Search

Since 1994, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) has provided funding to new charter schools through Charter School Program (CSP) grants designed to provide support for the planning and implementation of effective new charter programs. Grants are awarded to state education agencies, which then provide funding to approved charter schools through a system of subgrants. As a condition of CSP funding, state education agencies are required to evaluate new charter schools using objective criteria and quantitative and qualitative data (Federal Register, 2007). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) was awarded CSP funding in 2007, and specified that the required evaluation would focus on the experiences and outcomes of new charter schools authorized to begin serving students across 4 school years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. The evaluation examines how new charter school operators plan and implement their programs and considers the following research questions: (1) How are federal CSP funds used to implement new charter school programs?; (2) What processes and practices guide the planning of new charter schools?; (3) What processes and practices guide the implementation of new charter school programs?; (4) How effective are new charter schools at designing and implementing successful educational programs?; (5) What is the effect of charter school maturity on students' academic outcomes?; and (6) How do students at new charter schools perform academically relative to comparable students at traditional district schools? The evaluation has produced two interim reports (June 2009 and February 2011) as well as this final report. Results from the interim reports indicated that charter schools used the largest proportion of CSP funding to support instruction, but that new charter schools' start-up experiences differed, depending on the level of support they received from founding entities. In particular, new charter schools that operated as part of a traditional district (i.e., campus charters) tended to have an easier time getting started because most districts provided support for campus charter school management and facilities, as well as the recruitment of staff and students. In contrast, many charter schools that operated outside of traditional district structures (i.e., open-enrollment charters) struggled to locate and furnish adequate facilities, and to recruit and retain qualified staff. (Contains 10 footnotes.) [For the full report, "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Final Report (2007-10)," see ED538563.]

Since 1994, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) has provided funding to new charter schools through Charter School Program (CSP) grants designed to provide support for the planning and implementation of effective new charter programs. Grants are awarded to state education agencies, which then provide funding to approved charter schools through a system of subgrants. As a condition of CSP funding, state education agencies are required to evaluate new charter schools using objective criteria and quantitative and qualitative data (Federal Register, 2007). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) was awarded CSP funding in 2007, and specified that the required evaluation would focus on the experiences and outcomes of new charter schools authorized to begin serving students across 4 school years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. The evaluation examines how new charter school operators plan and implement their programs and considers the following research questions: (1) How are federal CSP funds used to implement new charter school programs?; (2) What processes and practices guide the planning of new charter schools?; (3) What processes and practices guide the implementation of new charter school programs?; (4) How effective are new charter schools at designing and implementing successful educational programs?; (5) What is the effect of charter school maturity on students' academic outcomes?; and (6) How do students at new charter schools perform academically relative to comparable students at traditional district schools? The evaluation has produced two interim reports (June 2009 and February 2011) as well as this final report. Results from the interim reports indicated that charter schools used the largest proportion of CSP funding to support instruction, but that new charter schools' start-up experiences differed, depending on the level of support they received from founding entities. In particular, new charter schools that operated as part of a traditional district (i.e., campus charters) tended to have an easier time getting started because most districts provided support for campus charter school management and facilities, as well as the recruitment of staff and students. In contrast, many charter schools that operated outside of traditional district structures (i.e., open-enrollment charters) struggled to locate and furnish adequate facilities, and to recruit and retain qualified staff. The final report builds on interim findings and presents results for Research Question 1 and Research Questions 3 through 6 drawn from data collected from Generation 11, 12, 13, and 14 charter schools. The report also includes the results of surveys of principals, teachers, and students in Generation 11, 12, 13, and 14 charter schools, and the parents of students attending such schools, as well as information collected during site visits to a set of seven Generation 13 charter schools. Throughout the report chapters, results are disaggregated by charter school generation and charter school type where appropriate. Appended are: (1) Overview of Case Studies of Generation 13 Charter Schools; (2) Technical Appendix--Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM); (3) Propensity Score Matching; (4) Principal Survey; (5) Teacher Survey; (6) Student Survey; (7) Parent Survey; and (8) Characteristics of New Charter Schools in Texas. (Contains 78 tables, 7 figures, and 23 footnotes.) [For "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Interim Report (2007-10). Executive Summary," see ED538561. For previous reports, see "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Interim Report (2007-10)" (ED538565) and "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Second Interim Report (2007-10)" (ED538554).]

