Search results

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) has been a source of information on the Head Start program and the children and families it serves. The 2019 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2019, is the seventh in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2014. It includes nationally representative samples of Head Start programs and centers, classrooms, and children and their families during the 2019-2020 program year. Data from surveys of Head Start program and center directors and classroom teachers provide descriptive information about program policies and practices, classroom activities, and the background of Head Start staff. These data compromise the Classroom Study. A sample of these programs also provides data from parent surveys, teacher child reports, and direct child assessments as part of the Classroom + Child Outcomes Study. FACES 2019 is designed to help policymakers address current policy questions and to support programs and practitioners working with Head Start families.

According to the study design, FACES would have assessed children's readiness for school, surveyed parents, and asked teachers to provide information on children in both fall 2019 and spring 2020. In response to the COVID-19 (for coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, however, FACES 2019 cancelled the first piece--the in-person data collection of child assessments in spring 2020. In-person classroom observations as part of the Classroom Study were also cancelled in spring 2020.

FACES is designed so that researchers can answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program directors and policymakers. FACES 2019 data may be used to describe (1) the quality and characteristics of Head Start programs, teachers, and classrooms; (2) the changes or trends in the quality and characteristics of the classrooms, programs, and staff over time; (3) the school readiness skills and family characteristics of the children who participate in Head Start; (4) the factors or characteristics that predict differences in classroom quality; (5) the changes or trends in the children's outcomes and family characteristics over time; and (6) the factors or characteristics at multiple levels that predict differences in the children's outcomes. The study also supports research questions related to subgroups of interest, such as children with identified disabilities and children who are dual-language learners (DLLs), as well as policy issues that emerge during the study. The study addresses changes in children's outcomes and experiences as well as changes in the characteristics of Head Start classrooms over time and across the rounds of FACES. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include:

1. What are the characteristics of Head Start programs, including structural characteristics and program policies and practices?
2. What are the characteristics and observed quality of Head Start classrooms?
3. What are the characteristics and qualifications of Head Start teachers and management staff?
4. Are the characteristics of programs, classrooms, and staff changing over time?
5. What are the demographic characteristics and home environments of children and families who participate in Head Start?
6. Are family demographic characteristics and aspects of home environments changing over time?
7. How do families make early care and education decisions?
8. What are the experiences of families and children in Head Start?
9. What are the average school readiness skills and developmental outcomes of the population of Head Start children in fall and spring of the Head Start year?
10. What gains do children make during a year of Head Start?
11. Are children's school readiness skills (average skills or average gains in skills) improving over time?
12. Does classroom quality vary by characteristics of classrooms, teachers, or programs?
13. What characteristics of programs, teachers, or classrooms are associated with aspects of classroom quality?
14. Do the school readiness skills of children in fall and spring and their gains in skills vary by child, family, program, and classroom characteristics?
15. What is the association between observed classroom quality and children's school readiness skills? Between child and family characteristics and children's school readiness skills?

The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2019 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices.

• Appendix A. Elements of the FACES Design and Key Instruments Used (and Child Outcomes Captured): FACES 1997-FACES 2019
• Appendix B. Copyright Permissions
• Appendix C. Instrument Content Matrices
• Appendix D. Instruments
• Appendix E. Spring 2020 Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix F. Spring 2020 Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix G. Fall 2019-Spring 2020 Child Codebook
• Appendix H. Descriptions of Composite Variables

The 2014 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2014, is the sixth in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. This release includes nationally representative samples of Head Start programs and centers, classrooms, children and their families through spring of 2017. Data from surveys of Head Start program and center directors, classroom teachers, and parents provided descriptive information about program policies and practices, classroom activities, and the background and experiences of Head Start staff and families. Classroom observations were used to assess the quality of Head Start classrooms. Children in the study participated in a direct assessment that provided a picture of their school readiness skills at different time points.

FACES 2014 used a new study design that differs from earlier rounds of FACES in several important ways: (1) it included larger program and classroom samples, (2) all data were collected in a single program year, (3) the baseline sample of children included both children enrolled in their first and second year of Head Start, and (4) several special studies were conducted along with the main (Core) study to collect more detailed information about a given topic, to study new populations of Head Start programs and participants, and to evaluate measures for possible use in future rounds of FACES. For example, the Family Engagement Plus study collected information from parents and staff (teachers and family services staff) on family engagement efforts and service provision in Head Start programs.

