Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top. NCEE 2015-4018

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected $7 billion into two of the Obama administration's signature competitive education grant programs: Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). While RTT focused on state policies and SIG focused on school practices, both...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance 2015
Hauptverfasser: Dragoset, Lisa, James-Burdumy, Susanne, Hallgren, Kristin, Perez-Johnson, Irma, Herrmann, Mariesa, Tuttle, Christina, Angus, Megan Hague, Herman, Rebecca, Murray, Matthew, Tanenbaum, Courtney, Graczewski, Cheryl
Format: Report
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
container_volume
creator Dragoset, Lisa
James-Burdumy, Susanne
Hallgren, Kristin
Perez-Johnson, Irma
Herrmann, Mariesa
Tuttle, Christina
Angus, Megan Hague
Herman, Rebecca
Murray, Matthew
Tanenbaum, Courtney
Graczewski, Cheryl
description The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected $7 billion into two of the Obama administration's signature competitive education grant programs: Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). While RTT focused on state policies and SIG focused on school practices, both programs promoted related policies and practices, including an emphasis on turning around the nation's lowest-performing schools. Despite the sizable investment in both of these programs, comprehensive evidence on their implementation and impact has been limited to date. This report focuses on two implementation questions: (1) Do states and schools that received grants actually use the policies and practices promoted by these two programs? (2) Does their usage of these policies and practices differ from states and schools that did not receive grants? Answers to these questions provide context for interpreting impact findings that will be presented in a future report. The first volume of this report details our RTT findings, which are based on spring 2012 interviews with 49 states and the District of Columbia. Key findings include: (1) Early (Round 1 and 2) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in five of the six major areas examined: state capacity, standards and assessments, data systems, teachers and leaders, and charter schools (school turnaround was the exception). Later (Round 3) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in just one area: teachers and leaders; (2) Across all states, usage of policies and practices promoted by RTT was highest in the state capacity and data systems areas (66 and 68 percent of policies and practices examined) and lowest in the teachers and leaders area (24 percent or policies and practices examined); and (3) There were no differences between RTT and non-RTT states in usage of English Language Learner (ELL)-focused policies and practices promoted by RTT. States with higher percentages of ELLs used more ELL-focused policies and practices than states with lower percentages of ELLs, but there were no differences in usage between states with higher and lower ELL/non-ELL achievement gaps. Four appendices include: (1) Additional Figures Based on State Interviews; (2) Detailed Findings from State Interviews; (3) Interview Questions Aligned with RTT Policies and Practices; and (4) Additional Information about English Language Learner-Focused
format Report
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>eric_GA5</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_eric_primary_ED559916</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>ED559916</ericid><sourcerecordid>ED559916</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-eric_primary_ED5599163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNrjZPAOLU5MT1XIT1MIyM_JTM5MLVZIzEtRCChKTC7JTAbyAoryc_NLUlMUkioVghKTUxVK8hVKMlIVQvIL9BT8nF1dFYwMDE11TQwMLXgYWNMSc4pTeaE0N4OMm2uIs4dualFmcnxBUWZuYlFlvKuLqamlpaGZMQFpAOFDLyc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>report</recordtype></control><display><type>report</type><title>Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top. NCEE 2015-4018</title><source>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</source><creator>Dragoset, Lisa ; James-Burdumy, Susanne ; Hallgren, Kristin ; Perez-Johnson, Irma ; Herrmann, Mariesa ; Tuttle, Christina ; Angus, Megan Hague ; Herman, Rebecca ; Murray, Matthew ; Tanenbaum, Courtney ; Graczewski, Cheryl</creator><creatorcontrib>Dragoset, Lisa ; James-Burdumy, Susanne ; Hallgren, Kristin ; Perez-Johnson, Irma ; Herrmann, Mariesa ; Tuttle, Christina ; Angus, Megan Hague ; Herman, Rebecca ; Murray, Matthew ; Tanenbaum, Courtney ; Graczewski, Cheryl ; National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED)</creatorcontrib><description>The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected $7 billion into two of the Obama administration's signature competitive education grant programs: Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). While RTT focused on state policies and SIG focused on school practices, both programs promoted related policies and practices, including an emphasis on turning around the nation's lowest-performing schools. Despite the sizable investment in both of these