Search

The booklet contains procedures from Project CHILD for identifying learning disabled (LD) children with language difficulties. Project CHILD is a research effort to validate identification, intervention, and teacher education programs for use with language handicapped children. The booklet gives descriptions of the two recommended screening tests (LD/Screen-Syllabication) and (LD/Screen-Pupil Behavior), instructions for computation of scores and use of an associated grid to determine degree of handicap by relating scores on both tests. Noted are limitations of the test such as the need for each school district to construct its own set of norms. Included are two forms of the LD/Screen-Syllabication test and the checklist LD/Screen-Pupil Behavior checklist. (DB)

Providing foundational academic support to Indiana's culturally and linguistically diverse students is a cornerstone of the state's educational goals. Over 140,000 Indiana students speak a language other than English at home, and there are over 295 different languages represented in Indiana schools. Of these, over 93,000 students have been formally identified as English learners (ELs) due to developing levels of proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, and writing academic English. ELs comprise roughly 6% of Indiana's total student population, and they are enrolled in schools and districts in every corner of the state. Some EL students are immigrants and refugees, but the vast majority of Indiana's ELs were born in the United States. ELs have rich potential -- culturally, linguistically, and academically. Indiana assessment data shows that students who achieve fluency in English often outperform native-speaking peers on statewide content assessments. Whether a local educational agency (LEA) has one EL or thousands, they are obligated to meet certain federal requirements for their students. This document is designed as a reference for district and school personnel working with ELs as they provide support and guidance throughout their educational journey. This guidance presents a compilation of information, examples, and resources directly for local use.

The Developmental Screening Guidebook is designed as a reference guide on how to best support healthy growth and development of children in your care throughout key developmental intervals and identify children who may benefit from specialized support. Early childhood program staff, service providers, health care systems, families, and communities all play important roles in providing support and services to young children during this critical developmental period. The resources within this guide are intended to help program staff deepen their understanding of how children develop, regardless of their individual needs, and establish a comprehensive early identification system. The following steps that are presented in this guidebook are intended to provide a framework for developing an early identification system so that children are receiving the necessary support to achieve academic success in typical early childhood environments: (1) Understand How Children Develop; (2) Encourage Development Through Daily Routines and Activities; (3) Establish a Developmental Screening, Intervention, and Referral Process; and (4) Support Families in Children's Developmental Progress.

This is the supplement to the report, "Texas Takes on Transfer Grants: Interim Impacts of the Texas Transfer Grant Pilot Program on Student Transfer." The Texas Transfer Grant Pilot Program was created by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to improve the transfer rates of students from two-year to four-year institutions in Texas. The pilot program offered $5,000 grants to community college students who performed well academically, came from low-income backgrounds, and transferred to a public four-year institution. MDRC's evaluation of the program, conducted in partnership with the THECB, used Texas statewide administrative data to identify and randomly assign about 90,000 eligible students. Students were assigned to either a program group (whose members were notified they were eligible to receive the grant for the fall 2022 semester) or a control group (whose members did not receive a Texas Transfer Grant offer but who could seek business-as-usual financial aid resources). Students assigned to the program group were informed of the opportunity to receive a grant via email and hard-copy letters. [For the full report, see ED627375.]

Providing foundational academic support to Indiana's culturally and linguistically diverse students is a cornerstone of the state's educational goals. Over 139,000 Indiana students speak a language other than English at home, and there are over 295 different languages represented in Indiana schools. Of these, over 83,000 students have been formally identified as English learners (ELs) due to limited proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, and writing academic English. ELs comprise roughly 6% of Indiana's total student population, and they are enrolled in schools and districts in every corner of the state. Some EL students are immigrants and refugees, but the vast majority of Indiana's ELs were born in the United States. ELs have rich potential -- culturally, linguistically, and academically. Indiana assessment data shows that students who achieve fluency in English often outperform native-speaking peers on statewide content assessments. Whether a local educational agency (LEA) has one EL or thousands, they are obligated to meet certain federal requirements for their students. This document is designed as a reference for district and school personnel working with ELs as they provide support and guidance throughout their educational journey. This guidance presents a compilation of information, examples, and resources directly for local use. [For the previous edition, see ED623485.]

Over 129,000 Indiana students speak a language other than English at home, and there are over 295 different languages represented in Indiana schools. Of these, over 77,000 students have been formally identified as ELs due to limited proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, and writing academic English. ELs comprise roughly 6% of Indiana's total student population, and they are enrolled in schools and districts in every corner of the state. Some EL students are immigrants and refugees, but the vast majority of Indiana's ELs were born in the United States. ELs have rich potential--culturally, linguistically, and academically. Indiana assessment data shows that students who achieve fluency in English often outperform native-speaking peers on statewide content assessments. Whether a local educational agency (LEA) has one EL or thousands, they are obligated to meet certain federal requirements for their students. This document is designed as a reference for district and school personnel working with ELs as they provide support and guidance throughout their educational journey. This guidance presents a compilation of information, examples, and resources directly for local use. [For the previous edition, see ED607735.]

Whole-school or whole-class programs designed to promote positive behavior can enhance the likelihood that effective teaching and learning occur for all students. This practice guide is intended to help elementary education educators, as well as school and district administrators and parents, implement and support effective prevention-focused strategies that promote positive student behavior and related outcomes. In considering the growing body of research on prevention-focused frameworks to improve students' academic and behavior outcomes, this practice guide focuses on whole-school or whole-class practices to support positive behavior by elementary school students, including students identified as having disabilities or who are at risk of identification for special education services. This protocol guides the systematic review of research that informs recommendations for the guide, "Promoting Social and Behavioral Success for Learning in Elementary Schools: Practice Recommendations for Elementary School Educators, School and District Administrators, and Parents" (ED617775). [For "Promoting Social and Behavioral Success for Learning in Elementary Schools: Introduction to Recommendations," see ED617820.]

Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis is a statistical modeling approach that uses quantitative data to predict future outcomes by generating decision trees. CART analysis can be useful for educators to inform their decision-making. For example, educators can use a decision tree from a CART analysis to identify students who are most likely to benefit from additional support early--in the months and years before problems fully materialize. This guide introduces CART analysis as an approach that allows data analysts to generate actionable analytic results that can inform educators' decisions about the allocation of extra supports for students. Data analysts with intermediate statistical software programming experience can use the guide to learn how to conduct a CART analysis and support research directors in local and state education agencies and other educators in applying the results. Research directors can use the guide to learn how results of CART analyses can inform education decisions.

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the "50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding." It provides details on states' funding for students from low-income backgrounds, such as the funding mechanism, the program name, the student identifier, and the dollar amount. [View the full "50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding" here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]

To support school improvement efforts, school leaders and education agencies might need to identify groups of schools that are similar so that schools can compare their performance or share practices with other schools in the same group. This could also allow education agencies to provide tailored supports to schools in a group. This guide describes how an education agency can select a distance measure (a statistical rather than a geographic measure) to identify schools that are similar to a target school, using a variety of characteristics that enable school leaders to better understand their schools' relative performance. This guide is based on work done with the Nebraska Department of Education and is designed to help staff in other education agencies who are interested in implementing a similar approach to support school improvement.

Charter school authorizing is inherently contextual work, and each charter school authorizer is the expert on their own context and portfolio of schools. This toolkit is a self-guided resource for authorizers to "identify" indicators of distress, "audit" their current data collection methods for evaluating indicators of distress, and "assess" whether and to what extent the schools in their portfolio are showing indicators of distress. It builds on National Charter School Resource Center's (NCSRC's) earlier report "Identifying Indicators of Distress in Charter Schools, Part 1: The Role and Perspective of Charter School Authorizers" (ED609911), released in 2020. By focusing on these research-based indicators of distress, rather than just indicators of failure, charter school authorizers don't have to wait for schools to fall into full organizational failure before acting -- and more students might be saved from the negative impacts of a failing or closed school. [For "Identifying Indicators of Distress in Charter Schools, Part 2: The Roles and Perspectives of Charter School Leaders and Board Members," see ED616211.]

Across the United States, educators and education leaders are increasingly recognizing the value of social and emotional learning (SEL), school climate, and related whole-person efforts as keys to enabling student success. Many school districts are still exploring or just beginning implementation of these whole-person efforts, and many have expressed the desire for exemplars from which they can learn. This guide aims to support state and regional leaders to identify districts or schools with notably positive outcomes in the areas of SEL and school climate, learn about those exemplars' strategies and experiences, and share their learnings in order to scale up whole-person efforts and outcomes. The report is divided into three sections: (1) Part 1: Quantitative Analyses to Identify Potential Exemplars; (2) Part 2: Qualitative Analysis to Verify and Finalize Exemplars; and (3) Next Steps: Communicate and Scale the Exemplars' Success.

Meta-majors refer to the creation of broad program pathways or areas of interest, such as "Allied Health or Business." They are key components of the Guided Pathways efforts that provide students with a more structured and integrated academic experience. There are several different approaches (e.g., sorting exercises) colleges can use to develop their meta-majors. This guide offers colleges an example of how one type of data--curriculum information--can be used to identify potential meta-majors or validate the meta-majors that have already been created. The steps outlined in this guide are part of a multi-faceted approach to ensuring that meta-majors are designed with students in mind.

While the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) plays a role in workforce development, state policymakers actively seek ways beyond WIOA requirements to connect education with workforce development. As states work to align their workforce needs with appropriate education and training, they frequently do so by identifying high-demand occupations and the training necessary to enter the occupations. This comparison identifies states that define high-demand occupations within statute, the process used to identify the occupations and if a state publicly displays these occupations and required training or credentials. [View the full "50-State Comparison: Education and Workforce Development Connections" here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-education-and-workforce-development-connections/.]

During the coronavirus pandemic, schools must find remote ways to continue providing learning and enrichment opportunities for students while also remaining committed to the social and emotional needs of entire school communities. As community members focus on sheltering in place and social distancing, they lose in-person connections and take on added stresses. These changes can greatly increase the need for community care (also known as collective care). Schools are uniquely positioned to help members of their communities, particularly those who may need additional support, to maintain a sense of connectedness and well-being. In this context, this brief, produced by WestEd as part of a collection of Crisis Response Resources, offers practical guidance for educators and school leaders to help them care for their school communities and maintain a sense of connectedness and well-being while coping with the stresses of social isolation, school closures, and changes to how services are provided. The brief includes sections on maintaining community and connectedness for staff, students, and families, and on identifying those most in need of extra support. It also provides some brief "tech tips" for online community building. [This brief was prepared by the Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety at WestEd.]

The population of English learners (ELs) in K-12 schools continues to grow. Between the 2009-10 and 2014-15 school years, the percentage of English learners increased in over half of the states, and in 2017, English learners made up 10.1% of the total student population. Research suggests that in their transition to English, non-native speakers fall behind academically, which can intensify the longer a student remains in an English learner program. State education leaders are mindful of this and have implemented policies to identify, serve and reclassify English learners as they become proficient. This resource provides a national comparison of EL policies in all states. The information in this report was gathered from state statute and regulation only. The information included here captures processes and metrics in statute and/or regulation for the identification of English learners entering the school system. At least 21 states explicitly require the administration of a home language survey in the identification process, while 27 states require the use of an English language proficiency screening assessment for students whose primary or home language is not English. Some states also incorporate additional criteria, including a home interview, a review of a student's academic achievement, and teacher observations and recommendations. [View the full "50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies" here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies.]

Good practice notes offer practical advice and examples of good practice to guide operations in regard to specific, higher education issues. The good practice notes are intended to support and promote the quality assurance approaches of providers. This Good Practice Note identifies examples of good practice in Australian higher education providers in relation to increasing the retention and completion of students in their courses of study. Work undertaken by the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP) in 2017, which included a long time-series analysis of retention in the Australian higher education system, showed that while national retention rates fell between 2011 and 2014, the 2014 rate was similar to the sector rate in 2005. Poor retention has an impact at both the institutional and individual student levels in terms of waste of resources and effort. Students who discontinue undergraduate studies frequently incur student debt. These students often consider that they have gained little benefit from their investment before dropping out. The Australian Government is keen to improve retention and success of higher education students and is interested in the reasons for the difference in retention rates between institutions. Consequently, the Minister for Education, the Hon Dan Tehan, asked the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) to develop this Good Practice Note, which identifies innovative and effective approaches used by those providers showing strong and/or improving retention and completion rates. This Note provides exemplars, which have been identified through an analysis of providers' retention strategies submitted in response to a request from the Minister. An in-depth investigation of the specific strategies used by providers identified through TEQSA's annual risk assessment process as showing improved or high retention over the last five years yielded further exemplars of good practice. The latter have been explored through a structured interview process with the identified providers.

