Some positive results for the REDI program

The What Works Clearinghouse found this study met evidence standards and reports the findings.
This study examined whether the Head Start Research-based Developmentally Informed (REDI) program is more effective than the standard Head Start program at improving the language, emergent literacy, and social-emotional skills of preschoolers.
The study finds that students in the REDI group outperformed control students on one of three measures of language development (effect sizes ranged from –0.07 to 0.15) and two of three measures of emergent literacy skills (effect sizes ranged from 0.16 to 0.39).
In addition, REDI program students exhibited greater understanding of emotions, better social problem-solving skills, and higher levels of learning engagement than students in regular Head Start classrooms.

New NCES/IES Report: Comparative Indicators of Education in the United States and Other G-8 Countries: 2009

This report describes how the education system in the United States compares with education systems in the other G-8 countries--Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom. Twenty-seven indicators are organized in five sections: (1) population and school enrollment; (2) academic performance (including subsections for reading, mathematics, and science); (3) context for learning; (4) expenditure for education; and (5) education returns: educational attainment and income. This report draws on the most current information about education from four primary sources: the Indicators of National Education Systems (INES) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
Download the report from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009039

Fiscal year 2007 data on revenues/expenditures for public elementary & secondary schools

"The Common Core of Data (CCD) is an annual collection of public elementary and secondary education data by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Institute of Education Sciences. The data are reported by state education agencies (SEAs). The finance data are reported to the U.S. Census Bureau, which acts as the data collection agent for NCES. Student membership data are reported to the U.S. Department of Education’s EDFacts data collection system. This report presents findings on public education revenues and expenditures using fiscal year 2007 (FY 07) data from the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) of the CCD survey system. Programs covered in the NPEFS include regular, special, and vocational education; charter schools (if they reported data to the SEA); and state-run education programs (such as special education centers or education programs for incarcerated youth).

The CCD NPEFS is a universe collection of public elementary and secondary education finance data reported annually by SEAs in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the four other jurisdictions of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The NPEFS provides SEA-level data for all revenues and expenditures associated with each reporting state or jurisdiction, including revenues by source and expenditures by function and object." (from the Introduction at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/expenditures/)

Links to all Table data (also available in Excel format) are here: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/expenditures/tables.asp

Link to the full report is here: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009337

New reports out from IPEDS on higher ed enrollment, graduation rates and financial aid

This First Look presents findings from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) spring 2008 data collection, which included four components: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2007; Graduation Rates, 2001 & 2004 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2007. These data were collected through the IPEDS web-based data collection system. Findings include:

In fall 2007, Title IV institutions in the United States enrolled a total of 18.7 million graduate and undergraduate students; 62 percent were enrolled in 4-year institutions, 36 percent were enrolled in 2-year institutions, and 2 percent were enrolled in less-than-2-year institutions.

Approximately 57 percent of full-time, first-time bachelor's or equivalent degree-seekers attending 4-year institutions completed a bachelor's or equivalent degree at the institution where they began their studies within 6 years.

During 2006-07 academic year, 73 percent of the 2.8 million full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates attending Title IV institutions located in the United States received financial aid.

To view, download and print the report as a PDF file, please visit:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009155

WWC assessment of "I Can Learn Pre-Algebra and Algebra" programs

Will wonders never cease! It's SO rare that any research studies ever meet WWC evidence standards that there usually isn't much to report. Here is what they say about these programs:

"One study of I CAN Learn^®Pre-Algebra and Algebra meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards and four studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The five studies included 16,519 eighth-grade students from middle schools in California, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.³

Based on these five studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for I CAN Learn^®Pre-Algebra and Algebra to be medium to large for math achievement."

Links to the full evaluation report are here:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/middle_math/iclprea/

How Professors Think -- inside the peer review process

Inside Higher Ed (March 4) had a lengthy review of a new book by Michèle Lamont, called How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. She sat in on considerations of grant and fellowship applications for such organizations as the American Council of Learned Societies, the Social Science Research Council, and the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.

Some (hopefully) tantalizing excerpts from the interview/review:

• "The peer review processes she studied involved grants to professors and graduate students, and all the panels involved professors from many disciplines. She writes that, as a result, the findings may suggest similar issues for multi-disciplinary committees on individual campuses -- panels that frequently play a key role in tenure reviews once a candidate has been considered at the departmental level. "
• "One of the key findings was that professors in different disciplines take very different approaches to decision making. The gap between humanities and social sciences scholars is as large as anything C.P. Snow saw between the humanities and the hard sciences."
• "The most common flaw she documents is a pattern of professors applying very personal interests to evaluating the work before them. “People define what is exciting as what speaks to their own personal interest, and their own research,” she said. "

I'll put the book on order...