Search

The Native American and Alaska Native Children in School (NAM) discretionary grants program aims to reduce the persistent achievement gaps between Native American and Alaska Native (NA/AN) youth and their peers on measures of reading and English language arts (ELA) (NCES 2015) and on measures of college-readiness in reading (ACT 2017). One reason for these achievement gaps is the linguistic needs of many NA/AN students. NA/AN students present a diversity of language profiles that can generally be described as falling under two groups: (1) students whose first language is an NA/AN language and who are learning English as a second language (ESL); and (2) students whose parents or guardians and/or grandparents learned English as a second language but did not fully acquire standard English (Holbrook 2011). NAM funds activities designed to address the needs of NA/AN English learner (EL) students falling under either of these groups to help close reading and ELA achievement gaps and promote their overall academic achievement. These activities include instructional supports and resources for English language development (ELD) and instructional experiences intended to help preserve and revitalize NA/AN languages and cultures. This implementation study sought to examine the primary focus areas of NAM grantees' projects with respect to accomplishing key goals and objectives; the full range of activities, including material resources and services, that grants funded to support NAM program priority areas; the types and roles of partners in supporting NAM-funded activities; how grantees measured progress and outcomes; and grantees' perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and lessons learned associated with planning and implementing grant-funded activities. The study consisted of in-depth case studies of 19 grantee program sites, including eight FY 2011 grant program sites and 11 FY 2013 grant program sites (this 11 included two sites that each received a grant in both FY 2011 and FY 2013, and one that received two different grants in FY 2013). The purpose of this study was to enable policymakers and educators to better understand how NAM grantees used their funds to support activities, including material resources and services to address the unique needs of NA/AN EL students. The data collected for this study provide insight into how the FY 2011 and FY 2013 grantees designed and implemented their projects to meet local needs, including what goals and objectives they identified as the primary focus areas and the full range of activities funded with the grant. The findings from the study deepen understanding of grant implementation, including grantees' reported benefits, challenges, and lessons learned. [For the results in brief, see ED613386.]

This report presents an analysis of relevant research and extant data related to dual language education policies and practices. Dual language education programs are a type of bilingual education program in which students are taught literacy and academic content in English and a partner language. Dual language programs aim to help students develop high levels of language proficiency and literacy in both program languages, attain high levels of academic achievement, and develop an appreciation and understanding of multiple cultures. Recent research suggests that the approach provides more opportunities for English learners (ELs) to reach higher levels of academic achievement than other types of programs. Dual language programs vary in structure, implementation, and enrolled student populations. The main models include: (1) Two-way dual language programs (also known as two-way immersion programs), and (2) One-way dual language programs, in which students from predominantly one language group receive instruction in both English and a partner language. The first chapter of this report describes the historical and federal policy context for dual language programming and the data collection methods used to generate this report. Chapters II through VI then report on data collection and analysis for the areas related to dual language programs: (1) Chapter II: Key features and components of dual language programs, including state issued definitions, requirements, and guidance; (2) Chapter III: State-level and district-level eligibility and EL reclassification criteria; (3) Chapter IV: Standards, assessment, and accountability policies and practices; (4) Chapter V: Teacher qualifications, including certification requirements and professional development for educators; and (5) Chapter VI: State support available for dual language programs, including funding and technical assistance. The report concludes by briefly describing benefits associated with dual language programming; terminology, development, and sustainability challenges; state support for addressing these challenges; and areas for future research.

The Study of School Turnaround is an examination of the implementation of School Improvement Grants (SIG) authorized under Title I section 1003(g) of the "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" and supplemented by the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." "Baseline Analyses of SIG Applications and SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded Schools" uses publicly-available data from State Education Agency (SEA) websites, SEA SIG applications, and the National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data to examine the following: (1) the SIG related policies and practices that states intend to implement, and (2) the characteristics of SIG eligible and SIG awarded schools. This first report provides context on SIG. This baseline report provides an overview of the state policies and practices for SIG implementation as well as a description of the first round of SIG awards made to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and SIG-eligible schools. The report is divided into four sections, organized to mirror the flow of SIG funds as they are disbursed from the federal government to states and then from states to districts and schools. Accordingly, Section 2 provides an overview of the key elements of the SIG program. Section 3 provides an analysis of state SIG applications approved by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), focusing on the definition and identification of SIG-eligible schools, how states determine district capacity and how states are monitoring and supporting SIG implementation. Section 4 reviews descriptive data on the characteristics of SIG-eligible schools identified by states, as well as the characteristics of SIG-awarded schools. Section 5 concludes by synthesizing the key findings from the report. A key finding is that states vary in their planned approach to implementing SIG. Another key finding is that states vary in how they distributed SIG funds to schools. Appended are: Appended are: (A-1) Baseline Data Report--State School Improvement Grant (SIG) Data Capture Elements (from Data Capture Workbook); (B-1) Characteristics of SIG-Eligible Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Eligible Schools Overall and by Poverty Level, Minority Level, and Urbanicity; (B-2) Characteristics of SIG-Eligible Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Eligible Schools by School Level and School Size; (B-3) Characteristics of SIG-Eligible Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Eligible Schools by School Type and Charter School; (C-1) Characteristics of SIG-Awarded Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Awarded Schools Overall and by Tier, Poverty Level, and Minority Level; (C-2) Characteristics of SIG-Awarded Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Awarded Schools by Urbanicity, School Level, and School Size; (C-3) Characteristics of SIG-Awarded Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Awarded Schools by School Type and Charter School; (C-4) Characteristics of SIG-Awarded Schools, by State: Number of SIG-Awarded Schools by Intervention Model. (Contained 32 exhibits and 14 footnotes.)

This is the first year-end report produced as part of the on-going evaluation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Early College High School Initiative. The program provides funding and support for the establishment of Early College High Schools, which are organized to allow all enrolled students the opportunity to earn a high school diploma and two-years of college credit in five years or less and at public expense. These schools also target students from populations underrepresented in higher education. This report provides results from the first two years of the initiative. It is based on surveys, interviews, and site visit data collected during the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 academic years. It includes the first 10 intermediaries funded through this initiative. (Contains 4 tables and 7 figures.)

Maryland participated in the State National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 1996 and 1998 when samples of approximately 2,500 fourth and eighth graders in 100 schools participated in the testing sessions for mathematics (1996) and reading (1998). This report is an initial attempt to return information to Maryland about the relations between the state assessment and State NAEP data. This initial prototype report, versions of which are tailored to individual participating states, contains six sets of tables: (1) correlation of school mean state assessment and NAEP scores; (2) NAEP subscale weights in accounting for state assessment results; (3) differential sensitivity of the two assessments' results to poverty; (4) differential sensitivity of the two assessments' results to minority status; (5) differential sensitivity of the two assessments' results to urbanicity; and (6) percent of NAEP-proficient students in high, medium, and low scoring schools. At the school level, most statewide reading and mathematics assessments have been moderately or highly correlated with NAEP assessments of the same subject matter. NAEP and statewide assessments measure similar achievement gaps between rich and poor schools, and they agree in the finding that in a few states the gaps are noticeably smaller than in other states. This initial report is issued as a prototype because there are many sources of variation in the relations among test scores. Overall, however, the results are encouraging. An appendix contains a list of state assessment measures used in this report. (Contains 16 tables.) (SLD)