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 toolslibrariesschoolscolleges3/7/2013 7:07:06 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/funding/ccp.aspElementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and provide funds to assist with turning around the nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools. Using publicly-available data, "School Improvement Grants: Analyses of State Applications and Eligible and Awarded Schools" examines (1) the SIG policies and practices states intend to implement based on their Cohort 2 applications for federal SIG funds, (2) the characteristics of schools eligible for and awarded SIG in Cohort 2, and (3) how these intended policies, practices, and school characteristics compare between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2. The first cohort of grantees began implementing reforms in the 2010-11 school year, with a second cohort of grantees beginning reforms in the 2011-12 school year.]]>10/24/2012 8:38:49 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124060/9/27/2012 1:07:20 PMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/math_pd.asp9/18/2012 7:39:06 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124057/
From January 2011 until her appointment as Commissioner, Dr. Neild served as the Associate Commissioner for NCEE's Knowledge Utilization division. In that capacity, she emphasized the importance of both technically excellent education research and its clear, engaging presentation for educators in user-friendly formats. Prior to joining NCEE, she was a Research Scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools, where she worked on research projects that ranged from descriptive and correlational to studies of impact. She also served on the standing faculty of the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education.

Neild is succeeding Rebecca Maynard, who is returning to the University of Pennsylvania. "Ruth is a fantastic choice for this position," said Maynard. "She brings to the job not only years of experience as a producer of highly policy relevant research, but also familiarity with and expertise in the full range of work that goes on in NCEE—from large-scale randomized controlled trials to the dissemination activities of the National Library of Education and ERIC. In the relatively short time Ruth has been at NCEE, she has demonstrated both vision for bringing more rigor and relevance to education research and an amazing talent for recruiting and mentoring staff to carry out the diversity of work that goes on in the center."

As Commissioner, she will oversee NCEE, one of four centers in the Institute of Education Sciences. NCEE helps educators and policy makers make informed decisions about education programs through the work of its two divisions: Evaluation, which conducts large-scale evaluations of federally funded education programs and practices, and Knowledge Utilization, which supports locally developed research and evaluation projects and technical assistance on data use through the ten Regional Educational Laboratories, and the synthesis and widespread dissemination of research through the What Works Clearinghouse, the National Library of Education, and the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) online database.

Neild said, "Conducting rigorous research on topics of greatest concern to educators and policymakers remains a top priority of NCEE. At the same time, we seek to lead the field in how we communicate about research, including development of products that are user-friendly, engaging, and attuned to the needs of the target audienc]]>9/5/2012 7:47:20 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/aboutus/

Across the 40 states with relevant data, 35 percent of public schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup in the 2008-09 school year, representing 58 percent of tested SWDs in those states. In those same 40 states, 62 percent of middle schools were accountable for SWD performance, while 31 percent of elementary schools and 23 percent of high schools were accountable.

In 20 states that had relevant data for all fours years, there was a steady increase in the percentage of SWD-accountable schools, from 25 percent in the 2005-06 school year to 34 percent in the 2008-09 school year.

In 32 states with relevant data, 55 percent of public schools were not accountable for the SWD subgroup in any of the 4 years examined, while 18 percent of schools that were consistently accountable in each of the 4 years.

In 37 states with relevant data, nine percent of all public schools missed AYP in the 2008–09 school year because of SWD subgroup performance and other reason(s), and 5 percent missed it solely because of SWD subgroup performance. Together these schools served 28 percent of tested SWDs in all public schools in these states.

Among schools that were consistently accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup during the 4 years across 27 states, 56 percent were never identified for school improvement over this time period. By comparison, among schools that were not accountable for SWD subgroup performance in any of the 4 years, 76 percent were never identified for improvement.

]]>5/29/2012 7:47:48 AMhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124056/
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/