The purpose of this guide is to provide an overview of behavioral progress monitoring and goal setting to inform data-driven decision making within tiered support models and individualized education programs (IEPs). The guide covers: (1) components of quality behavioral IEP goals; (2) how to know which behavior(s) should be addressed through an IEP goal; (3) information about behavior(s) of concern; (4) how to set goals and progress monitor; (5) common challenges and solutions; and (6) additional resources and tools.

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 funding to districts. This document provides information for each state on: at-risk funding for low-income students and funding mechanism, at-risk identifier, at-risk citation, gifted and talented funding and funding mechanism, gifted and talented citation, small size or isolated adjustment and funding mechanism, small size/isolated identifier, and small size/isolated citation. To classify funding mechanisms that appear in state statute or in regulations, Education Commission of the States created definitions for the terms used on this report. These definitions can be found at the link to the full report. [View the full "50-State Comparison: K-12 Funding" here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-funding/.]

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 funding to districts. This document provides information on at-risk funding for low-income students by state, including funding mechanism, at-risk identifier, and at-risk citation. To classify funding mechanisms that appear in state statute or in regulations, Education Commission of the States created definitions for the terms used on this report. These definitions can be found at the link to the full report. [View the full "50-State Comparison: K-12 Funding" here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-funding/.]

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 funding to districts. This document provides information on small size or isolated funding adjustments, including funding mechanism, small size/isolated identifier, and small size/isolated citation. To classify funding mechanisms that appear in state statute or in regulations, Education Commission of the States created definitions for the terms used on this report. These definitions can be found at the link to the full report. [View the full "50-State Comparison: K-12 Funding" here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-funding/.]

This guide from the National Gang Center is designed to provide schools and law enforcement with sound practices and collaborative techniques to identify, assess, and address gang activity in the school setting. [The National Gang Center (NGC) is managed by the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR).]

This document discusses specific learning disabilities identification (SLD ID) determination implications and considerations with distance learning and school reentry due to COVID-19.

There are many available screeners for reading and other education or social-emotional outcomes. This brief outlines important things to consider when choosing and using a screener.

For children with the most severe and persistent academic and/or behavioral challenges, parent and family involvement is vital. Student outcome data suggest that the current educational system does not adequately prepare students with the most intensive needs, particularly students with disabilities, for the world of college and work. Although the performance of some students with disabilities has improved during the past two decades, these students continue to fall behind their peers in reading and math and are more likely to experience discipline problems at school than their peers. The use of intensive intervention is one way that schools can use to improve outcomes for students, including students with disabilities. School teams can use this guide to better understand intensive intervention and how to engage parents and families with the process. The language and examples throughout this guide are summarized versions of more comprehensive content related to intensive intervention and data-based individualization (DBI) available through the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII). This guide includes the following sections: (1) Defining Intensive Intervention and DBI; (2) Supporting Family Engagement Within the DBI Process; and (3) Federal Efforts to Improve Results for Students With Disabilities.

The years between pre-K and third grade are vital for creating the foundation for later school success. The skills students develop at one age level or grade must be built upon and reinforced in later grades. Furthermore, for students to sustain gains made in one grade, they must continue to receive high-quality teaching in subsequent grades. Despite the growing efforts to expand quality pre-Kindergarten opportunities for 4-year olds and to close early achievement gaps, many young children in Louisiana still lack access to a high-quality continuum of learning that could make a difference in positive, long term achievement outcomes. Gaps and disparities in learning exist even as children enter pre-Kindergarten and these persist and grow larger throughout early elementary school. Though both early childhood community networks and school districts across Louisiana are working hard on many fronts to improve the quality of education in pre-K through third grade, challenges remain. These include: (1) Different beliefs about what and how children should learn across the progression; (2) Misaligned curriculum programs or ineffective implementation of quality programs; (3) Disconnected assessment methods (e.g., screening and progress monitoring); (4) Conflicting goals and priorities for professional development; (5) Inconsistent use of teacher observation systems; and (6) Lack of family engagement and awareness of support services available for children and families. To eliminate these barriers, a seamless support system for early learning needs to be built - one that prepares all children to achieve mastery in reading and math in third grade and beyond. The purpose of this document is to provide site and system leaders with information and guidance on creating strong plans for their schools that ensure quality and continuity of proven practices across pre-K through third grade so children and families experience smooth and effective transitions, thrive in the early elementary years, and achieve mastery in reading and math in third grade and beyond.

This report is a compendium of best practices for assisting low-income students. It highlights work that has been underway for years but has not always been implemented at scale, especially within institutions that enroll significant numbers of low-income students. This toolkit offers leaders five concrete strategies they can use in two ways to increase student success: (1) it can help determine how, and how well, their institutions are serving low-income students; and (2) it can help them devise and implement plans to improve, expand and better coordinate services for greater impact. The report is divided in three sections: (1) Five Strategies to Increase the Success of Low-Income Students; (2) BFA Institutional Self-Assessment Guide; and (3) BFA Implementation Guide. Two appendices are included.

A growing body of research offers evidence that high-ability students from lower-income families are far less likely than wealthier students to be identified for advanced level course work and opportunities. They are also less likely to achieve at high levels, despite their aptitude. Lacking access to the enriched academic opportunities, differentiated learning, and counseling afforded to wealthier students, high-ability, low-income children are becoming what one team of researchers has termed a "persistent talent underclass"--underserved and therefore prevented from fully developing their talents. This report examines which states have implemented policy changes that can help close excellence gaps. More importantly, the authors identify those states in which they see improved participation and achievement for high-ability, low-income students. The goal for this research is to illustrate the excellence gap using indicators that are readily available, easily understood, and comprehensive. The authors seek to provide clear guidance to states on how they may better support advanced learning for all students, by implementing policies to ensure that all high-ability students--including those from low-income backgrounds--have the support they require in order to develop their talents. [For the executive summary to this report "Equal Talents, Unequal Opportunities: A Report Card on State Support for Academically Talented Low-Income Students. 2nd Edition. Executive Summary," see ED589037. For the first edition of this report "Equal Talents, Unequal Opportunities: A Report Card on State Support for Academically Talented Low-Income Students," see ED569953.]

