Search

Relying on a teacher-level randomized experiment with a sample of 87 middle and high school teachers, this study was designed to examine the implementation and impact of MyTeachingPartner-Secondary delivered by local coaches who were trained and supported by the program provider. Due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the 2-year program during the first year (2021-22) was weak, and only four of six study districts continued to participate in the study in the second year. Implementation during the second year was stronger but still did not achieve fidelity based on pre-specified fidelity thresholds. Analyses of teacher survey data revealed that the program had a statistically significant positive impact on teachers' enthusiasm about teaching and a marginally significant positive impact on teachers' self-efficacy at the end of the 2-year program. Nevertheless, the study did not find any significant impact on the quality of classroom interactions or student engagement based on observations at the end of Year 2 or on students' math or English language arts achievement at the end of Year 1. (Year 2 student achievement data are not yet available.) Results from this study need to be interpreted with caution given study limitations resulting largely from the influence of the pandemic. [American Institutes for Research (AIR) collaborated with Teachstone to implement this study.]

This study was designed to assess the effects of states' adoption of more rigorous standards as part of the current wave of standards-based reform on student achievement using comparative interrupted time series analyses based on state-level NAEP data from 1990 to 2017. Results show that the effects of adopting more rigorous standards on students' mathematics achievement were generally small and not significant. The effects on students' reading achievement were also generally small, but negative and statistically significant for Grade 4. The study also revealed that the effects of states' adoption of more rigorous standards varied across NAEP subscales and student subgroups. [This paper was published in "American Educational Research Journal" v59 n3 p610-647 Jun 2022 (EJ1338213).]

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) is an investment of the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. Its purpose is to provide educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a central and trusted source of scientific evidence on what works in education. The WWC's goal is to produce high-quality products that help education practitioners, teachers, state and local administrators, and researchers make evidence-based decisions. It does so through a systematic review process, replicable documentation, and transparent reporting. The WWC team--which includes numerous contractors, consultants, academic specialists, and federal employees--produces a suite of products in varying formats carefully designed to reach audiences with distinct and sometimes diverging needs. This article provides a brief overview of these products in the hope that the various audiences will access and use them frequently.

Building on a previous randomized experiment of the impact of Early Colleges (ECs) (Berger et al., 2013), this follow-up study assessed longer-term impacts of ECs on students' postsecondary outcomes 6 years after expected high school graduation. It also explored the extent to which students' high school experiences mediate EC impacts. Specifically, this study addressed three research questions: (1) Did EC students have better postsecondary outcomes (i.e., college enrollment and degree attainment) than control students? (2) Did the impacts of ECs vary by student background characteristics (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, low-income status, and prior mathematics and English language arts [ELA] achievement)? and (3) Were the impacts of ECs mediated by students' high school experiences (i.e., college credit accrual during high school, instructional rigor, college-going culture, and student supports)? To answer these questions for the follow-up study, the authors analyzed 4 more years of postsecondary outcome data from the StudentTracker Service at the National Student Clearinghouse for students participating in the EC admission lotteries that were the basis of the previous impact study. They also analyzed data on student background characteristics from administrative records and data on high school experiences from a student survey administered in the previous impact study 5 or 6 years after students entered the ninth grade. [To view the earlier report, "Early College, Early Success: Early College High School Initiative Impact Study," see ED577243.]