programs, comprehensive evidence on their implementation and impact has been limited to date. This report focuses on two implementation questions: (1) Do states and schools that received grants actually use the policies and practices promoted by these two programs? (2) Does their usage of these policies and practices differ from states and schools that did not receive grants? Answers to these questions provide context for interpreting impact findings that will be presented in a future report. The first volume of this report details our RTT findings, which are based on spring 2012 interviews with 49 states and the District of Columbia. Key findings include: (1) Early (Round 1 and 2) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in five of the six major areas examined: state capacity, standards and assessments, data systems, teachers and leaders, and charter schools (school turnaround was the exception). Later (Round 3) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in just one area: teachers and leaders; (2) Across all states, usage of policies and practices promoted by RTT was highest in the state capacity and data systems areas (66 and 68 percent of policies and practices examined) and lowest in the teachers and leaders area (24 percent or policies and practices examined); and (3) There were no differences between RTT and non-RTT states in usage of English Language Learner (ELL)-focused policies and practices promoted by RTT. States with higher percentages of ELLs used more ELL-focused policies and practices than states with lower percentages of ELLs, but there were no differences in usage between states with higher and lower ELL/non-ELL achievement gaps. Four appendices include: (1) Additional Figures Based on State Interviews; (2) Detailed Findings from State Interviews; (3) Interview Questions Aligned with RTT Policies and Practices; and (4) Additional Information about English Language Learner-Focused Analysis for the RTT Component of the Evaluation. [For the executive summary, see ED559918.]</description><language>eng</language><publisher>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance</publisher><subject>Academic Standards ; Administrator Evaluation ; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 ; Capacity Building ; Certification ; Charter Schools ; Data ; Educational Improvement ; Educational Legislation ; Educational Policy ; Educational Practices ; Elementary Secondary Education ; English Language Learners ; Federal Aid ; Federal Legislation ; Federal Programs ; Grants ; Information Systems ; Interviews ; Principals ; Race to the Top ; School Turnaround ; State Policy ; State Standards ; Student Evaluation ; Teacher Certification ; Teacher Evaluation</subject><ispartof>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2015</ispartof><tpages>192</tpages><format>192</format><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,692,782,887,4492</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED559916$$EView_record_in_ERIC_Clearinghouse_on_Information_&amp;_Technology$$FView_record_in_$$GERIC_Clearinghouse_on_Information_&amp;_Technology$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED559916$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dragoset, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>James-Burdumy, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hallgren, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perez-Johnson, Irma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herrmann, Mariesa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuttle, Christina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Angus, Megan Hague</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herman, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanenbaum, Courtney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graczewski, Cheryl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED)</creatorcontrib><title>Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top. NCEE 2015-4018</title><title>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance</title><description>The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected $7 billion into two of the Obama administration's signature competitive education grant programs: Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). While RTT focused on state policies and SIG focused on school practices, both programs promoted related policies and practices, including an emphasis on turning around the nation's lowest-performing schools. Despite the sizable investment in both of these programs, comprehensive evidence on their implementation and impact has been limited to date. This report focuses on two implementation questions: (1) Do states and schools that received grants actually use the policies and practices promoted by these two programs? (2) Does their usage of these policies and practices differ from states and schools that did not receive grants? Answers to these questions provide context for interpreting impact findings that will be presented in a future report. The first volume of this report details our RTT findings, which are based on spring 2012 interviews with 49 states and the District of Columbia. Key findings include: (1) Early (Round 1 and 2) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in five of the six major areas examined: state capacity, standards and assessments, data systems, teachers and leaders, and charter schools (school turnaround was the exception). Later (Round 3) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in just one area: teachers and leaders; (2) Across all states, usage of policies and practices promoted by RTT was highest in the state capacity and data systems areas (66 and 68 percent of policies and practices examined) and lowest in the teachers and leaders area (24 percent or policies and practices examined); and (3) There were no differences between RTT and non-RTT states in usage of English Language Learner (ELL)-focused policies and practices promoted by RTT. States with higher percentages of ELLs used more ELL-focused policies and practices than states with lower percentages of ELLs, but there were no differences in usage between states with higher and lower ELL/non-ELL achievement gaps. Four appendices include: (1) Additional Figures Based on State Interviews; (2) Detailed Findings from State Interviews; (3) Interview Questions Aligned with RTT Policies and Practices; and (4) Additional Information about English Language Learner-Focused Analysis for the RTT Component of the Evaluation. [For the executive summary, see ED559918.]</description><subject>Academic Standards</subject><subject>Administrator Evaluation</subject><subject>American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009</subject><subject>Capacity Building</subject><subject>Certification</subject><subject>Charter Schools</subject><subject>Data</subject><subject>Educational Improvement</subject><subject>Educational Legislation</subject><subject>Educational Policy</subject><subject>Educational Practices</subject><subject>Elementary Secondary Education</subject><subject>English Language Learners</subject><subject>Federal Aid</subject><subject>Federal Legislation</subject><subject>Federal Programs</subject><subject>Grants</subject><subject>Information Systems</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Principals</subject><subject>Race to the Top</subject><subject>School Turnaround</subject><subject>State Policy</subject><subject>State Standards</subject><subject>Student Evaluation</subject><subject>Teacher Certification</subject><subject>Teacher Evaluation</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>report</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>report</recordtype><sourceid>GA5</sourceid><recordid>eNrjZPAOLU5MT1XIT1MIyM_JTM5MLVZIzEtRCChKTC7JTAbyAoryc_NLUlMUkioVghKTUxVK8hVKMlIVQvIL9BT8nF1dFYwMDE11TQwMLXgYWNMSc4pTeaE0N4OMm2uIs4dualFmcnxBUWZuYlFlvKuLqamlpaGZMQFpAOFDLyc</recordid><startdate>201509</startdate><enddate>201509</enddate><creator>Dragoset, Lisa</creator><creator>James-Burdumy, Susanne</creator><creator>Hallgren, Kristin</creator><creator>Perez-Johnson, Irma</creator><creator>Herrmann, Mariesa</creator><creator>Tuttle, Christina</creator><creator>Angus, Megan Hague</creator><creator>Herman, Rebecca</creator><creator>Murray, Matthew</creator><creator>Tanenbaum, Courtney</creator><creator>Graczewski, Cheryl</creator><general>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance</general><scope>ERI</scope><scope>GA5</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201509</creationdate><title>Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top. NCEE 2015-4018</title><author>Dragoset, Lisa ; James-Burdumy, Susanne ; Hallgren, Kristin ; Perez-Johnson, Irma ; Herrmann, Mariesa ; Tuttle, Christina ; Angus, Megan Hague ; Herman, Rebecca ; Murray, Matthew ; Tanenbaum, Courtney ; Graczewski, Cheryl</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-eric_primary_ED5599163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>reports</rsrctype><prefilter>reports</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Academic Standards</topic><topic>Administrator Evaluation</topic><topic>American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009</topic><topic>Capacity Building</topic><topic>Certification</topic><topic>Charter Schools</topic><topic>Data</topic><topic>Educational Improvement</topic><topic>Educational Legislation</topic><topic>Educational Policy</topic><topic>Educational Practices</topic><topic>Elementary Secondary Education</topic><topic>English Language Learners</topic><topic>Federal Aid</topic><topic>Federal Legislation</topic><topic>Federal Programs</topic><topic>Grants</topic><topic>Information Systems</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Principals</topic><topic>Race to the Top</topic><topic>School Turnaround</topic><topic>State Policy</topic><topic>State Standards</topic><topic>Student Evaluation</topic><topic>Teacher Certification</topic><topic>Teacher Evaluation</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dragoset, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>James-Burdumy, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hallgren, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perez-Johnson, Irma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herrmann, Mariesa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuttle, Christina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Angus, Megan