Search Results: (1-15 of 189 records)
|NCES 2023055||Overview of the Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017–18 (MGLS:2017): Technical Report
This technical report provides general information about the study and the data files and technical documentation that are available. Information was collected from students, their parents or guardians, their teachers, and their school administrators. The data collection included direct and indirect assessments of middle grades students’ mathematics, reading, and executive function, as well as indirect assessments of socioemotional development in 2018 and again in 2020. MGLS:2017 field staff provided additional information about the school environment through an observational checklist.
|NCES 2023010||NAEP Reading 2022 State and District Snapshot Reports
Each state/jurisdiction and district that participated in the NAEP 2022 reading assessment receives a one-page Snapshot report that presents key findings and trends in a condensed format. The reports in this series provide bulleted text describing overall student results, bar charts showing NAEP achievement levels for selected years in which the state or district participated, and tables displaying results by gender, race/ethnicity, and eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch. In addition, bulleted text describes the trends in average scale score gaps by gender, race/ethnicity, and eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch. Each state/jurisdiction Snapshot report includes a map comparing the 2022 average score to other states/jurisdictions; and each district Snapshot report includes a table comparing the 2022 average score to other participating districts.
|NCES 2023011||NAEP Mathematics 2022 State and District Snapshot Reports
Each state/jurisdiction and district that participated in the NAEP 2022 mathematics assessment receives a one-page Snapshot report that presents key findings and trends in a condensed format. The reports in this series provide bulleted text describing overall student results, bar charts showing NAEP achievement levels for selected years in which the state or district participated, and tables displaying results by gender, race/ethnicity, and eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch. In addition, bulleted text describes the trends in average scale score gaps by gender, race/ethnicity, and eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch. Each state/jurisdiction Snapshot report includes a map comparing the 2022 average score to other states/jurisdictions; and each district Snapshot report includes a table comparing the 2022 average score to other participating districts.
|NCES 2022041||Changes Between 2011 and 2019 in Achievement Gaps Between High- and Low-Performing Students in Mathematics and Science: International Results From TIMSS
This Statistics in Brief (SiB) uses data from the 2011 and 2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and explores how achievement gaps between high- and low-performing 4th- and 8th-grade students in the U.S. and other education systems have changed over time. Achievement gaps are defined as the differences in scores between students at the 90th percentile of performance (high-performing) and those at the 10th percentile of performance (low-performing); they are also known as “score gaps.” The SiB focuses on two questions for each grade and subject: (1) In which education systems did score gaps between high- and low-performing students change (widen or narrow) between 2011 and 2019? (2) Is the widening or narrowing of score gaps between 2011 and 2019 driven primarily by changes in the scores of high-performing students, low-performing students, or both?
|REL 2022138||Effects of Reclassifying English Learner Students on Student Achievement in New Mexico
This study examined how attaining English proficiency and being reclassified as fluent English proficient affected achievement in English language arts and math in the first year after student reclassification in grades 3–8 in New Mexico. State policy in New Mexico bases student reclassification decisions on whether students attain a minimum overall English language proficiency level score of 5.0 on the ACCESS for ELLs (ACCESS) assessment. The study focused on achievement among English learner students in 2014/15–2018/19, a time when the ACCESS underwent a standards setting process to better align its language proficiency scoring scale with the expectations of college- and career-ready standards. After the standards setting, a smaller percentage of English learner students in New Mexico attained English proficiency and were reclassified each year. At the same time, students who scored near the English proficiency level required for reclassification performed above the statewide average in English language arts and math and were more likely to meet state content proficiency standards. However, the study found no effects of reclassification on student achievement either before or after the ACCESS standards setting. In addition, the study found no effect of reclassification on next-year English language arts and math achievement among most groups of students with different characteristics and among most districts in the study. Leaders at the New Mexico Public Education Department could use the findings of this study to consider maintaining the current reclassification threshold. In addition, the state and its districts might want to identify opportunities to strengthen the supports provided to English learner students. This could begin by collecting more systematic information on the education services and supports that English learner students receive leading up to and after they attain English proficiency.
