Search

This is a support document to the "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide" report. Developed for users of LSAY, the user guide consolidates information about the LSAY 2009 cohort into one document. This support document provides employment information for the guide. [For the main report, "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide. Technical Paper 74," see ED536971. For other supporting documents, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements A--Demographics. Technical Paper 74A" (ED536979); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements B1--Education (School and School Transition). Technical Paper 74B1" (ED536973); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements B2--Education (Post-School). Technical Paper 74B2" (ED536975); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements D--Social. Technical Paper 74D" (ED536972).]

This is a support document to the "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide" report. Developed for users of LSAY, the user guide consolidates information about the LSAY 2009 cohort into one document. This support document provides social information for the guide. [For the main report, "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide. Technical Paper 74," see ED536971. For other supporting documents, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements A--Demographics. Technical Paper 74A" (ED536979); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements B1--Education (School and School Transition). Technical Paper 74B1" (ED536973); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements B2--Education (Post-School). Technical Paper 74B2" (ED536975); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements C--Employment. Technical Paper 74C" (ED536974).]

This is a support document to the "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide" report. Developed for users of LSAY, the user guide consolidates information about the LSAY 2009 cohort into one document. This support document provides demographics information for the guide. [For the main report, "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide. Technical Paper 74," see ED536971. For other supporting documents, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements B1--Education (School and School Transition). Technical Paper 74B1" (ED536973); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements B2--Education (Post-School). Technical Paper 74B2" (ED536975); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements C--Employment. Technical Paper 74C" (ED536974); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements D--Social. Technical Paper 74D" (ED536972).]

Developed for users of the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY), this user guide consolidates information about the LSAY 2009 cohort into one document. The guide aims to address all aspects of the LSAY data including: how to access the data; data restrictions; variable naming conventions; the structure of the data; documentation; classifications and code frames used; weights; and derived variables. Updates to the Y09 data file are appended. (Contains 14 tables, 9 figures and 6 footnotes.) [For supporting documents, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements A--Demographics. Technical Paper 74A" (ED536979); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements B1--Education (School and School Transition). Technical Paper 74B1" (ED536973); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements B2--Education (Post-School). Technical Paper 74B2" (ED536975); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements C--Employment. Technical Paper 74C" (ED536974); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort User Guide: Data Elements D--Social. Technical Paper 74D" (ED536972).]

The use of data for making educational decisions and to assess educational outcomes has been legislated by political bodies and codified by accreditation. Faculty have always used data to inform the grading process--data is gathered throughout the term to inform the letter grade assigned at the end. However, in today's educational environment, faculty must also examine and use data to inform their practice and guide their work in order to improve student interactions, enhance pedagogical strategies, direct program development, and create evidence for program review. In addition, using evidence is essential as faculty address equity practices and advocate for educational opportunities that provide equitable access and outcomes for diverse student populations. Nevertheless, sometimes the word "data" sends people running in the opposite direction. Part of the reason for this negative reaction is the historical use (or misuse) of data as simple statistical ammunition for drawing inappropriate or misguided conclusions or even for more nefarious purposes. Occasionally data are used to assess a college's work or programs with a goal towards discontinuance rather than improvement. Another element of this reaction may be a general discomfort when conversing with those who gather, organize, and interpret the numerical data in purely statistical terms. To address issues reflected by this negative reaction, faculty must understand certain basic guidelines and concepts when dealing with data. Faculty need not become statisticians to skillfully find and use data, but they must learn to engage the data with a critical and analytical eye in order to interpret and apply it appropriately. This paper suggests several principles faculty should acknowledge when looking at educational data and assessing its usefulness. It also demonstrates the application of these principles to a hypothetical scenario and indicates sources for getting data relevant to the California community colleges.

The Test of English as a Foreign Language[TM], better known as TOEFL[R], is designed to measure the English-language proficiency of people whose native language is not English. TOEFL scores are accepted by more than 6,000 colleges, universities, and licensing agencies in 130 countries. The test is also used by governments, and scholarship and exchange programs worldwide. This edition of the "TOEFL Test and Score Data Summary" contains data on the performance of examinees who took the TOEFL Internet-based test (TOEFL[R]iBT) or the TOEFL paper-based test (TOEFL PBT) between January and December 2008. (Contains 21 tables.)

