Search

In the 2018-2019 academic year, more than 560,000 prospective teachers attended more than 21,500 teacher preparation programs (TPPs) housed in more than 2,100 institutions in the United States. Some will either never complete their program or fail to seek or secure teaching positions, but the majority will, and they will become a substantial part of the future U.S. teacher workforce. But what is known about these teacher candidates? Who are they? Where do they come from? Why are they attracted to teaching? What factors shape enrollment and completion patterns across the diverse set of programs that constitutes our current system of teacher preparation? The answers to these questions are crucial to efforts designed to enhance the U.S. teacher workforce; local efforts to improve programs; state and national policies concerning teacher quality; and the collective understanding of how teacher supply and demand is both forged by and reflects economic, social, historical, and cultural trends. The purpose of this paper is to describe the current landscape of candidates applying to and enrolling in TPPs, and to summarize what is known about who pursues teacher certification. To this end, it examines (1) the large-scale data available on TPPs; and (2) culled additional data from historians' analyses of the teacher workforce, contemporary large-scale studies of TPPs, papers on local design and program histories, and case studies of particular programs as well as examining information on programmatic innovation in local contexts. Here the paper summarizes efforts--through programs and policies--to recruit new candidates to the teacher workforce.

The dialogue on what constitutes quality teacher preparation and how it should be assessed and evaluated is muddled. It begins neatly with a universal agreement and aspiration for quality teaching and enhanced PK-12 student achievement, then quickly scatters when there are attempts to define and weigh key components of academic excellence. Recognizing that accountability is key, particularly to the nation's citizens, what emerges is a host of public summative measures intended to satisfy everyone with basic information and data points that have too often failed to substantively move the needle toward improved practice and outcomes. Moreover, the evaluation of teacher preparation programs (TPPs) does not occur in a vacuum isolated from the broader accountability movement in education, particularly the intensity of its focus to hold teachers, schools, and districts accountable. This review reveals a multitude of issues that stifle useful evaluations, but the authors choose to focus on four key areas primed to leverage equitable TPP evaluation for future program improvement. First, the paper discusses the national and state policy authorities that establish large-scale TPP goals and incentives with the power to drive TPP designs and agenda. Second, the paper turns to prominent professional standards-setting organizations and other groups and individuals that are participants in the TPP evaluation sector with considerable influence on framing, creating metrics, and prioritizing what is deemed as fruitful areas for inquiry. Third, the paper discusses the impact of rapidly emerging models that require TPP evaluation criteria tailored for various approaches and standards to be useful to TPPs in their day-to-day work. Last, the paper discusses the critical need to re-examine all areas of TPP evaluation so that they capture and employ effective strategies addressing equity and social justice. The paper includes recommendations for improved alignment and consistency, timeliness and access, and equity, which may influence TPP evaluation in the future, as well as promising strategies for consideration.

This paper focuses on the evaluation of the clinical component of preservice teacher preparation. In this paper, clinical experience in teacher preparation refers to the "application of academic knowledge to practice" in classrooms, schools, and communities where candidates learn to "contextualize" the curriculum, learning experiences, and other teaching practices for specific individuals and groups of students. The authors describe and provide examples of promising practices for several types of clinical experiences with different purposes and approaches including traditional student teaching, special purpose practicums, internships, and residencies. The discussion in this paper is organized into four sections. The first section addresses variations in clinical experiences related to the application of academic knowledge to practice in classrooms and other settings. The second section is focused on community-based clinical experiences addressing the preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers for schools serving urban and underserved students. The third section describes statewide initiatives for teacher residencies that address teacher shortages in specific subject areas and schools facing staffing challenges. The final section presents a proposal for a research-based approach for evaluating the clinical component of teacher preparation focused on quality indicators with the highest value in developing teaching efficacy.

In this paper the authors examine the uses of teaching performance assessments (TPAs) as resources for learning, program evaluation, and improvement in teacher education. The authors begin by outlining their conceptual framing and related research questions about the uses of TPAs as resources for program evaluation and improvement. They describe some of the defining features and affordances of TPAs and consider how these measures engage traditional questions and concerns about the validity and generalizability of the findings they yield. The discussion then proceeds with a brief history of teaching portfolios, locally developed performance assessments, and standardized measures of teaching performance, noting how the purposes of these assessments have been shaped by the increasing emphasis on external accountability in public policy over recent decades. Using this historical account as context, the authors focus the main body of their review on the contemporary research literature related to the uses of standardized TPAs in preservice teacher education. They conclude the paper with a set of recommendations for policy, practice, and research aimed at evaluating and improving the uses of TPAs as resources for the improvement of teacher education.

