Spencer Foundation: “Evidence for the Classroom” Request for Proposals

Posted on April 11, 2013 by coreeducation

The Spencer Foundation, an organization that investigates “ways in which education, broadly conceived, can be improved around the world,” is seeking research studies to inform the current push for data-based educational reforms.

Here is more from the press release:

We announce a second-round Request for Proposals (RFP) to promote research that examines the assumptions underlying these reforms by investigating whether, when, and how student performance data informs instruction in K-8 classrooms. In an educational environment in which all kinds of decisions are expected to be “driven” by data, we are eager to learn more about how K-8 teachers use student performance data for instructional decisions and how organizational and individual factors affect that use. We take a broad view of the types of student performance data that could form the basis of fundable studies, and we think that a collection of well-designed research studies can advance current conceptions of the role data can play in efforts to improve education. In our first round of funding under this call, we awarded grants to five projects; project summaries can be found here. We plan to fund up to five more projects in this round.

The Spencer Foundation has always “been dedicated to the belief that research is necessary to improvement in education. The Foundation is thus committed to supporting high-quality investigation of education through its research programs and to strengthening and renewing the educational research community through its fellowship and training programs and related activities.”

Currently, the Spencer Foundation is accepting preliminary proposals for the second round of the “Evidence for the Classroom” project. The deadline is June 11, 2013.

The current Evidence for the Classroom RFP includes information on eligibility criteria and how to apply. For remaining questions on the RFP or for other Data Use related questions, please email datause@spencer.org.

For investigators interested in data use questions that fall outside the scope of the RFP, the Foundation continues to welcome proposals within the broader focus area, Organizational Learning in Schools, School Systems, and Higher Education Institutions.

Further information about the RFP and the process to apply can be found at:

http://www.spencer.org/content.cfm/data-use-and-educational-improvement

Education Department Demands more Evidence

Posted on February 19, 2013 by coreeducation

Big changes may be coming in the way the Department of Education selects grant recipients. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo to federal agencies requiring them to demonstrate the use of evidence in their fiscal 2014 budget requests. This new requirement signals a shift of emphasis toward the use of “evidence and rigorous evaluation in budget, management and policy decisions.”

The Department of Education has made a number of proposed changes to EDGAR, or the Education Department General Administrative Regulations, which reveal the way in which evidence may play a larger role in education funding.The full text of the proposed changes is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-14/pdf/2012-29897.pdf

Proposed changes would have the following effects:

The extent to which grantees meet performance targets would be considered in making continuation grants.
Procurement processes would be simplified to allow for the section of implementation sites, implementation partners, and evaluation service providers during the preparation of an application.
The prohibition on subgrants would be lifted in some cases.
New selection criteria would be approved, including two new selection factors regarding the extent to which the proposed project is supported by evidence of promise or strong theory. In addition, new selection factors would address the extent to which the methods of evaluation would, if well-implemented, produce evidence about the project’s effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
A priority would be established for projects that can cite and build upon an existing base of strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. The Secretary could either establish a separate competition or give a competitive preference to applications supported by strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness.
A project may be able to receive an extension of the funding period for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance data.
The following terms will be defined and integrated into future notices: ‘‘ambitious,’’ ‘‘baseline data,’’ ‘‘evidence of promise,’’ ‘‘large sample,’’ ‘‘logic model,’’ ‘‘moderate evidence of effectiveness,’’ ‘‘multi-site sample,’’ ‘‘national level,’’ ‘‘performance measure,’’ ‘‘performance target,’’ ‘‘randomized controlled trial,’’ ‘‘regional level,’’ ‘‘relevant outcome,’’ ‘‘quasiexperimental study,’’ ‘‘strong evidence of effectiveness,’’ and ‘‘strong theory.’’

So, what does all this mean for grant seekers? For those who seek a portion of the more than $2 billion in competitive, non-formula grants from the Department of Education, it means that evidence will play a much larger role in one’s ability to be funded and keep funding. More of the Department’s grants will take on the flavor of the Investing in Innovation or i3 competition, in which applicants compete in tiers based on the level of evidence supporting their proposed intervention. Only those projects with the most solid evidence basis are eligible to compete for the largest pots of money.

Final EDGAR regulations should be released within the next few months. In the meantime, it’s a good idea to ramp up data collection and begin cultivating a relationship with a project evaluator.

To access the OMB’s memo, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-14.pdf

For the proposed rulemaking, see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-14/pdf/2012-29897.pdf

Education Department releases Forum Guide on education data

Posted on January 23, 2013 by coreeducation

The National Center for Education Statistics, in conjunction with the Institute of Education Sciences and the U.S. Department of Education, has recently released the Forum Guide to Taking Action with Education Data. The goal of the new Forum Guide is to give educators practical ideas about how they can process data and implement concrete changes based on what they learn.