Most state departments of education across the United States recommend or require that districts use a home language survey as the first step in a multistep process of identifying students who qualify for English learner student services. School districts typically administer the home language survey to parents and guardians during a student's first enrollment in a school or district to determine whether the student speaks a language other than English or whether parents or guardians speak a language other than English to the student in the home. Parents, educators, and the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights have raised concerns that existing home language surveys may not reveal accurate information about students' language skills or exposure to English language and literacy because of inconsistency in administering these surveys, among other reasons. Therefore, the home language survey may contribute to the misidentification of English learner students. Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands, in partnership with the English Language Learners Alliance, developed the Home Language Survey Data Quality Self-Assessment to help state departments of education and school districts improve the quality of data collected through home language surveys and improve the identification of potential English learner students. The 44-item self-assessment is designed for state leaders who coordinate district programs to support students' English language acquisition and achievement, as well as for district leaders who oversee the process of identifying English learner students in schools. The self-assessment is designed to be used by state staff to gather information from district English learner program coordinators on four areas that affect the quality of data collected through home language surveys: purposes, policies, and guidelines about home language survey administration; data collection practices; personnel support; and data management. The self-assessment also prompts district staff to self-assess key practices in home language survey development and administration to improve high-quality data collection at the local level. This report presents the Home Language Survey Data Quality Self-Assessment, along with instructions on how to administer it, and describes how to engage stakeholders--including state departments of education, district English learner program coordinators, school English learner specialists, parents, student enrollment/registration staff, and data managers--in analyzing and interpreting its results. Reflecting on the results at both the state and district levels can inform decisions that could contribute to more accurate data on English learner students and more accurate resource allocations for districts. The following are appended: (1) Developing the Home Language Survey Data Quality Self-Assessment; (2) The data quality framework; (3) How items in the Home Language Survey Data Quality Self-Assessment align with the data quality framework; and (4) Workshop protocol: Working with the results of the Home Language Survey Data Quality Self-Assessment.

This guide offers information that can help parents raise drug-free children. Parents may read it from front to back like a book, or pick a topic from the Table of Contents and go directly to that page. This guide includes: (1) An overview of substance use among young people, with a special focus on how it affects academic performance; (2) Descriptions of some substances young people use; (3) A look at risk factors that may make kids more vulnerable to trying and using alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs, and protective factors to offset those risks; (4) Suggestions for how to talk to children about alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, regardless of their age; and (5) Tips on what to do if a parents suspects their child is using alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Section 6 of this guide lists places where parents can find more information about drug and alcohol abuse prevention. In Section 2, parents can learn about specific substances.

Although high school graduation rates continue to rise in the United States, reaching 81 percent in the 2012-2013 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2015), dropout remains a pervasive issue for education systems across the nation. In recent years, Early Warning Systems (EWS), which utilize administrative data to identify students at risk of dropout and help target interventions to help students graduate, have become increasingly popular among districts. At its core, an EWS can provide direction for teams of education administrators, researchers, counselors, parents and community members working together to help students stay in school. For districts without an EWS in place, this guide is intended to focus conversations and decisions about whether the district is ready for an EWS and when and how to proceed with EWS implementation if the district is ready. This discussion guide will help readers assess the degree to which each of four readiness signs exist within their districts and data systems. If these signs are present, districts may be wellpositioned to successfully implement an EWS. Otherwise, completing the guide can help readers identify additional information and next steps their districts can take to enhance their readiness. The guide is designed to be flexible and accommodate districts of varying size and structure, but may be most useful to small- or mid-sized districts that have not had an EWS in the past and are exploring whether or not to implement an EWS to address a dropout problem. EWS teams can be composed of stakeholders from the district or school level, or a combination of both, and can include district administrators, researchers, information technology staff, counselors, students, parents, and community representatives, depending on the needs of the district, school, or community. Whatever the composition of the group, there should be a core EWS team that includes key decisionmakers who are committed to taking part in each discussion in this guide. The guide provides a framework for facilitating four discussions--one for each of the four EWS readiness signs. For each discussion there is a one to two-page handout (pages 6-13) that includes references to recommended readings and a series of guiding questions that will be used to guide the discussion. At the end of each discussion, participants are asked to rate their confidence as a group that the "readiness sign" is present within the district and list the key conclusions from their discussion that justify their rating. There is no established "cut point" on this confidence scale that the district must meet in order to be deemed "ready." Instead, these ratings are designed to provide a quick snapshot of district readiness in that area to inform decisionmaking.

Students who are deaf-blind have absent, partial, or distorted vision and hearing. Deaf-blindness severely limits access to visual and auditory information that forms the basis for learning and communication and creates challenges for educational systems mandated to provide free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Intervener services are a way to meet the challenge of providing students who are deaf-blind with access to information they are unable to gather via vision and hearing and to help them compensate for the difficulties with communication and concept development that occur as a result of sensory deprivation. The purpose of this discussion guide is to help IEP teams make informed decisions about whether intervener services are appropriate for a particular student. [This guide was developed by Deaf-Blind Network Partners and National Center on Deaf-Blindness staff.]

This manual details the instructional framework and guidance on the Response to Intervention (RtI) process in New Mexico. The manual includes: (1) a section on each of the three instructional tiers; (2) a glossary of key terms; (3) sample forms to assist with the Student Assistance Team (SAT) process; and (4) key resources for teachers.