In 2013, the National Academy of Education's (NAEd) report on teacher education program evaluation in the United States provided a substantial synthesis of how the nation approaches quality assurance for teacher education programs (Feuer et al., 2013). The United States, having no federal requirements for such quality assurance, proves to be a complex nation to characterize in generalized terms. The report raised the question of how other countries evaluate teacher education programs and whether their experiences can be relevant and informative in the U.S. context. The answer to this question was addressed in the 2013 report with only some brief illustrations of globally well-known jurisdictions. Since that report was released, some comparative analyses and syntheses of teacher education program evaluation approaches have been published, adding to a understanding of global trends in this area. this paper revisits the original question of how teacher education programs are evaluated in international contexts. While several international comparative studies of teacher education in general now exist, the researchers found that a focus on how programs are held accountable to quality assurance standards is a relatively unexplored area of comparative analysis. [For the 2013 report, "Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Programs: Purposes, Methods, and Policy Options," see ED565694.]

In 2010, as the result of a congressionally mandated study, the National Research Council (NRC) published the report "Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy" (NRC, 2010). Reflecting the unprecedented attention to teacher quality that had emerged internationally in response to the exigencies of the "global knowledge economy," the report was intended to respond to policymakers' demands to know the extent to which the characteristics, practices, and policies that typified teacher preparation in the United States were or were not consistent with scientific evidence. The authors of this paper were charged with preparing an analysis of recent work regarding "best practices for evaluating teacher preparation programs" by synthesizing and critiquing major reports explicitly focused on teacher preparation evaluation. To fulfill this charge, the authors reviewed 19 major reports about teacher preparation evaluation, assessment, or accountability published between 2010 and 2020. The analysis revealed that the primary goal of the majority of existing reports was identifying the strengths and weaknesses of evaluation metrics based on rigorous criteria for accuracy and utility. The analysis also revealed that the majority of reports did not position equity as a central goal of evaluation and actually said very little about equity explicitly, although some assumed that equity was a by-product of rigorous evaluation systems. Building on the analysis of the 19 reports, this paper calls for a new equity-centered approach to teacher preparation evaluation that acknowledges the serious inequities in educational opportunity and attainment across groups in the United States as well as the important role that teacher preparation evaluation can play as part of larger efforts to overcome disparities in opportunity and attainment. The authors argue that strong equity should be established as an explicit goal and a desired outcome of teacher preparation evaluation, and that it should be central to the design, interpretation, uses, and consequences of evaluation. [For "Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy," see ED536574.]

Since 2010, a substantial number of large-scale, quantitative studies on preparation features associated with teaching effectiveness and retention have emerged. The purpose of this paper is to review this body of evidence and make sense of what it suggests for practitioners and policymakers. The paper begins by describing the groundbreaking work by the New York City (NYC) Teacher Pathways Project, which identified clinical experiences--including student teaching and pre-student teaching experiences--and its alignment with other aspects of programs generally, as predictive of teaching effectiveness. It then reviews literature on features of clinical experiences, including their duration, the features of the field placement schools in which they occur, and cooperating teacher characteristics. Finally, it focuses on coursework, beginning with new evidence on practice-based course simulations and then the amount of coursework generally. Within each section, the author summarizes research focused on teaching effectiveness measures followed by retention.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States and around the world, school systems everywhere are in crisis management, with education leaders and teachers struggling to provide continuous instruction via combinations of in-person, virtual, and hybrid learning modes. A fundamental and familiar question centers on the rationale for assessment. What are its goals and, in particular, can assessment advance teaching and learning and reduce educational inequities? In the near term, what are the best "uses" of assessment in 2021? To address these questions, the National Academy of Education (NAEd) convened a group of scholars, policy leaders, and educators for a focused discussion of the "how" and "why" of testing in both the contexts of the special circumstances of 2021 and beyond. This summary report begins where the roundtable conversation kept returning, with a description of the purposes and intended users of different types of assessments. Next, it discusses inequities in education and implications for the appropriate uses of assessment. Then the report addresses the 2021 end-of-year "summative" assessments: assuming that school districts will administer such assessments, it points out caveats to keep in mind regarding test administration, interpretation, and intended and unintended uses of test results. Finally, looking beyond 2020-2021 end-of-year assessments, the report discusses themes that emerged, including ensuring that assessment systems are balanced and equitable, reframing accountability from a deficit lens to an improvement perspective, and expanding assessment literacy.

This is the executive summary for the report, "Educating for Civic Reasoning and Discourse." This report aims to better prepare students to examine and discuss complex civic, political, and social issues by ensuring that the curriculum, pedagogy, and learning environments that they experience are informed by the best available evidence and practice. This effort includes identifying opportunities to learn from well-established areas of interdisciplinary research on human learning and development, as well as current exemplars of instruction. At the same time, this report also recognizes that practice and research as they currently exist in more traditional forms of civic and democracy education are underdeveloped. To inform best practices, education researchers and practitioners need to draw insights from a broader disciplinary knowledge base to better understand how abilities in civic reasoning and discourse develop and what pedagogical practices are appropriate and suitable based on student needs. [For the full report, see ED611951.]