The Office of Head Start, the Administration for Children and Families, other federal agencies, local programs, and the public have depended on FACES for valid and reliable national information on (1) the skills and abilities of Head Start children, (2) how Head Start children's skills and abilities compare with preschool children nationally, (3) Head Start children's readiness for and subsequent performance in kindergarten, and (4) the characteristics of the children's home and classroom environments. The FACES study was designed to enable researchers to answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program managers and policymakers. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include:

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the population of children and families served by Head Start? How has the population served by Head Start changed?
2. What are the experiences of families and children in the Head Start program? How have they changed?
3. What are the cognitive and social skills of Head Start children at the beginning and end of the program year? Has Head Start program performance improved over time?
4. What are the qualifications of Head Start teachers in terms of education, experience, and credentials? Are average teacher education levels rising in Head Start?
5. What is the observed quality of Head Start classrooms as early learning environments, including the level and range of teaching and interactions, provisions for learning, emotional and instructional support, and classroom organization? How has quality changed over time?
6. What program- and classroom-level factors are related to observed classroom quality?
7. How is observed quality related to children's outcomes and developmental gains?

The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2014 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices.

• Appendix A - Elements Of The FACES Design And Key Measures Used (And Child Outcomes Captured): FACES 1997 - FACES 2014
• Appendix B - Copyright Permissions
• Appendix C - Instrument Content Matrices
• Appendix D - Instruments
• Appendix E - Spring 2015 Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix F - Spring 2015 Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix G - 2014-2015 Child Codebook
• Appendix H - Spring 2015 Family Engagement Family Service Staff Interview Codebook
• Appendix I - Spring 2015 Family Engagement Parent Interview Codebook
• Appendix J - Spring 2017 Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix K - Spring 2017 Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix L - Descriptions of Constructed/Derived Variables
• Appendix M - Synthetic Estimation for Child Growth Across Two Years

The purpose of College and Beyond II (CBII) is to better understand how students' undergraduate experiences in and out of the classroom relate to their long-run development. The College and Beyond II Administrative Data contains administrative student records obtained for nearly all bachelors-seeking undergraduate students at 19 postsecondary institutions representing 7 postsecondary system in the United States from approximately 2000 to 2021. Partner colleges provided information on demographics (race, gender), family background, entry term, degree term, college major, admissions test scores, term-by-term information on majors, credits, and grades, and information on all courses taken.

Students' administrative data can be linked to other data in the CBII series. Students are linked across studies in the series by a unique anonymized person identifier. Colleges are linked across studies in the series by a unique anonymized college identifier. Files are organized by the postsecondary system they are a part of and can be linked by a unique anonymized system identifier.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a periodic, ongoing longitudinal study of program performance. Successive nationally representative samples of Head Start children, their families, classrooms, and programs provide descriptive information on the population of children and families served; staff qualifications, credentials, and opinions; Head Start classroom practices and quality measures; and child and family outcomes. FACES includes a battery of child assessments across multiple developmental domains (cognitive, social, emotional, and physical). FACES 2009 is the latest FACES cohort study and followed children from Head Start entry in fall 2009 through one or two years of program participation and to kindergarten.

For nearly a decade, the Office of Head Start, the Administration for Children and Families, other federal agencies, local programs, and the public have depended on FACES for valid and reliable national information on (1) the skills and abilities of Head Start children, (2) how Head Start children's skills and abilities compare with preschool children nationally, (3) Head Start children's readiness for and subsequent performance in kindergarten, and (4) the characteristics of the children's home and classroom environments. The FACES study is designed to enable researchers to answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program managers and policymakers. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include:

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the population of children and families served by Head Start? How has the population served by Head Start changed?
2. What are the experiences of families and children in the Head Start program? How have they changed?
3. What are the cognitive and social skills of Head Start children at the beginning and end of their first year in the program? Has Head Start program performance improved over time?
4. Do the gains in cognitive and social skills that Head Start children achieve carry over into kindergarten? Do larger gains (or greater declines in problem behavior) translate into higher achievement at the end of kindergarten?
5. What are the qualifications of Head Start teachers in terms of education, experience, and credentials? Are average teacher education levels rising in Head Start?
6. What is the observed quality of Head Start classrooms as early learning environments, including the level and range of teaching and interactions, provisions for learning, emotional and instructional support, and classroom organization? How has quality changed over time? What program- and classroom-level factors are related to observed classroom quality? How is observed quality related to children's outcomes and developmental gains?