Educator performance evaluation systems are a potential tool for improving student achievement by increasing the effectiveness of the educator workforce. For example, recent research suggests that giving more frequent, specific feedback on classroom practice may lead to improvements in teacher performance and student achievement. This report is based on a study that the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences conducted on the implementation of teacher and principal performance measures that are highlighted by recent research, as well as the impact of providing feedback based on these measures. As part of the study, eight districts were provided resources and support to implement the following three performance measures in a selected sample of schools in 2012-13 and 2013-14: (1) Classroom practice measure; (2) Student growth measure; and (3) Principal leadership measure. Within each district, schools were randomly assigned to implement the performance measures (the treatment group) or not (the control group). No formal "stakes" were attached to the measures--for example, they were not used by the study districts for staffing decisions such as tenure or continued employment. Instead, the measures were used to provide educators and their supervisors with information regarding performance. Such information might identify educators who need support and indicate areas for improvement, leading to improved classroom practice and leadership and boosting student achievement. This is the second of two reports on the study. The first focused on the first year of implementation, describing the characteristics of the educator performance measures and teachers' and principals' experiences with feedback. This report examines the impact of the two-year intervention, as well as implementation in both years. The main findings are: (1) The study's measures were generally implemented as planned; (2) The study's measures provided some information to identify educators who needed support, but provided limited information to indicate the areas of practice educators most needed to improve; (3) As intended, teachers and principals in treatment schools received more frequent feedback with ratings than teachers and principals in control schools; and (4) The intervention had some positive impacts on teachers' classroom practice, principal leadership, and student achievement. This report is a summary to the full report. [For the full report, "The Impact of Providing Performance Feedback to Teachers and Principals. NCEE 2018-4001," see ED578873. For the first year report, "Early Implementation Findings from a Study of Teacher and Principal Performance Measurement and Feedback: Year 1 Report. NCEE 2017-4004," see ED569983. For the first year report executive summary, "Early Implementation Findings from a Study of Teacher and Principal Performance Measurement and Feedback: Year 1 Report. Executive Summary. NCEE 2017-4003," see ED569982.]

Educator performance evaluation systems are a potential tool for improving student achievement by increasing the effectiveness of the educator workforce. For example, recent research suggests that giving more frequent, specific feedback on classroom practice may lead to improvements in teacher performance and student achievement. This report is based on a study that the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences conducted on the implementation of teacher and principal performance measures that are highlighted by recent research, as well as the impact of providing feedback based on these measures. As part of the study, eight districts were provided resources and support to implement the following three performance measures in a selected sample of schools in 2012-13 and 2013-14: (1) Classroom practice measure; (2) Student growth measure; and (3) Principal leadership measure. Within each district, schools were randomly assigned to implement the performance measures (the treatment group) or not (the control group). No formal "stakes" were attached to the measures--for example, they were not used by the study districts for staffing decisions such as tenure or continued employment. Instead, the measures were used to provide educators and their supervisors with information regarding performance. Such information might identify educators who need support and indicate areas for improvement, leading to improved classroom practice and leadership and boosting student achievement. This is the second of two reports on the study. The first focused on the first year of implementation, describing the characteristics of the educator performance measures and teachers' and principals' experiences with feedback. This report examines the impact of the two-year intervention, as well as implementation in both years. The main findings are: (1) The study's measures were generally implemented as planned; (2) The study's measures provided some information to identify educators who needed support, but provided limited information to indicate the areas of practice educators most needed to improve; (3) As intended, teachers and principals in treatment schools received more frequent feedback with ratings than teachers and principals in control schools; and (4) The intervention had some positive impacts on teachers' classroom practice, principal leadership, and student achievement. [For the executive summary to this report, "The Impact of Providing Performance Feedback to Teachers and Principals. Executive Summary. NCEE 2018-4000," see ED578874. For the first year report, "Early Implementation Findings from a Study of Teacher and Principal Performance Measurement and Feedback: Year 1 Report. NCEE 2017-4004," see ED569983. For the first year report executive summary, "Early Implementation Findings from a Study of Teacher and Principal Performance Measurement and Feedback: Year 1 Report. Executive Summary. NCEE 2017-4003," see ED569982.]

The National Math + Science Initiative's (NMSI's) College Readiness Program (CRP) is an established program whose goal is to promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in high schools to improve students' readiness for college. It provides teacher, student, and school supports to promote high school students' success in mathematics, science, and English Advanced Placement (AP) courses, with a focus on students who are traditionally underrepresented in the targeted AP courses. Through a federal Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) validation grant awarded to NMSI in 2011, CRP was implemented in a total of 58 high schools in two states--Colorado and Indiana--beginning in the 2012-13 school year. American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted an independent evaluation of the impacts of CRP on students' AP outcomes in these schools for the three cohorts of schools that adopted the program in sequential years, using a comparative interrupted time series (CITS) design that matched comparison schools to program schools in the two states. Overall, schools implementing CRP demonstrated significantly larger increases in the share of students taking and passing AP tests in targeted areas relative to comparison schools in each of the three cohorts of schools, and the gains in CRP schools were sustained over time. Fidelity of program implementation was evaluated using a fidelity matrix approach required as part of the National Evaluation of the i3 program, which showed that not all elements of the program were implemented with high fidelity. Teachers and students were not always able to attend all meetings, and schools did not always meet negotiated enrollment targets. Teacher survey data indicated that teachers found the professional development activities provided by CRP to be the most helpful support they received under CRP, and students reported that the tutoring and special study sessions were the most helpful. Although the program provided financial incentives to both teachers and students that were tied to student performance on AP tests, these incentives were considered the least important element of the program by both teachers and students

