- Early Learning Career Pathways Initiative: Credentialing in the Early Care and Education Field PDF (15MB)
Tag Archives: Academic Achievement
About US – Office of Early Learning
The Office of Early Learning (OEL) is the principal office charged with supporting the Department’s Early Learning Initiative with the goal of improving the health, social-emotional, and cognitive outcomes for children from birth through third grade, so that all children, particularly those with high needs, are on track for graduating from high school college- and career-ready.
OEL is headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary who reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education and advises the Assistant Secretary, Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and other top officials of the Department on policy and administrative issues related to early learning.
In administering the programs assigned to it, OEL establishes cooperative relationships with other Departmental Principal Offices and with other Federal agencies and governmental and nongovernmental organizations as appropriate. For example, OEL jointly administers the Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge grants with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Currently, OEL oversees the following grant programs:
The purpose of the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) program is to improve the quality of early learning and close the achievement gap for children with high needs. The RTT-ELC grant program focuses on improving early learning for young children by supporting States’ efforts to increase the number and percentage of children from low-income families and disadvantaged children in each age group of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers enrolled in high-quality early learning programs and designing and implementing an integrated system of high-quality early learning programs and services.
The Preschool Development Grants competition supports States to (1) build or enhance a preschool program infrastructure that would enable the delivery of high-quality preschool services to children, and (2) expand high-quality preschool programs in targeted communities that would serve as models for expanding preschool to all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families. These grants would lay the groundwork to ensure that more States are ready to participate in the Preschool for All formula grant initiative proposed by the Administration.
This program offers grants to support local family literacy projects that integrate early childhood education, adult literacy (adult basic and secondary-level education and instruction for English language learners), parenting education, and interactive parent and child literacy activities for low-income families with parents who are eligible for services under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and their children from birth through age 7. Teen parents and their children from birth through age 7 also are eligible. All participating families must be those most in need of program services.
–>>
The program supports the development of early childhood centers of excellence that focus on all areas of development, especially on the early language, cognitive, and pre-reading skills that prepare children for continued school success and that serve primarily children from low-income families.
–>>
The purpose is to promote school readiness and improved learning outcomes of young children by providing high quality professional development programs to improve the knowledge and skills of early childhood educators and caregivers who work in early childhood programs located in high-poverty communities and who serve primarily children from low-income families.
–>>
//End Program Office Navigation//–>>
Biography for Anie Hsiao
<!–
–>
Annie Hsiao is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. She was previously the Senior Advisor to the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs at the US Department of Justice, advising on policy, strategy, and programs in the division that is charged with all of the agency’s grant-making, promoting crime reduction, supporting victims of crime, public safety, rule of law, and juvenile justice reform. She is the former Director of Strategic Partnerships at Leadership for Educational Equity and was formerly a Program Manager at the Charles Koch Foundation, and a Program Officer at the Walton Family Foundation, the leading grant-maker in K-12 education reform and parental choice. Prior to this, she was Director of Education Policy at the American Action Forum, and Director of Government and Community Relations with an appointment from the George W. Bush Administration at the National Endowment for the Humanities. Her work has appeared in Politico, National Review, Weekly Standard, The Hill, Washington Examiner, Daily Caller and other publications. Originally from California, Ms. Hsiao received her B.A. in Political Science and Asian American Studies from the University of California, Los Angeles. She received her Masters in Education Policy from Harvard University and was a Publius Fellow at the Claremont Institute. Her volunteer work also includes serving as a board member of a Charter School in DC, serving as a deaconess at her church, and serving on a national board for her church’s denomination.
Biography for Jason Botel
<!–
Jason Botel, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education.
–>
Jason Botel serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Jason first began his service at the Department of Education in the role of Senior White House Advisor for Education.
Botel started his career teaching at Booker T. Washington Middle School in West Baltimore as a Teach For America corps member and went on to serve as founding principal and executive director of KIPP Baltimore. Most recently, he was the executive director of MarylandCAN. Botel holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in English from the University of Pennsylvania and a master’s degree in education administration and supervision from National-Louis University.