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) was awarded Charter School Program (CSP) funding in 2007, and specified that the required evaluation would focus on the experiences and outcomes of new charter schools authorized to begin serving students across 4 school years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. TEA categorizes charter schools in terms of "generations" that roughly align with the years in which schools are first authorized to serve students as charter schools, which frames the evaluation in terms of Generation 11 (2006-07), Generation 12 (2007-08), Generation 13 (2008-09), and Generation 14 (2009-10) charter schools. The evaluation examines how new charter school operators plan and implement their programs. The evaluation will produce three reports--two interim reports (spring 2009 and winter 2011) and a final report in spring 2011. This is the evaluation's second interim report. It presents findings for Research Questions 1 through 5 drawn from data collected from Generation 11, 12, and 13 charter schools, and includes analyses based on TEA's Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), and Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) data. The report also includes the results of spring 2009 surveys of principals, teachers, and students in Generation 11, 12, and 13 charter schools, and the parents of students attending such schools, as well as information collected during site visits to a set of seven Generation 13 charter schools during the 2008-09 school year. Site visits included interviews with school administrators, focus group discussions with teachers, students, and board members, as well as observations in core content area classes. Contains 7 footnotes.) [For the full report, "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Second Interim Report (2007-10)," see ED538554.]

The evaluation of the Texas Rural Technology (R-Tech) Pilot sought to understand how districts implemented R-Tech grants, the effects of implementation on student and teacher outcomes, as well as the cost effectiveness and sustainability of R-Tech. The Texas legislature (80th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2007) authorized the creation of R-Tech in order to support the state's small, rural districts in implementing technology-based supplemental education programs. R-Tech grants were intended to support supplemental educational programs, including online courses, offered outside of students' regularly scheduled classes (e.g., before or after school). Districts that received grants were required to provide students in Grades 6 through 12 with access to technology-based instructional resources for a minimum of 10 hours a week; however, the grant did not establish minimum requirements for students' use of R-Tech resources. In establishing R-Tech, the legislature required that the program be evaluated to assess its effects on student and teacher outcomes, as well as the program's cost effectiveness. The evaluation is made up of two interim reports (December 2008 and February 2010) and a final report (fall 2010). The findings presented here are drawn from the evaluation's final report (fall 2010). The report considers outcomes for 63 districts that received Cycle 1 grant awards across the 2-year grant period (May 2008 through May 2010). The sections that follow present key findings relative to each of the evaluation's research questions. Results are drawn from data collected across the full 2-year implementation period for Cycle 1 districts. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [For the full report, "The Texas Rural Technology (R-TECH) Pilot Program: Cycle 1 Final Evaluation Report," see ED536686.]

In 2007, the Texas Legislature (80th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2007) authorized the creation of the Texas Rural Technology (R-Tech) Pilot program, which provides $8 million in funding to support rural districts in implementing technology-based supplemental education programs. In order to be eligible for funding, districts must have served fewer than 5,000 students and must not have been located in a metropolitan region of the state in 2007. Districts with limited course offerings and low accountability ratings received priority in grant awards. R-Tech funding is intended to support supplemental educational programs, including online courses, offered outside of students' regularly scheduled classes (e.g., before or after school). Districts that receive funding are required to provide students in Grades 6 through 12 with access to technology-based instructional resources for a minimum of 10 hours a week. In establishing R-Tech, the Legislature required that the program be evaluated to assess its effects on student and teacher outcomes, as well as the program's cost effectiveness. The findings presented in this executive summary are preliminary and are drawn from R-Tech's first implementation year in Cycle 1 districts. The ongoing evaluation will continue to collect information about how Cycle 1 districts implement R-Tech, the challenges and benefits of implementation, and the program's effect on student and teacher outcomes, as well as its cost effectiveness across the grant's second year. More conclusive findings for the grant's full 2-year implementation period will be presented in the final evaluation report (fall 2010). (Contains 5 footnotes.) [For the full report, "The Texas Rural Technology (R-TECH) Pilot Program: Second Interim Evaluation Report," see ED536697.]