Background: For a majority of the world's children, despite substantial increases in primary school enrollment, academic learning is neither occurring at expected rates nor supplying the basic foundational skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century. The significant lag in academic achievement tells us that simply making formal education available does not fully meet children's needs for literacy development. Globally, many interventions are used to support children's literacy development through channels outside of the formal education system, in children's homes or communities. However, there is a lack of information regarding the effectiveness of these interventions. Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of parental, familial, and community support for children's literacy development in developing countries. This review provides information about the contextual influences of parental, familial, and community support on children's literacy development skills through the use of interventions that target those influences. We explored the following questions: (1) What models of reading and literacy learning programs have been implemented in homes and communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)?; (2) What models of reading and literacy learning programs implemented in homes and communities in LMICs have empirical evidence regarding their level of effectiveness?; and (3) How effective are these models in improving children's literacy outcomes? Search Methods: Searches for academic literature were conducted in 15 online databases from across the disciplines of anthropology, economics, education, international relations, political science, psychology, and sociology. To capture gray literature, we searched the websites of United Nations agencies, multinational organizations that provide relevant programming, and governmental agencies. For example, we searched the websites of UNICEF, UNESCO, 3ie, J-PAL, USAID and others. Project staff and advisory panel members identified literature from their own organizations, and reached out to their contacts to ask for grey literature. The search was conducted from May to July, 2013. Selection Criteria: To be included in this review, studies had to have been published in 2003 or later and include a test of an intervention involving parents, families, or community members with the goal of improving children's literacy development; children ages 3 to 12 years (or "preprimary" or "primary school" age); a comparison group; and they had to take place in an LMIC (according to 2012 World Bank classification). Studies that addressed educational radio were eliminated from consideration because a systematic review of the impact of educational radio already exists (Ho & Thukral, 2009). Data Collection and Analysis: Mendeley software was used to manage citations, abstracts, and documents. Abstracts from each database were initially screened by a single reviewer, but in fact many studies were cited in multiple databases and in turn were screened by two or more reviewers. For the studies that passed the screening, two researchers then independently reviewed each to ensure that it met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Thirteen studies were identified for this review. Information was extracted regarding the study setting, process used to form the control or comparison group, independence of the evaluation, outcome measures, attrition, baseline equivalence on child pre-literacy or literacy learning, descriptions of the treatment and comparison conditions, characteristics of participants and implementers, and statistics required for meta-analysis where available. Ten studies were included in meta-analyses. Eight of the studies were cluster randomized or quasi-experimental trials, where the level of assignment was at the school or district level. For these studies, effect sizes were computed using Hedges' (2007) d[subscript r2] effect size assuming equal cluster sample sizes. Results: The initial search of both the academic and gray literature yielded 10,430 study abstracts. Title and abstract screening resulted in the elimination of 10,357 studies, and 21 duplicate citations were removed. Of the remaining 52 studies, 3 were eliminated for addressing the topic of educational radio, and 36 for failure to meet our inclusion criteria. This left the 13 studies that were included in this review. These studies fell into three topic areas: educational television, interventions that help parents learn how to support their children's school readiness, and tutoring interventions delivered by peers or other community members. Most of these studies involved interventions to improve school readiness. The three areas of intervention were examined separately, and studies were combined for meta-analysis in cases where they used the same intervention approach, and had the required statistical information available. Five studies provided effect size estimates for interventions that help parents support their children learning. Three of the five studies reported significant differences in baseline literacy scores. For overall literacy immediately after the intervention, the effect sizes from five studies including a total of 864 children were heterogeneous, with a mean effect of 0.35 and a 95 percent confidence interval that included 0 [-0.07, 0.77]. Four studies including a total of 786 children provided information about overall literacy at one-year follow-up. These effect sizes were also heterogeneous, with a mean effect of 0.48 and a 95 percent confidence interval that included 0 [-0.35, 1.30]. Five studies of child-to-child tutoring were included in the meta-analysis. These studies all reported difficulties in data collection, raising questions about the quality of data included in the evaluation. For the total reading post-test, the effect sizes from four studies including a total of 1,779 children were heterogeneous, with a mean of 0.15, and a 95 percent confidence interval that included 0 [-0.27, 0.58]. For the beginning reading sub-test, four studies including 1,767 children were also heterogeneous, with a mean of -0.107 and a 95 percent confidence interval that included 0 [-0.40, 0.18]. For the letter identification posttest, effect sizes from five studies including 2,300 children were heterogeneous with a mean of 0.22, and a 95 percent confidence interval that included 0 [-0.13, 0.57]. For the writing post-test, five effect sizes including 1,993 children were heterogeneous, with a mean of 0.27 that was significantly different from 0 (95 percent confidence interval: [0.02, 0.51]). For the follow-up test of reading achievement, effect sizes from three studies including 1,407 children were heterogeneous, with a mean effect size of 0.07 and a 95 percent confidence interval that included 0 [-0.25, 0.39]. For the follow-up test of writing achievement, effect sizes from three studies including 1395 students were homogeneous with a mean of 0.033 that was not significantly different from zero (95 percent confidence interval: [-0.10, 0.17]. For the follow-up test of overall literacy, effect sizes from three studies including 1,397 children were homogeneous with a mean effect size of 0.06 that was not statistically different from zero (95 percent confidence interval: [-0.15, 0.26]. Authors' Conclusions: This review identified four areas where evidence was available regarding the effectiveness of an intervention approach: educational television, educational radio, interventions intended to support parents' ability to develop their children's school readiness, and tutoring (provided by older peers or community members). Educational radio has been addressed elsewhere (see Ho & Thukral, 2009), so it was not considered in this review. Educational television had a positive impact on young children's literacy development if the child viewed the programming three to five times per week (but not at a lower dosage). Interventions intended to support parents' ability to develop their child's school readiness were not found to be effective overall, although they did have some positive effects in some countries. Peer-led tutoring was found to improve children's school readiness in writing, but not in other areas of literacy. However, this approach did have significant effects across multiple areas of literacy in some country contexts. A tutoring program led by community members resulted in increases in children's literacy. There were several limitations to this review based on the scarcity of empirical studies and their limited focus on just a few interventions. Numerous descriptions of interventions exist, but few contained a study of program effectiveness in reference to a comparison group. We found only one study that addressed an intervention for children ages 7 and older, and found no eligible studies from Latin America. Therefore, we are left with significant gaps in our understanding of what works in LMICs to improve children's literacy outcomes using interventions outside of the formal education system.