The purpose of this guide is to provide information on how to use early warning data, including the Massachusetts Early Warning Indicator System (EWIS), to identify, diagnose, support and monitor students in grades 1-12. It offers educators an overview of EWIS and how to effectively use these data in conjunction with local data by following a six-step implementation cycle. Because no two districts, schools, or students are alike, the guide was purposely developed this as a flexible tool to help educators customize their use of EWIS to fit their individual needs, interests, and resources. It is the hope that this guide will help educators with the important work that they do every day in their classrooms, schools, and districts. The following are appended: (1) The Development of the Massachusetts EWIS Model; (2) Accessing EWIS Data and Reports in Edwin; (3) Sample Early Warning Implementation Timeline; and (4) Targeted and Schoolwide Intervention Resources.

Bullying is one type of violence that threatens a youth's well-being in schools and neighborhoods. The impacts of bullying are felt by individuals, families, schools, and society and may result in youths feeling powerless, intimidated, and humiliated by the aggressive acts of other youth(s). This document is designed as a tool to help organizations, researchers, evaluators, community groups, educators, and public health officials define and gather systematic data on bullying to better inform research and prevention efforts. It is intended to improve the consistency and comparability of data collected on bullying. Current efforts to characterize bullying vary considerably. The lack of a uniform definition hinders the ability to understand the true magnitude, scope, and impact of bullying and track trends over time. Consistent terminology with standardized definitions is necessary to improve public health surveillance of bullying and inform efforts to address bullying. The current definition applies to bullying that occurs between peers and excludes abuse perpetrated by adults against children or youths. It also excludes family violence and violence that occurs within the context of an intimate or dating relationship. These different forms of violence (e.g., child maltreatment, sibling violence, teen dating violence, intimate partner violence, elder maltreatment) can include aggression that is physical, sexual, or psychological (e.g., verbal, belittling, isolating, coercive). However, the context and uniquely dynamic nature of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator in which these acts occur is different from that of peer violence. This document is divided into four sections, the first of which provides background on the problem, including what is presently known about the public health burden of bullying and the need for a uniform definition of bullying. The uniform definition and description of key terms is presented next followed by considerations to keep in mind when gathering data on bullying. The last section provides a list of recommended data elements designed to assist individuals collecting information on bullying and to serve as a technical reference for the collection of surveillance data. The data elements are grouped into "core" and "expanded" data elements. Core elements are those which are recommended for inclusion in data collection systems in order to track the magnitude, scope, and characteristics of the bullying problem and to identify groups at high risk for being bullied. Expanded data elements are included to support users who may wish to collect other important contextual information about bullying (i.e., witnesses' responses to bullying) depending on community needs, interests, and the feasibility of gathering additional data. A large number of expanded data elements are provided with the expectation that the vast majority of users will only use a subset of them. The appendix contains "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment PPRA". Additional References are provided with some tables.

A due process complaint is a written document used to request a due process hearing related to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child. This publication describes Due Process Complaints/Hearing Requests generally for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The following topics are covered in this guide: (1) What Is A Due Process Complaint/Hearing Request?; (2) What Happens After I Request A Due Process Hearing?; (3) Questions About Due Process Complaints/Hearing Requests; (4) Questions About Due Process Hearings; (5) Considerations About Due Process Complaints/Hearings; (6) What Happens After I File An Expedited Hearing Request?; (7) Questions About Expedited Due Process Hearings; and (8) Sources Of Important Information.

The purpose of "Branding your Post-School Outcomes Data Collection Process" is to help state education agencies create brand recognition with youths, families, and school personnel for the post-school outcomes survey. Recognition--paired with information about the survey purpose, who is conducting the interview, and how the information will be used--contributes to response rates that better represent youths who exited school. Presented here are the following: (1) Steps for branding your post-school outcomes survey; (2) A sample letter and flyer for youths exiting high school telling them about the survey and that they may be contacted in one year; (3) A sample letter for youths exiting high school telling them about the survey and that they may be contacted in one year; (4) A sample prenotification postcard to be delivered (i.e., mailed or e-mailed) one to two weeks prior to the survey being administered; (5) Directions for accessing templates for each item that can be personalized for your state or district; and (6) Instructions for using the templates to personalize each of these items for your state or district

Problem/Condition: Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are a group of developmental disabilities characterized by impairments in social interaction and communication and by restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior. Symptoms typically are apparent before age 3 years. The complex nature of these disorders, coupled with a lack of biologic markers for diagnosis and changes in clinical definitions over time, creates challenges in monitoring the prevalence of ASDs. Accurate reporting of data is essential to understand the prevalence of ASDs in the population and can help direct research. Period Covered: 2008. Description of System: The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network is an active surveillance system that estimates the prevalence of ASDs and describes other characteristics among children aged 8 years whose parents or guardians reside within 14 ADDM sites in the United States. ADDM does not rely on professional or family reporting of an existing ASD diagnosis or classification to ascertain case status. Instead, information is obtained from children's evaluation records to determine the presence of ASD symptoms at any time from birth through the end of the year when the child reaches age 8 years. ADDM focuses on children aged 8 years because a baseline study conducted by CDC demonstrated that this is the age of identified peak prevalence. A child is included as meeting the surveillance case definition for an ASD if he or she displays behaviors (as described on a comprehensive evaluation completed by a qualified professional) consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnostic criteria for any of the following conditions: Autistic Disorder; Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS, including Atypical Autism); or Asperger Disorder. The first phase of the ADDM methodology involves screening and abstraction of comprehensive evaluations completed by professional providers at multiple data sources in the community. Multiple data sources are included, ranging from general pediatric health clinics to specialized programs for children with developmental disabilities. In addition, many ADDM sites also review and abstract records of children receiving special education services in public schools. In the second phase of the study, all abstracted evaluations are reviewed by trained clinicians to determine ASD case status. Because the case definition and surveillance methods have remained consistent across all ADDM surveillance years to date, comparisons to results for earlier surveillance years can be made. This report provides updated ASD prevalence estimates from the 2008 surveillance year, representing 14 ADDM areas in the United States. In addition to prevalence estimates, characteristics of the population of children with ASDs are described, as well as detailed comparisons of the 2008 surveillance year findings with those for the 2002 and 2006 surveillance years. Results: For 2008, the overall estimated prevalence of ASDs among the 14 ADDM sites was 11.3 per 1,000 (one in 88) children aged 8 years who were living in these communities during 2008. Overall ASD prevalence estimates varied widely across all sites (range: 4.8-21.2 per 1,000 children aged 8 years). ASD prevalence estimates also varied widely by sex and by racial/ethnic group. Approximately one in 54 boys and one in 252 girls living in the ADDM Network communities were identified as having ASDs. Comparison of 2008 findings with those for earlier surveillance years indicated an increase in estimated ASD prevalence of 23% when the 2008 data were compared with the data for 2006 (from 9.0 per 1,000 children aged 8 years in 2006 to 11.0 in 2008 for the 11 sites that provided data for both surveillance years) and an estimated increase of 78% when the 2008 data were compared with the data for 2002 (from 6.4 per 1,000 children aged 8 years in 2002 to 11.4 in 2008 for the 13 sites that provided data for both surveillance years). Because the ADDM Network sites do not make up a nationally representative sample, these combined prevalence estimates should not be generalized to the United States as a whole. Interpretation: These data confirm that the estimated prevalence of ASDs identified in the ADDM network surveillance populations continues to increase. The extent to which these increases reflect better case ascertainment as a result of increases in awareness and access to services or true increases in prevalence of ASD symptoms is not known. ASDs continue to be an important public health concern in the United States, underscoring the need for continued resources to identify potential risk factors and to provide essential supports for persons with ASDs and their families. Public Health Action: Given substantial increases in ASD prevalence estimates over a relatively short period, overall and within various subgroups of the population, continued monitoring is needed to quantify and understand these patterns. With 5 biennial surveillance years completed in the past decade, the ADDM Network continues to monitor prevalence and characteristics of ASDs and other developmental disabilities for the 2010 surveillance year. Further work is needed to evaluate multiple factors contributing to increases in estimated ASD prevalence over time. ADDM Network investigators continue to explore these factors, with a focus on understanding disparities in the identification of ASDs among certain subgroups and on how these disparities have contributed to changes in the estimated prevalence of ASDs. CDC is partnering with other federal and private partners in a coordinated response to identify risk factors for ASDs and to meet the needs of persons with ASDs and their families. (Contains 5 tables and 4 figures.)

