Search

Project EQuIPD--Engaging Quality Instruction through Professional Development--sought to establish and test for efficacy a professional development model to produce highly qualified teachers in STEM practices for all children, especially for students who are in traditionally underserved schools and districts within the State of Florida. The project did this by providing two years of intensive professional development that helped teachers use system thinking to infuse technology-based inquiry into their regular instructional practices. The project also prepared the teachers, using a train-the-trainer model, so that they could train other teachers and sustain the work moving forward. This brief provides a summary of key findings from the impact study of Project EQuIPD. If specific information on program implementation and on the impact study--including the methodology and detailed impact findings--can be found in the technical report, "Improving Teachers' Instruction: The Impact of Project EQuIPD. Final External Evaluation Report" (ED618488).

This report represents the final results of an evaluation of Project EQuIPD--Engaging Quality Instruction through Professional Development. The project provided two years of intensive professional development to help teachers learn to think more strategically about how to improve student outcomes using technology-based inquiry instruction. The project also prepared participating teachers to train their colleagues. Led by the University of Florida, Project EQuIPD was a three-year grant awarded through the U.S. Department of Education's Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) Program. The project was implemented in 121 schools in ten counties in Florida. The impact of the project was studied with a randomized controlled trial. Key findings from the evaluation include: (1) The program was able to implement all intended activities, modifying some of the delivery methods in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) On a survey, treatment teachers reported statistically significantly higher levels of knowledge and higher implementation of EQuIPD instructional practices than control teacher; (3) Observations of teachers' instruction showed no statistically significant overall differences between treatment and control teachers, although treatment teachers scored higher on implementation of inquiry practices than control teachers; (4) There was no significant difference in teacher retention or overall attendance between the treatment and control groups; and (5) There were no differences between treatment and control groups on overall measures of student achievement. The COVID-19 pandemic likely impacted the project's impacts and it is possible that results would have been different if the context had been different. [For the summary report, see ED626193.]

The STEM Early College Expansion Project is an effort to integrate STEM strategies with the early college model and implement this in comprehensive high schools. This report summarizes findings from two separate quasi-experimental impact studies of the model in Michigan and Connecticut. Results from Michigan showed statistically significant impacts on enrollment in college-level courses and on attainment of college credits. Treatment schools in Michigan also had descriptively lower dropout rates. The Connecticut impact study had challenges with the study design that resulted in an inability to make clear causal claims about the impact.

As originally conceptualized, Early Colleges were small schools focused purposefully on college readiness for all students. Frequently located on college campuses, Early Colleges targeted students who might face challenges in postsecondary education, including students who were the first in their family to go to college, economically disadvantaged students, English Language Learners (ELL), or students who are members of racial or ethnic groups underrepresented in college. The Early College Expansion Partnership (ECEP) is among the first large-scale effort to apply Early College strategies into comprehensive high schools. Supported by a $15 million grant from U.S. Department of Education's Investing in Innovation (i3) program, the ECEP was designed to increase the number of students graduating from high school prepared for enrollment and success in postsecondary education. The project sought to blend high school and college by applying strategies from the successful Early College high school model to 14 middle schools, 12 high schools, and two 6th-12th-grade schools in three districts in two states: Colorado and Texas. ECEP implemented an adapted version of the Early College High School Model. The program provided a set of services that supported implementation of a whole-school reform model emphasizing the creation of a college-preparatory school environment. A primary emphasis of the program was increasing the number of students who participated in college-credit-bearing courses while in high school. This report describes describes: (1) the district context in which the program was operating, documenting changes that occurred over the life of the grant; and (2) the implementation of the five "buckets" of implementation supports: (1) technical assistance to districts; (2) leadership coaching; (3) the Community of Practice; (4) instructional coaching; and (5) the i3 Cabinet. Each section begins with an overarching description of the common activities occurring across the three districts. This broader description is followed by district-specific write-ups that describe how the supports were adapted for the specific district context. Each section also includes a measure of the Fidelity of Implementation for that activity. Finally, each section concludes with a description of lessons learned, specific to that activity. The report concludes with a discussion around the extent to which the different supports will be able to be sustained after the grant ends and a synthesis of lessons learned from this work and includes participants' recommendations around how to replicate this work in other settings. [For the companion report, "Transforming Comprehensive High Schools into Early Colleges: The Impacts of the Early College Expansion Partnership," see ED618202.]

As originally conceptualized, Early Colleges were small schools focused purposefully on college readiness for all students. Frequently located on college campuses, Early Colleges targeted students who might face challenges in postsecondary education, including students who were the first in their family to go to college, economically disadvantaged students, English Language Learners (ELL), or students who are members of racial or ethnic groups underrepresented in college. The Early College Expansion Partnership (ECEP) is among the first large-scale effort to apply Early College strategies into comprehensive high schools. Supported by a $15 million grant from U.S. Department of Education's Investing in Innovation (i3) program, the ECEP was designed to increase the number of students graduating from high school prepared for enrollment and success in postsecondary education. The project sought to blend high school and college by applying strategies from the successful Early College high school model to 14 middle schools, 12 high schools, and two 6th-12th-grade schools in three districts in two states: Colorado and Texas. ECEP implemented an adapted version of the Early College High School Model. The program provided a set of services that supported implementation of a whole-school reform model emphasizing the creation of a college-preparatory school environment. A primary emphasis of the program was increasing the number of students who participated in college-credit-bearing courses while in high school. This report describes the approach used to assess student impacts and to track changes over time; uses survey and site visit data to describe key changes that have been made at the district and school levels; presents the impact estimates for the core student-level outcomes; places the findings in context and discusses the broader implications of this work; and summarizes the overall findings. [For the companion report, "Implementation Supports of the Early College Expansion Partnership," see ED618696.]