|NCEE 2022006||Study of Teacher Coaching Based on Classroom Videos: Impacts on Student Achievement and Teachers' Practices
Helping teachers become more effective in the classroom is a high priority for school leaders and policymakers. This study examined one promising strategy for improving teachers’ effectiveness: providing individualized coaching using videos of teachers’ instruction for reflection, practice, and feedback. The coaching focused on general, rather than subject specific, teaching practices. About 100 elementary schools were randomly divided into three groups: one where teachers received five highly structured cycles of focused, professional coaching during a single school year, one where teachers received more coaching (eight cycles), and one that continued with its usual strategies for supporting teachers. The study compared teachers’ experiences and their students’ achievement across the three groups to determine the effectiveness of the two versions of the coaching.
|REL 2022125||Schools' Experiences with Georgia's District and School Flexibility Policy
Georgia instituted a flexibility policy in 2007 that provided districts with waivers from state education rules, provisions, and guidelines. In exchange, schools must meet academic performance targets. The performance contracts are meant to encourage schools and districts to implement innovative practices to increase achievement for all students in Georgia. Between 2008/09 and 2016/17, 178 of Georgia’s 180 districts entered into performance contracts with the state. The Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) asked Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast to analyze how each school’s achievement changed after the start of their district’s performance contracts and the factors related to those changes. GaDOE also requested information on schools’ implementation of and experiences with the state’s flexibility policy, focusing on how schools have prioritized local innovations in practice. Overall, the study found positive but small changes in achievement for grades 3–8 English language arts and math and found significant variation in changes in achievement across schools within districts, after adjusting for other factors. Changes in achievement after performance contracts were implemented were related to schools’ demographic composition and prior achievement. In response to a survey, school leaders reported prioritizing innovations related to use of data to identify early intervention needs, formative assessments used to guide instruction, supplemental programs for low-performing students, and personalized learning for students. Leaders in schools with larger proportions of students eligible for the national school lunch program, Black students, and English learner students reported prioritizing innovations related to online and/or blended curricula more frequently than schools with smaller proportions of these students. School leaders also reported a great deal of school-level influence over decisions about priority innovations.
|REL 2021113||Using Enhanced Coaching of Teachers to Improve Reading Achievement in Grades PreK–2 in Chicago Public Schools
Chicago Public Schools is working to improve early literacy outcomes through a multiyear professional development initiative for preK–2 teachers. The P–2 Balanced Literacy Initiative aims to improve literacy instruction by training teachers to implement effective early literacy instruction balancing systematic foundational skills instruction with reading and writing instruction involving rich, complex texts. The initiative began in 2016/17 and served 23 percent of all district elementary schools by 2018/19. The district designated 26 of the 115 elementary schools implementing the initiative in 2018/19 to receive enhanced supports, including intensive, site-based coaching, to support students’ independent reading. This study compared the reading achievement of students who attended schools that received the enhanced supports (priority schools) with the reading achievement of students who attended similar schools that received only the initiative’s standard supports (nonpriority schools). It also examined differences between priority and nonpriority schools in teachers’ and administrators’ participation in professional development sessions and looked at the successes and challenges of implementation. The study found that one year after implementation of the initiative, attending a priority school did not lead to higher end-of-year reading achievement than attending a nonpriority school after other factors were adjusted for. Teachers and administrators in priority schools were more likely than those in nonpriority schools to participate in the initiative’s core professional development sessions. Interviews with select district, network, and school leaders; instructional support coaches; and teachers suggest that several aspects of the initiative’s professional development were valuable, most notably the opportunities for teachers to deepen their understanding of the initiative’s professional development, receive feedback through observation and school-based coaching, and learn from one another. But instructional support coaches’ limited capacity, due to competing responsibilities, was a challenge. District leaders might consider increasing the number of coaches available and limiting their competing priorities so they can focus on the initiative.
|NCES 2021047||Program for the International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 Restricted-Use Files (RUF)
The PISA 2018 Restricted Use File (RUF) consists of restricted-use data from PISA 2018 for the United States. The data file and documentation includes the data file, a codebook, instructions on how to merge with the U.S. PISA 2018 public-use dataset (NCES 2021-047), and a cross-walk to assist in merging with other public datasets, such as the Common Core of Data (CCD) and Private School Survey (PSS). As these data files can be used to identify respondent schools, a restricted-use license must be obtained before access to the data is granted. Click on the restricted-use license link below for more details https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/datafiles.asp.