Households with children in the United States are more likely to experience food insecurity than households with no children. However, households with children are less likely to experience hunger. This finding suggests that food insecure households with children may be drawing on personal and/or public resources to help them avoid hunger. In this paper, we use data from the April Food Security Supplements of the Current Population Survey to evaluate whether federal food assistance programs play a role in helping households with children avoid hunger. The problem of the endogeneity of a household's participation decision is addressed in two ways. First, for the Food Stamp Program, we use exogenous state-level policy variables that affect participation but not food security. Second, for households that experienced hunger during a given year, we study whether participation in any of the three largest federal food assistance programs was associated with lower levels of food insecurity during the last 30 days of that year. The paper also studies whether one personal resource, household employment circumstances, helps households with children avoid hunger. We find that by using better income data from the March Demographic Survey and by using a 10-item adult-referenced food security scale that excludes child-referenced items, we are able to control for the observed differences between households with and without children under 5 years old. For households with school-age children, only participation in the National School Lunch Program appears able to explain why they are able to avoid hunger. (Contains 10 tables and 20 footnotes.)

Achievement gaps have real consequences for students, particularly those facing the challenge of passing the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), now a requirement in order to receive a high school diploma in California. The combined 2005 CAHSEE passing rates reveal significant discrepancies between White and Asian students and their African American and Latino peers. Passing rates for the Math exam were 80% and 86% for White and Asian students respectively, and 44% and 51% for African American and Latino students respectively. Results from the English Language Arts exam show similar inequities, with 83% and 75% of White and Asian students passing and only 54% and 53% of African American and Latino students passing. In response to these disturbing trends, the authors find that some school districts in California are showing success in closing achievement gaps. This report spotlights the efforts of three districts to address inequities in achievement, and provides information about a variety of strategies that districts have found to be effective in raising achievement for diverse populations of students. The authors present a range of approaches in an effort to remind policymakers and educators that no one strategy is likely to be effective for all districts, and that much can be learned from an investigation of a combination of approaches. (Contains 11 figures.)

This booklet is about document analysis and its utility as a method in education evaluation, and is intended for evaluators in local school districts, regional education agencies, and state departments of education. Document analysis is described as a technique that relies heavily upon a variety of written materials for data, insights, and judgments about programs or events. Also described are document tracking, verification, and content analysis, the procedures employed in document analysis. A series of exercises based on actual documents related to the closure of several schools in Portland, Oregon, during the 1980-81 school year are provided for practice in these procedures. (LC)

There is a growing view that students who enroll in developmental courses are less successful in completing their programs than non-developmental students. Nevertheless, even though developmental students as a group ultimately might not be as academically successful as non-developmental students, many of them might still derive benefit from taking developmental courses. In this paper we address the question, "Does taking developmental courses benefit students at "all", in the sense that they are more successful than they would have been if they had not taken developmental courses?" Data for the study consisted of ACT[R] Test and college outcomes data for over 118,000 students who first enrolled in one of 75 two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions. We compared the success of students who initially enrolled in six developmental courses in English, mathematics, or reading with those of students who initially enrolled in associated higher-level courses. We first estimated probabilities of success with respect to twelve outcome variables ranging from performance in the associated higher-level college course to Bachelor's degree completion in six years. The probabilities of success were conditioned on ACT Test score, enrollment status (full- or part-time), college type (two-year vs. four-year), and the grade received in the developmental course (if taken). We then compared the probabilities of success of students who did and did not take the developmental course, but who otherwise were similar. Like others, we found that the developmental students in this study were less successful as a group than the non-developmental students with respect to GPA/persistence over time and degree completion within a fixed time period. Further consideration of time to degree, however, showed that developmental students typically completed a Bachelor's degree in six years at a rate similar to or higher than that of non-developmental students in five years. Particular subgroups of developmental students, as characterized by their ACT Test scores, the grade they received in the developmental course, and their enrollment status benefited from taking the developmental course. In particular, students who received an A (or sometimes a B) grade in the developmental course appeared to benefit from taking it. Moreover, part-time students appeared to derive more benefit from taking developmental courses than full-time students did. The report concludes with a discussion about the practical implications of these findings and possible contributing factors to academic success, such as the quality of developmental instruction, the time needed to complete a degree, and the noncognitive characteristics of developmental students. Appended are: (1) Pooled Descriptive Results; (2) Hierarchical Logistic Regression Models for Predicting Success in College; (3) Differences in Estimated Probabilities of Success for All Students and by Developmental Course Grade; and (4) Estimated Probabilities of Success for Full- and Part-Time Students. (Contains 33 tables, 25 figures and 17 footnotes.) [This paper was prepared with assistance from Justine Radunzel.