Based on interviews with state officials in the six Southeast Region states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina), this study describes state processes for adopting the Common Core State Standards (a common set of expectations across states for what students are expected to know in English language arts and math) and plans for implementing the common standards and aligning state assessment systems to them. This study used interviews with state education agency staff in the Southeast Region to examine three research questions about the Common Core State Standards: (1) What processes did the six Southeast Region states use for adopting the common standards?; (2) What is (or will be) the process for state implementation of the common standards?; and (3) How are the states planning to address the alignment of their assessment programs to the common standards? The following are the key findings: (1) Respondents in all six states reported that one step in the adoption process was state education agency review of the common standards to determine the extent of alignment between the common standards and existing state standards and to gather information to disseminate to the public; (2) Four states (Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina) did not adopt any state-specific standards in addition to the common standards. Alabama and Georgia did; (3) Respondents in Florida and Mississippi reported that teachers in their state will begin teaching under the common standards in 2011/12. Respondents in Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina reported that teachers will begin doing so in 2012/13. The respondent in South Carolina reported that teachers will begin doing so in 2013/14. States varied in how they will roll out their teaching timeline--all at once for grades K-12 or phased in over time in different grades; (4) All six states reported a general implementation process moving from developing curriculum and instruction resources to training educators to teaching the standards in classrooms. All six states have dedicated 2011/12 to educator training. Some states also plan to develop resources and materials in 2011/12, and Florida and Mississippi will also begin classroom implementation. All six implementation timelines call for teaching the common standards before preparing new assessments aligned with them (expected in 2014/15); (5) All six states reported that state education agency staff are training educators on the new common standards, with three states (Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina) also involving staff at regional professional development agencies. All six state respondents reported that their states will use a combination of approaches to deliver training, including face-to-face training for school staff, online sessions for district staff and teachers, and train-the-trainer sessions for district teams, who in turn will train teachers; (6) In four states (Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina), respondents reported that monitoring standards implementation will occur at the local level. North Carolina will tie monitoring of local implementation of the common standards to the statewide evaluation of implementation of the state's Race to the Top initiative. At the time of data collection, Alabama had not yet decided whether the state education agency would monitor local implementation; and (7) All six respondents reported that their state will follow the timeline and process of the assessment consortium to which they belong. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina are members of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers consortium; Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina are members of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. Alabama and South Carolina, members of both consortia, have not yet decided which consortium's assessments they will use. The findings of this study are limited by the small number of interviews conducted--one per state--and cannot be generalized beyond the study period since state-level plans, policies, and procedures are continually evolving and may have been updated since the completion of data collection. The report is nevertheless useful, because it examines the six states' ongoing work on the Common Core State Standards--itself a new and evolving reform initiative nationwide. Education leaders and policymakers can benefit from learning how other states are approaching this work. [For the full report, "Plans to Adopt and Implement Common Core State Standards in the Southeast Region States. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 136," see ED528960.]

