Search

In 2011, The Wallace Foundation launched the National Summer Learning Project (NSLP) to expand summer program opportunities for students in urban districts and to study the effectiveness of district-led summer programs and how they could be well implemented. Through the NSLP, The Wallace Foundation has provided support to public school districts and their community partners in Boston; Dallas; Duval County, Florida; Pittsburgh; and Rochester, New York. In 2019, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a consensus study report regarding summer experiences and how they shape the development and well-being of children and youth. One of the key recommendations in the report is for cities and counties to take a comprehensive, communitywide approach to ensuring that the needs of their children and youth are adequately met during the summer. As the NSLP wound down, some districts and their community partners turned their attention and efforts toward sustaining their progress in promoting program scale and quality. To further sustainability, some of these districts and their partners are part of regional networks working to expand opportunities for quality summer programming in their cities. In this report, the eighth in RAND's Summer Learning Series, the authors chronicle the early efforts of community leaders to create coordinated approaches to increasing access to quality summer programming, noting their challenges, enablers, and early outcomes. The report is intended to help city and county leaders, district leaders, out-of-school time intermediaries, and other community organizations launch and sustain such coordinated networks.

The National Summer Learning Project (NSLP) examined the implementation and effectiveness of voluntary summer learning programs developed by five school districts--Boston, Massachusetts; Dallas, Texas; Duval County, Florida; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Rochester, New York--and their local community partners. The study spanned three phases. The RAND research team (1) collected formative data for strengthening the five summer programs in 2011 and 2012; (2) examined student outcomes after one summer (2013) and after two summers of programming (2014 and 2015); and (3) examined student outcomes in spring 2017, at the end of three school years after the second summer of programming. This seventh report in a series summarizes the findings of this third phase in the context of earlier findings and offers implications for policy and practice. Overall long-term findings show that, by spring 2017, the academic benefits for high attenders decreased in magnitude and were not statistically significant--although when benchmarked against typical achievement gains at the same grade level, they remained large enough to be educationally meaningful.

Expanded learning intermediaries are nonprofit organizations dedicated to making after-school and summer programs better and more accessible for children and youth. They do this by coordinating efforts and resources in a given community, knitting programs together into a cohesive system, helping individual programs function at a high level, and pushing the system as a whole to provide the greatest benefit to as many young people as possible. In 2014, Every Hour Counts, a national coalition of expanded learning intermediaries, released a measurement framework to help communities think about what data to collect, how to collect them, and how to use them. The framework also aims to guide intermediaries on how to use the data to coordinate continuous improvement efforts, how program efforts can improve youth outcomes, and how to identify system strengths and areas for improvement. Every Hour Counts then engaged the RAND Corporation to evaluate efforts in three cities (Boston, Massachusetts; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Providence, Rhode Island) to put the framework into practice. This guide draws from the RAND evaluation with Boston After School & Beyond, Providence After School Alliance, and Sprockets. It offers practical, research-based advice to those in the expanded learning field who work with data, or want to work with data. [This report was commissioned by Every Hour Counts.]

This report presents findings on the implementation of parental choice options from the first year of the National Longitudinal Study of "No Child Left Behind" (NLS-"NCLB") and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under "No Child Left Behind" (SSI-"NCLB"). The report uses data from state-level interviews, from surveys of a nationally representative sample of district officials, principals, and teachers, surveys of parents in eight school districts, surveys of supplemental educational service providers in 16 districts, and student-level demographic and achievement data in nine districts, to examine the implementation across the country of the school choice and supplemental educational service components of Title I through 2004-05. This report addresses three broad areas in evaluating the Title I provisions for providing school choice and supplemental services for students in low-performing schools: (1) Who is eligible to participate in parental school choice and supplemental educational services under Title I of "NCLB," what choices are made available, and who participates? (2) How are states, districts and schools providing information to make parents aware of their options? What information do parents have and use to make decisions about their school choice and supplemental service options? and (3) How do states, districts, and schools support, monitor, and collaborate in the implementation of supplemental educational services under Title I? Two appendixes are included: (1) Description of NLS-"NCLB" and SSI-"NCLB" Methodologies; and (2) Standard Error Exhibits. (Contains 77 exhibits.) [For the report highlights, see ED613405.]