This technical paper details the derived variables developed for users of the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) data. These variables fall into the categories of education, employment and social, and help to simplify the use of the data by providing useful indicators for analysis. This paper provides descriptions, formats and additional notes for each variable, as well as the SAS syntax used to create the derived variables for the LSAY 2009 commencing cohort.

This paper provides specific suggestions to help local faculty make more purposeful use of program-level student equity data on their campuses and suggests best practices for the use of these data as local colleges develop their equity and diversity plans. It will help California community colleges in establishing and maintaining an active link between equity plans and the ongoing review of course and program planning and accreditation. Student equity, which is parity in the achievement and success of all student populations, continues to be a concern for California community colleges, and this paper is meant to be a resource in meeting ethical, professional, and legal responsibilities to facilitate success for all students. The paper provides recommended actions for local senates, links to resources for locating external data and research, principles for effective use of data, and a discussion of the new federal and state guidelines for ethnicity data collection. Appendices include: (1) Resources for Locating External Data and Research; (2) General Data Quality Principles and Sample Questions to Ask; and (3) Federal Guidelines for Collecting Ethnicity Data. (Contains 1 footnote and 13 resources.)

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Year 1998 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements which identifies common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant notes. This paper focuses on the demographics of the participants. [For the main report, see ED507545.]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the LSAY (Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth) Y95 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements which identifies common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant notes. [For the main report, "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort User Guide. Technical Report 49," see ED536757. For related reports, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements B1: Education. Technical Report 49B1" (ED536761); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements B2: Education. Technical Report 49B2" (ED536759); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements C: Employment. Technical Report 49C" (ED536762); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements D: Social. Technical Report 49D" (ED536760).]

This paper describes Tennessee's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, this report highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Tennessee's application for Race to the Top laid out an ambitious education reform agenda at all levels--from the state to the school district to the classroom. The state established equally ambitious goals for improving both teacher and leader effectiveness and student achievement. In the first year of implementation of the Tennessee First to the Top initiatives, the state made modest gains towards achieving those goals. From 2010 to 2011, overall student achievement in the two primary focus areas of the grant, 3rd grade reading and 7th grade math, increased by 2 percentage points and 7 percentage points respectively. The implementation of Tennessee's reform agenda has been complex and not without its challenges, but the state has made significant progress in a number of key areas over the past year. Tennessee has made the most significant progress in the area of great teachers and leaders-specifically the development of a new teacher and principal evaluation system, recruitment initiatives, and strategic compensation plans. The state has also laid the groundwork for significant progress to come in the next year on standards and assessments, data systems, school turnaround and STEM, specifically through initial awareness training for the Common Core standards, planning for an early warning data system, establishing charter schools and a co-management process for the state's Achievement School District, and creating two new STEM platform schools. Local education agencies that are experiencing gains in student achievement are executing on First to the Top plans that support these initiatives and have a comprehensive focus on the state goals. [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Tennessee Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]", see ED529330.]

This paper describes Rhode Island's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, this report highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Race to the Top has provided Rhode Island with the funding needed to carry out a single powerful vision: an education system that prepares all Rhode Island students for success in college, careers, and life. Rhode Island's comprehensive strategic plan, Transforming Education in Rhode Island (RIDE Strategic Plan), continues to form the foundation for the state's Race to the Top implementation. Rhode Island is utilizing a unified, statewide approach toward Race to the Top; the state and participating Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) are working together to build and implement statewide systems of support that benefit all students and educators. Rhode Island has adopted the Common Core State Standards and has held Study of the Standards training sessions with more than 50% of the state's educators in 19 districts in order to prepare for the transition to the Common Core. The training sessions, which continue into year two, will help educators and administrators understand how the Common Core will impact their classroom practice. Rhode Island has engaged in planning activities around enhancing its data systems to support instruction, as well as developing the systems that will support critical activities around instruction and assessment. This included establishing a Data Governance Board to oversee all elements of the data enterprise system and stakeholder engagement. Rhode Island has developed a model educator evaluation system in collaboration with educators from more than 23 school districts and education organizations in Rhode Island. Rhode Island utilized the analysis of student-test-score and graduation-rate data to identify five persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools. Through the Protocol for Intervention: Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools, approved by the Board of Regents, Rhode Island has articulated all roles, responsibilities, and expectations for LEA leadership once a school is identified as PLA and the models recommended for addressing their schools' PLA status. [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Rhode Island Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529328.]

