Abstract:
The goal of the CFF/EETT Evaluation Project is to collect and share data describing changes in the factors that are hypothesized to enhance student performance by improving achievement on standardized examinations and promoting student engagement and the development of 21st Century knowledges and skills. This information has been used to steer the program's implementation, hence increasing the probability that the program will be successful and sustainable.
The protocol and research questions for the Classrooms for the Future/21st Century Teaching and Learning with Technology (CFF) evaluation were developed in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) prior to the implementation of the program in the 2006-2007 academic year. The CFF/EETT Evaluation Project's scope has included the monitoring of the changes taking place in the 453 participating school districts in the CFF program among 9996 participating teaching in 2011.
The CFF program has achieved success on the measures that were established to evaluate its implementation and impact. Despite numerous challenges and setbacks (including funding cuts), this reform agenda has continued through professional development activities in the districts (2007 - 2011). Understanding the adoption, diffusion of the reform's message, related implementation practices, and results of the CFF program will help Penn State, PDE, and key stakeholders to interpret the trends that have occurred after implementing the reform initiative.
With minor revisions, this CFF evaluation has been adapted to changing contexts and new populations of participating schools. In many respects a continuation of the CFF model, the 2009 - 2010 Pennsylvania Title IID program (EETT) implements the same model of school reform based on changes in teaching practices in technology intensive classrooms. This program encompasses grades 5-12 in a variety of subject areas in low income and low achieving school districts throughout the state and was frequently used by CFF districts to expand this high school reform model into the middle and elementary grades. For more information on the EETT component of the evaluation please click here for a press release about the EETT Evaluation.
If you are a researcher or education professional and have questions about the data, our evaluation efforts with the 2010-2011 EETT initiative, or the CFF/EETT Evaluation Projects conclusions about the CFF and EETT programs please contact Robin Clausen at rlc237@psu.edu or 814-574-7722. Sponsor - Pennsylvania Department of Education Partners - Casenex, Metiri Group, Survey Research Center (Penn State University)
Supplemental_Information:
Each response is coded according to the socio-economic status of the district and the locality of the school in which each participant resides. An indictor of the socio-economic status of a district is the Small Area Income Poverty Estimate (SAIPE, 2009), a mid decennial census measure of the number of students in extreme poverty in a district. By dividing the number of students in poverty by the total number of 5-17 year old individuals living in a district, we are able to derive a percentage that can be used to classify districts by poverty level. Locality categories can be derived from the NCES classification system. This classification is defined as follows:
City, Large: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population of 250,000 or more.
City, Midsize: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to100, 000.
City, Small: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 100,000.
Suburb, Large: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population of 250,000 or more.
Suburb, Midsize: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.
Suburb, Small: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 100,000.
Town, Fringe: Territory inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area.
Town, Distant: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area.
Town, Remote: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles from an urbanized area.
Rural, Fringe: Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster.
Rural, Distant: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster.
Rural, Remote: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster.
Back to Data Summary