As interest in expanding the number of high quality charter schools available to parents and students has grown, policy makers have increased their focus on identifying and providing support to new charter programs that have the potential to improve student outcomes and satisfy parent and student needs. Since 1994, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) has provided funding for new charter schools through a system of Charter School Program (CSP) grants. CSP funding is available to new charter schools for a period of 3 years, of which no more than 18 months may be used for school planning and design and 2 years may be used to implement the educational program. CSP grants are awarded to state education agencies, which then award funding to approved charter schools through a system of subgrants. As a condition of CSP funding, state education agencies are required to evaluate new charter schools using objective criteria and quantitative and qualitative data (Federal Register, 2007). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) was awarded CSP funding in 2007, and specified that the required evaluation--the Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools--would focus on the experiences and outcomes of new charter schools authorized to begin serving students across 4 school years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. The evaluation will produce three reports--two interim reports (spring 2009 and fall 2009) and a final report in summer 2010. Across years, the evaluation will answer the following research questions: (1) How are federal start-up funds used to implement new charter school programs?; (2) What processes and practices guide the planning of new charter schools?; (3) What processes and practices guide the implementation of new charter school programs?; (4) How effective are new charter schools at designing and implementing successful educational programs?; (5) How do students at new charter schools perform academically relative to comparable students at traditional district schools?; and (6) What is the effect of charter school maturity on students' academic outcomes? The findings presented here are those of the evaluation's first interim report. Because Generation 13 and 14 charter schools were not serving students in 2007-08, they are not included in the first interim evaluation report (spring 2009). However, Generation 13 charter schools will be included in the second interim report (fall 2009), and all four generations will be included in the evaluation's final report (summer 2010). The first interim report addresses Research Questions 1 through 4 and incorporates statistical analyses of the characteristics of Generation 11 and 12 charter schools, as well as an analysis of charter schools' use of federal CSP grant funds in their start-up years. Statistical analyses rely on archival data collected through TEA's Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and its Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), and results are presented for new Generation 11 and 12 charter schools, as well as for established charter schools in Generations 1 through 10. The first interim report also includes findings from spring 2008 surveys of principals, teachers, and students in Generation 11 and 12 open-enrollment charter schools, as well as a summer 2008 survey of parents of students attending such schools. Appended are: (1) Survey of Principals and Teachers in New Open-Enrollment Charter Schools; (2) Survey of Students Attending New Open-Enrollment Charter Schools (Grades 4 and 5; Grades 6-12); and (3) Survey of Parents of Students Attending New Open-Enrollment Charter Schools. (Contains 71 tables, 9 figures, and 20 footnotes.) A glossary is included. [For "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Interim Report (2007-10). Executive Summary," see ED538561. For related reports, see "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Second Interim Report (2007-10)" (ED538554) and "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Final Report (2007-10)" (ED538563).]

As interest in expanding the number of high quality charter schools available to parents and students has grown, policy makers have increased their focus on identifying and providing support to new charter programs that have the potential to improve student outcomes and satisfy parent and student needs. Since 1994, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) has provided funding for new charter schools through a system of Charter School Program (CSP) grants. CSP funding is available to new charter schools for a period of 3 years, of which no more than 18 months may be used for school planning and design and 2 years may be used to implement the educational program. CSP grants are awarded to state education agencies, which then award funding to approved charter schools through a system of subgrants. As a condition of CSP funding, state education agencies are required to evaluate new charter schools using objective criteria and quantitative and qualitative data (Federal Register, 2007). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) was awarded CSP funding in 2007, and specified that the required evaluation--the Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools--would focus on the experiences and outcomes of new charter schools authorized to begin serving students across 4 school years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. The evaluation will produce three reports--two interim reports (spring 2009 and fall 2009) and a final report in summer 2010. Across years, the evaluation will answer the following research questions: (1) How are federal start-up funds used to implement new charter school programs?; (2) What processes and practices guide the planning of new charter schools?; (3) What processes and practices guide the implementation of new charter school programs?; (4) How effective are new charter schools at designing and implementing successful educational programs?; (5) How do students at new charter schools perform academically relative to comparable students at traditional district schools?; and (6) What is the effect of charter school maturity on students' academic outcomes? The findings presented here are those of the evaluation's first interim report. Because Generation 13 and 14 charter schools were not serving students in 2007-08, they are not included in the first interim evaluation report (spring 2009). However, Generation 13 charter schools will be included in the second interim report (fall 2009), and all four generations will be included in the evaluation's final report (summer 2010). The first interim report addresses Research Questions 1 through 4 and incorporates statistical analyses of the characteristics of Generation 11 and 12 charter schools, as well as an analysis of charter schools' use of federal CSP grant funds in their start-up years. Statistical analyses rely on archival data collected through TEA's Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and its Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), and results are presented for new Generation 11 and 12 charter schools, as well as for established charter schools in Generations 1 through 10. The first interim report also includes findings from spring 2008 surveys of principals, teachers, and students in Generation 11 and 12 open-enrollment charter schools, as well as a summer 2008 survey of parents of students attending such schools. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For the full report, "Evaluation of New Texas Charter Schools: Interim Report (2007-10)," see ED538565.]

