Search results

• Individual Cultural Values Scale
• Perceived Organizational Politics Scale
• Teachers’ Social Identity Perception Scale

Project SOARS (Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety) utilized a mixed-methods study design to develop and test a student-centered and technology-driven school safety framework to address peer victimization, violent behavior, and student reluctance to share critical safety information within high school settings. SOARS was a project of IRIS Media, Inc. and consisted of 4 phases implemented between 2016 and 2020. Activities for each phase were carried out in Oregon and Illinois high schools in order to facilitate inter-site replication of outcomes. Phase 1 was conducted in 2016 and consisted of focus groups and key informant interviews with students, school personnel, and parents to gather perceptions of current school safety practices. Phase 2 was undertaken in 2017 and asked students, school personnel, and parents to assess the acceptability and usability of prototypes of the SOARS framework. The SOARS framework consisted of (a) the Advocatr mobile app, which allowed students to report positive and negative behaviors in their school environment; (b) a 9-week curriculum engaging students with the concepts of student ownership of school safety, advocacy/self-advocacy, physical and emotional safety, and restorative conflict resolution; (c) informational briefs for school personnel and parents about the framework components and their rationale; and (d) guidelines for a student-led school-wide safety campaign. Phase 3 was rolled out in 2018 and 2019 and consisted of feasibility testing conducted with a small subset of teachers and students in those teachers' classrooms. Participants were surveyed before and after implementation of the SOARS framework. The focus of the feasibility test was on student access and use of the Advocatr app and the accompanying curriculum. During Phase 4 implementation in 2019 and 2020, researchers conducted a pilot test with students, school personnel, and parents from 4 high schools, 2 assigned to the intervention and 2 to the control condition. The focus of the pilot was to test the effectiveness of the SOARS framework.

Demographic information was collected from all informants and includes gender (sex male or female; transgender identification), ethnicity, and race. Additional demographic information about students includes sexual orientation, approximate age (over/under 18 years), primary language, GPA, and grade. Parent demographics also include education level and student's grade, while school personnel (teachers and staff) also provided information regarding education level, school role, job title, years in current position, grades taught, and subjects taught.

Users should note that qualitative data collected during phase 1 focus groups and phase 2 user acceptance tests are not included in version 1 of the ICPSR release. Additionally, in the quantitative datasets, character variables featuring open-ended string responses have been masked by ICPSR. This study will be updated at a later date to include qualitative data files and character variables in the quantitative datasets.

Since 2008, the Youth Restoration Project (YRP) and the Central Falls School District (CFSD) in Rhode Island have collaborated to implement a multi-level restorative justice intervention focused on building partnerships among police, schools, social services, families, and communities through training and dialogue. Restorative justice (RJ) encompasses a broad framework of practices aimed at repairing harm and achieving accountability rather than imposing punishment. In criminal justice contexts, RJ models include victim-offender mediation, peer courts, and RJ conferences. The current project undertaken by the Urban Institute focused on evaluating the impact of restorative justice conferences conducted by the YRP in partnership with Family Services of Rhode Island. A restorative justice conference (RJC) is a highly structured, facilitated meeting that allows affected parties (e.g., offending student, victim, teacher) and their allies (e.g., parents/guardians, peers) to arrive at the best possible solution for all parties following a negative event or behavior. Three different types of student misbehavior were considered for referral to restorative conferencing as an alternative to more formal processes: (1) arrestable offenses (with or without victims), (2) chronic unexcused absenteeism (truancy), or (3) chronic disruptive behavior.

The Urban Institute began implementing a conference observation pilot in a CFSD middle school and high school in fall 2014; the 2015-2016 school year was the first full year of implementation. Starting in 2016-2017, a middle school and high school in Providence also participated; conference observations were also conducted in a charter high school in the area. At these 5 schools between 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, 786 cases were referred for RJ conferencing; conferences were held in about half of these cases (379). A total of 105 conferences were observed by trained field staff. Post-conference interviews were conducted in the months following RJCs and allowed adult conference participants to share feedback regarding their experience and satisfaction with the conference process. Additionally, an outcome evaluation was conducted using student administrative data to assess the impact of conferences on student behavior. Finally, teacher surveys and focus groups were conducted in 4 participating schools to assess teacher perceptions of overall school climate as well as attitudes toward restorative practices and RJCs.

