# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As we continue a tradition of educational excellence, input from stakeholders is essential. Listening and learning from parents, guardians, families, students, faculty, staff, and community members is needed to ensure everyone has a voice. Please consider giving your input to help outline the goals and activities necessary to support our vision during the next 90 days and beyond.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wellbeing doesn't just happen. Drawing on Professor Martin Seligman's PERMAH wellbeing framework, this five-minute survey was designed to help people amplify their ability to thrive and care for their wellbeing even when they are struggling.

How? We don't just help you to measure wellbeing - that only leads to more survey fatigue. Instead, with the input of many of the world's leading wellbeing researchers we've done the hard work of translating your survey results and the latest science into actionable insights, practical tools, and a personalized easy-to-apply plan to make caring for wellbeing more meaningful and effective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wellbeing doesn't just happen. Drawing on Professor Martin Seligman's PERMAH wellbeing framework, this five-minute survey was designed to help people amplify their ability to thrive and care for their wellbeing even when they are struggling. How? We don't just help you to measure wellbeing - that only leads to more survey fatigue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Search Institute has identified 40 positive supports and strengths that young people need to succeed. Half of the assets focus on the relationships and opportunities they need in their families, schools, and communities (external assets). The remaining assets focus on the social-emotional strengths, values, and commitments that are nurtured within young people (internal assets).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Developmental Assets Framework - Search Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Search Institute has identified 40 positive supports and strengths that young people need to succeed, called the Developmental Assets Framework.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We sometimes see that Project Based Learning is a tough sell in urban public school districts.

I recently ran across an article that, even though it was written in 1991, helps explain why.

Many of you might already know this article, since it was re-published in 2010 by Phi Delta Kappan magazine as a "Kappan Classic": The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching by Martin Haberman. I was struck by the parallels between Haberman's description of good teaching and Project Based Learning. Even though he did not use that term in 1991, it shows that our current thinking about PBL draws on a rich history.

Haberman does not blame teachers for this situation, it's important to emphasize. He blames the system they work in and the culture of schooling, the entrenched ways of doing things and beliefs about low-income students and what they need. I also notice that many-but not all-of the features he ascribes to "urban teaching" could also apply to many traditional-instruction-based suburban and rural classrooms, especially in the NCLB era of standardized-test-based accountability.

What Teachers Do in the Pedagogy of Poverty

Haberman acknowledges that one can find examples of every kind of pedagogy in urban classrooms, "even the use of problem-solving units common in progressive education." But, he argues,"In spite of this broad range of options, however, there is a typical form of teaching that has become accepted as basic... The teaching acts that constitute the core functions of urban teaching are:"

Giving information

Asking questions

Giving directions

Making assignments

Monitoring seatwork

Reviewing assignments

Giving & reviewing tests

Assigning & reviewing homework

Settling disputes

Punishing noncompliance

Marking papers

Giving grades.

The pedagogy of poverty does not work, Haberman forcefully points out. "Youngsters achieve neither minimum levels of life skills nor what they are capable of learning. The classroom atmosphere created by constant teacher direction and student compliance seethes with passive resentment that sometimes bubbles up into overt resistance. Teachers burn out because of the emotional and physical energy that they must expend to maintain their authority every hour of every day.... In reality, the pedagogy of poverty is not a professional methodology at all. It is not supported by research, by theory, or by the best practice of superior urban teachers."

He also makes a great point about "classroom control" that is echoed by today's practitioners and promoters of PBL.

"The few urban schools that serve as models of student learning have teachers who maintain control by establishing trust and involving their students in meaningful activities rather than by imposing some neat system of classroom discipline. For genuinely effective urban teachers, discipline and control are primarily a consequence of their teaching and not a prerequisite condition of learning."

What "Good Teaching" Is: Parallels to PBL

There are examples of an alternative pedagogy, Haberman points out, "in urban schools that have been recognized as exemplary" (I'm guessing he was referring to schools like Central Park East High School, founded by Deborah Meier -and there are more like it today). In these schools:

"Unlike the directive teacher acts that constitute the pedagogy of poverty, however, (the core of teacher acts) tend to be indirect activities that frequently involve the creation of a learning environment. These teaching behaviors tend to be evident more in what the students are doing than in the observable actions of the teacher. Indeed, teachers may appear to be doing little and at times may, to the unsophisticated visitor, seem to be merely observers."