This final report from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools examines the implementation of the Title I program in 1998-99 through 2000-01 based on surveys of principals and teachers in a nationally representative sample of Title I schools. (Contains 42 exhibits.) (Author)

This report uses a series of exhibits to present a snaphot of Title I schools serving migrant students on the eve of the passage of NCLB. In addition to updating the information provided in the earlier report, this report also focuses on a third evaluation question: What progress did these schools make over time between 1998-99 and 2000-01 in terms of implementation of the provisions of the 1994 legislation? (Author)

Since its inception under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, the Title I program has provided high-poverty schools funding for services to assist low-achieving children. Title I promotes increasing the amount and quality of learning time; data-driven decisionmaking; providing an enriched and accelerated curriculum; and adopting strategies to increase parental involvement. This brief examines services provided by Title I schools. The brief uses data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS)--to address: (1) the extent to which changes in Title I legislation have helped promote school improvement activities; (2) the provision of instructional services including: (i) extended learning time for students; (ii) use of pullout and in-class settings in the provision of instructional supplemental services; (iii) use of teacher aides to provide instructional and other services; and (iv) the coordination of services for special population students.

The 1994 Title I reauthorization required states to establish rigorous and explicit criteria for measuring school progress. Based on these criteria, each Title I school is required to demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward attaining the state's performance standards. Schools (and districts) that fail to make adequate progress for two consecutive years are to be identified for improvement. These schools are required to develop or revise their plans to address identified needs, and are to receive technical assistance by the states and districts through school support teams and other support mechanisms. There is a general lack of information on schools identified for improvement on a national basis. Using data from a large, nationally-representative study of Title I schools, this evaluation brief provides information on the following topics regarding schools identified as in need of improvement under Title I: (1) Whether principals in these schools fully comprehend what it means to be identified as in need of improvement under Title I; (2) What these schools look like in terms of demographic and other characteristics; (3) What kinds of technical assistance they have received (or failed to receive); (4) Whether schools have been subjected to corrective actions by districts; and (5) Whether some schools have been successful in meeting AYP targets or in moving out of in need of improvement status. This evaluation brief reports on data obtained through the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS), a nationally representative survey of principals and teachers in Title I Schools in school year (SY) 1998-1999.

This appendix augments a report that updates 2013 guidance to school district leaders and their partners across the country who are interested in launching summer learning programs or improving established ones. In that report, the authors present recommendations based on evaluations, conducted between 2011 and 2016, of summer programs in five urban school districts. The Wallace Foundation selected these districts--Boston; Dallas; Duval County, Florida; Pittsburgh; and Rochester, New York--for the National Summer Learning Project (NSLP), a multi-year assessment of the effectiveness of voluntary, district-led summer learning programs offered at no cost to low-income, urban, elementary students. The five districts are among the nation's most advanced in their experience with comprehensive, voluntary summer learning programs. This appendix presents: (1) Preface; (2) Tables; (3) Collection of Primary Data: (a) Summer Site Observations; and (b) Daily Site Climate Surveys; and (2) Documentation Used in Classroom Observations: (a) 2014 Classroom Observation Protocol; and (b) End-of-Day Site Survey. [For the full report "Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success, 2nd Ed. RAND Summer Learning Series," see ED591732.]