This collection includes data from restorative justice conference observation (DS1) and teacher surveys (DS2). Administrative data from the outcome evaluation and qualitative data from post-conference interviews and teacher focus groups were not deposited and are not included in the ICPSR release.

This multidisciplinary study included three objectives: (1) to conduct physical security surveys of K-12 schools in Arizona to compile a dataset of the physical security barrier technologies in use in those schools; (2) to survey parents and teachers about their perceptions of security in their schools, and compare their perceptions to those of security experts who conducted physical security surveys of participating schools; and (3) to test commonly used door and window materials in schools against ballistic and forced entry attack to determine the time necessary to penetrate the material.

To assess physical security, researchers visited 73 schools in 15 school districts and collected data on 3712 doors. The data collected included door material, door condition, hinges, locks, door knobs, door closers, and any windows adjacent to, or in, each door. Board certified security professionals and a retired law enforcement officer then scored the security value of each type of physical security device on a scale of 0 to 5. The scores were aggregated to arrive at an overall security score for each school that was compared to the survey responses of stakeholders. Commonly used door and window materials used in schools were also tested against ballistic and force entry attacks to establish baseline penetration times. The Penetration Test Protocols is available to download as study documentation, but the completed test report is not available with this collection.

Parent perceptions were assessed using a 45 item survey. Data were collected from 614 parents or guardians who had at least one child attending one of 43 K-12 schools in 9 Arizona school districts. Most parent respondents self-identified as females (n = 401; 94 missing data points). The average parent respondent age was 43.64 (SD = 8.70), with an age range from 23 to 78 years old (113 missing data points). Parent respondents identified as White, non-Hispanic (66 percent), Hispanic (10.3 percent), Black or African American (.5 percent), American Indian (4.6 percent), Asian (.7 percent), and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (.2 percent; 110 missing data points).

Teacher perceptions were assessed using a 47 item survey. Data were collected from 384 teachers who taught at one of 43 K-12 schools in 8 Arizona school districts. Most teacher respondents self-identified as females (n = 292; 6 missing data points). The average teacher age was 45.38 (SD = 12.77), with an age range from 22 to 100 years old (39 missing data points). Teacher respondents identified as White, non-Hispanic (84.4 percent), Hispanic (7.8 percent), Black or African American (.5 percent), American Indian (1 percent), Asian (.3 percent), and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (.3 percent; 18 missing data points). The participants' reported an average job tenure of 7.12 years (SD = 6.65), with a range from .17 to 40 years at their school (26 missing data points).

Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder's Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) partnered with educators in 46 middle schools to implement Safe Communities Safe Schools (SCSS). SCSS seeks to prevent and reduce behavioral incidents, address mental and behavioral health concerns, and increase prosocial behavior in the school setting through three core program components: developing a functioning multidisciplinary school team, building capacity around data use, and selecting and implementing evidence-based programs. The study explored research questions in three areas: readiness (whether schools met baseline criteria and experienced changes in readiness over time), implementation (whether the SCSS model was implemented as intended; whether it is feasible, acceptable, and effective when implemented schoolwide), and associated outcomes (effects on school climate, safety, related behavioral and mental health indicators, and academic outcomes). To explore questions in these three areas, CSPV and external evaluators from American Institutes for Research conducted a mixed-methods randomized control trial with a staggered implementation design using qualitative data (open-ended questions on implementation surveys, focus groups) and quantitative data (staff and student school climate data, attendance/truancy rates, and suspension rates, and academic achievement data).

This collection is organized into 12 parts and includes administrative school record data, student and staff climate surveys, and fidelity data. School record data from years 1 and 2 of the study include school-level attendance, truancy, and suspension rates, as well as student-level assessment data. Qualitative focus group data is not currently included in the collection.

This study involved random assignment of 80 school-based teams of educators to one of four conditions: (1) lesson study supported by a fractions resource kit; (2) lesson study without the fractions resource kit; (3) fractions resource kit without lesson study; or (4) practice-as-usual (no fractions resource kit, asked to refrain from lesson study). Teams were mailed the materials for their condition and used them locally. Each educator team included at least one grade 3 or 4 teacher who agreed to video record three fractions lessons, and their students comprise the student sample. Outcome measures focus on instruction, student fractions knowledge, teachers' fractions knowledge, beliefs about teaching-learning, and professional learning perceptions.

The Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) is a project that was funded by the National Science Foundation in 1985 and was designed to examine the development of: (1) student attitudes toward and achievement in science, (2) student attitudes toward and achievement in mathematics, and (3) student interest in and plans for a career in science, mathematics, or engineering, during middle school, high school, and the first four years post-high school. The relative influence parents, home, teachers, school, peers, media, and selected informal learning experiences had on these developmental patterns was considered as well.

The older LSAY cohort, Cohort One, consisted of a national sample of 2,829 tenth-grade students in public high schools throughout the United States. These students were followed for an initial period of seven years, ending four years after high school in 1994. Cohort Two, consisted of a national sample of 3,116 seventh-grade students in public schools that served as feeder schools to the same high schools in which the older cohort was enrolled. These students were followed for an initial period of seven years, concluding with a telephone interview approximately one year after the end of high school in 1994.

Beginning in the fall of 1987, the LSAY collected a wide array of information including: (1) a science achievement test and a mathematics achievement test each fall, (2) an attitudinal and experience questionnaire at the beginning and end of each school year, (3) reports about education and experience from all science and math teachers in each school, (4) reports on classroom practice by each science and math teacher serving a LSAY student, (5) an annual 25-minute telephone interview with one parent of each student, and (6) extensive school-level information from the principal of each study school.

In 2006, the NSF funded a proposal to re-contact the original LSAY students (then in their mid-30's) to resume data collection to determine their educational and occupational outcomes. Through an extensive tracking activity which involved: (1) online tracking, (2) newsletter mailing, (3) calls to parents and other relatives, (4) use of alternative online search methods, and (5) questionnaire mailing, more than 95 percent of the original sample of 5,945 LSAY students were located or accounted for. In addition to re-contacting the students, the proposal defined a new eligible sample of approximately 5,000 students and these young adults were asked to complete a survey in 2007. A second survey was conducted in the fall of 2008 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes and to measure the civic scientific literacy of these young adults, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. A third survey was conducted in the fall of 2009 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes and to measure the participants' use of selected informal science education resources, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. A fourth survey was conducted in the fall of 2010 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes, as well as provided questions about the participants' interactions with their children, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. Finally, a fifth survey was conducted in the fall of 2011 that sought to gather updated information about education outcomes and included an expanded occupation battery for all participants, as well as an expanded spousal information battery for all participants. The 2011 questionnaire also included items about the 2011 Fukushima incident in Japan along with attitudinal items about nuclear power and global climate change. To date approximately 3,200 participants responded to the 2011 survey.

There were no surveys conducted in 2012 or 2013. Beginning in 2014 the LSAY was funded by the National Institute on Aging for five years. This data release adds the 2017 data to the previous data release that included data through 2016.

The public release data files include information collected from the national probability sample students, their parents, and the science and mathematics teachers in the students' schools. The data covers the initial seven years, beginning in the fall of 1987, as well as the data collected in the 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 questionnaires.

Part 1: LSAY Merged Cohort (Base File) contains student and parent data from both cohorts of the LSAY from 1987-1994 and student follow-up data from 2007-2011 and 2014-2017. Additionally, Parts 2 - 5 contain information gathered from two teacher background questionnaires and two principal questionnaires from 1987-1994.

This project assesses the effectiveness of a one-day, 5-hour workshop (ESSI training, hereafter) designed for joint instruction by school staff and police to all school staff. The goal was to promote positive outcomes and reduce police involvement in interactions between staff and students exhibiting inappropriate behavior through increased staff awareness of youth behavior, the functions of the juvenile justice system, and disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in disciplinary action.

1,024 school staff participated in 51 ESSI training sessions throughought the 2015/16 academic year, which also serves as the training year in the longitudinal data. Schools which did not participate in the training served as controls for the participating school. Data were drawn from a panel of students enrolled in either a training or control school, with ten schools in each group. Data on this panel of students was collected for a five-year period, from the 2013/14 through the 2017/18 academic years.

School-level data serves as the unit of analysis, as the study's main goal was to test the effects of training on school-wide outcomes. The estimated coefficient indicates small attendance reductions during the post-training phase for the training group. This indicates that most of the differences between the training and control group were statistically insignificant and that there was no pattern of statistically significant positive effects across the training schools. The second set of analyses, performed on student-level data, indicates that male and minority students are more likely to be involved in disciplinary incidents and to receive suspensions or expulsions as a consequence of their behaviors than White and female students.