The movement to make efficient use of data has grown in recent years, with other organizations such as the Center for Education Policy Research setting out to be a “unique partnership among districts, states, foundations, and university-based researchers designed to leverage the overwhelming amount of newly available school-, teacher-, and student-level data to address previously intractable policy questions in education and improve educational outcomes for all students.”

The National Center for Education Statistics provides the following description for the Forum Guide:

The Forum Guide to Taking Action with Education Data provides stakeholders with practical information about the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to more effectively access, interpret, and use education data to inform action. The Briefs that accompany the Introduction are written for three key education audiences: Educators, School and District Leaders, and State Program Staff. The document includes an overview of the evolving nature of data use, basic data use concepts, and a list of skills necessary for effectively using data. The Guide recommends a question-driven approach to data use, in which the following questions can help guide readers who need to use data to take action:

What do I want to know?
What data might be relevant?
How will I access relevant data?
What skills and tools do I need to analyze the data?
What do the data tell me?
What are my conclusions?
What will I do?
What effects did my actions have?
What are my next steps?

The introduction to the document itself adds, regarding the need for the Forum Guide:

In an era of diminishing public resources, the effective use of data is about being efficient: once an education organization has gone to the effort of collecting data, failing to use the information to inform instructional, administrative, and policy-related activities is uneconomical, unwise, and a waste of a valuable information resource. Conversely, appropriate action, based on the right data at the right time, can lead education organizations to greater efficiency, educators to greater effectiveness, and students to greater academic achievement.

The Appendix to the guide also provides links to helpful online resources and articles.

To access the guide, please visit the following website:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013801

Three-year Study offers Conclusive Findings on the Crucial Role of Teachers

Posted on January 22, 2013 by coreeducation

The Measures of Effective Teaching Project, the collective work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Harvard University’s Center For Education Policy Research, has recently released a detailed report on three years of research on 3,000 teachers in seven school districts that conclusively finds that “the quality of teachers directly affects test score results regardless of a student’s past performance.”

The seven school districts involved in the study include Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent Schools, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis Public Schools, New York City Public Schools, and Pittsburgh Public Schools.

According to the report, three key measures should be used collectively for teacher evaluation: observations of teachers, student surveys, and student test scores. The MET Project explains them as follows:

Classroom observation instruments, including both subject-specific and cross-subject tools, define discrete teaching competencies and describe different levels of performance for each.
Student perception surveys assess key characteristics of the classroom environment, including supportiveness, challenge, and order.
Student achievement gains on state tests and on more cognitively challenging assessments.

The formal title of the final report of the MET study is, “Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Project’s Three-Year Study.” The MET Project has released four previous preliminary reports, all along similar lines, which have addressed the issue of how effective teaching can effectively be evaluated. In the initial report in 2010 (Learning about Teaching), researchers found that a well-designed student perception survey can provide reliable feedback on aspects of teaching practice that are predictive of student learning. In 2012 (Gathering Feedback for Teaching), they presented similar results for classroom observations and found that an accurate observation rating requires two or more lessons, each scored by a different certified observer.

This final report of the MET Project has reached three main conclusions:

Effective teaching can be measured. The data show that we can identify groups of teachers who are more effective in helping students learn. Moreover, the magnitude of the achievement gains that teachers generated was consistent with expectations.
Balanced weights for multiple evaluation measures indicate multiple aspects of effective teaching. A composite with weights between 33 percent and 50 percent assigned to state test scores demonstrated the best mix of low volatility from year to year and ability to predict student gains on multiple assessments. Multiple measures produce more consistent ratings than student achievement measures alone.
Adding a second observer increases reliability significantly more than having the same observer score an additional lesson. These additional observations may be for shorter periods.

To read the report, see http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf

For more in-depth analysis of the report, please visit the following links:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/08/17teach_ep.h32.html?tkn=QLVFELV%2FijsUPd9rgNLNZ%2FBjlvQWlnlxwYsx&cmp=clp-edweek

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/gates-study-weve-figured-out-what-makes-a-good-teacher/2013/01/08/05ca7d60-59b0-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html

Analysis of achievement data to measure teacher effectiveness

Posted on January 2, 2013 by coreeducation

The Strategic Data Project (SDP), part of Harvard’s Center for Education Policy Research, has teamed with Los Angeles Public Schools (LAUSD) for the last two years and has just released findings based on “analysis of student achievement data to measure teacher effectiveness.” The formal title of the revealing report is The LAUSD Human Capital Diagnostic.

The report argues that while we have known for some time that teachers are the single most important variable for student success, we have not had the data, or more importantly the accurate analysis of data, to prove this notion fully.

The major policy goal of the SDP is to effectively make use of the wealth of data available today, and they have done this with LAUSD by evaluating student and teacher data between the 2004-5 school year and the 2010-11 school year. SDP looked at “the placement of students to teachers, the usage of extended substitutes, the impact of layoffs based on seniority, the relative success of novice teachers recruited from alternative pathways, and the improved effectiveness of teachers as they gain experience, degrees and certification.”