This paper describes Ohio's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. The sections presented in this report highlight key accomplishments made by Ohio to implement a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Some of the achievements made by Ohio are: (1) Ohio's State Board of Education adopted the common core standards in June 2011; (2) Standards crosswalks comparing the K-12 common core state standards and Ohio' 2001 K-12 academic content standards in English language arts and mathematics were developed and published on the ODE website; (3) Standards crosswalks comparing the 2010 state revised standards in science and social studies to the 2002 academic content standards; (4) Model curricula aligned to the common core state standards and the state revised standards were State Board adopted in March 2011; (5) 774 model curricula in ELA, Mathematics, science, social studies were developed and published on the ODE website; (6) Approximately 13, 000 educators participated in state-sponsored awareness and professional development sessions on the standards; (7) Fall and spring standards and model curricula sessions provide awareness and understanding to 10,744 educators statewide; (8) Revising Ohio Board of Regents (OBR) college readiness expectations aligned to the common core state standards; (9) Ohio and the Center for Educational Leadership and Technology (CELT) defined the Instructional Improvement System (IIS) requirements and it continues to work with Local Education Agency (LEA) stakeholders to refine Ohio's requirements; (10) Ohio and Board of Regents collaborate to work on data exchange to link K-12, Higher Education, and Workforce data; (11) Ohio will expand upon and leverage its existing statewide longitudinal data system and associated data tools to develop a comprehensive integrated system that allows user-friendly access to various data analysis and reporting capabilities; (12) Ohio redesigned Educator Performance Management Systems/Support Educators through evaluation results; (13) Ohio expanded effective educator preparation programs; (14) Ohio supported educators to increase student growth; and (15) A strategic goal of Ohio's Race to the Top plan is to improve achievement for 33,000 students enrolled in 68 persistently low-achieving schools (PLAs) (42 district schools and 26 community schools). [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Ohio Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529325.]

This paper describes the State's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, this report highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. North Carolina's progress and accomplishments in the first year of Race to the Top have positioned the state for effective implementation of reform efforts over the course of the grant. In the first year, North Carolina established its project infrastructure, including project plans, vision documents, policies/procedures, staffing, partnerships and contracts, input and oversight mechanisms (including stakeholder oversight bodies and working groups), as well as gathered diagnostic information to guide implementation in the education reform content areas. [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. North Carolina Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]", see ED529322.]

This paper describes New York's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, this report highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Highlights of this report include: (1) The State Board of Regents adopted the Common Core State Standards for Math and ELA; made progress in developing and disseminating CCSS implementation resources--including conducting a statewide webinar with David Coleman and creating the EngageNY.org microsite; completed the design of its very successful statewide Network Team Summer Institute for approximately 500 educators (August 2011); continued its active engagement as a governing state for PARCC; and conducted a gap analysis to determine how well aligned its current state assessments are to the CCSS; (2) One of five states participating in Phase One of the CCSSO Shared Learning Initiative (SLI); launched initiatives to develop comprehensive course catalog and data system security for teachers, students, and parents; started working with a number of other NYS agencies to enhance the P-12 data system; and collaborated with NY's two public higher education systems (SUNY and CUNY) to promote data sharing and enhance functional and systems architecture; (3) This Spring, the Board of Regents adopted regulations to implement the historic 2010 legislation on teacher and school leader effectiveness by requiring annual evaluations based in significant part on student achievement. This new law and regulations not only fundamentally change the way teachers and principals are evaluated, but requires that these evaluations be a significant factor in decisions relating to promotion, retention, tenure, and differentiated professional support and professional development. The law also provides an expedited disciplinary process for the removal of ineffective teachers and principals. The State Education Department also published guidance to the field around the regulations and conducted a statewide webinar on the regulations as well. The state made substantive progress on the design of RFPs to promote clinically-rich pilot programs in undergraduate and graduate teacher education and for principal preparation; and (4) Awarded 2009 Cohort 1 SIG grants and almost completed the review of applications for SIG 2010 Cohort 2 during this time period; published guidance to districts with PLA schools regarding the implementation of the new Teacher/Leader evaluation system and for implementation of Educational Partnership Organizations; conducted Joint Intervention Teams to new PLA/SURR schools; aligned NCLB and IDEA Accountability Systems; redesigned and strengthened the Regents approach to charter school authorizing. [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. New York Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529326.]