Research shows that during summer, low-income and non-white students fall behind academically compared with their more-affluent and white peers. To understand whether and how district-led voluntary summer learning programs can improve outcomes for low-income students, The Wallace Foundation initiated the National Summer Learning Project in 2011 in five urban districts. The RAND Corporation's six-year study of the National Summer Learning Project culminates in this final report about districts' implementation of their summer learning programs. This second edition updates guidance first published in 2013 and is intended for district leaders and their partners across the country who are interested in launching or improving summer learning programs. Based on thousands of hours of observations, interviews, and surveys, it presents the best available guidance about how to establish and sustain effective programs. The most emphatic recommendation is to commit in the fall to a summer program, and start active planning by January with a program director who has at least half of his or her time devoted to the job. Other recommended practices include recruiting teachers with content knowledge, scheduling the program to include at least 25 hours of math and 34 hours of language arts, adopting recruitment and attendance policies aimed at high attendance rates, using written curricula that align with school-year standards, keeping a high level of engagement between adults and students even during transitions and time outside of class, and designing the program to consider cost-saving measures.

The National Summer Learning Project, launched by the Wallace Foundation in 2011, includes an assessment of the effectiveness of voluntary, district-led summer learning programs offered at no cost to low-income, urban elementary students. The study, conducted by RAND, uses a randomized controlled trial and other analytic methods to assess the effects of district-led programs on academic achievement, social-emotional competencies, and behavior over the near and long term. All students in the study were in the third grade as of spring 2013 and enrolled in a public school in one of five urban districts: Boston; Dallas; Duval County, Florida; Pittsburgh; or Rochester, New York. The study follows these students from third to seventh grade; this report describes outcomes through fifth grade. The primary focus is on academic outcomes but students' social-emotional outcomes are also examined, as well as behavior and attendance during the school year. Among the key findings are that students with high attendance in one summer benefited in mathematics and that these benefits persisted through the following spring; students with high attendance in the second summer benefited in mathematics and language arts and in terms of social-emotional outcomes; and that high levels of academic time on task led to benefits that persisted in both mathematics and language arts. This report contains the technical appendixes to the full report. These appendixes contain: (1) details of the randomization design (including treatment uptake, attrition, baseline equivalence of the treatment and control groups); (2) details of the data collection processes and protocols (including characteristics of the participating students, descriptions of outcome measures, and a description of the observation process and protocol); (3) a review of the extant literature on summer learning loss; (4) a description of the mediators and moderators included in analyses (including detailed information about how attendance and academic time on task were calculated); (5) analytic models used for estimating program effects; and (6) the complete results of all regression analyses. [For the full report "Learning from Summer: Effects of Voluntary Summer Learning Programs on Low-Income Urban Youth. RAND Summer Learning Series. Research Report. RR-1557-WF," see ED605457.]

The National Summer Learning Project, launched by the Wallace Foundation in 2011, includes an assessment of the effectiveness of voluntary, district-led summer learning programs offered at no cost to low-income, urban elementary students. The study, conducted by RAND, uses a randomized controlled trial and other analytic methods to assess the effects of district-led programs on academic achievement, social-emotional competencies, and behavior over the near and long term. All students in the study were in the third grade as of spring 2013 and enrolled in a public school in one of five urban districts: Boston; Dallas; Duval County, Florida; Pittsburgh; or Rochester, New York. The study follows these students from third to seventh grade; this report describes outcomes through fifth grade. The primary focus is on academic outcomes but students' social-emotional outcomes are also examined, as well as behavior and attendance during the school year. Among the key findings are that students with high attendance in one summer benefited in mathematics and that these benefits persisted through the following spring; students with high attendance in the second summer benefited in mathematics and language arts and in terms of social-emotional outcomes; and that high levels of academic time on task led to benefits that persisted in both mathematics and language arts. Key Findings: (1) Implementation Findings: Programs implemented common features with fidelity but instructional quality varied within and across sites; (2) Causal Findings on Program Effects: (a) Summer programs produced a modest near-term benefit in mathematics that dissipated by the next fall; (b) There was no causal evidence that the programs produced benefits in language arts, social emotional outcomes, or student attendance or grades during the school year; and (c) There was no causal evidence that offering two summers of programming provided benefits; (3) Correlational Findings on Program Effects: (a) There is promising evidence that students with high attendance in one summer benefited in mathematics and that these benefits persisted through the following spring; (b) There is promising evidence that students with high attendance in the second summer benefited in mathematics and language arts and that these effects persisted; (c) There is promising evidence that students with high attendance in the second summer benefited in terms of social-emotional outcomes; (d) There is promising evidence that students with high levels of academic time on task benefited from the programs and that these benefits persisted in both mathematics and language arts; and (e) There is promising evidence that students who received high-quality language arts instruction benefited from the programs. [For the appendixes to this report "Learning from Summer: Online Technical Appendixes," see ED605494.]