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the U.S. and around the world, school systems everywhere are in crisis management mode, hoping to reopen safely while simultaneously making valiant efforts at continuity of instruction via remote technologies and, where possible, "hybrid" models that blend in-person and virtual teaching. The pandemic has exposed deep problems in the content, structure, financing, and governance of schools: although known to education and other social science researchers for decades, the scourge of inequality has now become apparent to a wider public. Indeed, the coronavirus crisis coincides with what many describe as three additional pandemics: (1) America's reawakening to realities of racial injustice and violent extremism; (2) an economic recession that shows no signs of significant recovery in the near term; and (3) a climate crisis as experienced by victims of California wildfires and record-breaking Gulf Coast hurricanes. To explore this proposition for "the long view," while at the same time acknowledging and respecting the immediate needs of educators and children and their families to recover from the disruption of the pandemics, the National Academy of Education (NAEd) convened a public forum with expert panelists. Building off prior work addressing COVID-19 and inequities in the specific areas of mathematics, reading, and social-emotional learning, the NAEd engaged with three scholars and a distinguished policy expert, whose work has centered on understanding -- and reducing -- fundamental barriers in fulfilling the American vision of equitable education.

Based on the public health necessity presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, most U.S. schools closed their physical spaces in March 2020. Early evidence suggests that the closing of schools and migration to online learning has had harmful effects on children's academic performance. Moreover, the health crisis has surfaced for a broader public what many educators and policy makers have known for decades, namely growing disparities of resources and educational outcomes for historically marginalized, disadvantaged, and underserved students. Historic inequities make it all the more important to focus attention not only on the near-term needs of America's 55 million public school students, but on whether and how the education system can continue the struggle for access and opportunity. The National Academy of Education (NAEd) convened groups of scholars, policy leaders, and educators to address the fundamental question: how do educators address educational inequities in the face of the COVID-19 emergency, a challenge made even more urgent in the context of the resurgent American crisis of racial justice. Over a two-week period in July 2020, experts in reading, mathematics, and well-being wrestled with the following six questions: (1) What inequities in reading/mathematics/whole person well-being have been exacerbated by the pandemic?; (2) What are the biggest challenges for addressing unfinished curricular learning in reading and mathematics instruction?; (3) What strategies are being used/recommended/discussed that may be "best bets" for reading/mathematics learning?; (4) What are the biggest challenges in addressing the effects of trauma on student well-being and social-emotional health with emphasis on the most vulnerable student groups?; (5) For schools using different modes of learning, including in-person, online, and a hybrid, what strategies would be recommended for bolstering/supporting well-being through these different platforms?; and (6) If schools continue online learning, what are possible strategies for making the experience as successful as possible?

In 2009, the U.S. Institute of Education Sciences (IES) allocated $120 million to establish the Reading for Understanding (RfU) initiative. This initiative responded to concern that children's improvement in reading comprehension had leveled off over the previous few decades, coupled with the observation that research on reading comprehension had sufficiently matured to warrant a major investment in improving student performance. The RfU initiative involved a research and development network of six interconnected teams focused on improving reading comprehension for students in pre-kindergarten (pre-K) through grade 12. The "Reaping the Rewards of the Reading for Understanding Initiative" report articulates findings and common themes concerning the nature and development, assessment, and the enactment of curriculum and instruction of reading comprehension. It synthesizes work both within and across the six research teams, reviewing over 200 scholarly articles from this substantial and unprecedented effort to determine what has been learned about understanding and improving reading comprehension. Key findings include: (1) the importance of emphasizing comprehension in pursuit of knowledge and insight; (2) redoubling efforts to enhance language development, both oral and written, for students across the age-span; and (3) changing the culture of classrooms to emphasize collaboration, deep comprehension, critique, and the generative use of comprehension.