In response to recent trends and mandates, FACES 2009 expanded the information collected on families and children who speak a primary language other than English and the information collected on children who are homeless. Earlier cohorts of FACES gathered information on the languages spoken in the home and used for classroom instruction. Given the growth in the population of Hispanic/Latino preschoolers (Hernandez 2006), FACES 2009 placed additional emphasis on Dual Language Learners (DLLs). In addition, given the 2007 Head Start Act's focus on children and families who are homeless, FACES 2009 expanded coverage on the enrollment of such children, how the program ensures that they enroll in Head Start, and the special services available to such children and their families.

FACES 2009 carefully balanced the need for consistent measurement of outcomes against the need for improvements in instrumentation and techniques. In some instances, new instruments were added to obtain more comprehensive information on Head Start children. For example, the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test was added to assess children's expressive language, which is related to later reading achievement even more so than receptive language (National Early Literacy Panel 2008). A measure of phonemic awareness from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) preschool wave was also added to assess children's knowledge of beginning and ending sounds in words. Further, FACES 2009 included a direct assessment of executive functioning-a pencil tapping task to examine children's inhibitory control, working memory, and attention-which has been shown to relate to young children's development in mathematics, vocabulary, and literacy (Blair and Razza 2007; Espy et al. 2004; McClelland et al. 2007).

The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2009 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices.

• Appendix A - Copyright statements
• Appendix B - Instrument Content Matrices
• Appendix C - Questionnaires
• Appendix D - Center/Program Codebook
• Appendix E - Classroom/Teacher Codebook
• Appendix F - Child Codebook
• Appendix G - Description of Constructed/Derived Variables

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Observational Scores Release

This release consists of data files for the five observational protocols listed (CLASS, FFT, MQI, PLATO, and QST) and the UTOP subset. Also included are rater comment files explaining rater scores on the CLASS instrument and master coded scores for the CLASS, FFT, PLATO, MQI and QST observational measures.

The Measures of Effective Teaching Project (MET)

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Study Information Release

Contained in this release are a comprehensive user guide, an observation measures report, a randomization file, a video information file, a subject ID file, a teacher demographics file, a student global ID crosswalk file, and a teacher global ID crosswalk file.

• User Guide - The user guide provides information on all data releases included in the MET longitudinal database. The report describes: (1) the educational research and policy context for the study; (2) research questions addressed by MET researchers; (3) the core study design and sub-studies; (4) the realized study sample; (5) additional information on study instruments and derived measures; and (6) the data files available for secondary analysis.
• Observation Measures Report - This report includes a description of the scoring design used for each phase and each year of the video observation measures and final reports of the scoring carried out for each measure.
• Randomization File - Year two of the MET study included a process for randomizing the classroom to which teachers were assigned. Information found in the randomization file includes district, school, section and student IDs, teacher IDs for the teacher a student was randomly assigned to, the actual teacher the student was recorded as having in May of that year, and the actual teacher the student was recorded as having in October of that year. Also included in the file are variables that indicate the grade of the student, their randomization block and exchange group and section each student was assigned to.
• Video Information File - This file contains descriptive information about the videos captured for the MET project. Variables found in the file include the ID of the video, as well as IDs for the district, school, teacher and section related to each video, the subject, grade, and year of the video and whether the file is available for users to view.
• Subject ID Crosswalk - This file contains only ID variables and is included to describe the associations between districts, schools, teachers, sections and students.
• Teacher Demographics File - This file contains descriptive information about the teachers in the MET project. Variables found in the file include the ID of the teacher, as well as IDs for the district, gender, race, years experience, and level of education.
• Student Global ID Crosswalk File - Students were given new and unique IDs in each year of data collection. This file matches those Student IDs across the 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 academic years.
• Teacher Global ID Crosswalk File - Teachers were given new and unique IDs in each year of data collection. This file matchers those Teachers IDs across the 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 academic years.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study examined the implementation of a pilot parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG). Drs. Caleb Lloyd and Ralph Serin developed the NG model with funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the National Institute of Corrections developed the NG curriculum for parole officers to implement. The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the implementation of NG in three study sites: Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Des Moines, Iowa.