Prior research has determined that low-income students lose more ground over the summer than their higher-income peers. Prior research has also shown that some summer learning programs can stem this loss, but we do not know whether large, district-run, voluntary programs can improve students' outcomes. To fill this gap, The Wallace Foundation launched the National Summer Learning Study in 2011. This five-year study offers the first-ever assessment of the effectiveness of large-scale, voluntary, district-run, summer learning programs serving low-income elementary students. The study, conducted by RAND, uses a randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of district-run voluntary summer programs on student achievement and social and emotional skills over the short and long run. All students in the study were in the third grade as of spring 2013 and enrolled in a public school in one of five urban districts: Boston; Dallas; Duval County, Florida; Pittsburgh; or Rochester, New York. This report, the second of five that will result from the study, looks at how summer programs affected student performance on mathematics, reading, and social and emotional assessments in fall 2013. A bibliography is included. [For the brief of this report, "First Outcomes from the National Summer Learning Study. Research Brief," see ED561107. For the technical appendices, see ED561141.]

Many students lose knowledge and skills over the long summer break, and research suggests that low-income students fall further behind over the summer than their higher-income peers. Voluntary summer learning programs may provide an opportunity to stem summer learning loss and give struggling students additional learning opportunities. The Wallace Foundation is funding a five-year demonstration project in five urban school districts in Boston, Dallas, Duval County (Florida), Pittsburgh, and Rochester (New York). These districts have been pioneers in offering full-day voluntary programs for five to six weeks free of charge to large numbers of struggling elementary students, not just those facing grade retention. Over 5,000 third-grade students applied to participate in the district programs, and were randomly selected to participate in two summers of programming (summer 2013 and summer 2014). This study, commissioned by The Wallace Foundation, is the first randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of large-scale, district-run, voluntary summer learning programs. The overarching question addressed in this research is whether voluntary, district-run summer programs that include academic and enrichment activities improve low-income students' outcomes. [For the full report, "Ready for Fall? Near-Term Effects of Voluntary Summer Learning Programs on Low-Income Students' Learning Opportunities and Outcomes," see ED561140. For the report's technical appendices, see ED561141.]

Research shows low-income students suffer disproportionate learning loss over the summer and because those losses accumulate over time, they contribute substantially to the achievement gap between low- and higher-income children. The Wallace Foundation is funding a five-year demonstration project to examine whether summer learning programs can reduce summer learning loss and promote achievement gains. The full report, the first in a series, draws on emerging lessons from six school districts in the study -- Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Duval County (Florida), Pittsburgh, and Rochester (New York) -- that offer full-day programs for five to six weeks free of charge to large numbers of elementary students. The report synthesizes the key lessons learned about how to establish and sustain effective programs. The recommendations from the full report are presented in this summary. [For the full report "Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success, 1st. Ed. RAND Summer Learning Series," see ED594503. For the appendix materials "Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success, 1st Ed. Appendix Materials. RAND Summer Learning Series," see ED594506.]