It is well-established that language skills are amongst the best predictors of educational success. Consistent with this, findings from a population-based longitudinal study of parents and children in the UK indicate that language development at the age of two years predicts children's performance on entering primary school. Moreover, children who enter school with poorly developed speech and language are at risk of literacy difficulties and educational underachievement is common in such children. Whatever the origin of children's problems with language and communication, the poor educational attainment of children with language learning difficulties is an important concern for educational policy. This research addressed the question of whether teacher assessment and monitoring could be used to identify children with language difficulties in need of early interventions. The findings have important implications for Government proposals for implementing the recommendations of the Tickell Review of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), in particular the proposals for a simplified framework and assessment process. The Government undertook a consultation on the Tickell Review which ended 30 September 2011. Key findings include: (1) Teachers, when appropriately trained, can make valid judgments of children's development in language and literacy when guided by a well validated, reliable measure; (2) Teachers can accurately monitor their pupils' progress in key reading skills without the need for formal tests; and (3) These findings make it clear that a reduced EYFS Profile (EYFSP) could be used to support monitoring and early identification of difficulties with language and communication. Appended are: (1) Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (2008-11); and (2) Items from EYFSP Scales which loaded on the validated constructs. (Contains 11 tables, 6 figures and 20 footnotes.) [For "Better Communication Research Project: Language and Literacy Attainment of Pupils during Early Years and through KS2--Does Teacher Assessment at Five Provide a Valid Measure of Children's Current and Future Educational Attainments? Research Brief. DFE-RB172a," see ED526910.]

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), federal legislation specifically focused on the education of children with disabilities. Section 664(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 requires that the Secretary of Education delegate to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) responsibility for conducting an assessment of national activities under the law, known as the National Assessment of IDEA. The goals of the National Assessment of IDEA are: to determine the effectiveness of IDEA in achieving its purposes; to provide timely information to the President, Congress, the States, local educational agencies and the public on how to implement this title more effectively; and to provide the President and Congress with information that will be useful in developing legislation to achieve the purposes of this title more effectively. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act National Assessment Implementation Study (IDEA-NAIS) is one study of the implementation of IDEA programs that contributes to the overall National Assessment of IDEA. IES initiated a design study advised by practitioners, researchers and evaluation experts to develop research questions and approaches to address the goals for the National Assessment of IDEA (Fiore et al. 2007). The design study prioritized areas for inclusion in the IDEA-NAIS. Ultimately, IES identified four focal areas: services to young children with disabilities; identification of children and youth with disabilities; efforts to promote positive developmental and educational outcomes for children and youth with disabilities; and dispute resolution. The IDEA-NAIS collected information to answer four broad research questions: (1) What are the IDEA Part C early intervention service delivery models for infants and toddlers and how are IDEA Part C programs coordinated with IDEA Part B special education programs for preschool-age children, specifically in the support of children who may transition across programs?; (2) How are state agencies and school districts implementing the IDEA provisions to prevent inappropriate identification?; (3) How are state early intervention agencies, state educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) implementing measures to improve child and youth outcomes through developmental and academic standards and qualified staff?; and (4) To what extent do state agencies and school districts engage in dispute resolution with parents and guardians, and how has the incidence of disputes changed since the 2003-2004 school year? Within each area, the IDEA-NAIS focuses on the implementation of select provisions of IDEA that were introduced or revised in the 2004 reauthorization of the law and complements the work of the other National Assessment of IDEA studies. The IDEA-NAIS also examines key IDEA provisions that were introduced prior to the 2004 authorization but were not included in earlier national studies. This report presents key findings of the IDEA-NAIS related to each of the four research questions. Appended are: (1) Technical Appendix; (2) Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 1; (3) Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 2; (4) Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 3; (5) Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 4; (6) The Congruence among Different Data Sources on the Incidence of Dispute Resolution Events; and (7) Supplemental Exhibits for Chapter 5. (Contains 260 exhibits and 51 footnotes.) [For "National Assessment of IDEA Overview. NCEE 2011-4026," see ED522068.]