This is a critical time to understand the benefits and risks of educational research using large data sets. Massive quantities of educational data can now be stored, analyzed, and shared. State longitudinal data systems can track individual students from pre-K through college and work. Districts and schools keep detailed data on individual academic performance, behavior, and educational needs. Schools provide portals for parents to check student assignments and grades. Software developers and researchers collect data from applications used for instruction that include keystroke-level information about student decision making. The benefits of big data for educational research often arise when data sets are combined and merged. This summary report addresses a fundamental tension of how to reap the educational benefits that access to comprehensive "big" data provides while ensuring student privacy. In order to understand and improve teaching and learning, education data must be available to researchers, and the privacy of children and families must be protected. This report, based upon a workshop, reviewed the benefits of educational research using modern data systems, the risks to the privacy of families and children, and technical and political solutions for maximizing benefits and minimizing risks. In particular, the report recommends that the research community (1) adopt common terminology, (2) communicate the importance of educational research more effectively, (3) build strong partnerships and models to ensure the sharing of data, and (4) better educate researchers and universities on privacy issues. [The National Academy of Education (NAEd) held a two-day workshop on August 9-10, 2016, to address a fundamental tension faced by the education research community: how to balance the benefits of access to comprehensive ("big") data with the potential risks to privacy. The NAEd website contains a commissioned background paper, summaries of each workshop panel, handouts and presentations, and video recordings. https://naeducation.org/workshop-on-big-data-in-education-balancing-research-needs-and-student-privacy/.]

Teacher preparation programs (TPPs) are where prospective teachers gain a foundation of knowledge about pedagogy and subject matter, as well as early exposure to practical classroom experience. Although competence in teaching, as in all professions, is shaped significantly by on-the-job experiences and continuous learning, the programs that prepare teachers to work in K-12 classrooms can be early and important contributors to the quality of instruction. Evaluating the quality and effectiveness of TPPs is a necessary ingredient to improved teaching and learning. Many aspects of the relationship between teacher preparation and instructional quality are not fully understood, and existing approaches to TPP evaluation are complex, varied, and fragmented. Designers and consumers of TPP evaluations could benefit from clear information about the purposes, effects, strengths, and limitations of current evaluation approaches and from guidance for designing and using future evaluations. This report, the product of an analysis by a committee of the National Academy of Education, aims to fill that need. This report is organized into the following sections: (1) Introduction: Purposes, Context, and Principles; (2) The Landscape of Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation; (3) Program Evaluation: Mapping Approaches to Purposes; and (4) Designing, Using, and Interpreting Teacher Preparation Program Evaluations: Toward A Decision Framework. The following are appended: (1) Workshop Agendas and Participants; and (2) Biographical Sketches of Steering Committee Members.

With the spread of adaptive technologies that customize the user experience in response to individual users, it is not surprising that such experiences are increasingly found in educational settings or in tools to facilitate learning. The National Academy of Education commissioned a background paper and held two meetings of scholars, policy makers, and developers of adaptive educational technologies to consider the implications of such adaptive systems for education research and education researchers. This report highlights the issues discussed in those proceedings. The following are appended: (1) Workshop Agenda and Participants; and (2) Summit Agenda and Participants.

There is a widespread consensus among practitioners, researchers, and policy makers that current teacher evaluation systems in most school districts do little to help teachers improve or to support personnel decision making. For this reason, new approaches to teacher evaluation are being developed and tested. There is also a growing consensus that evidence of teachers' contributions to student learning should be a component of teacher evaluation systems, along with evidence about the quality of teachers' practice. "Value-added models" (VAMs) for examining gains in student test scores from one year to the next are promoted as tools to accomplish this goal. Policy makers can benefit from research about what these models can and cannot do, as well as from research about the effects of other approaches to teacher evaluation. This background paper addresses both of these important concerns. (Contains 2 figures, 2 tables and 29 endnotes.)

Good teaching matters. There is persuasive evidence that students benefit from high quality instruction and that these benefits are cumulative for students who have good teachers for several years. Teacher effectiveness matters so much that low-income students lucky enough to have three very good teachers in a row in elementary school earn test scores that, on average, are similar to middle-class children. Conversely, almost all children, regardless of their socio-economic status, will be harmed academically by poor teaching three years running. Nearly 3.8 million teachers work in schools, but there are simply not enough good ones to go around, especially in the schools and districts serving high-poverty, large-minority student populations. And although one focal point of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 was to address this problem, the policies states developed in response to NCLB's call have not achieved this goal. The quality of teaching is not simply determined by an individual's knowledge or ability, but also by the contexts in which teachers work. Improving teacher quality thus entails policies concerning recruitment, early preparation, retention (including attention to working conditions), as well as professional development. This paper provides recommendations that address each of these domains. (Contains 32 notes.)