This report presents descriptive findings on school practices in 12 states for schools explicitly held accountable for the performance of the students with disabilities (SWD) subgroup. The study found that, when surveyed in 2011, elementary schools accountable for the SWD subgroup were 15.8 percentage-points more likely than never-accountable elementary schools to report moving students with disabilities from self-contained settings to regular classrooms over the previous five years. Middle schools accountable for the SWD subgroup were 16.7 percentage-points more likely than never-accountable middle schools to report moving students with disabilities from self-contained settings to regular classrooms over the previous five years. The following are appended: (1) Principal and Special Education Designee Surveys; (2) Chapter 2, Study Design Tables; (3) Chapter 3, Accountability Context for School Practices--State-Level Tables; (4) Chapter 4, School Characteristics and Staffing in SWD-Accountable and Non-SWD-Accountable Schools--State-Level Tables; (5) Chapter 5, School Programs and Student Support Strategies in SWD-Accountable and Non-SWD-Accountable Schools--State-Level Tables; (6) Chapter 6, Instructional Time, Structure, and Settings in SWD-Accountable and Non-SWD-Accountable Schools--State-Level Tables; and (7) Chapter 7, Teacher Collaboration and Professional Development in SWD-Accountable and Non-SWD Accountable Schools--State-Level Tables.