Sounds like how we would describe a PBL classroom, doesn't it?

Particularly the Project Based Teaching Practices "Engage & Coach," which emphasizes the "guide on the side" role of the teacher, and "Build the Culture" which emphasizes student independence. Haberman's list of what you would find in a school where "good teaching" is going on has clear parallels with the PBLWorks model for Gold Standard PBL and the Framework for High-Quality Project Based Learning

Features of "Good Teaching"
from "The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching" by Martin Haberman Features of Project Based Learning
from the PBLWorks model of Gold Standard PBL & the framework for High-Quality PBL

Students are involved with issues they regard as vital concerns.

Projects focus on real-world problems and issues that are relevant to students' lives.

Students are involved with explanations of human differences.

Driving questions for projects can focus on class, culture, race, gender, etc.

Students are helped to see major concepts, big ideas, general principles, not merely pursuing isolated facts.

Student learning goals in PBL units focus on exploring deeper conceptual understanding and big ideas, not simply gaining superficial knowledge.

Students are involved in planning what they will be doing.

"Student voice and choice" is an Essential Project Design Element; the Project Based Teaching Practice "Build the Culture" emphasizes student independence and ownership.

Students are involved with applying ideals such as fairness, equity, or justice in the world.

Driving questions for projects can focus on issues around fairness, equity, or justice.

Students are actively involved.

A fundamental premise of PBL is active student engagement.

Students are directly involved in real-life experience.

"Authenticity" is an Essential Project Design Element.

Students are actively involved in heterogenous groups.

"Collaboration" is a key success skill in PBL; student teams are formed with diverse skills and talents in mind.

Students are asked to think about an idea in a way that questions commons sense or a widely accepted assumption, that relates new ideas to ones learned previously, or that applies an idea to the problems of living.

Driving questions for projects are often written to be provocative, to promote greater student engagement; students are asked to think critically about topics in PBL, which includes making connections between ideas and application to authentic issues and problems.

Students are involved with technology of information access.

PBL usually involves the use of tech tools for inquiry, communication, collaboration, and product creation.

Students are involved in reflecting on their own lives and how they have come to believe and feel as they do.

"Reflection" and "Athenticitiy" are Essential Project Design Elements; driving questions for PBL units can focus on authetnic topics that are relevant to students' lives.

© 2019 Buck Institute for Education

School Reform Then... and Now, Still

Although progress has been made on some fronts, I'm still saddened that Haberman's point about the need to reform instruction in 1991 still holds true in too many schools today: "Reformers of urban schools are now raising their expectations beyond an emphasis on basic skills to the teaching of critical thinking, problem solving, and even creativity. But if the pedagogy of poverty will not force the learning of low-level skills, how can it be used to compel genuine thinking?"

There is hope, though, for those who believe in the power of Project Based Learning to transform students' lives, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, as we do at PBLWorks. With the growing interest in PBL, we'll be seeing more and more "good teaching" in all kinds of schools, in all places, for all students.

For More...

I encourage you to read Haberman's article in full. Also see Jal Mehta's 2014 post Deeper Learning Has a Race Problem in Education Week's Learning Deeply blog - in which he explains why pedagogies such as PBL often face skepticism and resistance among many civil rights advocates and parents, educators, and students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pedagogy of Poverty and its Antidote: PBL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I recently ran across an article that, even though it was written in 1991, helps explain why. Many of you might already know this article, since it was re-published in 2010 by Phi Delta Kappan magazine as a "Kappan Classic": The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching by Martin Haberman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building Professional Community in Schools with self reflection_Bryk (2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A collection of tools and resources to support group work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. But taking that first step requires knowing where the heck you're trying to go.

Here's a simple exercise I often use when working with school and system leaders:

You're in Washington, D.C. You need to get to Los Angeles. Question: How fast can you drive there? Go.

Give or take, it's about 2,500 miles. What inevitably happens is that folks turn to their smartphones to figure out the distance and then calculate how long it will take to drive. Most estimate three to four days. Then the more aggressive go to work. They figure out that they can do the drive with friends, eat in the car, and get there in 45 or 50 hours.