This paper describes Maryland's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, this report highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Maryland has established a Race to the Top (RTTT) office in the Division of Academic Reform and Innovation under the direction of an Assistant State Superintendent. The personnel in this office manage the day-to-day operations of the Race to the Top program. English language arts and mathematics curriculum teams completed the draft Maryland Common Core Curriculum Frameworks in May, 2011. Maryland educators from across the state worked for nine months to develop these frameworks. Maryland has made some significant progress on its data systems in this initial year of Race to the Top funding. On June 1, 2010, Governor Martin O'Malley signed an Executive Order creating the Maryland Council for Educator Effectiveness. The Executive Order set forth the membership, identified the co-chairs, prescribed operating procedures, and set forth the responsibility of the Council. During 2010-2011, MSDE's Breakthrough Center has provided turnaround services to the bottom 5 percent of schools in Maryland--11 low-achieving schools required to adopt one of the four federal intervention models (Turnaround, Restart, Closure, and Transformation) and 10 feeder schools in the Baltimore City Schools and Prince George's County. Throughout 2010 -2011, the Center created partnership agreements with Baltimore City and Prince George's County for the lowest-achieving schools and their feeder schools in the Breakthrough Zones, a five-year commitment of assistance from MSDE, coordinated by the State's Breakthrough Center. [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Maryland Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529320.]

This paper describes Massachusetts' progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, it highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Massachusetts has made substantial progress on its education reform priorities during Year 1 of its Race to the Top program. The state has build a workforce of effective educators. The state has provided curriculum and instruction resources. The state has prepared students for college and career. The state has turned around its lowest performing schools. [For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Massachusetts Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529318. For "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267.]

This paper describes Florida's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, it highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Florida has relied on its strong foundation of education reform and results coupled with the new resources of Race to the Top to further its reform efforts. The state has accomplished a great deal during Year 1 of the grant, not only in initiating state and LEA (local education agency) grant projects, but in furthering related state reforms through embracing Race to the Top as the new way of work in Florida. (Contains 1 table.) [For the parent report, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Florida Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529312.]

This paper describe Georgia's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, it highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Race to the Top focuses on improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education for Georgia students. The plan includes providing professional development for math and science teachers, strengthening the pipeline of science and math teachers from institutes of higher education, and expanding STEM related virtual courses. As a result, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Education, Georgia Tech received funding through the Race to the Top program to expand STEM programs through its outreach center, the Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC). In year one, Georgia established the "Innovation Fund," a competitive grant program to promote innovative and high-impact practices that boost student achievement. The program is designed to support the establishment and deepening of partnerships among Georgia's local education authorities (LEAs) or charter schools, institutions of higher education (IHEs), businesses and non-profit organizations. Through Race to the Top funds, Georgia is expanding its existing partnership with Communities in Schools in Georgia (CISGA). These funds allow for the creation of three new CISGA-led centers in LEAs that have lowest-achieving schools. Through RT3, Georgia entered into strategic partnerships with organizations such as Teach for America (TFA) and The New Teacher Project (TNTP) to increase the pipeline of effective teachers to low-achieving schools. The Race to the Top--Georgia "steering committees" continue their work around three major components of the program: Value Add/Student Growth, Evaluations, and Other Student Learning Measures. [For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Georgia Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529314. For "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267.]

