http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/whatsnew/For the latest in events, developments, and updates to the NCEE website, check back here often.en-useducationstatisticsdata access toolslibrariesschoolscolleges
The report presents analyses based on district data collected on all SES applicants and survey data collected from SES providers serving the six study districts.]]>5/3/2012 8:00:13 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124053/http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/index.asp)

The study found that none of the comparison group designs reliably replicated the impact estimates from the experimental design study. However, the use of pre-intervention baseline data that are strongly predictive of the key outcome measures considerably reduced, but did not eliminate the estimated bias in the non-experimental impact estimates. Estimated impacts based on matched comparison groups were more similar to the experimental estimators than were the estimates based on the regression adjustments alone, the differences are moderate in size, although not statistically significant.]]>4/26/2012 8:10:02 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124019/Education Technology Evaluation and the Teach for America Study—to provide evidence on the performance of RD estimators in two specific contexts. More generally, the report presents and implements a method for examining the performance of RD estimators that could be used in other contexts. The study found that the RD and experimental designs produced impact estimates that were meaningful in size, though not significantly different from one another. The study also found that manipulation of the assignment variable in RD designs can substantially influence RD impact estimates, particularly if manipulation is related to the outcome and occurs close to the assignment variable's cutoff value.]]>4/25/2012 8:05:59 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124025/4/3/2012 9:08:28 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124051/2/1/2012 10:26:57 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124022/10/12/2011 9:20:10 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124015/10/11/2011 1:58:17 PMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124016/9/7/2011 11:15:01 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114033/

Consistent with the program design, RCCs worked directly with states on an ongoing basis in over 80 percent of sampled projects in each year, and CCs focused on synthesizing, translating, and delivering knowledge to RCCs and states in more than 70 percent of sampled projects in each year.

Centers addressed the most frequently cited state priority of "statewide systems of support," and an increasing number of state managers reported each year that Center assistance served their purposes. In 2008-09, 82 percent of state managers reported that Center assistance expanded state capacity in "statewide systems of support" to a "great" or "moderate" extent.

On average across each of the three years, expert panels rated sampled project materials as "moderate" to "high" quality, and project participants rated the sampled projects "high" on relevance and usefulness. Ratings were on a 5-point scale, with 3 representing "moderate" and 4 representing "high."

]]>8/31/2011 9:42:03 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114031/
The congressionally mandated study provides a national picture of state agency implementation of early intervention programs for infants and toddlers (IDEA Part C) and both state and school district implementation of special education programs for preschool- and school-age children (IDEA Part B). The study is based on surveys of state agency directors and a nationally representative sample of district special education directors conducted in 2009. The key findings include:

• State Part C agencies support the transition of toddlers with disabilities to Part B preschool-age special education programs, but Part C has not expanded to serve children until kindergarten. At age 3, toddlers receiving Part C services transition to Part B services (if eligible), typically involving a change in lead agency (in 46 states) and often a change in support staff, service settings, and services.
• Most school districts (85 percent) do not use IDEA Part B funds to provide Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS). IDEA 2004 permits, and in some cases requires, school districts to use some of their Part B funds to provide CEIS, services for students not yet identified as needing special education. These services are meant to address the overrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority students in special education.
• Most school districts implement Response to Intervention (RtI), use RtI data when determining specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility, and support RtI with district general funds. RtI, a range of practices for monitoring student academic and behavioral progress and providing targeted interventions, was added to IDEA in 2004 as a way to inform the determination of SLD and implement CEIS.
]]>7/26/2011 9:06:52 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/index.asp5/25/2011http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114024/index.asp
The report, "Impacts of a Violence Prevention Program for Middle Schools: Findings After 3 Years of Implementation," uses a randomized controlled trial and includes 36 schools in 11 districts across 6 states that remained in the study for all 3 years. Data were collected on program implementation, and outcomes were based on annually administered student and teacher survey responses.]]>5/24/2011 9:05:38 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114017/5/9/2011 9:10:17 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114019/4/1/2011http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114016/
The report, The Impact of a Reading Intervention for Low-Literate Adult ESL Learners, uses data collected from 1,137 adult ESL learners across ten sites in four states.]]>12/21/2010http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114003/index.asp