In 2010, the Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts, Institute for Early Learning Through the Arts (Wolf Trap), was awarded a U.S. Department of Education Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination (AEMDD) grant. The purpose of the AEMDD grant was to develop, implement, and disseminate a research-based program of professional development that equips teachers to infuse mathematics instruction with performing arts strategies in their prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms. The professional development program developed by Wolf Trap's project team includes annual summer institutes as well as in-classroom coaching during the school year. In the summer institutes, teaching artists in the disciplines of dance, music, and drama work with teachers in teams to develop standards based performing arts and mathematics experiences. During the school year, teachers and teaching artists work together in partnership, planning and implementing lessons in the classroom-a research-based strategy often called the artist residency model (Burnaford, 2007). American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted a four-year evaluation of the Wolf Trap AEMDD grant project beginning in 2010 when the grant was awarded. The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the implementation of the Wolf Trap professional development program and assess its impact on teacher practice (use of performing arts strategies in particular) and students' mathematics knowledge. This report focuses on program impacts by addressing two research questions: (1) What was the impact of the Wolf Trap professional development on prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers' use of performing arts and mathematics strategies; and (2) To what extent did students in the study treatment schools demonstrate better mathematics knowledge than students in the control schools? Despite the limitations, this study produced promising evidence for the impacts of the Wolf Trap professional development program on both teaching and learning. Appended are: (1) Examples of Arts Integration Routines Observed in Classroom Observations; and (2) Statistical Models for Impact Analyses. [Although a grant number was not provided in this report, the contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. To view a related report "Evaluation of Professional Development in the Use of Arts-Integrated Activities with Mathematics Content: Findings about Program Implementation" see EJ1050560.]

Formerly excluded from measures of educational performance, students with disabilities (SWDs) are now explicitly recognized in federal and state accountability systems. At the national level, the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) laid the foundation for accountability for SWDs by requiring states to include these students in state and district assessments and to report their participation and performance. This requirement was further reinforced by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized in 2001, which established SWDs as an explicit student subgroup for the purpose of determining whether schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP). The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has a congressional mandate to conduct a national assessment of how well the IDEA is achieving its purposes. As part of the national assessment of IDEA, this study is intended to provide policy-relevant information about the education of SWDs by examining their inclusion in school accountability systems and by describing the use of school practices that may relate to educational outcomes for these students. This report presents descriptive information on school-level accountability, AYP performance, and school improvement status of schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance under Title I of the ESEA, as well as schools not accountable for SWD subgroup performance. The association between accountability for this student subgroup and school practices will be examined in a separate study report. Specifically, this study report updates the findings from the interim report for the following research questions: (1) What percentage of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup between the 2006-07 and 2009-10 school years? (2) What percentage of different types of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup? (3) What percentage of schools moved in and out of accountability for the performance of the SWD subgroup? (4) What percentage of schools missed AYP because of the performance of the SWD subgroup? and (5) What percentage of schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance were identified for school improvement? Thirteen tables are appended. (Contains 51 footnotes and 28 exhibits.)

In 2002, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launched the Early College High School Initiative (ECHSI) with the primary goal of increasing the opportunity for underserved students to earn a postsecondary credential. To achieve this goal, Early Colleges provide underserved students with exposure to, and support in, college while they are in high school. Early Colleges partner with colleges and universities to offer all students an opportunity to earn an associate's degree or up to two years of college credits toward a bachelor's degree during high school at no or low cost to the students. The underlying assumption is that engaging underrepresented students in a rigorous high school curriculum tied to the incentive of earning college credit will motivate them and increase their access to additional postsecondary education and credentials after high school. Since 2002, more than 240 Early Colleges have opened nationwide. This study focused on the impact of Early Colleges. It addressed two questions: (1) Do Early College students have better outcomes than they would have had at other high schools?; and (2) Does the impact of Early Colleges vary by student background characteristics (e.g., gender and family income)? To answer these questions, the authors conducted a lottery-based randomized experiment, taking advantage of the fact that some Early Colleges used lotteries in their admissions processes. By comparing the outcomes for students who participated in admissions lotteries and were offered enrollment with the outcomes for students who participated in the lotteries but were not offered enrollment, they can draw causal conclusions about the impact of Early Colleges. The primary student outcomes for this study were high school graduation, college enrollment, and college degree attainment. The authors also examined students' high school and college experiences. Data on student background characteristics and high school outcomes came from administrative records from schools, districts, and states; data on college outcomes came from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC); and data on high school and college experiences and intermediate outcomes such as college credit accrual came from a student survey. The authors assessed the impact of Early Colleges on these outcomes for a sample of 10 Early Colleges that did the following: (1) Enrolled students in grades 9-12 and had high school graduates in the study years (2005-2011); (2) Used lotteries as part of the admission processes in at least one of the study cohorts (students who entered ninth grade in 2005-06, 2006-07, or 2007-08); and (3) Retained the lottery records. Eight of the 10 Early Colleges in the study were included in the student survey. The overall study sample included 2,458 students and the survey sample included 1,294 students. The study extended through three years past high school.