The federal Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, project strives to equalize low-income students' access to higher education by increasing their participation in rigorous coursework, providing expanded opportunities for low-income students and parents to learn about postsecondary educational opportunities and financing options, and forging strong partnerships between school districts, colleges, and community support groups. The United States Department of Education (USDE) provides for two types of GEAR UP grants: (1) partnerships grants made up of school districts, colleges or universities, and other organizations, and (2) state grants administered by state agencies, either alone or in partnership with other entities. In 2006, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) applied for and received a state grant to administer a GEAR UP project in six Gulf Coast area school districts. The state grant, titled Students Training for Academic Readiness, or STAR, is implemented in six school districts in south Texas: Alice ISD, Brooks County ISD, Corpus Christi ISD, Kingsville ISD, Mathis ISD, and Odem-Edroy ISD. Each STAR district includes a high school and its associated feeder pattern middle school in the project. STAR addresses its goals through a collaborative partnership that includes TEA, College Board the College of Education at Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi, Fathers Active in Communities and Education (FACE), and the National Hispanic Institute (NHI). GEAR UP grant requirements include an evaluation component designed to assess effectiveness and measure progress toward project goals. TEA contracted the Texas Center for Educational Research (TCER), a nonprofit research entity, to conduct an external evaluation of the state's GEAR UP/STAR project. TCER's evaluation is limited to the GEAR UP state grant (i.e., STAR) and does not include GEAR UP partnership grants awarded to other entities in Texas. The findings presented in this executive summary make up the second year evaluation of the state's GEAR UP/STAR project. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For the full report, "Students Training for Academic Readiness (STAR): Year Two Evaluation Report," see ED538135.]

Recognizing the challenges rural districts face in providing broad curricular offerings and supplemental educational services to students, in 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature authorized the creation of a pilot program designed to provide technology-based supplemental educational services to rural school districts that show an overall academic need as demonstrated by their 2007 state accountability ratings. The Rural Technology (R-Tech) Pilot Program provides nearly $8 million in funding for technology-based supplemental education programs, including online courses, to students in Grades 6 through 12 in high-need, rural districts. In establishing R-Tech, Legislators called for the pilot program to be evaluated to assess its effectiveness, requiring an interim report in December 2008 and a final evaluation report in December 2010. The following results are drawn from the evaluation's first interim report (Texas Center for Educational Research [TCER], December 2008). The interim report describes the characteristics of R-Tech districts and campuses, the students they enroll, and the teachers they employ. It presents baseline data on students' academic outcomes and describes how districts plan to implement the R-Tech program in their schools. Report sections provide baseline information and are descriptive in nature. They provide important information about the context for and implementation of the R-Tech pilot program, but they do not comprise an assessment of the pilot's effectiveness. A comprehensive evaluation report, due in December 2010, will evaluate the pilot program's effectiveness, including its effect on students' academic achievement and college readiness outcomes, as well as its cost effectiveness. [For the full report, "The Texas Rural Technology (R-TECH) Pilot Program: Interim Evaluation Report," see ED536698.]

Recognizing the challenges rural districts face in providing broad curricular offerings and supplemental educational services to students, in 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature authorized the creation of a pilot program designed to provide technology-based supplemental educational services to rural school districts that show an overall academic need as demonstrated by their 2007 state accountability ratings. The Rural Technology (R-Tech) Pilot Program provides nearly $8 million in funding for technology-based supplemental education programs, including online courses, to students in Grades 6 through 12 in high-need, rural districts. In establishing R-Tech, Legislators called for the pilot program to be evaluated to assess its effectiveness, requiring an interim report in December 2008 and a final evaluation report in December 2010. The interim report describes the characteristics of R-Tech districts and campuses, the students they enroll, and the teachers they employ. It presents baseline data on students' academic outcomes and describes how districts plan to implement the R-Tech program in their schools. Report sections provide baseline information and are descriptive in nature. They provide important information about the context for and implementation of the R-Tech pilot program, but they do not comprise an assessment of the pilot's effectiveness. A comprehensive evaluation report, due in December 2010, will evaluate the pilot program's effectiveness, including its effect on students' academic achievement and college readiness outcomes, as well as its cost effectiveness. (Contains 6 figures, 19 tables, and 14 footnotes.) [For "The Texas Rural Technology (R-TECH) Pilot Program: Interim Evaluation Report. Executive Summary," see ED536700.]

The Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP), created by the Texas Legislature in 2003, called for the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to establish a pilot project to "immerse" schools in technology by providing a wireless mobile computing device for each teacher and student, technology-based learning resources, training for teachers to integrate technology into the classroom, and support for effective technology use. The TEA has used federal Title II, Part D monies to fund Technology Immersion projects for high-need middle schools. Researchers are conducting a four-year investigation of the effects of Technology Immersion on schools, teachers, and students. The Texas Center for Educational Research is the TEA's primary partner for the evaluation that began in the 2004-05 school year and will continue through 2007-08. Given that TIP is a pilot project, one aspect of the research has centered on studying how the 21 treatment schools implemented the Technology Immersion model. As a way to gauge schools' progress, researchers developed quantitative measures of implementation fidelity (i.e., the extent to which a school implemented the prescribed components of Technology Immersion). Additionally, researchers have explored the nature of implementation through site visits conducted at middle schools on four occasions: fall 2004 (project initiation), spring 2005 (first year), spring 2006 (second year), and spring 2007 (third year). During site visits, the authors conducted interviews with district administrators, school principals, and technology leaders; focus groups and interviews with core-subject teachers; and focus groups with students. Structured conversations with educators and students solicited their views on project implementation and opinions about project effects on everyone involved. Evidence from the first two project years revealed that some schools struggled to implement the Technology Immersion model as designed, while other schools reached far higher levels of implementation. Thus, in the third year researchers investigated "why" some schools and teachers made notable progress toward creating technology-immersed schools and classrooms, while others had minimal success. Their study of third-year implementation was guided by two major research questions: (a) What are the differences between higher and lower Technology Immersion schools, and what factors explain variations in implementation; and (b) what are the differences between teachers who report higher and lower levels of Classroom Immersion, and what factors are associated with those differences? An overarching purpose of the study was the identification of traits of higher implementing schools and teachers that would provide information on effective implementation practices for other educators wanting to pursue Technology Immersion. Qualitative analyses provide new insights and advance their understanding of how schools reached higher levels of Technology Immersion, and how teachers created technology-immersed classrooms. Importantly, the authors find that it is not just the characteristics of schools or teachers that made the greatest difference, but consistent with the immersion model, it was the supportive conditions that advanced project goals. District and school leaders at higher Technology Immersion schools set the direction for school change and provided continuous supports that fostered higher levels of implementation. Foremost, leaders championed the benefits of Technology Immersion for students as the justification for arduous efforts aimed at school and classroom change. Notable also was the importance of continual outreach to parents who had to shoulder responsibility for individual laptops along with their children. Findings also point to the significance of teacher support for Technology Immersion, as teachers act as the gatekeepers to students' experiences with laptops. Teachers, including veterans, who worked in schools with sufficient technical support, extensive opportunities for professional development, encouragement and accountability for changed practices, collegial working environments, and consistent messages from leaders about the importance of immersion for students grew incrementally toward higher levels of Classroom Immersion over time. Moreover, the quality of school and classroom implementation was vitally important for students. Higher levels of implementation allowed students to use laptops more often for learning both within and outside of school, to use laptops for more varied and complex assignments and projects, and to use laptops for more intellectually rigorous schoolwork. Evidence suggests that these kinds of experiences improved the quality of students learning opportunities as well as their academic achievement, particularly for special populations such as English language learners, higher and lower achievers, and special education students. Many students also benefited personally through greater personal organization and responsibility and preparation for college and future employment. Appended are: (1) Measurement of Implementation Fidelity; and (2) Observation of Teaching and Learning. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 8 figures, 18 tables and 7 exhibits.