Hague</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herman, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanenbaum, Courtney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graczewski, Cheryl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED)</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dragoset, Lisa</au><au>James-Burdumy, Susanne</au><au>Hallgren, Kristin</au><au>Perez-Johnson, Irma</au><au>Herrmann, Mariesa</au><au>Tuttle, Christina</au><au>Angus, Megan Hague</au><au>Herman, Rebecca</au><au>Murray, Matthew</au><au>Tanenbaum, Courtney</au><au>Graczewski, Cheryl</au><aucorp>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED)</aucorp><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>RPRT</ristype><ericid>ED559916</ericid><atitle>Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top. NCEE 2015-4018</atitle><jtitle>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance</jtitle><date>2015-09</date><risdate>2015</risdate><abstract>The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected $7 billion into two of the Obama administration's signature competitive education grant programs: Race to the Top (RTT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). While RTT focused on state policies and SIG focused on school practices, both programs promoted related policies and practices, including an emphasis on turning around the nation's lowest-performing schools. Despite the sizable investment in both of these programs, comprehensive evidence on their implementation and impact has been limited to date. This report focuses on two implementation questions: (1) Do states and schools that received grants actually use the policies and practices promoted by these two programs? (2) Does their usage of these policies and practices differ from states and schools that did not receive grants? Answers to these questions provide context for interpreting impact findings that will be presented in a future report. The first volume of this report details our RTT findings, which are based on spring 2012 interviews with 49 states and the District of Columbia. Key findings include: (1) Early (Round 1 and 2) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in five of the six major areas examined: state capacity, standards and assessments, data systems, teachers and leaders, and charter schools (school turnaround was the exception). Later (Round 3) RTT states reported using more policies and practices promoted by RTT than non-RTT states in just one area: teachers and leaders; (2) Across all states, usage of policies and practices promoted by RTT was highest in the state capacity and data systems areas (66 and 68 percent of policies and practices examined) and lowest in the teachers and leaders area (24 percent or policies and practices examined); and (3) There were no differences between RTT and non-RTT states in usage of English Language Learner (ELL)-focused policies and practices promoted by RTT. States with higher percentages of ELLs used more ELL-focused policies and practices than states with lower percentages of ELLs, but there were no differences in usage between states with higher and lower ELL/non-ELL achievement gaps. Four appendices include: (1) Additional Figures Based on State Interviews; (2) Detailed Findings from State Interviews; (3) Interview Questions Aligned with RTT Policies and Practices; and (4) Additional Information about English Language Learner-Focused Analysis for the RTT Component of the Evaluation. [For the executive summary, see ED559918.]</abstract><pub>National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance</pub><tpages>192</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier
ispartof National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2015
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_eric_primary_ED559916
source ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)
subjects Academic Standards
Administrator Evaluation
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009
Capacity Building
Certification
Charter Schools
Data
Educational Improvement
Educational Legislation
Educational Policy
Educational Practices
Elementary Secondary Education
English Language Learners
Federal Aid
Federal Legislation
Federal Programs
Grants
Information Systems
Interviews
Principals
Race to the Top
School Turnaround
State Policy
State Standards
Student Evaluation
Teacher Certification
Teacher Evaluation
title Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top. NCEE 2015-4018
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-09T16%3A58%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-eric_GA5&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.atitle=Usage%20of%20Policies%20and%20Practices%20Promoted%20by%20Race%20to%20the%20Top.%20NCEE%202015-4018&rft.jtitle=National%20Center%20for%20Education%20Evaluation%20and%20Regional%20Assistance&rft.au=Dragoset,%20Lisa&rft.aucorp=National%20Center%20for%20Education%20Evaluation%20and%20Regional%20Assistance%20(ED)&rft.date=2015-09&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ceric_GA5%3EED559916%3C/eric_GA5%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=ED559916&rfr_iscdi=true