Package 'Shinybusy'
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress
Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education NCES 2009–479 NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress READING 1971–2008 MATHEMATICS 1973–2008 CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Executive Summary 6 Introduction This report presents the results of the NAEP long- 8 The Long-Term Trend Assessment term trend assessments in reading and mathemat- in Reading ics, which were most recently given in the 2007–08 28 The Long-Term Trend Assessment school year to students at ages 9, 13, and 17. Nationally representative samples of over 26,000 in Mathematics public and private school students were assessed 50 Technical Notes in each subject area. 53 Appendix Tables The long-term trend assessments make it possible to chart educational progress since the early 1970s. Results in reading are available for 12 assessments going back to the rst in 1971. The rst of 11 assess- ments in mathematics was administered in 1973. What is Throughout this report, the most recent results are compared to those from 2004 and from the rst year The Nation’s the assessment was conducted. ™ Report Card ? The original assessment format, content, and proce- dures were revised somewhat in 2004 to update content The Nation’s Report Card™ informs the public about and provide accommodations to students with disabili- the academacademicic achachievementievement ooff elementarelementaryy and ties and English language learners. The knowledge and secondary students in the United StatesStates. Report skills assessed, however, remain essentially the same cards communicate the findings of the National since the rst assessment year. Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure Improvements seen in reading and of achievement in various subjects over time. -
Module 3 Slide Handouts
Pathways of Progress™ Module 3: The Logic Behind Pathways of Progress TM Three Guiding Principles in Establishing Pathways of Progress Matter Individual Student Learning Goals • We know that the level of skills for a student at the Meaningful. beginning of the year is an important predictor of their – Goals should support students to achieve meaningful outcomes or increase the likelihood of achieving meaningful and important end of year outcome (partial eta squared = 71%). outcomes. • Pathways of Progress contributes to initial skills in Ambitious. predicting later outcomes (partial eta squared = 17%). – Above typical or well above typical progress are ambitious goals. – Typical progress may be sufficient for students who are at or above benchmark – Typical progress may not be adequate for students who are likely to need additional support to achieve benchmark goals. – Below typical or well below typical progress are just not very ambitious. Attainable. – High in the well above typical range is probably not attainable. – Typical and above typical progress is readily attainable. – Well below typical and below typical progress may be attainable, but are not ambitious or meaningful. Pathways of ProgressTM ©2015 Dynamic Measurement Group 33 Pathways of ProgressTM ©2015 Dynamic Measurement Group 34 Considerations in Establishing Considerations in Establishing Student Learning Goals Student Learning Goals DIBELS Next informed considerations: Other considerations: What rate of progress is above typical progress What rate of progress is possible with a very compared to other students with similar initial skills? effective, research based intervention? What rate of progress is necessary to narrow the What resources are available to support instruction achievement gap with students making adequate and intervention? progress? What is the student attendance pattern? What rate of progress is necessary to achieve important benchmark goals. -
Interim Progress Report
INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT Period covered by report: 1 August 2012 to 31 July 2013 Proposal Title: (MURI) Value-centered Information Theory for Adaptive Learning, Inference, Tracking, and Exploitation Contract/Grant #: W911NF-11-1-0391 Authors of report: Alfred O. Hero (PI), U of Michigan Douglas Cochran, Arizona State U Emre Ertin, Ohio State U John W. Fisher III, MIT Jonathon How, MIT Michael Jordan, UC Berkeley Randolph L. Moses, Ohio State U Raj Rao Nadakuditi, U of Michigan Stefano Soatto, UCLA Alan Willsky, MIT Angela Yu, UCSD ARO proposal number: W911NF-11-1-0391 Principal Investigator: Alfred O. Hero, Professor Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science The University of Michigan 1301 Beal Ave Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 Tel: 734 763 0564 Email: [email protected] Submitted to: Dr. Liyi Dai Program Manager Army Research Office Raleigh, NC MURI: Value-centered Information Theory Year 2 IPR Abstract This interdisciplinary project is developing a comprehensive set of principles for task-specific information extraction and information exploitation that can be used to design the next gen- eration of autonomous and adaptive sensing systems. The significance of this research is that it addresses the widespread and longstanding problem of defining, assessing, and exploiting the value of information in active sensing systems. This year we report progress in twenty areas organized around three main thrusts: (1) learning and representation of high dimensional data, (2) distributed information fusion, and (3) active information exploitation. In the learning and representation thrust, progress ranges from assessing value of Kronecker representations of high-dimensional covariance matrices to learning to rank user preference data, an impor- tant task for human-in-the-loop decision systems. -
Students Monitor Academic Progress 1 STUDENTS MONITOR