Not since the launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite spurred the federal government to begin investing in science and mathematics education through the National Defense Education Act have these two areas of the school curriculum been so high on state and federal policy agendas. Policy makers, business leaders, educators, and the media again worry that future United States expertise in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is in jeopardy. Improving public education, particularly in science and mathematics, continues to be viewed as an important national economic and social issue. These concerns have led to the formulation of many local, state, and national education policies that include elements such as targeted scholarships, increased course-taking requirements for graduation, end-of-course exams in high school, investments in labs and equipment, and in some cases, higher pay to attract teachers to these fields. These efforts are worthy. But, they are not enough. They are scattered and incoherent--even "within" states and school districts--and neglecting this lack of coherence will limit what can be accomplished. Cross-state initiatives, with federal assistance, are needed to increase coherence and build the capacity of schools and districts across the country to provide high quality science and mathematics instruction. Reforms of the scale needed will likely take decades to come to full fruition and will require both patience and unrelenting effort and focus. But the fundamental tasks that must be taken on are clear. They include rethinking the curriculum and standards, and providing a small set of coherent teaching options that meet the needs of different state constituencies. The nation must begin now to formulate a path and take initial steps toward a coherent system of educational opportunities in science and mathematics for all students. This paper offers the following recommendations: (1) The federal government should strengthen the pre-kindergarten through 8th grade science and mathematics curriculum by supporting the National Science Foundation to fund the development of several curricula that focus on core concepts and skills, thereby preparing all students to succeed in high school. The materials should include related curriculum support materials, professional development tools, and assessments; (2) High school course sequences and curricula in science and mathematics should be rethought and redesigned; (3) The federal, state, and district officials responsible for assessment should ensure that assessments in science and mathematics measure higher levels of thinking and reasoning as well as students' content knowledge and skills; (4) Improve the preparation, professional development, and work conditions (including remuneration) of science and mathematics teachers in order to attract and retain individuals who are competent in teaching these challenging subject matters; (5) In funding curriculum development in science and mathematics, federal agencies should ensure that these efforts include comprehensive technology-based instructional and assessment resources; and (6) Federal and state policy makers should establish a research and development cycle to sustain and improve science and mathematics education nationally. (Contains 53 notes.)

Standards-based education reform has a more than 20-year history. A standards-based vision was enacted in federal law under the Clinton administration with the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and carried forward under the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. In a recent survey of policy makers, standards were acknowledged as the central framework guiding state education policy. Yet, despite this apparent unanimity about the intuitively appealing idea of standards, there is great confusion about its "operational" meaning: exactly what should the standards be, how should they be set and by whom, and how should they be applied to ensure rigorous and high-quality education for American students are the central questions that challenge policy makers and educators. For example, "content" standards (subject-matter descriptions of what students should know and be able to do) are often confused with "performance" standards (which are more like passing scores on a test), and very different theories of action are used to explain how standards-based reforms are expected to work. Ambitious rhetoric has called for systemic reform and profound changes in curriculum and assessments to enable higher levels of learning. In reality, however, implementation of standards has frequently resulted in a much more familiar policy of test-based accountability, whereby test items often become crude proxies for the standards. This disconnect between rhetoric and reality is one of the reasons for the failure of prior reforms. Standards-based education is still the core idea guiding education policy and education reform. But the foregoing issues need to be addressed if the promises of standards-based education are to be kept. As yet, neither state content standards nor state tests reflect the ambitions of standards-based reform rhetoric, and the link between high expectations for all students and capacity building has been almost forgotten. The intentions of standards-based education--to focus greater attention on student learning, to ensure the participation and success of all students, and to provide guidance for educational improvement--are in the best interest of the country. This paper offers the following recommendations: (1) The federal government should encourage the redesign and clear connection of content and performance standards--and the curricula, teacher training, and high-quality assessments to go with them--with the goal of developing clearly articulated statements of the expected progression of learning. Efforts to develop these components may involve partnerships among states, universities, groups of teachers, scholars, and the private sector; (2) The federal government should support research on accountability system indicators to reflect both the status and growth of students. Performance standards should set ambitious but realistic targets for teaching and learning, and they should communicate to the public, parents, educators, and students themselves what is to be learned. Assessment results should be reported in ways that recognize progress all along the achievement continuum; (3) The federal government should support the redesign and ongoing evaluation of accountability systems to ensure that they contribute to school improvement. Less than satisfactory school performance should trigger closer investigation of school operations before remedies or sanctions are applied, and stellar performances should also be verified. Different investigative approaches, including audit assessments, data-driven analyses, or expert constituted inspectorates, should be considered; and (4) The federal government should support an intensive program of research and development to create the next generation of performance assessments explicitly linked to well-designed content standards and curricula. (Contains 77 notes.)

Results from international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) garner considerable attention in the media, academia, and among policy makers. Although there is widespread recognition that ILSAs can provide useful information, there is debate about what types of comparisons are the most meaningful and what could be done to assure more sound interpretations. To address these issues, the National Academy of Education (NAEd) assembled a Steering Committee to examine the future of ILSAs from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The committee held two workshops, commissioned a series of papers, and produced a summary report. The report covers the following topics: (1) the purposes of ILSAs in education; (2) reporting and interpretation; (3) policy uses and limitations; (4) design issues; (5) analysis; and (6) summary/key messages.