This mixed-methods study focused on understanding how NG was implemented as it was piloted in the three sites, and assessed NG-trained parole officers' fidelity to the NG model. In order to better understand NG's implementation and the business as usual practices it was intended to replace, the study also included a second group of parole officers who were not trained in NG. The groups were not randomly assigned. Data collected for this study included interview data, parole officer questionnaires related to concepts of the NG curriculum, coaching logs providing measures of whether officers received coaching and its frequency, video recordings of parole supervision meetings, and parole caseload data.

Demographic variables included as part of this collection are parole officers' age and sex, and site location. The data collection includes 3 SAS data files:

• Parole officer-level data (archive_raf170831_po): Includes 31 cases and 26 variables.
• Video-level data (archive_raf170831_video): Includes 241 cases and 15 variables.
• Questionnaire-level data (archive_raf180719_tests): Includes 50 cases and 8 variables.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a major source of information on Head Start programs and the children and families they serve. Since 1997, FACES has conducted studies in a nationally representative sample of Head Start programs, but has historically not included Region XI (programs operated by federally-recognized tribes), whose programs are designed to serve predominantly American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and families. The American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey 2015 (AI/AN FACES 2015), the first national study of Region XI AI/AN Head Start children and families, is designed to fill this information gap.

The design of AI/AN FACES 2015 has been informed by members of the AI/AN FACES 2015 Workgroup which includes tribal Head Start directors, researchers with expertise working with tribal communities, Mathematica Policy Research study staff, and federal officials from the Office of Head Start, Region XI, and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Building on FACES as the foundation, members of the AI/AN FACES 2015 Workgroup have shared insights and information on the kinds of information needed about children and families served by Region XI AI/AN Head Start programs (including children's development and school readiness, parent and family demographics, health, and program engagement, and teacher, classroom, and program characteristics). Members also provided input on recruitment practices and study methods that are responsive to the unique cultural and self-governing contexts of tribal Head Start programs.

Data collection with Region XI children, families, classrooms, and programs took place in the Fall of 2015 and the Spring of 2016. Twenty-one Region XI Head Start programs participated. Procedures for tribal review and approval in each of those 21 communities were followed. Information about this study has been shared broadly with tribal Head Start programs and tribal leaders via OHS tribal consultations, nationally-broadcast webinars, National Indian Head Start Directors' Association Board of Directors (NIHSDA) annual conferences, the 2016 ACF National Research Conference on Early Childhood, and the Secretary's Tribal Advisory Council (STAC) December 2014 and 2016 meetings.

ArtScan, a project of the Arts Education Partnership, is a searchable clearinghouse of the latest state policies supporting education in and through the arts from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Since 1999, the Arts Education Partnership has tracked state policies for arts education in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In 2013, AEP, with the cooperation of Education Commission of the States, merged its State Policy Database with the Education Commission of the States' database, ArtScan. To update the information for the 2014 edition of ArtScan, AEP staff conducted a comprehensive search of state education statutes and codes on each state's relevant websites. The new structure for the 2014 ArtScan allows users to explore the data in multiple ways, including a state-level profile for all policy areas, a comparison of selected states and policy areas, and several types of 50-state reports.

There are at least five ways to engage with the data housed in ArtScan.

• Capture a snapshot of all the data ArtScan has to offer about your state including state policies in 14 policy areas.
• Create custom side-by-side comparison reports using a search engine that allows you to choose individual states and policy areas/data points of interest to you.
• Compare the policies of all 50 states and the District of Columbia within specific policy areas (e.g. requirements for high school art education).
• Explore a summary of state policies for arts education identified in statute or code for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
• Learn more about ArtScan and explore an analysis of the findings in A Snapshot of State Policies for Arts Education (March 2014).

ArtsEdSearch is an online clearinghouse that collects and summarizes high quality research studies on the impacts of arts education and analyzes their implications for educational policy and practice.

ArtsEdSearch is a project of the Arts Education Partnership (AEP), and builds on Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development, a compendium of research that AEP published in 2002 exploring the impact of arts education on student success in school, life, and work. AEP has developed ArtsEdSearch as a resource for policymakers and education stakeholders and leaders to better understand and articulate the role that arts education can play in preparing students to succeed in the changing contexts of the 21st Century.