Based on interviews with state officials in the six Southeast Region states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina), this study describes state processes for adopting the Common Core State Standards (a common set of expectations across states for what students are expected to know in English language arts and math) and plans for implementing the common standards and aligning state assessment systems to them. This study used interviews with state education agency staff in the Southeast Region to examine three research questions about the Common Core State Standards: (1) What processes did the six Southeast Region states use for adopting the common standards?; (2) What is (or will be) the process for state implementation of the common standards?; and (3) How are the states planning to address the alignment of their assessment programs to the common standards? The following are the key findings: (1) Respondents in all six states reported that one step in the adoption process was state education agency review of the common standards to determine the extent of alignment between the common standards and existing state standards and to gather information to disseminate to the public; (2) Four states (Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina) did not adopt any state-specific standards in addition to the common standards. Alabama and Georgia did; (3) Respondents in Florida and Mississippi reported that teachers in their state will begin teaching under the common standards in 2011/12. Respondents in Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina reported that teachers will begin doing so in 2012/13. The respondent in South Carolina reported that teachers will begin doing so in 2013/14. States varied in how they will roll out their teaching timeline--all at once for grades K-12 or phased in over time in different grades; (4) All six states reported a general implementation process moving from developing curriculum and instruction resources to training educators to teaching the standards in classrooms. All six states have dedicated 2011/12 to educator training. Some states also plan to develop resources and materials in 2011/12, and Florida and Mississippi will also begin classroom implementation. All six implementation timelines call for teaching the common standards before preparing new assessments aligned with them (expected in 2014/15); (5) All six states reported that state education agency staff are training educators on the new common standards, with three states (Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina) also involving staff at regional professional development agencies. All six state respondents reported that their states will use a combination of approaches to deliver training, including face-to-face training for school staff, online sessions for district staff and teachers, and train-the-trainer sessions for district teams, who in turn will train teachers; (6) In four states (Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina), respondents reported that monitoring standards implementation will occur at the local level. North Carolina will tie monitoring of local implementation of the common standards to the statewide evaluation of implementation of the state's Race to the Top initiative. At the time of data collection, Alabama had not yet decided whether the state education agency would monitor local implementation; and (7) All six respondents reported that their state will follow the timeline and process of the assessment consortium to which they belong. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina are members of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers consortium; Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina are members of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. Alabama and South Carolina, members of both consortia, have not yet decided which consortium's assessments they will use. The findings of this study are limited by the small number of interviews conducted--one per state--and cannot be generalized beyond the study period since state-level plans, policies, and procedures are continually evolving and may have been updated since the completion of data collection. The report is nevertheless useful, because it examines the six states' ongoing work on the Common Core State Standards--itself a new and evolving reform initiative nationwide. Education leaders and policymakers can benefit from learning how other states are approaching this work. Appended are: (1) Study methods; (2) Structured interview protocol; and (3) Quick reference state information on the Common Core State Standards. (Contains 2 boxes, 6 tables and 7 notes.) [For "Plans to Adopt and Implement Common Core State Standards in the Southeast Region States. Summary. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 136," see ED528961.]

When selecting reading across the curriculum interventions, educators should consider the extent of the evidence base on intervention effectiveness and the fit with the school or district context, whether they are purchasing a product from vendors or developing it internally. This report provides guidance in the decisionmaking. This report looks at what reading across the curriculum interventions states and districts might consider in their plans to improve reading outcomes at the secondary level. Additionally, the report offers the following practical guidance to decisionmaking teams tasked with finding ways to support content-area teachers in improving reading across the curriculum: (1) Consider professional development interventions in light of a clear understanding of the changes desired and the local context; (2) Think about the selection of a professional development intervention as part of an evidence-based decisionmaking cycle; (3) Consider structuring a comprehensive planning process that goes beyond selecting a professional development intervention. Following a thoughtful evidence-based decisionmaking process should enhance the likelihood that a district or school reading across the curriculum initiative will achieve the desired outcomes. The following are appended: (1) Methodology; (2) Southeastern state summary; (3) Southeastern state profiles; (4) Intervention abstracts; and (5) Additional resources. (Contains 5 tables, 1 figure, and 1 box.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education by Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast administered by SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.]

This study investigated instructional aides' relationships with teachers and parents and their status in schools, using Connelly and Clandinin's (1988) epistemology of "teacher as knower" as a way to frame their voices. A total of 17 predominantly female instructional aides from five elementary schools in three midwestern U.S. school districts completed interviews. Data analysis indicated that instructional aides had generally positive relationships with teachers. Some placed value on the freedom given to them by teachers, and other expressed strong appreciation for teachers' listening skills. Instructional aides' relationships with teachers varied by their location in the school and the level of supervision they experienced. Negative comments regarding relationships with teachers were rare and tended to pertain to direct and indirect comments by teachers, hostile school climates, and teachers' lack of appreciation of aides' talents and skills and lack of supervision. Aides gave mixed messages about their relationships with students' parents and families. Some had close relationships with parents and often served as babysitters for their students. Others placed the blame for students' problems on their families and rarely recognized the institutional factors that influenced students' academic success. (Contains 49 references.) (SM)

This paper discusses the education in Belize (formerly known as British Honduras) during the colonial era and the lasting impact of the educational foundation of the country. The paper examines the influence the British colonial educational system continues to have in Belize, 20 years after independence. It gives an overview of the history of primary and secondary education in Belize. Although education existed in Belize well before the arrival of the British colonizers and developed among various cultures during colonization, these are not highlighted in the paper because of the limited impact they had on Belize in general once school attendance became compulsory. Contains 92 references. (BT)

This paper examines the influences on Garifuna (also known as Caribs) youth education through the voices of Garifuna educators and youths. The paper emphasizes, in both its content and methodology, that discussion of education in the Caribbean and specifically Belize cannot be separated from the educators' experiences and the adolescents' aspirations. The paper examines the cultural and political influences on the youth of the Garifuna culture; however, the cultural influence is not only of the Garifuna but also of U.S. popular culture. Data for the paper were collected through observations, face-to-face interviews, and secondary analysis; the constant comparative method was used to analyze the data. The paper's findings suggest that there have been changes in the educational focus of the Garifuna youth of Dangriga and that these youths' attitudes pervade the whole country. Participants in the research saw the decline of interest in school as caused by: (1) emigration of parents to the United States; (2) influences from U.S. culture; and (3) lack of employment opportunities. The paper calls for further research into the Garifuna language, the religious beliefs, and the kinship relationships, as well as the education of the Garifuna. Contains 3 notes and 30 references. (BT)