Research shows low-income students suffer disproportionate learning loss over the summer and because those losses accumulate over time, they contribute substantially to the achievement gap between low- and higher-income children. The Wallace Foundation is funding a five-year demonstration project to examine whether summer learning programs can reduce summer learning loss and promote achievement gains. The full report, the first in a series, draws on emerging lessons from six school districts in the study -- Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Duval County (Florida), Pittsburgh, and Rochester (New York) -- that offer full-day programs for five to six weeks free of charge to large numbers of elementary students. Protocols and questionnaires related to the full report are presented in these appendix materials. [For the full report "Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success, 1st. Ed. RAND Summer Learning Series," see ED594503. For the summary to the full report "Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success, 1st Ed. Summary. RAND Summer Learning Series," see ED594504.]

Research shows low-income students suffer disproportionate learning loss over the summer and because those losses accumulate over time, they contribute substantially to the achievement gap between low- and higher-income children. The Wallace Foundation is funding a five-year demonstration project to examine whether summer learning programs can reduce summer learning loss and promote achievement gains. This report, the first in a series, draws on emerging lessons from six school districts in the study -- Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Duval County (Florida), Pittsburgh, and Rochester (New York) -- that offer full-day programs for five to six weeks free of charge to large numbers of elementary students. The report synthesizes the key lessons learned about how to establish and sustain effective programs. The most emphatic recommendation is to start planning early, no later than January, and include both district and summer site leaders in the process. Many problems identified by the researchers -- from weak teacher training to ineffective transportation -- could be traced to a rushed planning process. Other guidance includes adopting a commercially available curriculum, establishing enrollment deadlines, ensuring sufficient time on academics, and selecting enrichment providers with qualified staff experienced in behavior management. To manage costs, the authors suggest designing the program with costs in mind -- by hiring staff based on projected daily attendance rather than number of enrollees, for example, and by restricting the number of sites to control administrative costs. [For the summary to the report "Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success, 1st Ed. Summary. RAND Summer Learning Series," see ED594504. For the appendix materials "Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success, 1st Ed. Appendix Materials. RAND Summer Learning Series," see ED594506. For the second edition of the report "Getting to Work on Summer Learning: Recommended Practices for Success, 2nd Ed. RAND Summer Learning Series," see ED591732.]

High-quality out-of-school-time (OST) programs have a positive effect on youth development, but many cities have found it difficult to address the challenges of expanding and improving the quality of programs offered to underserved and high-need students. In response, The Wallace Foundation sponsored an initiative to help five cities increase collaboration, access, quality, information sharing, and sustainability in their OST systems. The third in this three-volume series presents in-depth case studies of the five Wallace Foundation grant cities: Providence, Boston, New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. A review of the history of the grant in each city, the role played by the local context in which it was implemented, the initiative's progress toward a range of goals, and enablers and challenges to implementation reveals both lessons learned and best practices for the OST field. For example, strong interagency coordination and mayoral involvement, gaining stakeholder buy-in, a comprehensive approach to training and professional development, and shared goals were all associated with the more successful OST improvement efforts. However, all the cities faced challenges in implementing their respective initiatives, including staff turnover at the agency and program levels, funding constraints, obstacles to coordination, and issues related to data entry and tracking student outcomes. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 10 figures and 5 tables.) [For the related reports, see Volume 1 (ED514586) and Volume 2 (ED514587).]

High-quality out-of-school-time (OST) programs have a positive effect on youth development, but many cities have found it difficult to address the challenges of expanding and improving the quality of programs offered to underserved and high-need students. In response, The Wallace Foundation sponsored an initiative to help five cities increase collaboration, access, quality, information sharing, and sustainability in their OST systems. In many cities that provide financial support for OST, funding is funneled through a variety of youth-serving agencies that lack basic information about the programs they fund. The second in this three-volume series describes how the grantees and three other cities used management information systems to collect and use data on OST programs, including enrollment, attendance, and student outcomes. Cities' use of management information systems to collect and report data on OST programs is relatively new, so the experiences of the case-study cities offer valuable lessons for the field. For example, management information systems are capable of supporting OST system improvement but require careful planning, the use of data from these systems can lead to additional funding and support, the customization of web-based systems encourages their use, providing high-quality training to providers increases the use of the systems, and many providers are overburdened by requirements to use multiple management information systems, so eliminating redundancies and coordinating data requirements can ensure more efficient program provision and reporting. Survey Administration, Sampling, Weighting, and Modeling is appended. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 15 tables.) [For the related reports, see Volume 1 (ED514586) and Volume 3 (ED514588).]