The most salient results concern teacher placement and development:

New teachers are too often placed with students who are already behind, only compounding students’ problems.
Teachers from Career Ladder and Teach for America are better than typical novice teachers.
National Board Certification is a stronger indicator of teacher effectiveness than is an advanced degree.
Wide variance in teacher effectiveness indicates a range of possibilities for teacher development.

For more information, and links to the press release and full report, please visit: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/cepr/news-events/index.php

2010 Census Statistics and Education: Enrollment, Cost, and Outcomes

Posted on November 8, 2012 by coreeducation

The United States Census Bureau has released educational statistics that have been compiled as part of its “How Do We Know?” initiative. The statistics are broken down into three categories: enrollment, cost, and outcomes and displayed in a visually appealing infographic.

For enrollment, the Census Bureau focuses on showing the similarities and differences between educational enrollment in 1970 (during the peak period of baby boomers in school) and 2010.

The Census Bureau evaluates Americans between the ages of 3 and 34 and finds that in all but the grade school level (elementary and middle school), there are more students than there were in 1970.
The largest differences were in nursery school (.9 million in 1970 to 4.9 million in 2010) and college (7.0 million in 1970 to 18.9 million in 2010). In other words, the largest increases in terms of who is receiving education in America concern its youngest and oldest students.
In 1970, only 27% of 3 to 5 year olds were receiving education whereas 60% of that age group were receiving education in 2010.
Most of those young children in school are in public, whole day education, an increase of over 40%.
In 1970, only 32% of 18 to 24 year olds were receiving education whereas 52% of that group were receiving education in 2010.
More specifically, the gender of those in college and graduate school has shifted: in 1970, 27% of men and 20% of women were enrolled but in 2010, 38.6% of men and 47.5% of women were enrolled. Nearly half of American women between ages 18 and 24 are enrolled in college or graduate school.

In terms of the cost of education, the U.S. government spent $602.6 billion on education in 2010, out of which 52.7% was for instruction, 29.7% was for support services, 9.8% was for capital outlays, and 7.7% was for other. Only four states, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and Connecticut, spent over $9,000 per year per pupil. Twenty three states, mostly those in the Northeast and upper Midwest, spent between $6,000 and $8,999 per year per pupil. The rest spent between $3,000 and $6,000 per year per pupil.

Finally, in terms of outcomes, the 2010 census strongly supports the known connections between level of education gained and income as well as the continuing discrepancy between what men and women of equal educational level earn per year. Starting at the level of those with graduate/professional degrees, who on average make $62,618 per year, those with bachelor’s degrees make roughly $15,000 less per year, those with some college or associate’s degrees make roughly another $15,000 less per year, those with only a high school degree make roughly another $5,000 less per year, and finally those without high school diplomas make roughly another $8,000 less than that per year. For those same respective categories, the men made more money per year than women did by roughly $28,000, $17,000, $12,000, $10,000, and $7,000.

The full breakdown of these statistics can be found at http://www.census.gov/how/infographics/education.html

6th Annual Education Next Survey Results

Posted on October 30, 2012 by coreeducation

The results from the 6^th annual Education Next survey have recently been released. Education Next is an education policy journal which, according to their website argues that “bold change is needed in American K–12 education” although they claim to partake “of no program, campaign, or ideology” and only to go “where the evidence points”. The survey was conducted in conjunction with the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University. The results of this recent survey coincide with the upcoming United States presidential election and are reflective of a focus on educational policy reform.

In terms of methodology, the surveyors randomly polled 2,993 adult American citizens. Half of those surveyed were asked questions that allowed only answers in the positive or negative, while the other half were surveyed using a range of five responses, including one of neutral. Furthermore, in order to highlight certain perspectives on education, the surveyors polled the following focus subgroups: public school teachers, parents of school-age children, African-Americans, and Hispanics.

The survey highlighted several key findings:

In a year when many speculate that Independent voters will play a large part in determining the results of the election, the survey suggests that Independents lean toward more conservative perspectives on teachers unions, spending on education, and school choice initiatives.
The results of the answers from Hispanic respondents also suggest that they care more about education in general than do whites or African-Americans and they also have a higher belief in the success of the American education system.
As might be expected, the survey results posit that public support is high for test scores being used to evaluate teachers while teacher support for the same is quite low.
Furthermore, in addition to an eroding support for teachers unions, even among teachers, the survey perhaps more surprisingly points out a generally lower confidence in teachers.
When confronted with specific details of school funding, most respondents showed modest support for increased school funding, although before respondents were shown the details, support for increased school support was generally quite high.
Finally, the majority of those polled showed support for various school choice initiatives, including vouchers, tax credits, charter schools, and online education.