For more details on the data, please refer to chapter 9 of the PISA 2018 Technical Report and User Guide (NCES 2021-011).
|NCES 2021019||Program for the International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 Public Use File (PUF)
The PISA 2018 Public Use File (PUF) consists of data from the PISA 2018 sample. Statistical confidentiality treatments were applied due to confidentiality concerns. The PUF can be accessed from the National Center for Education Statistics website at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/datafiles.asp.
For more details on the data, please refer to chapter 9 of the PISA 2018 Technical Report and User Guide (NCES 2021-011).
|NCES 2021020||Technical Report and User Guide for the 2016 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) Young Adult Follow-up Study
This technical report and user guide is designed to provide researchers with an overview of the design and implementation of PISA YAFS 2016, as well as with information on how to access the PISA YAFS 2016 data.
|NCES 2021022||Program for the International Student Assessment Young Adult Follow-up Study (PISA YAFS) 2016 Public Use File (PUF)
The PISA YAFS 2016 Public Use File (PUF) consists of data from the PISA YAFS 2016 sample. PISA YAFS was conducted in the United States in 2016 with a sample of young adults (at age 19) who participated in PISA 2012 when they were in high school (at age 15). In PISA YAFS, students took the Education and Skills Online (ESO) literacy and numeracy assessments, which are based on the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). It contains data for individuals including responses to the background questionnaire and the cognitive assessment. Statistical confidentiality treatments were applied due to confidentiality concerns.
For more details on the data, please refer to chapter 8 of the PISA YAFS 2016 Technical Report and User Guide (NCES 2021-020).
|NCES 2021029||2012–2016 Program for International Student Assessment Young Adult Follow-up Study (PISA YAFS): How reading and mathematics performance at age 15 relate to literacy and numeracy skills and education, workforce, and life outcomes at age 19
This Research and Development report provides data on the literacy and numeracy performance of U.S. young adults at age 19, as well as examines the relationship between that performance and their earlier reading and mathematics proficiency in PISA 2012 at age 15. It also explores how other aspects of their lives at age 19—such as their engagement in postsecondary education, participation in the workforce, attitudes, and vocational interests—are related to their proficiency at age 15.
|NCES 2021036||Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto the NAEP Scales: Results From the 2019 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Assessments
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has periodically published reports using results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to compare the proficiency standards that states set for their students. Since standards vary across states, the results of the various state assessments cannot be used to directly compare students’ progress. However, by placing a state standard onto the NAEP scale, a common metric for all states, a NAEP equivalent score is produced, which can be compared across states. The last mapping study report released by NCES (NCES 2019-040) compared state proficiency standards for school year 2016-17. The current report highlights the results of mapping state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales using state assessment results from the 2018–19 school year and the 2019 NAEP assessments for public schools.
|NCES 2021018||The National Indian Education Study 2019
The National Indian Education Study (NIES) utilizes the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and contextual questions to describe the condition of education for fourth- and eighth-grade American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in the United States. NIES is conducted under the direction of the National Center for Education Statistics on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Indian Education.This report provides:
Results are reported for three mutually exclusive categories of schools as well as for an overall category:
The survey results presented in this report are focused primarily on the responses of fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students to selected survey questions. Approximately 7,000 fourth-graders and 6,300 eighth-graders participated in the NIES 2019 student survey. Teachers and school administrators also completed surveys.
Average scores in NAEP reading and mathematics for AI/AN fourth- and eighth- graders from earlier NAEP assessments in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2015 are compared to their average reading and mathematics scores in 2019.
The NIES survey questions, as well as the report itself, were created in close collaboration with the NIES Technical Review Panel (TRP). The NIES TRP is composed of AI/AN educational stakeholders from across the country.