ArtsEdSearch currently includes summaries of over 200 research studies, syntheses of the major findings of these studies, and implications of the collected research for educational policy.

ArtsEdSearch focuses on research examining how education in the arts--in both discrete arts classes and integrated arts lessons--affects students' cognitive, personal, social and civic development, as well as how the integration of the arts into the school curriculum affects educators' instructional practice and engagement in the teaching profession.

ArtsEdSearch does not include research studies about how to teach the arts well or about how to assess student content knowledge and technical skill in the arts. These topics are of great importance to ensuring that students receive a high quality arts education and are the subject of other clearinghouses devoted to research on teaching and learning within particular arts disciplines.

The Office of Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) provides comprehensive data on the services, staff, children, and families served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs nationwide. All grantees and delegates are required to submit PIR for Head Start and Early Head Start Programs. PIR data is compiled for use at the federal, regional, state, and local level.

The PIR collects data on child, staff, and family demographics and program characteristics including data on physical health, mental health, disabilities, and family services. All of this data is aggregated and reported by each program to the Office of Head Start.

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is a system of related questionnaires that provide descriptive data on the context of elementary and secondary education and provide policymakers a variety of statistics on the condition of education in the United States. The SASS system covers a wide range of topics from teacher demand, teacher and principal characteristics, general conditions in schools, principals' and teachers' perceptions of school climate and problems in their schools, teacher compensation, district hiring and retention practices, to basic characteristics of the student population.

Questionnaires, methodology information and summary tables can be downloaded directly from the SASS website. Of cultural interest are the data on library and media centers which offer insights into subjects such as library staffing, library collections, and library expenditures. These data can be accessed through the National Center for Education Statistics DataLab.

Policymakers involved in arts and culture would find tables from the SASS/TFS Table Library important to their work, including the following:

• Number and percentage of public school teachers whose main assignment is in arts and music, by main teaching assignment and community type: 2011-12
• Number of public schools that reported having library media centers, by state: 2011-12
• Average number of holdings, additions, and expenditures in library media centers during 2010-11 for various kinds of materials, by state: 2011-12
• Average hours public and private third grade students spent on art and music during a typical full week of school, by selected school characteristics: 2007-08

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were:

• Stanford 9 (SAT 9) Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8
• Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8
• ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology (ACT)

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Supplemental Test Files release consists of data files for the three supplemental assessments (SAT 9, BAM, and ACT).

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways--through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia

• Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson

• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan

• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University

• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia

• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson

• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan

• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University

• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Survey Instruments and Assessment Files release consists of data files created from the six collection instruments described below:

• The Principal Survey focuses on whether principals already know what they need to know about the effectiveness of their teachers or whether the instruments provide new information to these principals. The survey asks principals to provide an effectiveness rating for up to 12 MET teachers. It asks them how confident they are about each rating and what information they use to assess effective teaching.

• The Student Perception Survey analyzes the value of elementary and secondary student feedback on the effort to improve both teaching and learning. Questions were created to elucidate the perceptions of the students and their school and classroom experiences.

• The Teacher Web Survey was created to help answer whether teachers take seriously the rating provide by their administrator. It asks teachers to report whether they trust their principal -- Using Meyer, Davis, and Schoonhoven's three bases of trust: consistency, competency, and benevolence. It also asks teachers whether and to what extent they have acted on the feedback provided by their principal and whether the change made a positive difference in their teaching effectiveness.

• The Teacher Working Condition Survey questions were intended to shed light on the level of support existing for teachers at their school environments, e.g., whether educators are valued, trusted, and have the time and ability to collaborate to improve instruction, as well as other aspects of working conditions such as time, facilities and resources, empowerment, professional development, community engagement, induction and leadership.

• The Teacher Knowledge Assessment questions were intended to test the utility of both newly developed and well established measures of teacher knowledge to predict measures of teacher effectiveness.

