers assigned to students and their efforts to hold Family Math Nights. Although full implementation of the model was restricted to a single semester, there was evidence that this higher level of support was beginning to have positive impacts on the teachers in terms of video assignments and student completion of these assignments. Evaluations from families and students showed that participating in RMEP-related events were useful and worth their time, though attendance was lower than expected for these events. Teachers and community members reported that organizing these events required a large time commitment and that they needed more help in identifying ways to increase attendance. SRI evaluators found that the RMEP project had no impact on students' achievement or attitudes by the end of 2015. Possible reasons included differences between the content knowledge that the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) exams assess and the content emphasized by the RMEP project. Evaluators were not able to limit the sample to only those students whose teachers implemented the intervention in the 2015-16 school year (the high-implementing teachers). The small sample size of students may not have been large enough to detect a very small effect. Key model components were not fully implemented until fall 2015, an insufficient time period for the intervention to have a significant impact on the targeted outcomes. Nevertheless, the RMEP project can serve as an illustrative example for other such initiatives, and suggests that similar projects should consider level of participant buy-in, anticipate and be able to troubleshoot technology access issues, and provide enough time as well as staff support for full implementation.

This white paper offers an approach for using a theory of action as an outline to develop the SSIP [State Systemic Improvement Plan] Phase II evaluation questions and plan that will guide the SSIP work in Phase III and beyond. Key areas of focus include generating evaluation questions at each level of outcomes, identifying essential steps and checkpoints when implementing identified improvement strategies, and creating evaluation questions for determining the degree to which each step in the process is achieved. The paper describes the relationship between SSIP Phases I and II and explains three types of performance indicators of progress linked to a hierarchy of outcomes, including short-term outcomes that measure participation, reaction, and learning outcomes; intermediate outcomes that measure action outcomes; and long-term outcomes that measure the desired results.

Research suggests that the academic achievement of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students is the result of a complex interplay of many factors. These factors include characteristics of the students (e.g., hearing thresholds, language fluencies, mode of communication, and communication functioning), characteristics of their family environments (e.g., parent education level, socioeconomic status), and experiences inside and outside school (e.g., school placement, having been retained at grade level). This paper examines the relative importance of such characteristics to U.S. DHH secondary students' academic achievement as indicated by the Woodcock-Johnson III subtests in passage comprehension, mathematics calculation, science, and social studies. Data were obtained for approximately 500 DHH secondary students who had attended regular secondary schools and/or state-sponsored special schools designed for DHH students. Across all subject areas, having attended regular secondary schools and having better spoken language were associated with higher test scores. Significant negative predictors of achievement varied by type of subtest but included having an additional diagnosis of a learning disability, having a mild hearing loss, and being African American or Hispanic. The findings have important implications for policy and practice in educating DHH students as well for interpreting previous research. (Contains 7 tables). [This article was published in "Exceptional Children," (EJ1055314).]

The National Study on Alternate Assessments (NSAA) was mandated by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). Specifically, the law called for a "Study on Ensuring Accountability for Students Who Are Held to Alternative Achievement Standards" to examine: (1) the criteria that states use to determine eligibility for alternate assessments; and the number and type of children who take those assessments and are held accountable to alternative achievement standards; (2) the validity and reliability of alternate assessment instruments and procedures; (3) the alignment of alternate assessments and alternative achievement standards to state academic content standards in reading, mathematics, and science; and (4) the use and effectiveness of alternate assessments in appropriately measuring student progress and outcomes specific to individualized instructional need. This report presents data summaries in the form of individual state profiles for the 2006-07 school year for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The NSAA State Profiles describe individual state approaches to designing and administering alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, key features of individual state alternate assessments, and student participation and performance data for each state. Two appendices are included: (1) Methodology; and (2) Explanation of Item Codes. (Contains 3 figures, 1 table, 5 footnotes. Individual profiles are footnoted separately.) [For "National Profile on Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards: A Report from the National Study on Alternate Assessments. NCSER 2009-3014", see ED506073.]