This paper describes Hawaii's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, it highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. This past year, Hawaii embarked upon a whole system transformation effort with more clearly articulated roles and responsibilities across the central office, complex area and schools. Catalyzed by the Race to the Top award (RTTT), the Hawaii State Department of Education (HIDOE) has begun to advance a set of comprehensive reforms across four major strands of work: standards and assessments, human resource management, data systems, and turning around persistently underperforming schools. Meeting the aggressive performance goals demands the entire state rally around this agenda, which is why the state has also solidified cooperative partnerships that better align its actions vertically from Pre-Kindergarten to institutions of higher learning and horizontally across the K-12 system. Early results of the 2011 Hawaii State Assessment are in: the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on the Mathematics exam rose from 48% to 54%, while English Language Arts performance held steady at 66%. At the same time, the achievement gap between elementary-age Native Hawaiian students and their statewide peers in ELA was reduced from 12% to just over 9% in the past school year. [For "Race to the Top. Hawaii Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529316. For "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267.]

This paper describes Delaware's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, it highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. With its Race to the Top win last year, Delaware embraced a unique opportunity, and responsibility, to dramatically improve student outcomes for all students in the state. Race to the Top is not just another grant program; rather, it has become the catalyst for comprehensive and sustainable statewide reform. Individual sections contain references and footnotes. [For the parent report, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Delaware Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529310.]

This paper describes the District of Columbia's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, this report highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Washington, DC has made significant progress in implementing a comprehensive approach to education in the four core reform areas since receiving the Race to the Top grant. Highlights of this report include: (1) Race to the Top has collaborated with the Division of Standards, Assessment and Accountability to create an aggressive Common Core Standards Roll-out Plan for the District. Each LEA (local educational agency) will implement the Common Core Standards beginning in school year 2011-12. During the spring and summer of 2011, OSSE (Office of the State Superintendent of Education) and Race to the Top participating LEAs provided extensive professional development for their teachers, including those teaching special education. Additionally, OSSE provided guidance to all LEAs so they could provide information on the Common Core Standards to parents through parent meetings and Back-to-School nights using parent guides created by the National PTA; (2) Washington, DC awarded $5,000,000 in Instructional Improvement Systems grants to four lead Local Education Agencies. These lead LEAs with expertise in instructional improvement systems are sharing their technology and expertise with 20 LEAs that are not as far along in their data systems initiatives; (3) DC has developed a number of rigorous metrics and tools for measuring the performance of teachers and schools and informing improvements to instruction. OSSE has developed common criteria for Race to the Top participating LEAs' teacher and leader evaluation systems. OSSE is in the process of managing a process of reviewing these plans to ensure that they meet these criteria. DC has adopted a common schoolwide growth model for use in the 2011-12 school year that is based on 2010-11 DC CAS data. The model results will be used as part of the Public Charter School Board's Performance Management Framework, DC Public Schools' School Score Card, and OSSE will give the data to LEAs to inform their practice. DC has also adopted a common value added model for use in participating LEAs' teacher evaluations; and (4) Although funding is not scheduled to begin until Year 2 of the Race to the Top grant, Washington, DC has been a leader in implementing initiatives for turning around the lowest-achieving schools. During the reporting period, DCPS, its largest LEA, implemented plans for turnarounds in 21 of its most struggling schools, including significant staffing changes at six schools being reconstituted under the No Child Left Behind law. DC Public Schools also has a comprehensive screening process that produces high quality teachers and principals for all of their schools, many of which are low achieving. As it relates to Race to the Top activity, DC PS has defined needs and requirements for SY11-12, established a detailed turnaround plan and timeline for each school slated for turnaround, posted job requisitions for enhanced capacity, and identified potential vendors to support the work. [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. District of Columbia Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529308.]

The goal for selecting the released set of test items was to have approximately 25% of each of the full item sets for mathematics content knowledge (MCK) and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge (MPCK) that would represent the full range of difficulty, content, and item format used in the TEDS-M study. The initial step in the selection was to take a stratified random sample of the items, stratifying on both proportion correct and knowledge dimensions of MCK and MPCK. The next step was to consider if the selected items were part of item sets. If they were, an attempt was made to use the full set so that the full context of the items would be made public. Representation of the anchor points was another important consideration as was balance of item formats. The test items were then reviewed to determine if they efficiently and accurately represented the full item set. A reduced set of items was kept to make possible a link between TEDS-M and a future follow-up study. The set of primary released items consists of: (1) 24 MCK items; and (2) 10 MPCK. The set of secondary released items consists of: (1) 23 MCK items; and (2) 9 MPCK items. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [For the main report, "TEDS-M 2008 User Guide for the International Database," see ED542383. For related reports, see "TEDS-M 2008 User Guide for the International Database. Supplement 1: International Version of the TEDS-M Questionnaires" (ED542382), "TEDS-M 2008 User Guide for the International Database. Supplement 2: National Adaptations of the TEDS-M Questionnaires" (ED542381), and "TEDS-M 2008 User Guide for the International Database. Supplement 3: Variables Derived from the Educator and Future Teacher Data" (ED542385).] [This paper was edited with Maria Teresa Tatto.]