The Social Capital and Children's Development data were collected in a study of the causal effects of social capital on levels and inequalities of children's social and cognitive development during the early elementary years. The study included 52 schools in Phoenix and San Antonio, including 3,084 first graders and their families, and over 200 teachers, with half the schools randomly selected for the intervention and half serving as controls. Children from low-income Latino families were a special focus of the study. The experimental design of this study allowed for testing of the causal role of social capital. Social capital here refers to trust and shared expectations embedded in social networks of parents, teachers, and children. For young children, social capital operates primarily through their relationships with their parents, enhancing development through mechanisms of social support and social control.

The research design was experimental: social capital was manipulated through a well-tested randomized intervention, Families and Schools Together (FAST), that enhanced social capital among parents, teachers, and children through an intensive after-school program and a 2-year follow-up program. FAST is intended to reduce parental isolation, enhance family engagement with schools, and strengthen family functioning; that is, to increase social capital between families and schools, among families, and within families to improve children's education and life-long outcomes. Key aspects of child development were assessed, including (a) social skills and problem behavior from standardized behavioral ratings by parents and teachers, and (b) grade retention, attendance rates, and third-grade reading and mathematics scores from school records. Social capital was measured with repeated surveys of teachers and parents that address the extent of social networks, parent involvement, trust, and shared expectations among parents, between parents and schools, and between parents and children. Demographic variables of this study include native language, years in the United States, date of birth/age, race/ethnicity, gender, and household composition.

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.

The Simmons Longitudinal Study (SLS) is a community-based study that has prospectively traced the life course of a single-aged cohort from childhood (age 5) to adulthood (age 26). Data were collected from multiple informants at seven major time points: age 5 (1977), age 6 (1978), age 9 (1980-1981), age 15 (1987), age 18 (1990), age 21 (1993-1994), and age 26 (1998). Since its inception in 1977, the SLS has utilized a multidisciplinary, multimethod approach, with the dual goals of: (1) tracing the development and course of academic difficulties, behavior problems, and psychopathology; and (2) identifying factors that promote health functioning from early childhood (age 5) to adulthood (age 26). The SLS has consistently emphasized the identification of modifiable social and environmental risk and protective factors that can be targeted directly in prevention and intervention programs. To date, SLS has published 50 journal articles and 9 book chapters. The original SLS study group was comprised of every child who entered kindergarten in the fall of 1977 in one public school district in a northeastern town in the United States. For this wave of the study, Wave 2, in 1978 at the end of the kindergarten year, mothers and teachers rated the students on measures of behavioral and emotional functioning.

The Simmons Longitudinal Study (SLS) is a community-based study that has prospectively traced the life course of a single-aged cohort from childhood (age 5) to adulthood (age 26). Data were collected from multiple informants at seven major time points: age 5 (1977), age 6 (1978), age 9 (1980-1981), age 15 (1987), age 18 (1990), age 21 (1993-1994), and age 26 (1998). Since its inception in 1977, the SLS has utilized a multidisciplinary, multimethod approach, with the dual goals of: (1) tracing the development and course of academic difficulties, behavior problems, and psychopathology; and (2) identifying factors that promote health functioning from early childhood (age 5) to adulthood (age 26). The SLS has consistently emphasized the identification of modifiable social and environmental risk and protective factors that can be targeted directly in prevention and intervention programs. To date, SLS has published 50 journal articles and 9 book chapters. The original SLS study group was comprised of every child who entered kindergarten in the fall of 1977 in one public school district in a northeastern town in the United States. For this wave of the study, Wave 3, follow-up continued on each child who remained in the public school system. In grade 3 (1981), when the respondents were 9 years old, mothers were interviewed about their children. Additionally, participants themselves and their teachers completed a questionnaire regarding behavioral and emotional functioning.

The Schools and Families Education (SAFE) Children Study was a randomized control trial designed to test the efficacy of a family-based comprehensive preventive intervention, with children living in inner-city Chicago and entering the 1st grade, for effects on key risk markers for later drug and other substance use.