The link to the article describing the survey results by William Howell, Paul E. Peterson and Martin West can be found here. Actual survey results can be found here.

Brief Explores Likely Results of CCSS

Posted on October 15, 2012 by coreeducation

This second in a series of two-page briefs from the National Education Policy Center summarizes current research findings on the likely effects of the widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

The brief, written by Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, notes that there is no research directly on the CCSS program since it has yet to be implemented. Based on past experience with state standards and the experience of other nations, however, we know that the effects of the CCSS will depend much less on the standards themselves than on how they are used. He identifies two factors that are particularly crucial. ”The first is whether states invest in the necessary curricular and instructional resources and supports, and the second concerns the nature and use of CCSS assessments developed by the two national testing consortia.”

Mathis warns that standards themselves don’t teach. Nor does the international bench-marking of these standards have any effect. Alone, they do not create strong incentives to change what happens in the classroom. Instead, they can provide a foundational layer on which states can choose to build other policies such as supports for teaching and learning. He asks whether, given the current status of federal and state budgets, “there will be the political will to provide schools and students the professional support and learning resources necessary for the effort to be successful.”

Regarding the two national assessment consortia, the nature and use of the assessments will be crucial. Mathis expresses concern, noting that No Child Left Behind resulted in high-stakes testing that narrowed and “dumbed down” the curriculum and often resulted in test-driven drill and practice. Whether the testing consortia have the financial resources to implement high-quality and higher-order assessments on time is also an open question.

He concludes that the adoption of standards and assessments alone “is unlikely to improve learning, increase test scores, or close the achievement gap.” Keep an eye instead on the support and the assessments, he says.

To read the full brief, please visit http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options

Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking: Teacher Evaluation

Posted on October 12, 2012 by coreeducation

The first in a new series of two-page briefs summarizing the state of education policy research offers suggestions for policymakers designing teacher evaluation systems. The first paper, Teacher Evaluation, is written by Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado’s Boulder School of Education.

Mathis summarizes research findings on the effects of teacher evaluation systems, including unintended as well as intended consequences. At a time when teacher evaluation controversies in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and other school districts have erupted-particularly over the issue of evaluations based in part on the growth of students’ test scores-understanding the evidence about these issues has taken on new urgency.

Mathis counsels that lawmakers should be wary of approaches based in large part on
test scores, because of three problems:

The measurement error is large-which results in many teachers being incorrectly labeled as effective or ineffective;
Given that only certain grade levels and subject areas are tested, relevant test scores are not available for most teachers; and
The incentives created by the high-stakes use of test scores drive undesirable teaching practices such as curriculum narrowing and teaching to the test.

Instead, he advocates systems like peer assistance and review (PAR) that de-emphasize test scores. Such systems are more labor intensive but have “far greater potential to enrich instruction and improve education.” He also advocates balancing summative, high-stakes assessment systems “with formative approaches that identify strengths and weaknesses of teachers and directly focus on developing and improving their teaching.”

This two-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship.

To read the full brief, please visit http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options-teacher-evaluations

Implementing Indiana’s “Students First” Agenda

Posted on August 28, 2012 by coreeducation

In a newly released study, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) director of education policy studies Frederick (Rick) Hess, professor Paul Manna and researcher Keenan Kelly assess Indiana’s 2011 “Putting Students First” education reform law, a first of its kind large-scale reform package which includes school choice, teacher evaluation and collective bargaining reforms which serves as a model for other states.

Indiana’s experience shows that while state-level leadership is necessary, ultimately local officials must implement changes. Unless attitudes and actions shift at the local level, education reform will remain an idea rather than a reality.

Lessons from Indiana:

Burdens state officials face: State education agencies are often too focused on monitoring federal funding or ensuring that local school districts comply with a wide array of state and federal laws. Indiana’s reforms add additional burdens: providing more training to and oversight of local agencies, solving complex problems associated with shutting down failing schools and/or hiring private operators to turn around low-performing schools. While reform laws may be passed the state level, local officials are essential to effecting change.

Fix a local culture of compliance: Ultimately schools and school districts must implement any reforms, and their ability to do so remains in question. Many school districts will need a significant cultural shift to avoid reflexively accepting state standards. For example, in the past when local school officials were allowed to design their own teacher evaluation system based on their unique needs, 80 percent of districts simply adopted the one given to them from the state agency.

The writers conclude, “[W]hile much has been said about whether these new laws are good or bad, far less attention has been paid to the looming implementation challenges. The time is ripe for a serious treatment of such issues, both for Indiana policymakers, educators, and citizens and for those in other states weighing similar reform legislation.”

To read the full study, please visit http://www.aei.org/paper/implementing-indianas-putting-students-first-agenda-early-lessons-and-potential-futures

The "Core" of Education

Tag Archives: education research