Office of Academic Improvement
| You are here: OESE Home > Programs/Initiatives > OAI |
Welcome! Thank you for visiting the Office of Academic Improvement (OAI) website. It is our desire to provide you with useful and timely information that will enhance your knowledge of programs administered by OAI and of issues that are important to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Academic Improvement
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Phone: 202-260-8228
Fax: 202-260-8969
e-mail: OESE@ed.gov
About Us – Teacher Quality Partnership
What’s New
The U.S. Department of Education is pleased to announce that the Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) for the Teacher Quality Partnership program published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2022 and closes on April 26, 2022. The Department of Education plans to award approximately $35 million to eligible partnerships to support high-quality teacher preparation and professional development for prospective teachers.
Please note that this FY 22 grant competition contains four absolute priorities. This FY 22 competition invites applications for both the Pre-Bac and Residency models. Additionally, it invites applicants to create school leadership programs in conjunction with their Pre-Bac or Residency models. The FY 22 competition also includes four optional competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. Please review the published NIA carefully for complete details on the FY 2022 TQP grant competition.
FY 2022 TQP grant competition resources will be added to the website at they become available. Please check back frequently for updates.
FY 2022 TQP Call for Peer Reviewers
If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer or have any additional questions about the peer reviewer process, please review the Call for Peer Reviewers and follow the instructions accordingly. If you have additional questions after reviewing the Call for Peer Reviewers, please contact EED program staff at EEDPeerReviews@ed.gov.
Eligibility
Who May Apply: (by category) State Education Agencies (SEAs)
Who May Apply: (specifically) The SEAs for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) may apply.
Eligibility for a State Assessment grant is determined for each State Educational Agency based on each State Agency’s share of the total number of students ages 5 through 17 nationally. Congress has appropriated $369.1 million for Title IB State Assessment Grants for FY 2019.
Grants for State Assessments
Program Description
This program is designed to support the development of the additional state assessments and standards required by Sec. 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended. If a state has developed the assessments and standards required by Sec. 1111(b), funds support the administration of those assessments or other activities related to ensuring that the state’s schools and local education agencies (LEAs) are held accountable for results.
Types of Projects
Projects include development or subsequent implementation of standards-based state academic assessments in reading or language arts, mathematics, and science as required by the authorizing statute. When the state has met all assessment requirements, the funds may be used to improve standards, alignment, reporting, or expanded use of test accommodations.
Wyoming Science Assessment Letter
August 25, 2008
The Honorable Jim McBride
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Wyoming Department of Education
2300 Capitol Ave, 2nd Floor
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0050
Dear Superintendent McBride:
I am writing regarding our review of Wyoming’s science assessments under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
As outlined in my letter of February 28, 2008, states had to meet four basic requirements in science for the 2007-08 school year. In particular, each state was required to: (1) have approved content standards in science; (2) administer a regular and alternate science assessment in each of three grade spans; (3) include all students in those assessments; and (4) report the results of the regular and alternate science assessments on state and district report cards. After reviewing the evidence submitted, I am pleased to note that it appears that Wyoming has met these requirements for 2007-08. However, Wyoming must submit final participation data to ensure that all students were included in the assessment system. Please let us know within 10 days of receipt of this letter when Wyoming will have those data available so that we can confirm that Wyoming has, in fact, met the basic requirements for administering science assessments in 2007-08. States that do not provide the outstanding evidence to verify that they have met the four criteria for the 2007-08 school year have not met the basic requirements of the statute and will be subject to consequences, such as withholding of Title I, Part A administrative funds.
In 2008-09, Wyoming must provide evidence for peer review that demonstrates full compliance of its science standards and assessments. In anticipation of that required peer review, Wyoming chose to participate in an optional technical assistance peer review in May 2008. I appreciate the efforts that were required to prepare for the technical assistance peer review and hope that the process provides useful feedback that will support Wyoming’s efforts to monitor student progress toward meeting challenging science standards.
Based on the evidence received from Wyoming, which was reviewed by the peers and Department staff, we have concluded that Wyoming does not yet meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements of section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. Specifically, Wyoming must submit evidence of its science academic achievement standards, alignment of those standards with grade-level content, and technical quality of the science assessments that were administered for the first time in 2007-08. The complete list of evidence needed to address these concerns is enclosed with this letter. We have scheduled peer reviews for states’ science assessments for the weeks of October 25 through November 2, 2008, and March 23 through 27, 2009. All materials for review must be provided to the Department three weeks before the peer review is scheduled.
Please keep in mind that science standards and assessments represent one piece of a state’s complete standards and assessment system, which also includes regular and alternate assessments for reading/language arts and mathematics. As stated in my letter to you on November 13, 2007, Wyoming’s standards and assessment system for reading/language arts and mathematics is currently designated Approval Pending. In order to be fully approved, Wyoming must demonstrate that all components of its standards and assessment system as administered in 2008-09, including general and alternate assessments for reading, mathematics, and science, comply with all ESEA requirements for standards and assessment systems.