• The Survey of Enacted Curriculum was intended to investigate the role that the content of instruction plays in affecting student achievement gains, as compared to the study's broader focus on instructional quality measures

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were:

• Stanford 9 (SAT-9) Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8
• Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8
• ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos are also being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

1. District/School File - This data file contains an ID for the district where MET teachers taught and data on the schools where they taught. All data are from year one of the study. The data included for schools include limited measures of school organization, student composition, and aggregated test score information. The file also includes data collected from school principals about the nature of teacher evaluation processes in a school.
2. Teacher File - This data file contains data on those MET teachers who participated in year one of the study only or who participated in both years of the study. There is one data record per teacher. Data in the teacher file was collected (or recorded) only once during the study. Among the variables included in the file are: (1) teacher IDs; (2) ID variables for district and school; (3) variables indicating a teacher's grade, subject, and study status; (4) measures of teachers' personal characteristics and professional background; (5) teacher responses to MET teacher working conditions survey [administered in year one of the study]; (6) teacher responses to the MET teacher survey administered [in year two of the study]; (7) teachers' scaled scores as well as multiple choice and constructed response sub-scores for the CKT measures; and (8) principal ratings of a teacher's effectiveness.
3. Class Section File - This data file contains data on the focal class sections taught by MET teachers. There is one data record per section. In most cases, generalists have one class section per year in the study, so that teachers who participated in both years of the study will have a total of 2 class sections of data per teacher record per year. Specialists generally have 2 class sections in year one and 1 class section in year two year, so that teachers who participated in both years of the study will have a total of up to 3 class sections of data per teacher record. Among the variables included for each class section taught by a teacher are: (1) section IDs; (2) ID variables for teacher, school, and district; (3) variables indicating a teacher's grade, subject, and study status; (4) measures of class composition, including aggregated data on students' prior year test scores, ethnic composition, free lunch status, and special education status; and (5) class size. Also included in this data file are: (6) value-added measures of teaching effectiveness based on student achievement scores [aggregated to the section level]; (7) measures of teaching effectiveness based on classroom observation score data [aggregated to the section level]; and (8) measures of teaching effectiveness based on student survey data [aggregated to the section level].
4. Student File - These data files contain data on students who were in the focal class sections of MET teachers during either year. Data on each student include: (1) student ID; (2) ID variables for section, teacher, school, and district; (3) measures of current and prior student achievement for all tests/years recorded [e.g., 2010-2011, 2009-2010; and up to three prior years]; (4) measures of student background [sex, ethnicity, lunch status, special education status, program participation]; and (5) student survey responses.
5. Classroom Observation Scores File - These data files contain data from all classroom observation sessions conducted on each teacher. There will be one file per observation instrument and each file will have one record for each segment scored by a rater. Data on each observation session include: (1) a segment ID, (2) ID variables for video, section, teacher, school, and district; (3) variables indicating the video's grade, and subject; (4) a variable indicating whether score comes from the primary scorer or a secondary scorer; (5) scores on the dimensions of the given observation instrument; (5) a variable indicating if the rater deferred scoring of the video to the scoring leader. Note that each video will generally have multiple rows because scores were given at the segment level. Additionally, instruments with different segment scoring lengths will not be comparable at the segment level.

The International Curriculum Analysis (ICA) study provided curricular and textbook information from each country participating in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS was a comparative study of education in mathematics and the sciences conducted in over 40 countries on five continents. The goal of TIMSS was to measure student achievement in mathematics and science in participating countries and to assess some of the curricular and classroom factors that are related to student learning in these subjects. The study was intended to provide educators and policy makers with an unparalleled and multidimensional perspective on mathematics and science curricula; their implementation; the nature of student performance in mathematics and science; and the social, economic, and educational context in which these occur.

Below is a description of each of the types of data files found in this study.

The Textbook Specific and Curriculum Guide Specific data files contain overall characteristic information, the number of pages, size of book, publisher, etc. pertaining to material used within a country for all countries involved in the study.

The General Topic Trace Mapping data files contain questionnaire responses for each specific science and mathematics topic for each grade.

The Document Description data file contains document ID, name, subject, publisher and publishing data for each document provided by each country in the study.

The Unit Level data files contain information describing a specific unit within a document, used for both textbooks and curriculum guides.

The Block Level data files contain specific curricular information about the blocks contained within each unit.

The Textbook Coverage data files contain summaries of context coverage for each country's textbooks and the performance expectation codes of those textbooks, both Mathematics and Science. The coverage rate for each content topic is expressed as the average percent that particular topic is mentioned in each of the country's textbooks.

The Textbook Characteristics data file contains derived variables from 400 textbooks used in 45 countries. The variables captures the frequency with which content material such as activities, exercise or question sets, instructional narratives and other instructional tools, as well as performance expectation related material are found within these textbooks.