This is the second and final report of the Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study, which examines the impact of providing a professional development (PD) program in rational number topics to seventh-grade mathematics teachers. An interim report (Garet et al. 2010) described the findings after one year of PD. The current report documents the impact after providing a second year of PD in a subset of the original participating districts and includes supplemental analyses that use data from both years of the study. The study produced the following core second-year results: (1) The study's PD program was implemented as intended, but teacher turnover limited the average dosage received; (2) At the end of the second year of implementation, the PD program did not have a statistically significant impact on teacher knowledge; and (3) At the end of the second year of implementation, the PD program did not have a statistically significant impact on average student achievement in rational numbers. (Contains 4 tables, 2 figures and 14 footnotes.) [For "Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings after the Second Year of Implementation. NCEE 2011-4024," see ED519922.]

This report presents findings about teacher quality from two longitudinal studies, 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 research teams for these two studies have collaborated to provide an integrated evaluation of the implementation of key "NCLB" provisions at the state level (SSI-"NCLB") and at the district and school levels (NLS-"NCLB"). Together the two studies are the basis for a series of reports on the topics of accountability, teacher quality, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting and resource allocation. This is the eighth volume in this report series. Based on findings from the two studies, this report describes the progress that states, districts, and schools have made implementing the teacher and paraprofessional qualification provisions of "NCLB" through 2006-07. Reported findings indicate that: (1) Most teachers met their states' requirements to be considered highly qualified under "NCLB"; (2) The percentage of teachers who were not highly qualified under "NCLB" was higher for special education teachers and middle school teachers, and for teachers in high-poverty and high-minority schools; (3) Despite "NCLB" emphasis on sustained, intensive, classroom-focused professional development, a relatively small proportion of teachers reported taking part in content-focused professional development related to teaching reading or mathematics for an extended period of time; and (4) According to state-reported data for 2005-06, 86 percent of Title I instructional paraprofessionals were qualified under "NCLB." The report concludes that, in general, states and districts are working to implement and comply with the "NCLB" requirements for teacher qualifications: States have set guidelines for highly qualified teachers under "NCLB" and have been updating their data systems. According to states, 94 percent of teachers were designated as highly qualified under "NCLB" in 2006-07, and approximately 94 percent of all paraprofessionals reported holding a qualification that would meet the "NCLB" criteria. States and districts are also working to develop strategies designed to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, particularly in traditionally disadvantaged schools. Issues recommended for further investigation include: (1) Variations among state policies concerning highly qualified teachers raise questions about whether some states have set high enough standards for teacher qualifications under "NCLB" to ensure that teachers have a solid understanding of the subjects they teach; (2) Variation in teachers' highly qualified status across types of teachers and schools highlights enduring inequities in access to highly qualified teachers; (3) Because many teachers were not aware or notified of their "NCLB" status, they may not have taken necessary steps to become highly qualified; and (4) The low proportion of teachers participating in content-focused professional development over an extended period of time suggests that more can be done to deepen teachers' content knowledge. Four appendixes are included: (1) Description of NLS-"NCLB" and SSI-"NCLB" Methodologies; (2) Supplemental NLS-"NCLB" Exhibits and Standard Error Reports; (3) Supplemental State Exhibits; and (4) Definition of professional Development in Section 9101(34) of the "ESEA" ["Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965"]. (Contains 87 footnotes and 139 exhibits.)

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.]

Drawing on interviews with 103 policy actors who are active in shaping national reading policy, a study examined the levels of interest groups' perceived influence in the national reading policy arena, and their beliefs on reading instructional approaches. Employing thematic analysis and analysis of variance, the study finds that the interest group community in the national reading policy arena is composed of groups with various levels of perceived influence. The study also reveals that those interest groups and policymakers show stronger support for a balanced approach than they do for phonics--or whole-language-only approaches to reading instruction. The findings from the study suggest that an assessment of various groups' influence is needed in order for policy actors to make sensible judgments when choosing policy allies or building coalitions for policy actions, and that a consensus about how reading should be taught has been emerging, or may already have emerged, in the national reading policy domain. (Contains 4 tables of data and 68 references.) (PM)

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.