The federal Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, strives to equalize low-income students' access to higher education by increasing their participation in rigorous coursework, providing expanded opportunities for low-income students and parents to learn about postsecondary educational opportunities and financing options, and forging strong partnerships between school districts, colleges, and community support groups. Students Training for Academic Readiness (STAR) is the Texas Education Agency's (TEA) second state-level GEAR UP grant. During the 2006-07 school year, STAR began providing services to six south Texas school districts: Alice ISD, Brooks County ISD, Corpus Christi ISD, Kingsville ISD, Mathis ISD, Odem-Elroy ISD. STAR districts exceed state averages in the proportion of low-income and minority students they serve and lag state averages in terms of their testing outcomes and graduation rates. Through a collaborative partnership that includes the TEA, P-16 Partnerships for Student Success at the College of Education at Texas A&M University--Corpus Christi (P[superscript 2]S[superscript 2]), the College Board, Fathers Active in Communities and Education (FACE), and the National Hispanic Institute (NHI), the STAR project seeks to increase (1) the information available to students and their families about postsecondary educational opportunities, (2) students' access to advanced academic programs, (3) training for teachers and counselors, and (4) parent and community support for a student's decision to go to college. The 2006-07 evaluation describes the process of first year implementation and presents baseline indicators of student enrollment, academic performance, and postsecondary participation that will act as benchmarks for measuring districts' progress over the course of the STAR project. This executive summary presents the major findings from the study. [For the full report, "Students Training for Academic Readiness (STAR): Year One Evaluation Report," see ED538133.]

The Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP), a project sponsored by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), leverages federal Title II, Part D funds to support a wireless learning environment for high-need middle schools. A concurrent research project funded by a federal Evaluating State Educational Technology Programs grant is evaluating whether student achievement improves over time as a result of exposure to technology immersion. The Texas Center for Educational Research (TCER)--a non-profit research organization in Austin--is the TEA's primary partner in this four-year endeavor that began in the 2004-05 school year and will continue through 2007-08. Technology immersion encompasses multiple components, including a laptop computer for every middle school student and teacher, wireless access throughout the campus, curricular and assessment resources, professional development and ongoing pedagogical support for curricular integration, and technical support for immersion. The overarching purpose of the study is to scientifically investigate the effectiveness of technology immersion in increasing middle school students' achievement in core academic subjects (English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) as measured by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). The study also examines relationships that exist among contextual conditions, technology immersion, intervening factors, and academic achievement. Accordingly, researchers have annually conducted site visits to treatment and control campuses in order to better understand initial conditions and changes over time. Visits to campuses in fall 2004 and spring 2005 established the comparability of treatment and control schools and documented first-year implementation. In spring 2006, follow-up site visits to each of the 22 immersion and 22 control schools focused on second-year activities (encompassing the 2005-06 school year). Researchers conducted interviews with principals, technology coordinators, and central administrators and focus groups with a sample of sixth- and seventh-grade teachers and students. In the second year, two middle schools in one district (one immersion and one control) were excluded from analyses due to disruptions of school operations caused by Hurricane Rita on the Texas Gulf coast. Thus, second-year results are for 21 immersion and 21 control schools. Data gathered at control campuses verified that the availability and use of technology had not changed substantially since the project's inception, while data gathered at immersion schools contributed to an in-depth examination of second-year implementation. This report combines qualitative data (from interviews and focus groups with selected subjects) and quantitative data (from surveys of all teachers and students) to provide a comprehensive description of second-year implementation of technology immersion. The authors measured implementation using standard-based scores defining four levels of immersion ("minimal," "partial," "substantial," and "full") and standardized implementation indices (z scores). Both types of scores produced measures for five immersion support components (Leadership, Teacher Support, Parent and Community Support, Technical Support, Professional Development) and two teacher and student immersion components (Classroom Immersion and Student Access and Use). Appended are: (1) Characteristics of Individual Campuses; (2) Site Visit Data Collection Methods; and (3) Measuring Implementation Fidelity. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 16 tables, 8 figures and 6 exhibits.) [For "Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: An Analysis of Second-Year (2005-06) Implementation. Executive Summary," see ED536292.]

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) used Title II, Part D monies to fund a wireless learning environment for high-need middle schools through the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP). A concurrent research project funded by a federal Evaluating State Education Technology Programs grant is scientifically evaluating whether student achievement improves over time as a result of exposure to technology immersion. Technology immersion encompasses multiple components, including a laptop computer for every middle school student and teacher, wireless access throughout the campus, online curricular and assessment resources, professional development and ongoing pedagogical support for curricular integration of technology resources, and technical support to maintain an immersed campus. The study of technology immersion employs a quasi-experimental research design with middle schools assigned to either treatment or control groups (22 schools in each). While the overarching purpose of the study is to scientifically test the effectiveness of technology immersion in increasing middle school students' achievement in core academic subjects, the evaluation also aims to examine the relationships that exist among contextual conditions, technology immersion, intervening factors, and student achievement. Data gathered through site visits to all participating middle school campuses in fall 2004 and spring 2005 allowed an in-depth examination of campus conditions, school and classroom activities, and educational roles and processes through interviews with key personnel, focus groups with teachers and students, inventories of technology resources, and reviews of documents. Appended are: (1) Technology Immersion Evaluation Design; (2) Characteristics of Technology; and (3) Technology Use in Core Subjects. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 12 tables and 1 figure.) [For "Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: An Analysis of the Baseline Conditions and First-Year Implementation of Technology Immersion in Middle Schools. Executive Summary," see ED536297.]