Education and earnings interact in complex and often unexpected ways--but there are rules to the game. "The College Payoff," a new paper from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, uses in-depth data analysis to identify, illuminate and elucidate those rules. This executive summary provides a glimpse of the education and earnings game, and cracks open the rule book for examination. (Contains 17 figures.) [For the full report, "The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings," see ED524299.]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Year 95 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements that identify common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant notes. [For the main report, "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort User Guide. Technical Report 49," see ED536757. For related reports, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements A: Demographics. Technical Report 49A" (ED536756); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements B1: Education. Technical Report 49B1" (ED536761); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements B2: Education. Technical Report 49B2" (ED536759); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements D: Social. Technical Report 49D" (ED536760).]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Year 95 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements that identify common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element, including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant notes. [For the main report, "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort User Guide. Technical Report 49," see ED536757. For related reports, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements A: Demographics. Technical Report 49A" (ED536756); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements B1: Education. Technical Report 49B1" (ED536761); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements C: Employment. Technical Report 49C" (ED536762); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements D: Social. Technical Report 49D" (ED536760).]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Year 95 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements that identify common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant notes. [For the main report, "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort User Guide. Technical Report 49," see ED536757. For related reports, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements A: Demographics. Technical Report 49A" (ED536756); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements B1: Education. Technical Report 49B1" (ED536761); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements B2: Education. Technical Report 49B2" (ED536759); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements C: Employment. Technical Report 49C" (ED536762).]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the LSAY (Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth) Y95 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements which identifies common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant. [For the main report, "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements A: Demographics. Technical Report 49A," see ED536756. For related reports, see "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements B2: Education. Technical Report 49B2" (ED536759); "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements C: Employment. Technical Report 49C" (ED536762); and "Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY): 1995 Cohort--User Guide. Data Elements D: Social. Technical Report 49D" (ED536760).]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Year 1998 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements which identifies common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant notes. This document focuses on the social aspect of the respondents' lives. [For the main report, see ED507545.]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Year 1998 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements which identifies common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant. This document focuses on the education information of the respondents. [For the main report, see ED507545.]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Year 1998 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements which identifies common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant notes. This document focuses on the employment information of the respondents. [For the main report, see ED507545.]

This technical paper contains information about the variables in the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Year 1998 cohort data set. It groups each variable into data elements which identifies common variables within and across waves. Information is provided about each data element including its purpose, values, base populations and relevant notes. This document focuses on the education information of the respondents. [For the main report, see ED507545.]

Data fuel the process of change. Schools and districts should have electronic data systems that store data and make it easy to extract useful information. School leaders and their staff have questions; they need answers. Their data, when stored in a suitable electronic data system, will help them construct better answers to their questions more quickly. Do they know what their questions are, what they will be? This guide will help district and school leaders think about what they want from an electronic data system. It will help them identify the right questions to ask about a data system and about their district's readiness and capacity to use it effectively. As they evaluate their responses, they will better understand what they already know and what they have yet to learn, as well as the context within which they will put that knowledge to work. After all, leaders will not receive good value on investments in these systems if they and their staff are not clear about what they expect, what they want, and what their questions are. (Contains 26 resources.) [This paper was also prepared by the Educational Service Agency (ESA) Alliance of the Midwest.]

