Search

Due to low success of traditional, postsecondary remediation mathematics, The Maryland Mathematics Reform Initiative First in the World Grant (MMRI-FITW) sought to develop and implement a statistics pathway as an alternative to traditional algebra-based math, to accelerate developmental mathematics students' progress into credit-bearing postsecondary mathematics courses. In this study, we use cost to students and cost to institutions to estimate the cost per student and assess the cost-effectiveness of MMRI-FITW statistics-based vs. traditional algebra-based approach to developmental mathematics education for increasing student enrollment in college credit-bearing mathematics. The results indicate participating in the MMRI-FITW statistics-based vs. traditional algebra-based approach, reduces education costs by approximately 7 percent and is 36 percent more cost-effective for increasing student enrollment in college-credit mathematics. The article concludes with the implications of the cost-effectiveness results for scaling the MMRI-FITW statistics-based approach to developmental mathematics education.

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to compare the effects of new developmental statistics-based courses to traditional algebra-based developmental courses. The study used extant data from eight institutions and a matched sample of 2,041 students (Treatment, N = 748; Comparison, N = 1,293). All students enrolled in a treatment or comparison course in the 2017-18 school year and had not declared science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) majors. After adjusting for covariates, evidence was found that treatment courses positively influenced whether students passed developmental math ([beta]= 0.083, p<0.001). Seventy-seven percent of treatment students passed developmental math compared to sixty-nine percent of comparison students who did. Treatment students were also more likely to enroll in a subsequent credit-bearing math course than comparison students ([beta]= 0.141, p<0.001). Forty-nine percent of treatment students enrolled in credit-bearing math, relative to 34 percent of comparison students who did. Once enrolled in a credit-bearing math course, treatment students successfully passed at similar rate as comparison students (p=0.601). Taking the treatment or comparison course did not significantly predict whether students remained continuously enrolled and/or graduated during the study (p=0.711). The study concluded that the treatment courses facilitated students' ability to pass developmental math and enroll in credit-bearing math courses.

The objective of this study was to examine the construct validity and bias of a child health interview (CHI) instrument to assess young children's food and activity preferences. A quantitative study examining the construct validity and bias of a young child health interview instrument using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multi-group CFA examining whether the measurement model of the instrument is equivalent (or invariant) across different child age groups. We collected child interview data from 783 children (3-year-olds = 307; and 4-year-olds = 476) across 20 childcare sites in North Carolina during fall 2017 and spring 2018. To assess the factorial validity of the survey for children of different ages, we conducted group-specific CFAs using the 3- and 4-year-olds' responses and conducted a multi-group CFA. The model fit indices indicate the hypothesized structure of the model fits the data well and subscale factor loadings are significantly related to each of their respective domains. The multi-group analysis demonstrates configural and scalar invariance across the two groups (3- and 4-year-olds), indicating the two groups can be pooled together for further analysis. This study presents some initial evidence of the construct validity of the CHI instrument. The results of the age-group-specific CFAs and multi-group CFA indicate there is no evidence of construct bias for young children of different ages.

The foundation of school choice is offering families a variety of schools and letting them choose one they believe is most suitable for their child. For school choice to matter, schools need to have different features that parents are seeking. The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program was created by Congress to provide tuition vouchers to low-income parents who want their child to attend a private school. This brief provides a snapshot of features of traditional public schools, charter schools, and those private schools that participate in the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), in Washington, DC, in order to describe the landscape facing students and parents who are considering applying to the OSP. It first looks at the number of each type of school and enrollment changes in the last decade. It then uses responses from a survey of principals conducted in 2014 to describe schools on dimensions such as their academic climate, goals for teachers, instructional programs, school safety, and parent involvement. Key findings are: (1) Since 2004, the number of charter schools in DC and the number of students enrolled in them has grown substantially. The number of traditional public schools and private schools and their enrollments have declined; (2) Responses from principals indicate that, compared to public schools (traditional public and charters), private schools participating in the OSP: (a) Were more likely to report that student behavior, student motivation, parental support for learning, and instructional skills of teachers were excellent or very good; (b) Were less likely to suspend students, use metal detectors, and have on-site security personnel; (c) Taught reading and math for fewer minutes a week across grade levels; (d) Were less likely to have instructional programs for non-English speakers and students with learning disabilities; and (e) Had similar instructional emphases and levels of parent involvement; and (3) Generally, traditional public schools and charter schools showed few differences, but traditional public school principals were less satisfied with the amount of instructional time and more satisfied with teacher pay. The following are appended: (1) Technical Appendix; (2) Total School and Enrollment Data Underlying Figures 1 and 2; (3) Tables Using Weighted Data; and (4) Tables Using Unweighted Data. [For the second report in this series, "Applying to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: How Do Parents Rate Their Children's Current Schools at Time of Application and What Do They Want in New Schools? NCEE Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2016-4003," see ED565616.]

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), established in 2004, is the only federally-funded private school voucher program for low-income parents in the United States. This evaluation brief describes findings using data from more than 2,000 applicants' parents, who applied to the program from spring 2011 to spring 2013 following reauthorization under the Scholarships for Opportunity and Result (SOAR) Act of 2011. The application form asked parents to rate elements of their child's current school with which they were satisfied or dissatisfied and to indicate which elements were top priorities for them when looking for a new school. The ratings provide insights about school-related reasons parents may have had for applying for a voucher and what they were looking for in a new school. Key findings include: (1) The majority of parents (57 percent) gave their child's current school at time of application a grade of "A" or "B." Fourteen percent of parents gave their child's school a "D" or "F"; (2) Most parents chose academic quality as their top priority for a new school. School safety was the second most common choice of top priority. School facilities, racial mix, and parent involvement were least likely to be chosen as top priorities; (3) Parents mostly were satisfied with their child's current school at time of application on elements they viewed as top priorities for a new school; 66 percent of parents were satisfied with their child's current school on the element they indicated was their top priority for choosing a new school. Appended are: (1) Parent Grades For Current Schools at Time of Application; (2) Parent Dissatisfaction With Current Schools at Time of Application; (3) Data on Parents' Top Priorities in Choosing a New School; and (4) Parent Dissatisfaction With Current Schools at Time of Application and Top Priority in Choosing a New School.

This report explores implementation of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in the first two years after Congress reauthorized it with some changes under the SOAR Act of 2011. Key findings include the following: (1) Just over half of all DC private schools participated in the OSP, with current schools more likely to have published tuition rates above the OSP scholarship amounts than did participating schools in the past; (2) OSP applicants under the SOAR Act represent between three and four percent of the estimated 53,000 children in DC who meet the eligibility criterion; and (3) A number of awarded scholarships go unused, with students from disadvantaged schools and families using awarded scholarships at lower rates than others. [For the full report, see ED547163.]

This report explores implementation of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in the first two years after Congress reauthorized it with some changes under the SOAR Act of 2011. Key findings include the following: (1) Just over half of all DC private schools participated in the OSP, with current schools more likely to have published tuition rates above the OSP scholarship amounts than did participating schools in the past; (2) OSP applicants under the SOAR Act represent between three and four percent of the estimated 53,000 children in DC who meet the eligibility criterion; and (3) A number of awarded scholarships go unused, with students from disadvantaged schools and families using awarded scholarships at lower rates than others. The following are appended: (1) Statistical Aspects of the Evaluation; (2) Planned Data Collection and Report Schedule; and (3) Weighted Participating School Data. [For the Executive Summary, see ED547164.]