Search

This report addresses the relationship between state content standards and assessments and the essential components of effective reading instruction. The extent to which the essential components are addressed in the standards and assessments indicates the extent to which states have integrated the essential components into their reading curriculum. This report describes reviews of state assessments and standards, the purpose of which was twofold: (1) to evaluate the degree to which state reading content standards for K-3 students reflected expectations for learning in these five essential areas of effective reading instruction; and (2) to determine the extent to which state assessments administered in the K-3 grade span plays a role in the measurement of Reading First outcomes in the five areas. Appended are: (1) National Reading Panel Description of the Essential Components of Reading Instruction; (2) Stratified Random Sample of 20 States; (3) Documentation Used in Review of State K-3 Reading Standards in 2003-04; (4) Standards Review Instrument; (5) State Assessment Review Form Sample Page; and (6) Results of Analyses of Ratings of State K-3 Reading Standards. (Contains 7 figures and 3 tables.) [This report was prepared for the Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education.]

The National Reading Panel (NRP) issued a report in 2000 that responded to a congressional mandate to help parents, teachers, and policymakers identify key skills and instructional methods central to reading achievement. The panel identified five areas that they found to be critical to effective reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. The study in the full report addresses the relationship between state content standards and assessments and the essential components of effective reading instruction. The extent to which the essential components are addressed in the standards and assessments indicates the extent to which states have integrated the essential components into their reading curriculum. The full report describes reviews of state assessments and standards, the purpose of which was twofold: (1) to evaluate the degree to which state reading content standards for K-3 students reflected expectations for learning in these five essential areas of effective reading instruction; and (2) to determine the extent to which state assessments administered in the K-3 grade span played a role in the measurement of Reading First outcomes in the five areas. This executive summary presents the key findings from the study. [For the full report, see ED490977.]

Standard quantum computation is based on sequences of unitary quantum logic gates which process qubits. The one-way quantum computer proposed by Raussendorf and Briegel is entirely different. It has changed our understanding of the requirements for quantum computation and more generally how we think about quantum physics. This new model requires qubits to be initialized in a highly-entangled cluster state. From this point, the quantum computation proceeds by a sequence of single-qubit measurements with classical feedforward of their outcomes. Because of the essential role of measurement a one-way quantum computer is irreversible. In the one-way quantum computer the order and choices of measurements determine the algorithm computed. We have experimentally realized four-qubit cluster states encoded into the polarization state of four photons. We fully characterize the quantum state by implementing the first experimental four-qubit quantum state tomography. Using this cluster state we demonstrate the feasibility of one-way quantum computing through a universal set of one- and two-qubit operations. Finally, our implementation of Grover's search algorithm demonstrates that one-way quantum computation is ideally suited for such tasks., Comment: 36 pages, 6 figures, 2 tables

Chapter 1 schoolwide projects are intended to serve educationally disadvantaged students by improving the instructional program provided to all students in high-poverty schools. This report provides a comprehensive look at schoolwide projects in the 1991-92 school year, using data from surveys of all schoolwide project schools. The response rate was 93 percent for school district questionnaires and 91 percent for school building questionnaires. Site visits to six project sites provided additional information. Chapter 1 schools tend to be located in large urban, high-poverty school districts with a high proportion of minority students. Eighty percent of students in project schools are Black or Hispanic, and 20 percent are Limited English Proficient. Schools have implemented schoolwide projects to be able to serve more students with more flexibility in use of resources as well as to avoid restrictions on service delivery. The most popular strategies for schoolwide projects included parent education and involvement projects, staff development, and computer assisted instruction. It appears that the schoolwide projects approach is leading to better achievement gains by educationally disadvantaged students. Thirty-three tables present survey findings. Five appendixes present survey questions and methodology, tabulations of responses, and a discussion of common themes. (SLD)

Six documents were reviewed and recommendations relevant to the work of the Advisory Committee on Testing in Chapter 1 were summarized. A brief description of a framework for discussing different uses of assessment is followed by specific recommendations from each of the following sources: (1) "Working Paper: Reauthorization of the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988" (Council of Chief State School Officers); (2) "Summary of Public Comments Regarding the Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Programs" (Pelavin Associates, Inc.); (3) "Chapter 1 Reauthorization: Testimony before the Advisory Committee on Testing in Chapter 1" (M. H. Kean); (4) "Chapter 1 Assessment Issues" (W. L. Padia); (5) "Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions" (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment); and (6) "Regional Hearing Summaries" (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget). Nineteen recommendations are made in the areas of test use, accountability, and program effectiveness. Attention is given to testing practices, performance measures, and new technology. (SLD)

In the course of a national survey of schools funded under Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, other studies and data were reviewed to determine what was already known about compensatory education. This literature review covers several types of studies on the nature of Title I/Chapter 1 instructional services, staff, and coordinating mechanisms, including the following: (1) previous surveys of compensatory education; (2) Federal reports on the nature and scope of compensatory education; (3) selected studies or evaluations of the effectiveness of compensatory education; and (4) reviews of effective instructional practices relevant to compensatory education programs. The review is comprised of four sections. The first section, "Scope of Compensatory Education," surveys types of compensatory education, the prevalence of compensatory education, and types of services. The second section, "Nature of Compensatory Education Instructional Services," covers instructional exposure, strategies, content, and climate. The third section, "Characteristics of Compensatory Education Program Staff," reviews the literature on education and training, experience and certification, and the nature of teaching positions. The fourth section, "Coordination of Compensatory Education with Other Instruction," examines instructional settings and the mechanisms used to coordinate compensatory education with other instructional programs. A list of 35 references is appended. (AF)