Students Monitor Academic Progress 1 STUDENTS MONITOR ACADEMIC PROGRESS USING DATA FOLDERS TO SEE IF ACADEMIC GAINS ARE MADE By JEANNE PEACOCK Submitted to The Educational Leadership Faculty Northwest Missouri State University Missouri Department of Educational Leadership College of Education and Human Services Maryville, MO 64468 Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirements for 61‐683 Research Paper Summer 2013 July 19, 2014 Students Monitor Academic Progress 2 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to analyze elementary student’s academic gains when they monitored their own progress in the areas of reading Dolch Sight Words, Spelling and Math. These students don’t typically monitor their academic progress; it is done by the Special Education Teacher. Progress towards academic goals is made; but there is often regression and progress is typically slow. The research includes findings that answer the question, “Are there academic gains when elementary students monitor their progress using student Data Folders?” In order for the students to have complete ownership of their learning they created their own Data Folders. They created the graph paper and put a title at the top for each subject. After each informal assessment, the students graphed their percentage on the appropriate data graph. The study was conducted during the 2013-2014 school year and compared to the 2012-2013 school year when these same students did not monitor their progress. Six students were involved in this study and their names are anonymous. The findings were analyzed through A Statistical Program (ASP) software. Findings indicate that there is a difference between the progress elementary students’ make when they monitor their own academic progress and when they do not monitor their own academic progress. -
Developing Achievement Levels on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Grades 8 and 12 Writing Process Report
National Assessment Governing Board Developing Achievement Levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in Writing Grades 8 and 12 in 2011 Submitted to: National Assessment Governing Board 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 825 Washington, DC 02002-4233 Phone: 202.357.6938 This study was funded by the National Assessment Governing Board under Contract ED-NAG-10-C-0003. Submitted by: Measured Progress 100 Education Way Dover, NH 03820 Phone: 603.749.9102 ALS Writing Process Report September 2012 PANELIST NAMES REDACTED BY GOVERNING BOARD Developing Achievement Levels on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Grades 8 and 12 Writing Process Report Luz Bay with Chris Clough Jennifer Dunn Wonsuk Kim Leah McGuire Tia Sukin September 2012 ALS Writing Process Report Measured Progress ii National Assessment Governing Board BOARD MEMBERSHIP (2011–2012) Honorable David P. Driscoll, Chair Former Commissioner of Education Melrose, Massachusetts Mary Frances Taymans, SND, Vice Chair Sisters of Notre Dame National Education Office Bethesda, Maryland Andrés Alonso Shannon Garrison Chief Executive Officer Fourth-Grade Teacher Baltimore City Public Schools Solano Avenue Elementary School Baltimore, Maryland Los Angeles, California David J. Alukonis Doris R. Hicks Former Chairman Principal and Chief Executive Officer Hudson School Board Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School Hudson, New Hampshire for Science and Technology New Orleans, Louisiana Louis M. Fabrizio Data, Research and Federal Policy Director Honorable Terry Holliday North Carolina Department of Public Commissioner of Education Instruction Kentucky Department of Education Raleigh, North Carolina Lexington, Kentucky Honorable Anitere Flores Richard Brent Houston Senator Principal Florida State Senate Shawnee Middle School Miami, Florida Shawnee, Oklahoma Alan J. -
The Teacher's Quest for Progress
THE TEACHER’S QUEST FOR PROGRESS: How school leaders can motivate instructional innovation BY THOMAS ARNETT, BOB MOESTA, AND MICHAEL B. HORN SEPTEMBER 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was made possible by a generous grant from Fremont Street, a national nonprofit philanthropy dedicated to catalyzing the redesign of public schools at broad scale to better prepare students for today’s world while also improving the jobs of educators. We also appreciate Fremont Street’s valuable thought partnership in this research. We are grateful to Education Elements, Raising Blended Learners, Big Picture Learning, Distinctive Schools, Westmoreland County School District (Va.), Enlarged City School District of Middletown (N.Y.), Lexington Public Schools (Mass.), Cat Alexander, and Carrie Conover for putting us in touch with teachers to interview and survey. We would also like to thank Greg Engle for assisting with the analysis of our interview data, Luis Flores for supporting our research activities, and Meris Stansbury for preparing this report for publication. CHRISTENSEN INSTITUTE: THE TEACHER’S QUEST FOR PROGRESS 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Four missteps in bringing about change 7 The Jobs to be Done Framework 9 The Forces of Progress 9 Seeing Jobs in the wild 10 Which Jobs cause teachers to “hire” new instructional practices? 12 Job 1: Help me lead the way in improving my school 13 The Job 14 Recommendation 14 Job 2: Help me engage and challenge more of my students in a way that’s manageable 15 The Job 16 Recommendation 16 Job 3: Help me replace a broken instructional model so I can reach each student 18 The Job 19 Recommendation 20 Job 4: Help me to not fall behind on my school’s new initiative 20 The Job 21 Recommendation 21 Conclusion 23 Notes 24 About the Institute and Fremont Street 25 About the authors 26 CHRISTENSEN INSTITUTE: THE TEACHER’S QUEST FOR PROGRESS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Teacher education is ripe with ideas for improving teaching and learning. -
Public School Choice in Wisconsin: a Work in Progress Will Flanders Research Director
JANUARY 2021 JESSICA HOLMBERG & WILL FLANDERS, PHD PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE IN WISCONSIN: A WORK IN PROGRESS WILL FLANDERS RESEARCH DIRECTOR [email protected] JESSICA HOLMBERG POLICY AND COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATE [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �1 Program Overview � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �3 Methods � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 12 Results � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 13 Policy Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 18 Conclusions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21 Appendices � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 22 Endnotes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 24 Public School Choice in Wisconsin: A Work in Progress 1 Executive Summary 2. Parents make decisions based on academics. With controls for a number of other variables, Forward Exam proficiency Wisconsin offers more schooling options