This report summarizes and analyzes the existing body of research related to race-conscious student assignment policies, building upon the amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed with the Supreme Court in support of petitioners and respondents in these two cases. The National Academy of Education (NAEd) Board of Directors recognized the importance of the social science issues framed by the litigation, and accordingly, constituted a committee in January 2007 to review the 64 amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court, paying special attention to the use of social science research in support of the position taken by each brief. The committee was composed of three categories of researchers: those with no prior research record in this area, but with strong methodological skills in multivariate statistics and measurement (Haertel and Linn); those with some research record in the area (Borman, Hanushek, and Welner); and those with an extensive record in the area (Schofield and Trent). This insider/outsider composition provided a balance of knowledge and fresh inquiry. Appended are the briefs reviewed for this report. (Contains 2 tables, 1 figure and 22 footnotes.)

A study was conducted for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement directed toward research priorities that would further progress toward high achievement for all students. The study focused on three topics, each addressed by a panel: (1) strengthening the capacity of research for contributing to educational improvement; (2) critical transitions in learning and development; and (3) teaching, teachers' professional development, and professional communities of teachers. A general theme of the findings and recommendations is that progress toward high achievement for all students has been impeded by the belief that research, students' learning, and teachers' learning can be studied in isolation from important matters of context. Research should be assumed to be part of collaborative activities that should be conceived as problem-solving research and development. Students' learning that involves acquiring information and skills should be understood in relation to students' understanding of general principles, and students' learning in school should be understood in relation to students' activities and identities outside of school. Particular attention is given to the needs of low-income students. Teachers' professional development must be understood as constantly studying, experimenting, and reflecting on the management of complex practices and professional careers. (Contains 2 figures and 113 endnotes.) (SLD)

This is the final report of the National Academy of Education's Panel on the Evaluation of the National Assessment of Education (NAEP) Progress Trial State Assessment. In this report, the Panel considers philosophical, technical, and policy issues concerning the NAEP in the immediate future and in the long term. The high technical quality of the NAEP assessment and its independence from unwarranted influences and political pressures have enabled the NAEP to monitor trends in educational achievement reliably since its inception in 1969. In recent years, the NAEP has expanded the number of students it assesses and has undergone substantial changes in content, design, and administration. Taken together, these changes have produced complexities that threaten the entire program. This report suggests ways in which the NAEP should broaden its conceptualization, assessment, and reporting. It asserts that educational achievement must be redefined in terms of what students need to know and be able to do for the 21st century and that education conditions must be created to support this vision of achievement. The fundamental purposes of the NAEP should be to inform the public and policy makers about student achievement trends in the nation and the states and to stimulate democratic debate about how to improve education. It is important that NAEP standards be set in defensible ways. Details are provided for a program of innovation and research that will require substantial planning before the reauthorization of the NAEP in 1998. These chapters are included: (1) "The Central Purpose of the National Assessment of Educational Progress"; (2) "What Should NAEP Measure?"; (3) "Measuring Achievement"; (4) "Informing the Nation"; (5) "Connecting to the Larger Network of Education Information"; and (6) "Planning for the Long Term." (Contains 7 figures and 43 references.) (SLD)

This report evaluates the conduct, validity, and uses of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Trial State Assessment (TSA). The report addresses such pressing problems as how participation in NAEP can be maintained and appropriate samples can be achieved; how errors can be minimized in the complex process of scaling and analyzing data; how the definition of achievement levels can be accomplished; how inclusion of children with limited English proficiency or disabilities can be included and reported; how private schools can be included and reported; and how the NAEP state assessments relate to the national NAEP. After an introduction, sections of the report are The Content Validity of the 1994 Reading Assessment; Sampling and Assessment Administration for the 1994 TSA; The assessment of Students with Disabilities or Limited English Speaking Proficiency; Scaling and Analysis of the 1994 Reading Assessment; Reading Achievement Levels; Reporting and Dissemination for the 1994 Reading Assessment; and Conclusions and Recommendations. Contains 66 references, and 21 tables and 7 figures of data. Appendixes present detailed scoring guides and examples of student responses for sample assessment times shown in figure 2.1; reading experts participating in the panel's content validity study for the 1994 TSA; and synopses of studies for the National Academy of Education Panel on the Evaluation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Trial State Assessment. (RS)