"Stuck Schools Revisited: Beneath the Averages" shows why a national focus on turning around the lowest performing schools, while needed, is not enough to raise achievement and close gaps. The report analyzes student achievement data from Maryland and Indiana, which reflect the outcomes seen in other states. The results confirm a troubling pattern: Some schools that rank as "high performing" overall are leaving certain subgroups of students behind. Appended are: (1) Methodology; and (2) Additional Subgroup Data. (Contains 37 figures and 8 notes.)

The Early Warning System (EWS) Tool v2.0 is a Microsoft Excel-based tool developed by the National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research in collaboration with Matrix Knowledge Group. The tool enables schools, districts, and states to identify students who may be at risk of dropping out of high school and to monitor these students' responses to interventions. The intended purpose is to support students with an increased risk of disengagement, in order to get them back on track for graduation. This technical manual provides basic information about how to use the EWS Tool v2.0. Appended are: (1) Import Data Templates; (2) Backing Up Data; and (3) Custom Report Field Definitions. (Contains 4 tables, 10 endnotes and 29 exhibits.) [For related report, "Early Warning System Implementation Guide: For Use with the National High School Center's Early Warning System Tool v2.0," see ED521686.]

This "Integrated Pest Management Toolkit for Early Care and Education Programs" presents practical information about using integrated pest management (IPM) to prevent and manage pest problems in early care and education programs. This curriculum will help people in early care and education programs learn how to keep pests out of early care and education (ECE) facilities and reduce the use of pesticides by adopting integrated pest management (IPM). The curriculum will explain what IPM is and how to start an IPM program in one's ECE facility. The Healthy schools act, a California law that was extended to child care centers in 2007, encourages ECE centers to use IPM and requires all California child care centers to keep records and notify parents if certain pesticides are used. When there are pests in an ECE facility, many people try to get rid of them as quickly as possible by using pesticides; for instance, spraying pesticides in the building and outdoor areas to get rid of ants. However, pesticides may cause harm to children, staff and the environment. the harm caused by pesticides may be worse than the harm caused by the pests. More than one billion pounds of pesticides are used every year in the U.S. In California almost half are used in urban and residential areas, and pesticide residues can be found where people work, live and go to school. Some of the health effects caused by pesticides may include: (1) Immediate illness, such as poisoning, asthma and flu-like symptoms; and (2) Long-term developmental and health problems in children, and health problems in ECE staff. This curriculum will help early care staff create a healthy and safe ECE environment and provide information on: (1) The California Healthy Schools Act; (2) Why children are at higher risk for pesticide exposure and poisoning; and (3) How to use IPM to: (a) keep pests out; (b) manage pest problems; (c) use least-harmful practices; and (d) eliminate use of the most toxic pesticides. Appended are: (1) Forms; and (2) List of Toolkit's Complementary Materials. A glossary is included. (Contains 4 footnotes and 27 resources.) [This curriculum was co-developed by UC Berkeley's Center for Children's Environmental Health Research, UC Statewide IPM Program, and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through a grant awarded by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). Contributors include Vickie Leonard, Asa Bradman, Mary Louise Flint, Nita Davidson, Mark Robertson, Abbey Alkon, Devina Kuo, Evie Kalmar, Casey Palmer, and Anna Schwarzbach.]

The year 2011 was no ordinary year for teacher policy. In fact, it was a year like no other chronicled by the National Council on Teacher Quality's (NCTQ) "State Teacher Policy Yearbook". This fifth annual edition of the Yearbook documents more changes in state teacher policy than NCTQ has seen in any of its previous top-to-bottom reviews of the laws and regulations governing the teaching profession in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In this report and in the 51 companion state volumes, NCTQ once again presents the most detailed analysis available of each state's performance against and progress toward a set of 36 specific, research-based teacher policy goals aimed at helping states build a comprehensive policy framework in support of teacher effectiveness. The 2011 "State Teacher Policy Yearbook" is a full encyclopedia of teacher policy in the United States, totaling more than 8,000 pages of analysis and recommendations in individualized state reports. States receive an overall grade for their teacher quality policies based on five "sub-grades" in each of five core organizing goal areas: 1) Delivering well-prepared teachers, 2) Expanding the pool of teachers, 3) Identifying effective teachers, 4) Retaining effective teachers and 5) Exiting ineffective teachers. The state grades, along with detailed analyses of state progress goal-by-goal, give readers a clear picture of state efforts to ensure an effective teacher in every classroom through the policies they set for teacher preparation, licensure, evaluation, career advancement, tenure, compensation, pensions and dismissal. Key findings include: (1) New state policies for identifying effective teachers and exiting ineffective ones contributed to the highest "Yearbook" grades NCTQ has given to date. Florida, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Tennessee lead the nation on teacher quality policy; (2) But dramatic progress isn't the only story of 2011. Many states still have a long way to go, including some states that made no teacher policy progress at all; (3) There has been a sea of change in teacher evaluations, with unprecedented efforts across the states to adopt policies that use student achievement as a significant criterion in measuring teacher effectiveness; (4) A new era in teaching has begun in which performance evaluation will no longer be regarded as simply a formality and teacher effectiveness in the classroom will become a matter of consequence; (5) States still have a long way to go to harness the potentially rich information that evaluations of teacher effectiveness can provide and to use it for a host of policies that could improve teaching practice; (6) The "Yearbook" includes numerous teacher policy goals that would be furthered a great deal if coupled with state efforts to measure teacher effectiveness; (7) While states have made progress on evaluating the effectiveness of their existing teacher workforce, they've done much less to ensure the quality of teachers entering the profession; (8) New NCTQ "Yearbook" goals on secondary teacher preparation in science and social studies show a striking willingness on the part of states to ignore the need for specific content knowledge; (9) At the middle school level, many states fail to ensure that teachers are prepared to teach appropriate grade level content; (10) While some states are doing more to hold teacher preparation institutions accountable for the effectiveness of the teachers they produce, most states do almost nothing; and (11) The financial health of state teacher pension systems is a dramatic area of policy decline and a growing crisis that has serious consequences for attracting and keeping effective teachers in the profession. (Contains 153 figures.)