A total of 11 waves of data were collected over the course of three phases and approximately 13 years. In the spring of 1997, there were 424 kindergarten students and primary caregivers recruited to participate in this study. Wave 1 began while the children were in 1st grade. These data contain survey responses for students, their primary caregivers, and their teachers across 27 datasets.

Phase I of the study was to assess the intervention provided in the 1st grade. Half of the families were randomly selected to receive the intervention. The other half were assigned to the control group. Phase II of the study was set-up to give half of the intervention group a booster, a second intervention training. Lastly, there was a Phase III which sought to assess the long-term affects of the initial and booster interventions.

The first dataset (DS1) provides an overview of the study which includes variables for the study design and survey administration. This first file contains 38 variables.

Survey responses were obtained from students nine times beginning in 1st grade and ending in 12th grade. Children were not surveyed in waves 3 and 7. The student survey response data are in DS2 through DS10. The datasets for waves 1, 2, 4, and 5 contain only 50 variables. Waves 6, 8, and 9 contain 424 variables. Waves 10 and 11 contain 1,394 variables. Each of the three phases contain almost identical variables within their respective waves.

The children's primary caregivers were also surveyed nine times over the survey period. Primary caregivers were not surveyed in waves 3 and 7. These data are contained in DS11 through DS19. The primary caregiver files vary in the number and content of variables. On average each wave contains about 1,060 variables with a low of 470 on up to a high of 1,435.

Teachers were surveyed during each of the first eight waves of the study. The teacher data are in DS20 through DS27. Waves 1 and 2 contain just over 120 variables. Waves 3, 4, and 5 contain 145 variables. And waves 6, 7, and 8 contain 173 variables. Each of the three phases contain almost identical variables within their respective waves.

The Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) is a national longitudinal project initiated by Academia Sinica and jointly funded by Ministry of Education, the National Science Council, and Academia Sinica. The objective of TEPS is to stimulate more basic research in the fields of education, sociology, economics, and psychology by employing large scale panel data on representative samples of students, and their parents, teachers, and school administrators. In a nutshell, TEPS has five distinguishing features: (1) Theory driven: The focus is on the skills, behavioral, values, and psychological consequences of schooling institutions and family environments of students. Factors that are found in the literature to affect students' learning outcomes are all included. Specifically speaking, an AOE model of learning outcomes, representing learning capabilities (Ability), learning opportunities (Opportunity), and the amount of effort made by the students (Effort), serves as a guiding framework for questionnaire development. Ability and effort are more on students themselves while opportunities covers family, teachers, and school environment, peers, and so forth.

(2) Student centered and multidimensional and multi-levels: Central to the project were questionnaire surveys of students. The data collection extends to cover the most influential actors in their learning environment: parents, teachers, and schools. It covered nested multiple levels of data - individual students, classes, and schools, etc.

(3) Panel surveys covering multiple programs and multiple cohorts: Students in junior high (G7 to G9), senior high (G10 to G12), vocational (G10 to G12), and junior college (G10 to G14) programs were administered for data collection. All students were followed at least twice. A portion of them were followed four times at G7, G9, G11, and G12. In light of the ongoing transformation of the Taiwanese educational system in 1990s, the project started with two cohorts of approximately 40,000 students, making it possible to employ a quasi-experimental design in future analysis.

(4) National representative samples of the students: Students under data collection were representative samples of the 1984/85 and 1988/89 birth cohorts. Weighting is provided according to the probabilistic sampling design.

(5) Public goods: Data are made available to the public as soon as the data collection and data cleaning is completed, thereby providing an important resource for both academic and policy research.

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.

In 2000, the Kentucky General Assembly passed historic early childhood legislation (Kentucky's KIDS [Kentucky Invests in Developing Success] NOW Initiative) of which a component included the development of a seamless professional development system. The professional development system includes core content, articulation, credentials, scholarships and a training framework. This comprehensive professional development system, along with other initiative components in assuring maternal and child health, supporting families, enhancing early care and education, and establishing a support structure, have moved the field of early childhood care and education forward in the state and improved child and family outcomes.