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) used Title II, Part D monies to fund a wireless learning environment for high-need middle schools through the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP). A concurrent research project funded by a federal Evaluating State Education Technology Programs grant is scientifically evaluating whether student achievement improves over time as a result of exposure to technology immersion. Technology immersion encompasses multiple components, including a laptop computer for every middle school student and teacher, wireless access throughout the campus, online curricular and assessment resources, professional development and ongoing pedagogical support for curricular integration of technology resources, and technical support to maintain an immersed campus. The study of technology immersion employs a quasi-experimental research design with middle schools assigned to either treatment or control groups (22 schools in each). While the overarching purpose of the study is to scientifically test the effectiveness of technology immersion in increasing middle school students' achievement in core academic subjects, the evaluation also aims to examine the relationships that exist among contextual conditions, technology immersion, intervening factors, and student achievement. Data gathered through site visits to all participating middle school campuses in fall 2004 and spring 2005 allowed an in-depth examination of campus conditions, school and classroom activities, and educational roles and processes through interviews with key personnel, focus groups with teachers and students, inventories of technology resources, and reviews of documents. Major findings from the first year are summarized in this executive summary. [For the full report, "Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: An Analysis of the Baseline Conditions and First-Year Implementation of Technology Immersion in Middle School," see ED536299.]

The Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) sets forth a vision for technology immersion in Texas public schools that links ubiquitous access to technology with student achievement. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) directed nearly $14 million in federal Title II, Part D monies toward funding a wireless learning environment for high-need middle schools through a competitive grant process. Concurrently, a federally funded research project is scientifically evaluating the effectiveness of technology immersion in increasing middle school students' achievement in core academic subjects as measured by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Technology immersion encompasses multiple components, including a laptop computer for every middle school student and teacher, wireless access throughout the campus, online curricular and assessment resources, professional development and ongoing pedagogical support for curricular integration of technology resources, and technical support to maintain an immersed campus. This evaluation, with 22 experimental and 22 control sites, is also examining the relationships that exist among contextual conditions, technology immersion, intervening factors (school, teacher, and student), and student achievement. Of particular interest are the effects of technology immersion on teachers' classroom practices and students' learning opportunities. Accordingly, this report centers on classroom observations conducted in sixth-grade classrooms at immersed and control schools during fall 2004 (prior to immersion) and spring 2005 (during early implementation). Appended are: (1) Theoretical Framework for Technology Immersion; (2) Observation of Teaching and Learning; and (3) Framework of Assessment Approaches and Methods. (Contains 3 figures and 10 tables.)

The Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) sets forth a vision for technology immersion in Texas public schools. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) directed nearly $14 million in federal Title II, Part D monies toward funding a wireless learning environment for high-need middle schools through a competitive grant process. A concurrent research project funded by a federal Evaluating State Educational Technology Programs grant is evaluating whether student achievement improves over time as a result of exposure to technology immersion. The Texas Center for Educational Research (TCER)--a non-profit research organization in Austin--is the TEA's primary partner in this landmark effort. The overarching purpose of the study is to conduct a scientifically based evaluation at the state level to test the effectiveness of technology immersion in increasing middle school students' achievement in core academic subjects. Technology immersion encompasses multiple components, including a laptop computer for every middle school student and teacher, wireless access throughout the campus, online curricular and assessment resources, professional development and ongoing pedagogical support for curricular integration of technology resources, and technical support to maintain an immersed campus. The evaluation employs a quasi-experimental research design with 44 middle schools assigned to either treatment or control groups (22 schools in each). Researchers will examine the relationships that exist among contextual conditions, technology immersion, intervening factors (school, teacher, and student), and student achievement. The research also will determine the impact of immersion on student achievement in core subject areas as measured by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). First-year results reveal positive effects of technology immersion on "schools" (leadership and system support, innovative culture, classroom integration, parent and community support), "teachers" (proficiency and productivity, technology use and integration, collaboration), and "students" (technology proficiency and use, small-group work, school satisfaction, and behavior). In most cases, the sizes of effects suggest that the impacts of technology immersion are of both statistical and practical importance. In contrast to positive effects on school, teacher, and student mediating variables, there were no statistically significant effects of immersion in the first year on either reading or mathematics achievement for sixth graders, who are members of a student cohort that will be followed through eighth grade. Overall, positive findings are compelling in light of evidence indicating that the level of implementation in the first year for 20 of the 22 middle schools was only "partial immersion" rather than "substantial" (2 schools) or "full immersion" (no schools). Appended are: (1) Survey Items and Scale Reliabilities; and (2) Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion. (Contains 38 tables, 6 figures and 10 footnotes.) [For "Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: First-Year Results. Executive Summary," see ED536298.]

The Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) sets forth a vision for technology immersion in Texas public schools. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) directed nearly $14 million in federal Title II, Part D monies toward funding a wireless learning environment for high-need middle schools through a competitive grant process. A concurrent research project funded by a federal Evaluating State Educational Technology Programs grant is evaluating whether student achievement improves over time as a result of exposure to technology immersion. The Texas Center for Educational Research (TCER)--a non-profit research organization in Austin--is the TEA's primary partner in this landmark effort. The overarching purpose of the study is to conduct a scientifically based evaluation at the state level to test the effectiveness of technology immersion in increasing middle school students' achievement in core academic subjects. Technology immersion encompasses multiple components, including a laptop computer for every middle school student and teacher, wireless access throughout the campus, online curricular and assessment resources, professional development and ongoing pedagogical support for curricular integration of technology resources, and technical support to maintain an immersed campus. This executive summary highlights the major findings from the study. [For the full report, "Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: First-Year Results," see ED536290.]

The Texas Education Agency's (TEA's) state GEAR UP project--Texans Getting Academically Prepared (TGAP)--has provided interconnected activities supporting early awareness of and preparation for higher education among low-income and minority students, their families, and schools in six South Texas school districts. Over its six years, the state grant was guided by three goals for (a) building educator and student capacity for successful participation in challenging college preparatory programs, (b) increasing student and family awareness of opportunities for college and financial aid assistance, and (c) providing meaningful incentives and support for high student achievement from the business community. The TGAP evaluation assessed progress toward the three overarching TGAP goals. Researchers explored (a) how TGAP influenced the capacity of districts, schools, educators, parents, and students to support students' participation in higher education; (b) the extent to which student and parent awareness of college opportunities, including financial aid and assistance, increased; and (c) the academic outcomes for schools and their students. The findings also offer insight into program implementation and sustainability. Researchers combined qualitative and quantitative data collection approaches with rich and varied sources of data. These included annual, on-site interviews (with teachers, students, counselors, and university faculty fellows), classroom observations in Advanced Placement (AP) and Pre-AP classrooms, document and product reviews, interviews with project partners, teacher and student surveys, and demographic and performance data. The methodological approach relied on triangulation to examine patterns in both project implementation and academic outcomes. [For the full report, "Texans Getting Academically Prepared (TGAP): Year Six Evaluation Report, September 2004-August 2005," see ED539929.]

The Texas Study of Students at Risk (TxSSAR) is a comprehensive evaluation examining the effectiveness of three state-level programs with the common goal of helping students at risk of failure to achieve academically. The study comprises investigations of the Optional Extended Year Program (OEYP), the Texas After School Initiative (TASI), and the Ninth Grade Success Initiative (NGSI), and case studies of districts that received NGSI grants. The evaluation covers a four-year period between the 1999-2000 and 2002-03 school years.

Researchers conducted case studies of Ninth Grade Success Initiative (NGSI) grants to gain a greater understanding of issues facing large numbers of at-risk students, many of whom, despite potentially receiving services as early as kindergarten, still reach ninth grade unprepared to succeed academically in high school. Case studies focused on NGSI projects and the broader high school contexts in which they operated. Studies involved 11 of 226 districts that received NGSI funding between 1999-2000 and 2002-03. In addition to NGSI funds, districts also benefited from Optional Extended Year program (OEYP) formula-based allocations, Texas After School Initiative (TASI) grants, or both. Appended are: (1) Teacher Questionnaire; (2) Student Questionnaire; (3) TxSSAR Classroom Observation Form Fall 2003; (4) Results for Classroom Observations by Subject Area; and (5) Factors Jeopardizing Internal Validity. (Contains 23 tables and 5 figures.)