In 1988, whether the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)--the "Nation's Report Card"--could become a report card for the states was studied. A trial assessment program was authorized to determine whether state assessments following the NAEP format could produce reliable and useful estimates of educational progress. This interim report by the National Academy of Education Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment Project is part of a congressionally authorized evaluation of the trial assessment. The report considers the reliability and validity of the data yielded by testing a representative sample of a state's students; the utility of an indicator system such as the NAEP for guiding state policy; the effects of the state NAEP on the national NAEP; and the benefits of expanding the NAEP in light of their costs. It discusses the panel's work and its evaluation of the trials to date; the achievement levels established by the National Assessment Governing Board; the prohibition against reporting NAEP results below the state level; suggestions regarding the reauthorization of state NAEP programs; and topics for which data will be available for the October report. Interim results indicate that the sampling has gone well, without significant flaws that would threaten the integrity of the results. Recommendations are made for the release of scores from the mathematics trial assessment as scheduled, with some modifications to ensure better sampling, and an extended period for the trial program in 1994. Reauthorization by Congress is urged. (SLD)

The goal of this report is said to be to review current approaches in psychological anthropology in such a way as to demonstrate what are perceived to be their relevance and importance to an adequate anthropology of education. Part One examines the trends seen emerging in the study of perception and cognition which those interested in education should find valuable. Part Two reviews research in socialization process emphasizing that education is embedded in a sociocultural matrix. It is argued that educational practices, in any given culture, arise from the requirements of the maintenance systems of that culture. In Part Three, the importance of historical context (migration and change) and situational factors (minority status) are argued. Some specific researches with various groups for whom the educational literature has had some interest, and in some cases preoccupation, are examined. The concluding section: (1) recommends how psychological anthropologists might more effectively influence educational research; (2) builds on the material previously presented, some delineation of priority problems in education; and; (3) as an overview, takes up a fundamental criticism which might appear to argue that psychological anthropology, despite what has been said here, does not have relevance to the study of education. (Author/JM)

Nine foundations are the focus of this study of the educational activities of major philanthropic foundations. The foundations are: (1) Ford; (2) Grant; (3) Russell Sage; (4) Carnegie; (5) Danforth; (6) Kellogg; (7) Lilly; (8) Mott; and (9) Rockefeller. After a brief overview of foundation activities, general themes, appropriations and projects, and the use of dollars are discussed. Foundations are compared with government support of educational innovation and experimentation, and an evaluation of foundation performance is presented. Appendices list: (1) categories for study of foundation grants; (2) constant dollar coefficients; and (3) the questionnaire for recipients of foundation and government grants to education. (KE)

Congressman O'Hara, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, has presented a bill for student financial aid for higher education (H.R. 3471). The first question is how well do the provisions of the bill serve broader societal goals? After summarizing the bill and examining provisions and implications of the bill that affect the furtherance of equal access and a viable postsecondary educational system, the bill was found to do little in the way of furthering these goals and, in fact, it neutralizes some of the progress made by the Educational Amendments of 1972. H.R. 3471 offers nothing to encourage greater institutional diversity and in some instances it is positively harmful, discriminating against high-tuition schools and schools that price at cost. While it does include provision for protecting the student as consumer, this amounts to little more than recognition of the issue. Insofar as the bill enables more people to obtain some kind of postsecondary education, it promotes greater access; however, by using "the leverage of Federal student aid in such a way to encourage the creation and utilization of low-cost educational opportunities,"the bill, in design and implementation, leads toward a kind of access that is neither equitable nor efficient. (Author/KE)

Two reviews of NIE's study of compensatory education are provided in this document. The conclusions of the first reviewer (House) are that: (1) the study is valid because it meets the standards for the evaluation of a public program; and (2) the compensatory programs, especially Title I, are very good. Other conclusions are that the funds' allocation requirements are necessary but the program development requirements are excessively regulated, program management is efficient but monitoring is confused, and how much students develop in these programs remains hazy. The second review, "Evaluating Compensatory Education" (Husen), takes a broader perspective, based in part on the reviewer's earlier participation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's review of U.S. educational policies. Against this background, the reviewer discusses the role of education in the United States, the philosophy and strategies behind compensatory education, Title I targeting, and evaluation problems. This review concludes that: (1) in looking at the outcome of intervention programs, a broader perspective is needed than appeared in some of the NIE evaluation efforts; (2) well-planned small-scale longitudinal studies conducted where different models of compensatory education are operated would prove more than large-scale surveys; and (3) compensatory education programs are only small changes in the larger context of formal education, and minor changes in input should not be expected to produce dramatic results. (CMG)

Standards-based reform calls for the setting of challenging standards in academic subject areas as an important means of improving student achievement. In 1994, Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which enacted the education goals into law and provided resources for the development of standards and assessments. This report offers recommendations for the implementation of standards-based reform and outlines possible consequences for policy changes. It summarizes both the vision and intentions of standards-based reform and the arguments of its critics. Recommendations regarding the following elements in a system of standards and assessments are offered: content standards, performance standards, opportunity-to-learn standards, and assessments. The report advocates a cautious, "learn-as-you-go" approach to implementing standards-based education reform. Suggestions include: (1) conduct ongoing research on standards-based education; (2) establish a national or quasi-national organization to inform standards-based efforts across disciplines and states; and (3) address systemic inequities. A glossary of terms is included. (LMI)