This study is examining student eligibility for and participation in alternate assessments, the technical quality of the alternate assessment instruments and implementation procedures, the alignment of assessments with content and achievement standards, and the use and effectiveness of alternate assessments in measuring student outcomes. The report describes individual state approaches to designing and administering alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, key features of individual state alternate assessments, and student participation and performance data for each state for the 2006-2007 school year. The NSAA is a comprehensive, integrated study that is organized around three central objectives related to alternate assessments that are based on alternative achievement standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities: (1) Develop state and national profiles of the 50 states' and the District of Columbia's alternate assessment policies and practices; (2) Conduct in-depth case studies and report on selected states' approaches to alternate assessment; and (3) Conduct quantitative analyses of data related to alternate assessment. Two appendices are included: (1) Methodology; and (2) Data Tables. (Contains 62 figures and 2 footnotes.) (State Profiles on Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards: A Report from the National Study on Alternate Assessments. NCSER 2009-3013, see ED506078)

This report was released by the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) on January 23, 2008. Orientation refers to one's ability to determine his/her location and relationship with other objects in the environment. Mobility refers to one's ability to move about in the environment. Orientation and mobility training may be provided to students with visual impairments as part of their individual programs of special education and related services. This report presents information on the percentages of students with visual impairments who receive orientation and mobility services, including percentages for different segments of the population (blind vs. partially sighted, regular vs. special school placement, and demographic groups). It also discusses the levels of orientation and mobility skills in this population, and factors associated with their skill levels. Data are from The National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), funded by the National Center for Special Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. NLTS2 was initiated in 2001 and has a nationally-representative sample of more than 11,000 students with disabilities. (Contains 6 figures and 7 footnotes.) [This report was produced by the Institute of Education Science's National Center for Special Education Research.]

This paper is one of four individual case study reports presenting the qualitative findings from a five-year investigation of the impact of accountability reform on students with disabilities in four states, eight districts, and twenty schools. This case study report presents qualitative data collected over a four-year period--2001-2004--from three levels of the public education systems, and provides an analysis of the impact of accountability reform on students with disabilities in one of the participating four states. This report is divided into five sections. Section I contains information regarding the methodology used to collect and analyze the state and local data presented in this report. Section II is an overview of the assessment and accountability systems in Texas, including changes resulting from NCLB. In Section III, the authors provide demographic information on each of the study sites. In Section IV they present their research findings at the state, district, and school level, and in Section V they present a discussion of the major findings for each embedded case study and address cross site themes. (Contains 2 tables.)

This paper is one of four individual case study reports presenting the qualitative findings from a five-year investigation of the impact of accountability reform on students with disabilities in four states, eight districts, and twenty schools. This case study report presents qualitative data collected over a four-year period--2001-2004--from three levels of the public education systems, and provides an analysis of the impact of accountability reform on students with disabilities in one of the participating four states. This report is divided into five sections. Section I contains information regarding the methodology used to collect and analyze the state and local data presented in this report. Section II is an overview of the assessment and accountability systems in Maryland, including changes resulting from NCLB. In Section III the authors provide demographic information on each of the study sites. In Section IV they present their research findings at the state, district, and school level, and in Section V they present a discussion of the major findings for each embedded case study and address cross-site themes. (Contains 2 tables.)

This document is one of four individual case study reports presenting the qualitative findings from a five-year investigation of the impact of accountability reform on students with disabilities in four states, eight districts, and twenty schools. This case study report presents qualitative data, collected over a two-year period--2001 and 2002--from two levels of the New York public education systems on the impact of accountability reform on students with disabilities. This report is divided into five sections. The first section contains information regarding the methodology used to collect and analyze the state and local data presented in this report. Section II is an overview of the assessment and accountability systems in New York, including changes resulting from NCLB. In Section III, the authors provide demographic information on each of the study sites. In Section IV, they present their research findings at the state and district levels, and in Section V they present a discussion of the major findings for each embedded case study and address cross-site themes. (Contains 4 tables.)

This paper is one of four individual case study reports presenting the qualitative findings from a five-year investigation of the impact of accountability reform on students with disabilities in four states, eight districts, and twenty schools. This case study report presents qualitative data collected over a four-year period--2001-2004--from three levels of the public education systems. This report is divided into five sections. Section I contains information regarding the methodology used to collect and analyze the state and local data presented in this report. Section II is an overview of the assessment and accountability systems in California, including changes resulting from No Child Left Behind Act. In Section III the authors provide demographic information on each of the study sites. In Section IV they present their research findings at the state, district, and school level, and in Section V they present a discussion of the major findings for each embedded case study and address cross-site themes. (Contains 2 tables.)

The purpose of this topical review is to present Educational Policy Reform Research Institute's (EPRRI's) state-level qualitative findings collected during in depth interviews in the four core study states of California, Maryland, New York, and Texas. The data presented reflect the perspectives of state-level personnel who were involved with the creation and implementation of their state accountability systems at the time that the No Child Left Behind Act was written and signed into law. This paper presents a variety of voices, from division directors to parent representatives, and attempts to reveal the strengths and stresses of including students with disabilities in educational accountability reform.