Researchers, educators, and policymakers are focusing more on student engagement as the key to addressing low achievement, student boredom and alienation, and high dropout rates (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004). As schools and districts seek to increase engagement, it is important for them to understand how it has been defined and to assess the options for measuring it. One challenge educators and evaluators face in measuring engagement is determining the appropriateness of the available instruments, especially given limited time to review the literature. Instruments for measuring engagement also reflect different disciplinary perspectives and theoretical frameworks and are thus not easily compared. To address the information needs of education professionals, this report describes the 21 instruments for measuring engagement in upper elementary through high school identified through a literature review. The report does not include a technical review of the quality of each measure, nor does it recommend or identify strengths or weaknesses of particular instruments. Appendices include: (1) Instrument abstracts; (2) Methodology; and (3) Student self-report subscale information. Some tables contain references. Includes a section containing 38 general references, followed by "References for Excluded Instruments." (Contains 2 boxes, 33 tables, 1 figure and 3 notes.) [For the summary report, see ED514997.]

Progress monitoring focuses on individualized decision making in general and special education with respect to academic skill development at the elementary grades. Progress monitoring is conducted frequently (at least monthly) and is designed to: (1) Estimate rates of improvement; (2) Identify students who are not demonstrating adequate progress and therefore require additional or alternative forms of instruction; and/or; and (3) Compare the efficacy of different forms of instruction and thereby design more effective, individualized instructional programs for problem learners. In this manual, the authors discuss one form of progress monitoring: Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM). CBM provides teachers with an easy and quick method of obtaining empirical information on the progress of their students. With frequently obtained student data, teachers can analyze student scores to adjust student goals and revise their instructional programs. That way, instruction can be tailored to best fit the needs of each student. Research has demonstrated that when teachers use CBM to inform their instructional decision making, students learn more, teacher decision making improves, and students are more aware of their own performance. Included is an annotated bibliography of selected CBM articles. Appendices include: (1) CBM Materials; and (2) Resources. (Contains 59 figures and 54 resources.)

This study investigates the successes of the charter and district sectors in eliminating bad schools via dramatic turnarounds in performance and/or shutdowns. It identified 2,025 low-performing charter and district schools across ten states, each of which is home to a sizable number of charter schools. These particular schools were tracked from 2003-04 through 2008-09 to determine how many turned around, shut down, or remained low-performing. What did results show? A dismal state of affairs. In all ten states, the charter sector has done a slightly better job of eliminating low-performing schools, but neither sector has cause for celebration. Seventy-two percent of the original low-performing charter schools remained in operation, and remained low-performing, five years later, compared with 80 percent of district schools. Few low-performing schools in either sector--barely 1 percent--managed to dramatically improve their academic performance over this five-year period, and fewer than 10 percent made even moderate gains. Charter schools were not statistically more or less likely to turn around than their district peers. To the extent that this study yields any good news, it is this (and it is modest): In all ten states, low-performing charter schools were likelier to close than were low-performing district schools. Nineteen percent of weak charters were shuttered, versus 11 percent of district low performers. And in both sectors, the majority of schools that closed were lower-performing than their neighboring schools; thus, students leaving closed schools had better academic options nearby. The author concludes that it is easier to close a low-performing school than to turn one around. Rather than pushing dubious turnaround efforts, charter authorizers and education policy makers alike should ramp up their efforts to close bad schools, particularly in cases where higher-performing schools are nearby. (Individual parts contain tables, figures and references.)

This Early Warning System (EWS) Implementation Guide is a supporting document for schools and districts that are implementing the National High School Center's Early Warning System (EWS) Tool v2.0. Developed by the National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research (AIR), the guide and tool support the establishment and implementation of an early warning system for identifying and monitoring students who are at risk of dropping out of high school. This Implementation Guide is designed to build the capacity of school- and district-level practitioners to analyze data from the EWS Tool v2.0. The aim of the guide and the tool is to support school and district efforts to systematically identify students who are showing signs that they are at risk of dropping out of high school, match these students to interventions to get them back on track for graduation, and monitor students' progress in those interventions. The guide describes an implementation process that draws on the research on data-driven decision making. The process has seven steps: (1) Establish roles and responsibilities; (2) Use the EWS Tool v2.0; (3) Review the EWS data; (4) Interpret the EWS data; (5) Assign and provide interventions; (6) Monitor students and interventions; and (7) Evaluate and refine the EWS process. The guide is organized so that each of the seven steps constitutes a section of the guide. Appended are: (1) EWS Action Planning Tool; and (2) Dropout Prevention Intervention Mapping. (Contains 2 tables, 4 figures and 11 endnotes.) [For "National High School Center Early Warning System Tool v2.0: Technical Manual," see ED521687.]

With the focus of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on struggling schools and reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) on the horizon, now is the time to have an honest conversation about what people know--and don't know--about school-level trends. To spur this conversation and to help state and local leaders think about how to look at their own data, The Education Trust will publish a series of papers that analyze school performance and improvement. In this paper, the first in the series, the authors look at trends in overall performance and improvement over time. They examine data from two of the ten states they looked at to explore the following questions: What did performance look like several years ago? How big were the annual gains at high-improving schools? How about at low-improving ones? Among the lowest performing schools, how many remained stuck, how many made extraordinary gains, and how many fell somewhere in between? The authors find that some schools that started out low-performing are making substantial progress. Their gains aren't always consistent from year to year, but proficiency rates at these schools are clearly and substantially improving. Most of these schools still aren't performing as well as they should, but students and educators would benefit if state and district leaders figured out what these schools are doing right and scaled up practices that are likely to lead to meaningful gains in learning. Two appendices are included. (Contains 40 figures, 4 tables and 5 notes.)

There are many factors which might cause a student to drop out of a course of study; some of these are preventable. This paper describes the piloting of a survey tool designed to identify students at risk of not completing. Attendance was found to be the strongest predictor of module completion; low or declining scores on the survey were also predictive of students dropping out. The research for this paper was undertaken by a novice researcher in the Community of Practice Scholarship Program, which is funded through National Centre for Vocational Education Research's (NCVER's) Building Researcher Capacity initiative. Appended are: (1) Defining completion; (2) Surveys; (3) Comments from student surveys; and (4) Correlation values--survey scores (all measures). (Contains 5 tables, 7 figures, and 6 footnotes.)