Spurred by the "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001, virtually every educational reform program now includes an accountability component that requires sound data collection and reporting. Improving data quality has thus emerged as a high priority for educators and policymakers across the country. The list of programs for which data quality is relevant is extensive, and the scope of the issues involved is vast. As its title--"Improving Data Quality for Title I Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Reporting"--suggests, this set of guidelines addresses only one discrete slice of the universe of data quality issues: those associated with the annual Report Card required of all States, local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools receiving Title I, Part A funds under Sec. 1111(h) of "No Child Left Behind" ("NCLB"). Recommendations from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided the impetus for these guidelines. In September 2004, GAO identified numerous data quality problems in the States related to NCLB accountability and reiterated OIG's call for guidelines. This document, focused on State, LEA, and school Title I Report Cards, tailors its guidance specifically to address the OIG/GAO recommendations. Summary Checklists are appended. [This paper was produced by DTI Associates.]

This study examined the education and career paths of female graduates of Murray State University (Kentucky) from 1930 through 1959, a time during which the institution was primarily a normal school focused on the preparation of teachers. Data from alumni records, analysis of questionnaires mailed to 40 randomly selected alumni, and interviews with eight alumni were used in this descriptive study. Charts and graphs show the distribution, by decade, of female graduates' majors and their careers. As expected, teaching was the most commonly reported career, although many graduates had branched into other fields. Also listed are current locations of graduates, by state. Survey results (from 31 returned questionnaires) identified the individuals at Murray State who had influenced respondents, what respondents learned at Murray of lasting value, and their career changes (ranging from one to seven). The report also details the career paths, based on interviews, of four participants. Included also are respondents' advice to today's college students. The questionnaire used is appended. (Contains 15 references.) (DB)

Shifting to results-based accountability is a difficult stage in reforming family and children's services. Heretofore, these services have been more concerned with the number of clients seen or papers processed than in their clients' quality of life. This document should help communities find the data they need to measure qualitative outcomes. It provides a core list of conditions, for example, birthweight, immunizations, substance abuse, and teen suicide. Information on defining outcomes, finding the data to measure outcomes, and analyzing the data to assess local performance is listed. Also listed are various state and local data collection offices which may be able to help groups collect and appraise their data. Each definition for the outcome had to define the problem accurately, reflect data that were readily available, and be useable over time and across jurisdictions. This rigor in defining conditions will: (1) help communities determine the outcomes on which data are already being collected; (2) provide them a baseline to measure future progress; and (3) highlight areas where they should focus their work. Appendices list organizations, by state, that collect data on topics such as child welfare, juvenile justice, and other areas. Also appended are U.S. standard birth and death certificates. (Contains 25 references.) (RJM)

Although computer graphics professionals usually consider only technical graphic design issues, recent improvements may make the only limiting design factors the user's purpose, imagination, style, and taste rather than computer hardware or software technology. Computer graphics designers can be helped to avoid pitfalls by understanding the visual processing functions of the brain and the way humans perceive graphs. Graphics should be designed to enhance analysis by the right brain to avoid misleading and confusing visual effects. For example, unnecessary labeling and grids and poorly chosen line weight distract the right brain's visual perception. In this case, visual impact may be enhanced by minor layout changes. Although technical problems may still affect adaptation of information to a display medium, computer graphics designers should learn to study visual effects and have a computer-based tool available to allow experimentation with such effects during the initial design stages. The points discussed in this paper are illustrated with numerous examples of different types of graph designs, and their implications are discussed. (LMM)

Exercises were developed using tornado statistics to provide students with a better understanding of the spatial and temporal characteristics of these phenomena in the United States. Four categories of exercises were considered beginning with the simplest and progressing to the more complex. The first set of exercises required students to interpret tornado data. The second set utilized maps and posed questions about the frequency of tornadoes and associated fatalities. The third set required students to graph data and interpret trend lines in order to understand relationships. The fourth set used the Spearman Rank Correlation to confirm suspected spatial relationships examined in earlier exercises. The sample questions developed for each of the exercises served as examples of what could be done with tornado statistics. It is hoped that the questions and data will encourage users to expand on existing exercises, as well as to develop new ones for the classroom. Six tables of tornado data and corresponding maps are included. (Author/APG)

Before joining a data-sharing consortium, colleges and universities must address issues regarding goals and expectations, including why comparative data are needed, information types needed, needed comparisons, selection of institutions for comparison, data accessibility, time requirements, costs, and need for technical expertise. (MSE)