This study was designed to build on the KIDS NOW Initiative by conducting research investigating the degree to which a statewide unified professional development system impacted the educational level of early care and education providers and subsequent classroom quality. It focused on three major predictors of professional development outcomes:

1. Individual teacher characteristics, including learning readiness, education (level and type), training experience, attitudes towards training, personality (conscientiousness, self-efficacy), job satisfaction (perceptions of support)
2. Characteristics of the program administrator, including administrator education and administrator support of professional development
3. Characteristics of the teacher's work setting, including program administration, and policies and procedures, and classroom setting (Child Care, Head Start, or Public Preschool)

The impact of these three predictors was measured on two major outcomes: (a) professional development outcomes, as measured by job status, learning and transfer of learning, and (b) organizational outcomes, as measured by program quality, child outcomes and staff retention.

The research questions guiding this research were focused on determining the degree to which (1) a unified professional development framework initiated at the state level results in positive child outcomes, and (2) the educational level of early care and education providers enhances the quality of classroom environments. Specifically:

• What components of a professional development framework are more effective in encouraging and supporting individuals to remain in early care and education settings?
• What components of a professional development framework are more effective in supporting early care and education professionals in enhancing classroom quality and child outcomes?
• Are there specific factors that impact early care and education professionals' ability to participate in professional development activities at various levels?
• Does the level and intensity of professional development experiences impact classroom quality and child outcomes?
• What personnel factors have the highest impact on quality classroom environments and child outcomes?
• What is the interaction between the personnel, professional development, and program variables on classroom quality and child outcomes?

The Partnership Impact Research Project is a three-year study designed to assess the nature of early education partnerships among Head Start, pre-kindergarten (pre-k), child care, and early care and education programs and their influence on child care quality and access to services. The project analyzes qualitative data in an existing database that was collected by the Quality in Linking Together (QUILT) Early Education Partnerships initiative. The QUILT database was designed to provide training and technical assistance in the development and sustainment of partnerships to professionals across the nation, including early care and education providers and state leaders. It is divided into two sections: state-level and local provider-level information. Both sections contain narratives, factual data, and documents. Additionally, the project collected new quantitative and qualitative data from randomly selected child care and Head Start providers in Ohio to study the influence of partnerships on the quality of and access to services.

The Partnership Impact Research Project explored questions about partnerships and their impact on child care and parents while attempting to determine whether state actions could influence both the development of provider-level partnerships and the processes partnerships engage in to sustain their work. Specifically, the study was designed to address the following objectives:

1. Conduct a qualitative analysis of data in an existing database to assess the nature of partnerships and state actions to support partnerships.
2. Conduct a longitudinal study that uses a quasi-experimental design and involves original data collection at three points in time to learn about the impact of partnerships on child care center quality, child care classroom quality, and accessibility of services for parents.
3. Develop detailed reports and research briefs, tailored to specific audiences such as legislators, administrators, and providers, that translate research findings into practical information that addresses questions frequently asked about child care partnerships.
4. Disseminate research reports and briefs through established networks of policy makers and practitioners, using their organizations' Web sites and publications.

The six datasets associated with this data collection are summarized below:

1. Child Care Center Data -- contains information on a variety of aspects about a child care center from the director's point of view with many focused questions aimed at the preschool population and an overview of the child care center as a whole. This dataset provides information about the population being served, services provided, teacher ratios, teacher training and education, annual budgets, funding sources, and other major aspects of a child care center in order to achieve an understanding of quality.
2. Child Care Center Partnership Data -- contains information about the child care partnership with the Head Start Agency that provides their services. There are five sections: funding sources, origins of the partnership, resources, nature of the partnership, and benefits/challenges. Information about how the partnership began, what the centers' role is, what services are provided, and a variety of general questions that inform others about the nature of the partnership are available in this dataset.
3. Head Start Background Data -- contains background information about a Head Start Agency that partners with child care centers and other information related to budget, funding sources, number of children served, and Head Start program organization.
4. Head Start Partnership Data -- a companion to the Head Start Background data, this dataset contains information about the specific partnership with each child care center the agency is involved with. There are four sections: background information, teacher training/professional development, services, and director information. Additionally, information on how the partnership began, what the agency's role is, what services are provided, and other general questions about the partnership is available.
5. Parent Data -- contains information on parents' views of the child care center that their preschooler attends. This dataset provides information about the population being served including home/school connection, how a parent views the classroom and the care being provided by the center, and the services available to both the child and parent through the center.
6. Teacher Data -- contains information about teachers' views of the child care center where they are employed. This dataset provides information about the population being served, services provided, teacher ratios, teacher training and education, and teacher experience in order to achieve an understanding of quality.