We look forward to working with Wyoming to support a high-quality standards and assessment system, of which science standards and assessments are an integral part. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Don Watson (Don.Watson@ed.gov) or Lauren Prehoda (Lauren.Prehoda@ed.gov) of my staff.
Sincerely,
Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.
Enclosure
cc: Governor Dave Freudenthal
Joe Simpson
Lesley Wangberg
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WYOMING MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR WYOMING’S SCIENCE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS
- Evidence of final adoption of cut scores for the PAWS and the PAWS-Alt.
- Final achievement level descriptors that differentiate across grade spans and that are content specific.
- Evidence of alternate academic achievement standards, descriptors, and cut scores for the PAWS-Alt.
- Evidence demonstrating how the state ensures that parents are informed that students are participating in the PAWS-Alt, along with evidence of how the state ensures that parents are informed of the implications of that participation.
- Documentation of the number and percentage of students with disabilities enrolled, the number and percentage assessed on the PAWS-Alt, and the number and percentage assessed on PAWS, either with or without accommodations.
- Evidence of diverse stakeholders’ representation in the standards-setting process in June 2008, including participants’ demographic information, such as content area knowledge, special expertise (i.e., limited English proficient students and students with disabilities), and grade taught.
3.0 – FULL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
- Evidence of alignment for the PAWS and PAWS-Alt. [Evidence submitted for element 5 will satisfy this concern.]
4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY
- Documentation of a final, comprehensive technical manual that addresses the critical elements contained within this section.
- Plans for examining intended and unintended consequences.
- Evidence of the methodology and plan for demonstrating the reliability of the PAWS-Alt, particularly the Portfolio of Student Work (PSW) component.
- Documentation of the monitoring system.
- Plans for analyses that evaluate the use of accommodations.
- Evidence of an overarching framework and management plan that ensures critical components of the assessment system are operating in a coherent manner, thus establishing evidence that operational forms are developed in a consistent manner from one assessment cycle to another; alignment results are integrated within the upcoming assessment cycle; monitoring the intended implementation of the assessments, including the appropriate use of accommodations, provides feedback to state and school officials; and evaluations of intended and unintended consequences produced by the implementation of the assessment system are used to improve overall system quality.
5.0 – ALIGNMENT
- Evidence of the alignment study and a plan to address any findings from that study.
- Evidence of a plan to address any alignment deficiencies noted in the study and ensure alignment over time.
- Evidence that the state’s alternate academic achievement standards are aligned with the state’s academic content standards.
6.0 – INCLUSION
- Data demonstrating that all students are included in the science PAWS and PAWS-Alt assessments.
- Evidence to address the consistency and accuracy of assessment translations provided for limited English proficient (LEP) students in their native language(s).
7.0 – REPORTING
- Documentation of PAWS-Alt reports and interpretative guides which demonstrates and/or explains performance level scale scores, the use of an error bands, and the elimination of non-essential technical terms.
- Evidence of revised PAWS reports and interpretative guides which demonstrates and/or explains performance level scale scores, the use of an error bands, and the elimination of non-essential technical terms.
- Documentation that districts provide all necessary information in reports to parents.
- Evidence of the timeframe for the districts to deliver reports to parents.
Wyoming Assessment Letter
July 13, 2007
The Honorable Jim McBride
Superintendent
Wyoming Department of Education
Hathaway Building
2300 Capitol Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0050
Dear Superintendent McBride:
I am writing regarding our review of Wyoming’s standards and assessment system under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). We appreciate the efforts required to prepare for the peer review and hope that the process provides useful feedback that will support Wyoming’s efforts to monitor student progress toward challenging standards.
External peer reviewers and Department staff evaluated Wyoming’s fourth peer review submission and found, based on the evidence received, that it still does not meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements of section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. I know that my staff has discussed the results of this review with your staff and I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me during my visit to Cheyenne on June 28. I want to take this opportunity to enumerate the evidence that Wyoming must provide in order to have a fully compliant system. Specifically, we have concerns with the technical quality and alignment of the Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS) to Wyoming’s grade-level academic content standards and academic achievement standards as well as concerns with the technical quality and alignment of Wyoming’s alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (the Alternate Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students, or PAWS-Alt) to grade-level content standards. We appreciate the effort your staff has made to conclude the peer review process but we are concerned about the lack of comprehensive and coherent approach to documenting validity of the assessment system. The complete list of evidence needed to address these concerns is enclosed with this letter.