High-quality out-of-school-time (OST) programs have a positive effect on youth development, but many cities have found it difficult to address the challenges of expanding and improving the quality of programs offered to underserved and high-need students. In response, The Wallace Foundation sponsored an initiative to help five cities increase collaboration, access, quality, information sharing, and sustainability in their OST systems. The overall goals of the initiative were to increase access, improve quality, develop information systems for decisionmaking, and plan for financial stability. Each city received a planning grant, which it focused on particular efforts tied to city context and area of need. The first in this three-volume series describes the cities' early work under the grant and analyzes the conditions and activities that contributed to their progress in building a coordinated system of services to meet the initiative's goals. Specifically, it addresses how city context affected the approaches implemented, the effectiveness of these approaches, and important enablers of progress, particularly in the areas of collaboration and coordination. Of particular note was the finding that city context and the involvement of the mayor had a significant influence on both decisionmaking and outcomes. In addition, the cities depended on the ability to gain buy-in from the schools and other key stakeholders, as well as financial assistance through city budgets and grants to ensure sustainability. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 10 tables.) [For the related reports, see Volume 2 (ED514587) and Volume 3 (ED514588).]

Many states and school districts are implementing test-based requirements for promotion at key transitional points in students' schooling careers, thus ending the practice of "social promotion"--promoting students who have failed to meet academic standards and requirements for that grade. In 2003-2004, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), which oversees the largest public school system in the country, implemented a new test-based promotion policy for 3rd-grade students and later extended it to 5th, 7th, and 8th graders. The policy emphasized early identification of children at risk of being retained in grade and provision of instructional support services to these students. NYCDOE asked RAND to conduct an independent longitudinal evaluation of the 5th-grade promotion policy and to examine the outcomes for two cohorts of 3rd-grade students. The findings of that study, conducted between March 2006 and August 2009, provide a comprehensive picture of how the policy was implemented and factors affecting implementation; the impact of the policy on student academic and socioemotional outcomes; and the links between the policy's implementation and the outcomes of at-risk students. This report is organized into eleven chapters: (1) Introduction (Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, and Louis T. Mariano); (2) What We Know About the Effects of Grade Retention and Implementation of Promotion Policies (Nailing Xia and Sheila Nataraj Kirby); (3) Context and Conceptual Framework for Understanding New York City's Promotion Policy (Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Julie A. Marsh, and Catherine DiMartino); (4) Data and Methods (Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Louis T. Mariano, and Jennifer Sloan McCombs); (5) School-Provided Support for Students: Academic Intervention Services (Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Scott Naftel, Gina Schuyler Ikemoto, Catherine DiMartino, and Daniel Gershwin); (6) Implementation of the Policy: Saturday and Summer Schools (Gina Schuyler Ikemoto, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Catherine DiMartino, and Scott Naftel); (7) Performance of 5th Graders in New York City and Overall Performance Trends in New York State (Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Scott Naftel, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Daniel Gershwin, and Al Crego); (8) Measuring the Effect of Supportive Interventions on Proximal-Year Student Achievement (Louis T. Mariano, Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Al Crego, and Claude Messan Setodji); (9) Future Outcomes of Students at Risk of Retention (Louis T. Mariano, Sheila Nataraj Kirby, and Al Crego); (10) The Impact of New York City's Promotion Policy on Students' Socioemotional Status (Vi-Nhuan Le, Louis T. Mariano, and Al Crego); and (11) Conclusions and Policy Implications (Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, and Louis T. Mariano). Appended are: (1) Technical Appendix for Achievement Models; (2) Supporting Data for Chapter Five; (3) Supporting Data for Chapter Seven; (4) Supporting Data for Chapter Ten; and (5) Data and Analyses for 3rd-Grade Cohorts. (Contains 59 figures and 77 tables.)

