Search

The paper presents a model for addressing the critical question of opportunity to learn for students with disabilities. The model was tested through a two-year study with schools and teachers in three states. Opportunity to learn analysis is critical in this educational era of push toward access and inclusion. The study results indicate that instruction in grades 4-8 for general education and special education students did not closely align to state content standards. The analysis results indicate that a greater degree of instructional alignment to standards did have a positive impact on student achievement, considering both academic standards and extended standards for students with disabilities. The study findings showed that schools and classrooms providing more inclusive education for students with disabilities had a positive impact on student achievement for all students.

Mapping the curriculum of a professional degree to the associated competency standard ensures graduates have the competence to perform as professionals. Existing approaches to competence mapping vary greatly in depth, complexity, and effectiveness, and a standardised approach remains elusive. This paper describes a new mapping software tool that streamlines and standardises the competency mapping process. The available analytics facilitate ongoing programme review, management, and accreditation. The complete mapping and analysis of an Australian mechanical engineering degree programme is described as a case study. Each subject is mapped by evaluating the amount and depth of competence development present. Combining subject results then enables highly detailed programme level analysis. The mapping process is designed to be administratively light, with aspects of professional development embedded in the software. The effective competence mapping described in this paper enables quantification of learning within a professional degree programme, and provides a mechanism for holistic programme improvement.

A standards-based model of reform has dominated public education for 30 years. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), it will continue to dominate education policy. Is that model working? State boards of education share an intrinsic interest in this question. While there are many ways to investigate it, one approach that shows promise treats standards-based education as a testable theory and offers empirical tools that show policymakers, administrators, and teachers how well it is functioning in their state, district, school, or classroom.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine current approaches to interpretation of student evaluation data and present an innovative approach to developing benchmark targets for the effective and efficient use of these data. Design/Methodology/Approach: This article discusses traditional approaches to gathering and using student feedback across the tertiary sector. The limitations of the customary use of the statistical mean as a quality measure of performance are presented and examined. An alternative method of interpreting student evaluation data is proposed and examples given. Findings: The traditional use of the statistical mean to interpret student evaluation data has limitations. Focusing on data at the macro level provides subject teaching staff and managers with a clearer indication of student satisfaction. The use of a percentage satisfied and percentage dissatisfied metric to classify and rank subjects is presented as an efficient alternative to the traditional approach, while recognising the value of the statistical mean to interpret data at the micro level. Originality/Value: In light of the important role student feedback plays in determining university ranking, prioritising staff development and its potential function as an academic performance indicator, the effective interpretation of student evaluation data is critical. As economic factors become increasingly important to higher education providers, the role of evaluation data obtained from students will continue to gain traction. The identification of methods to fully capitalise on the value of these data, such as the one proposed in this article, is therefore crucial.

Coherence is the core principle underlying standards-based educational reforms. Assessments aligned with content standards are designed to guide instruction and raise achievement. The authors investigate the coherence of standards-based reform's key instruments using the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum. Analyzing 138 standards-assessment pairs spread across grades and the three No Child Left Behind tested subjects, the authors find that roughly half of standards content is tested on the corresponding test and roughly half of test content corresponds to the standards. A moderate proportion of test content is at the wrong level of cognitive demand as compared to the corresponding standards, and vice versa. Between 17% and 27% of content on a typical test covers topics not mentioned in the corresponding standards. Policy and research implications are discussed. (Contains 5 tables and 3 figures.)

In this initial study, the authors examined the content of the planned and enacted eighth-grade mathematics curriculum for 18 general and special education teachers and the curricula's alignment to state standards via the Surveys of the Enacted Curriculum. The relation between alignment and student achievement was analyzed for three formative assessments and the corresponding state test within a school year. Results indicated that alignment for the planned and enacted curriculum to state standards was low with no significant differences between general and special education teachers. Significant correlations between student achievement averages for 238 students and teacher alignment indices were equal to or greater than 0.48. When teacher groups were examined separately, the relation between alignment and achievement remained significant only for special education, with correlations equal to or greater than 0.75. The study's conceptual and methodological framework provides a model for subsequent research on alignment and opportunity to learn in general and special education. (Contains 7 tables and 3 figures.)