One year before the National Education Summit, Congress had reauthorized the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and created a National Assessment Governing Board to develop and oversee policy for the NAEP. In conjunction with the call to establish national education goals, efforts are being made to establish standards for achievement on the NAEP. The Angoff method, the most widely used and straightforward of the judgmental evaluation methods was used to set standards as a first step toward setting achievement levels on the NAEP. The National Academy of Education Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment was asked to evaluate the 1992 achievement levels and issues surrounding their use. The panel conducted four field-based studies, each involving more than 1,000 students at grades 4 and 8 before arriving at the conclusion that the 1992 achievement levels were set unreasonably high. Short-term recommendations were made regarding setting achievement levels, beginning with the discontinuation of both the Angoff method and the reporting by achievement levels for 1992. Long-term recommendations and suggestions for the design of the NAEP are also made. An appendix provides synopses of 10 background studies. Sixteen figures and 34 tables present achievement data and examples of test items. (Contains 49 references.) (SLD)

The National Academy of Education Panel is providing the intellectual leadership and coordination for an independent evaluation of the 1990 and 1992 Trial State Assessments (TSA) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). These instruments provide state-by-state comparisons of educational achievement, which is the first such use of NAEP data. A portfolio is being constructed of studies of the TSA using a range of methodological approaches. In the 1992 TSA eighth-grade students were again tested in mathematics and fourth-grade students were assessed in mathematics and reading. Approximately 8,700 schools and 330,000 students participated in the 1992 TSA. Issues examined were the technical feasibility, content validity, utility of results, who should be assessed, and how results should be reported. The Panel believes that the full potential of the NAEP is not being realized because of funding constraints. Conducting both national and state assessments may be prohibitively expensive, but the Panel recommends that Congress provide adequate funding to allow the continuation of the national assessment while at the same time assessing at least one subject at three grade levels in state assessments. A number of recommendations are made for improvement of both types of assessment. Ten figures and 26 tables present findings. (Contains 63 references.) (SLD)

This report presents findings of the National Academy of Education Panel on the Evaluation of the Trial State Assessment (TSA) concerning the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics TSA program. The Panel's recommendations regarding the continuation of TSAs for review by the Congress, states, and Executive Branch of the Federal Government include: Congress should approve the continuation of state NAEPs; Congress should authorize additional TSAs; the prohibition against reporting NAEP data below the state level should continue; NAEP content frameworks should evolve toward increased testing of higher order thinking skills; continuity throughout the NAEP multiphase process should be assured; the random monitoring of schools' administration of the 1990 mathematics assessment should continue; future authorizations for state NAEPs should include adequate resources to sample private school students to increase the comparability of results from one state to another; beginning with the 1994 assessment, a national sample of out-of-school 17-year-olds should be assessed; the NCES should continue to provide the media with specific examples of interpretations of the results and construct new tables and graphs to effectively display the data. Seven tables, 6 figures, 37 references, and an appendix with synopses of studies for the 1990 evaluation of the NAEP TSA are included. (RLC)

The problems and possibilities involved in developing a national Right-to-Read program are discussed in this book, and it is argued that there is no one reading problem but rather a series of reading problems calling for a wide variety of responses. The report begins with a definition and a diagnosis of the national reading problems, a national strategy for attacking illiteracy, and legislative and administrative programs to implement that strategy. The second part of the book consists of papers written by distinguished literacy experts, commissioned by the Committee on Reading. Discussions of current practices in elementary reading instruction, bilingual literacy, the role of television in literacy programs, a national reward system, motivation as a key to literacy, and the political and economic implications of a national reading effort are included. (Author/TS)

In response to eight questions concerning educational achievement, the National Academy of Education's Committee on Testing and Basic Skills cited four changes in school practices which have caused declines in writing skills and Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Those changes are a proliferation in courses with less rigorous intellectual standards; confusion about the appropriate methods of instruction; slackening of the amount of learning and teaching classroom time; and a dismantling of opportunities for intensive study in selective academic environments at the secondary level. To enhance educational achievement, the committee recommends a focus on basic skills from ages five to eight, followed by a broader use of skills and curriculum balance in higher grades. Increased emphasis on instructional time or time on task is recommended for performance improvement, as well as challenging material, beginning reading, early diagnosis and remediation, reading to children, mastery learning, computer-assisted and peer instruction. Minimum competency standards are not advised for the high school level, but a series of standardized tests at lower grade levels is recommended for pinpointing student weaknesses and remediation needs. Mandatory and voluntary national tests are discouraged, due to potential interference in local curriculum decisions. Federal research and information dissemination on educational achievement and standardized tests are encouraged. (Author/JAC)