Despite recent progress in reading achievement among children in primary grades, many children are not moving beyond basic decoding skills to fluency and comprehension as they go on to higher grades. To address this problem, many policymakers suggest that reading coaches -- master teachers who offer ongoing on-site instructional support for teachers -- can improve teachers' practice and students' literacy skills. RAND researchers evaluated the middle school reading coach program in Florida to answer these questions: How is the program being implemented by the state, districts, schools, and individual coaches? What is the impact of coaching on teachers' practice and students' achievement in reading and mathematics? What features of reading coach models and practices are associated with better outcomes? This document provides a summary of that research report. [For full report, see ED502636.]

This research brief reports the results of a study examining the implementation and effectiveness of a middle school reading coach program in Florida. The study found that districts tended to establish similar policies and supports for coaches regarding hiring, compensation, evaluation, and training. School-based reading coaches in Florida divided their time among many activities and typically spent less than half their time in the classroom assisting individual teachers. Teachers and principals reported that coaches had a positive effect on instructional practice. However, evidence is mixed regarding the impact of coaches on student achievement. The greatest reported barrier to coaching was lack of time. [This research brief describes work documented in "Supporting Literacy Across the Sunshine State: A Study of Florida Middle School Reading Coaches," by Julie A. Marsh, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, J. R. Lockwood, Francisco Martorell, Daniel Gershwin, Scott Naftel, Vi-Nhuan Le, Molly Shea, Heather Barney, and Al Crego.]

Although literacy skills needed to engage in the economy and public life have grown, the literacy skills of many adolescents remain low. One popular approach to improving student literacy is using school-based reading coaches; however, there is little empirical evidence regarding the nature of coaching and its effectiveness in changing teacher practice and/or its impact on student achievement, particularly at the secondary level. In 2006-2007, RAND sought to address this research gap by studying a statewide reading coach program in Florida that is situated within a broader state-led literacy policy, the Just Read, Florida! (JRF) initiative. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the implementation and impact of Florida's reading coach program at the middle school level, and to investigate three primary questions: (1) How is the reading coach program being implemented by the state, districts, schools, and coaches? (2) What has been the impact of coaching on teachers' practice, students' achievement in reading and mathematics, and other outcomes? and (3) What features of models and practices for reading coaches are associated with better outcomes? Reported findings include: (1) Districts established similar policies and supports for coaches (2) Common concerns about recruiting and retaining high quality coaches emerged; (3) Coaches' quality, particularly their ability to support adult learners, is positively related to several outcomes and viewed by some as an area of potential weakness; (4) Coaches indicated a desire for specific kinds of professional development; (5) Day-to-day work of coaches takes many forms; (6) District and school administrators, coaches, and teachers identified common barriers constraining coaches' ability and provide instructional support to many teachers; (7) Most coaches view school and district administrators as key supports for their work; (8) Many teachers and principals reported that the coach had positive effects on them and their schools; (9) The evidence is mixed regarding the impact of coaching on achievement; (10) The frequency with which coaches review assessment data with teachers is associated with positive outcomes and few other coaching implementation features were associated with student achievement. Based on study findings, the following recommendations are presented: (1) Provide guidance to school administrators in how to identify high quality coach candidates; (2) Develop a pipeline of qualified candidates; (3) Consider offering incentives and support to attract high-quality coaches and retain them over time; (4) Continue professional development for coaches with some adjustments; (5) Encourage coaches to review assessment data with teachers; (6) Address barriers to enable coaches to work more with teachers, including more one-on-one work; (7) If the intent is for coaches to work with all teachers, address barriers to working across the content areas; (8) Continue to nurture school administrator support; and (9) Continue research on coaching. Although increasingly popular, coaching requires a significant investment of both financial and human resources. As the field gains more evidence on the effects of coaching on teachers, schools, and students, researchers can work to determine whether the benefits of this intervention are worth the cost when compared with other interventions. Three appendixes are included: (1) 2006-2007 Florida Reading Coach Position Description; (2) Data and Modeling in the Statewide Achievement Analysis; and (3) Modeling the Coaching Implementation-Student Achievement Link. (Contains 17 figures and 49 tables.)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandates options for children in low-performing schools to transfer and/or receive supplemental educational services. Researchers analyzed the implementation of these options and found that most districts sought to offer both options. Nevertheless, student participation rates were very low, due perhaps to communication glitches with parents and the fact that in some districts--such as those with only one high school or middle school--there were no schools to which students could transfer.