I know that Wyoming submitted a draft timeline for how and when Wyoming will satisfy the remaining requirements for the PAWS and additional evidence for peer review on July 3 and that additional evidence will be submitted in the coming month. Sue Rigney of my staff will review and respond under separate cover to Wyoming’s draft timeline. Please note that all evidence regarding the PAWS must be submitted no later than August 27, 2007 so that it may be peer reviewed during the Department’s review from September 17-21. Therefore, we are not assigning an approval status to Wyoming’s system at this time. Because that system is not fully approved, a condition was placed on your fiscal year 2007 Title I, Part A grant award.
If Wyoming is unable to resolve the remaining issues with the PAWS, we will take appropriate enforcement actions as outlined in the Department’s May 10, 2007, fact sheet, including the possibility of a Compliance Agreement under Section 457 of the General Education Provisions Act. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of that fact sheet, which is also available on the Department’s website (http://www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/statesystems.html).
We look forward to working with Wyoming to support a high-quality standards and assessment system. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call Sue Rigney (202-260-0931) or Patrick Rooney (202-205-8831) of my staff.
Sincerely,
Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.
Enclosures
cc: Governor Dave Freudenthal
Joe Simpson
Lesley Wangberg
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WYOMING MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WYOMING ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS
- Confirmation that the PAWS-Alt is administered as intended, e.g. number and percent of non-scoreable components.
- The scoring rubrics for all three PAWS-Alt components: the Data Collection Form (DCF), the Teacher Observation of Academic Skills (TOAS), and the Student Performance Events (SPE). The DCF rubric was provided but the scoring criteria for TOAS and SPE components were not.
- Training materials for the accurate administration, scoring, and interpretation of results from the PAWS-Alt.
- A description of the standards-setting process for the PAWS-Alt that includes documentation of the procedures employed, including:
- The standards-setting model;
- The materials used to train the panelists;
- The rationale and procedures for selecting student work samples;
- A sample student profile as used by the panelists; and
- The numerical information used to summarize the contents of the student profiles used for standard setting.
- An explanation of how variation in student profiles was considered in setting performance standards and drafting the final performance descriptors.
4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY
- Evidence of technical quality for PAWS to address the reviewers’ concerns regarding:
- Procedures for the development of test forms appropriate for the design and intended purpose (reading, writing, and mathematics);
- Stability of results from multiple forms within year (split-half option) and across time (reading, writing, and mathematics);
- Consistency between test administration practices and the standards-setting process (reading, writing, and mathematics);
- Clear blueprints, item specifications, and test development procedures for 2006-07 (reading and writing);
- Implementation of a writing scale that combines with reading scale scores to form a combined English/language arts score for accountability; and
- Implementation of sound scaling and equating procedures across test forms and years.
- Clear explanations of design and scoring;
- Documentation of scoring reliability (consistency and accuracy);
- Justification of score use given the threat to validity represented by the inter-component correlations that show higher correlations between content areas than between components within content areas;
- The low percentage of items related to assessment targets; and
- Data discrepancies within and between successive versions of the Technical Reports.
- Complete validity information for the operational PAWS and reliability and validity information for the PAWS-Alt assessments, including data supporting concurrent and consequential validity.
- Data confirming that the accommodations permitted on the PAWS assessment support valid use of the assessment results.
- A plan and commitment for ongoing analysis of the relation between test administration patterns (split-half option), test results and the implications for interpretation, and intended consequences.
5.0 – ALIGNMENT
- The systematic procedures that will be used to address the alignment gaps documented in the ELY alignment study and the concerns about alignment stated in the technical manual.
- Test blueprints or other documents that show alignment of the PAWS with the content standards rather than “skills.”
- Clarification regarding the design and administration of the operational PAWS-Alt sufficient to determine whether the assessment content is aligned with grade-level content standards.
6.0 – INCLUSION
- Official grade-by grade enrollment data (either for spring 2006 or for the date of enrollment that is used by Wyoming to calculate the participation rate for adequate yearly progress determinations) for all students. This should include official State assessment reports for the assessments administered in 2006-07 that display the number of students with disabilities tested on PAWS and PAWS-Alt.