State content standards are the backbone of the standards-based reform movement. Content standards provide teachers with a set of guidelines for what students are expected to know and be able to do, defining the intended curriculum. And although the current 50-state system of education gives each state the task of setting content standards, there has been little empirical investigation of the similarities and differences among state content standards. This analysis uses the content analysis procedures of the Council of Chief State School Officers/State Collaboratives on Assessment and State Standards to consider whether there exists a de facto national curriculum as defined in state content standards. Data from English/language arts and reading (ELAR), science, and mathematics for Grades 4, 8, and K-8 are used. Results suggest considerable variability among states in the content of content standards, particularly in individual grades, but also for the aggregated standards. Further analysis suggests that state standards are no more well aligned to national professional standards (i.e., National Science Education, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) than to other states' standards. Still, there exists a small "core curriculum" across states in each content area. The level of focus of the state standards varies substantially across states, and the redundancy of the standards is such that alignment within state, across grades is often as high as alignment within grade, across states. Policy implications are briefly discussed. (Contains 6 tables and 7 figures.)

With the exception of the procedures developed by Porter and colleagues (Porter, 2002), other methods of defining and measuring alignment are essentially limited to alignment between tests and standards. Porter's procedures have been generalized to investigating the alignment between content standards, tests, textbooks, and even classroom instruction as experienced by teachers and students. They have also led to the development of tools that hold promise for innovative uses in both research and the improvement of education practice. The purpose here is to define and illustrate innovative uses of two of the tools from Porter's work, content maps and a quantitative index of the degree of alignment. The intention is to put these tools in the hands of education researchers.

The instructional improvement model Data on Enacted Curriculum was tested with an experimental design using randomized place-based trials. The improvement model is based on using data on instructional practices and achievement to guide professional development and decisions to refocus on instruction. The model was tested in 50 U.S. middle schools in five large urban districts, with half of the schools in each district randomly assigned to receive the two-year treatment. Each school formed an improvement leadership team of five to seven members, including teachers, subject specialists, and at least one administrator. Teams received professional development on data analysis and instructional leadership and then the teams provided training and technical assistance to all math and science teachers in their school. The central premise of the treatment model is to provide teachers with data on their instructional practices and student achievement, to teach them how to use that data to identify weaknesses and gaps in instruction compared with state standards, and to focus school-level professional development on needed curriculum content and classroom practices. After a two-year period of implementing the improvement model, the analysis of change in instruction showed significant effects of the model. The longitudinal analysis of instruction before and after treatment showed math teachers in treatment schools had significant improvement in alignment of instruction with standards compared with teachers in control schools, and the math teachers on the leader teams showed significantly greater gains than all other teachers. (Contains 7 figures and 1 table.)

This chapter traces the development of, and evolving audiences for, a set of research tools developed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison by the authors and others between 1989 and 2003, with roots extending back to work Porter and his colleagues at Michigan State conducted during the 1980s. Originally designed for use in investigating questions concerning the effects of policies on classroom practice, these tools are now just as likely to be used by a state educational agency to examine alignment issues between state content standards and assessments, by school leadership teams to inform curriculum decision making, or by curriculum specialists to plan professional development at the district or school level. The central requirement for addressing all of these information needs is a systematic, rich, and multidimensional language for describing instructional content. The tools described in this chapter provide such a language, based on a two-dimensional model of instructional content consisting of topics and cognitive demand. (Contains 3 figures and 1 table.)

Data from 882 high school students in 48 mathematics classes demonstrate that student achievement is significantly lower in general-track classes than in college-preparatory classes, with achievement in transition classes (classes in California and New York bridging the gap between elementary and college-preparatory mathematics) falling between the two. (SLD)

A professional development model was designed for and is being tested in approximately fifty U.S. middle schools in five large urban districts, with half in each district randomly assigned to receive the two-year treatment. Each school forms a mathematics/sciences leadership team of five to seven members, including at least one administrator. Teams receive professional development in district-level workshops, then work with all math and science teachers in their school. The core idea is to provide teachers with data on their instructional practices and student achievement, then teach them how to use that data to improve their effectiveness. This article documents the successes and failures of treatment implementation and the collection of baseline and outcome data. The focus is on learning about doing place-based randomized trials to test the efficacy of education programs. At the time of this writing, treatment is not yet complete and study results are not available. Keywords: professional development model; place-based randomized trials; instructional practices; data-based decision making; school leadership team; urban middle schools

The Math A, Stretch Regents and University of Chicago School Math Project transition courses provide upgraded math courses for low-achieving students in several high schools in California and New York. The courses are consistent with high mathematics standards, and facilitate transition from basic to college preparatory math courses. The teaching strategies are adapted to suit the needs of low-achievers. The topics taught in the courses include algebra, statistics, problem solving, probability and logic. The strategies, advantages and problems of the upgraded courses are discussed.