Teacher education has been subject to both scathing criticism and innumerable efforts designed to reform it or to save it from being dismantled. One of the latest and most well funded efforts aimed at teacher education reform is boldly titled Teachers for a New Era (TNE). Eleven colleges and universities of various types nationwide were selected to participate in TNE. The TNE initiative emphasizes evidence-based decisionmaking, close collaboration between education and arts and sciences faculty, and teaching as an academically taught clinical-practice profession. This monograph has two main purposes: (1) to place TNE in the larger context of teacher education reform and to critically examine the process by which reform will result in caring, competent, and highly qualified teachers capable of producing improvements in student learning; and (2) to examine TNE's contributions to the grantee institutions' teacher education programs and culture and to assess the sustainability of TNE beyond the life of the grant. This monograph should be of interest to educational researchers, funders interested in K-12 education, and education policymakers at the national, state, and local levels who are struggling with issues of teacher quality and how to improve learning for all students. This research was conducted within RAND Education and reflects RAND Education's mission to bring accurate data and careful, objective analysis to the national debate on education policy. This monograph begins with a Preface, list of Figures and Tables, Summary, Acknowledgments and Acronyms followed by the following chapters: (1) Introduction; (2) TNE in the Context of the Broader Teacher Education Reform Effort; (3) TNE's Theory of Change: Assumptions, Enabling, Factors, and Potential Outcomes; (4) Profiles of the TNE Institutions; (5) Implementation Progress and Thoughts About Sustainability of TNE; and (6) Conclusions. The following are appended: (1) Teachers for a New Era Web Sites; (2) Implementation Progress: First Cohort of Grantees; (3) Second Cohort of Grantees: Sites Included in the National Evaluation; (4) Second Cohort of Grantees: Sites Not Included in the National Evaluation; and (5) Florida A&M University.(Contains 2 figures and 3 tables.)

In 2002, the RAND Corporation launched a project to understand how educators are responding to the new accountability requirements in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania--three states that represent a range of approaches, regions, and student populations. The researchers aimed to identify the factors that enhance the implementation of SBA systems, encourage positive changes in teaching practices, and improve student achievement. Through surveys, interviews, and visits to schools in these three states, they found that NCLB is affecting the work of superintendents, principals, and teachers both positively and negatively. Although the three states developed different accountability systems, school and district administrators are engaged in similar school improvement activities. The key findings, summarized in this brief, were: (1) Most superintendents considered three improvement strategies most important: using data for decision making, aligning curriculum with state standards, and focusing on low-performing students; (2) Teachers changed their instruction in both desirable and undesirable ways; (3) Most educators felt challenged by insufficient alignment among state standards, curriculum, and tests; and (4) The researchers recommend improving alignment among standards, tests, and curriculum; providing educators with professional development assistance; and exploring ways to measure performance more accurately.

This research brief describes work done for RAND Education and documented in "Pain and Gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in Three States, 2004-2006", Brian M. Stecher, Scott Epstein, Laura S. Hamilton, Julie A. Marsh, Abby Robyn, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Jennifer Russell, and Scott Naftel." The three states discussed are: California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Views of teachers and administrators in those states are also presented. [For associated report, see ED503240.]