Frequently, though, one or two people will have a different answer. Instead of casually assuming that they should drive from D.C. to L.A. just because I said so, they think about the purpose of the trip. Not seeing any reason to drive, they decide the point is to travel from D.C. to L.A. They hop online and find the quickest flight, a nonstop that will get them there in five or six hours. They're focused not on instructions but on solving the problem. This requires blasting past routines, assumptions, and mental traps that plague even the most acclaimed schools and inspiring leaders.

Leadership always entails two complementary roles. One is coaching, mentoring, nurturing, and inspiring others to forge dynamic, professional cultures. This half often absorbs the whole attention of those who tackle educational leadership. Lost in the discussion is the second half of leadership-the cage-busting half, in which leaders upend stifling rules, policies, and routines to make it easier for successful professional cultures to thrive.

It's tough to cultivate the cage-busting mind-set. For one thing, leaders are surrounded by colleagues who are used to the cage. For another, they're surrounded by experts who claim to already know what needs to be done. For instance, many authorities continue to cite a paper that Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning published in 2003. It identified 21 leadership responsibilities thought to be associated with student achievement. These included celebrating school accomplishments, being directly involved in designing curriculum and assessment, having quality contact with teachers and students, challenging the status quo, leading new and challenging innovations, and ensuring that staff are aware of the most current theories and practices. Leaders can get so intent on all of this that they get overwhelmed.

The cage-busting mind-set requires stepping back and cultivating what the Zen Buddhists refer to as shoshin, or "beginner's mind." This means approaching subjects with curiosity and an open mind, even when you think you already know it all. In Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Shunryu Suzuki puts it aptly: "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's there are few."

Rhode Island Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist noted how being new in an organization can open up possibilities:

Being the new person means you can say, "I don't understand. Could you explain this?" even though you probably have a sense for what's actually happening. You're able to see things in new ways that folks who have been there a long time just accept as "we've always done it that way."

Gist recalled that when approving the cut scores for applicants to state teacher preparation programs, she asked questions like, How did we arrive at these numbers? How do we compare with other states? and Who has the authority to set the standards? She learned that she had the authority to set the cut scores and that Rhode Island's cut score was tied with those of Guam and North Dakota for the lowest in the United States. Gist explained, "I said we aren't going to do it that way anymore. So I raised the scores and sent a message that things were going to be different."

Cage-busting requires navigating three self-imposed traps that ensnare many leaders.

In practice, too many leaders resort to vapid generalities that foster muddled thinking. They're told to value good things like consensus, collegiality, relational trust, coherence making, child-centered learning, and professional growth. And well they should.

But high expectations, competition, decisive leadership, and discipline are also good things. And these values can conflict in messy ways that shrink-wrapped platitudes won't sort out. This means that leaders should know what they hold most important, and lead accordingly.

When you're scrambling to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) or hit proficiency targets, it's easy to get caught up mimicking modestly better performers-what New Orleans-based 4.0 Schools founder Matt Candler aptly labeled the "sucks less" trap. When we look at schools that surpass minimal bars we've set for reading and math achievement, high school graduation, and college enrollment, there's a tendency to copy them rather than try to build on their successes.

Because of the "sucks less" trap, we often fail to aim high enough. We talk about "exemplary" schools in which just 30 seniors out of 600 are getting 4s or 5s on the advanced placement Calculus BC exam. We talk about schools that are considered "outstanding" because 96 percent of their kids are proficient in basic reading and math-without asking how many students are fluent in a second language, terrific writers, or advanced in science.

Perhaps the mark of caged leadership is school and system leaders who imagine that improvement is only possible when they have more dollars to spend. The fact is, that's a cop-out.

The most innovative organizations in the world tend to be cash-poor startups that rely on moxie, creativity, and elbow grease. In education, however, "innovation" has typically meant layering new dollars and programs atop everything that came before. Does more money, more time, or more staff usually help? Of course. But what matters most is what you do with it.

Avoiding these pitfalls requires clarity, honesty, and knowing what your goals are. "Raise test scores" or "Make AYP" are bad responses here. They're secondhand goals, defined for you by policymakers and test developers. They should be signposts along the way-not the destination.

A good response identifies the destination and lights a path forward. A good response is that you want every 8th grader to speak a second language, master algebra, or volunteer in his or her community. Knowing what you care about frees you to push back on the stuff you don't think important.

For instance, Steve Dackin, superintendent in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, said,

My concern about the [highly qualified teacher] requirement is-I'm not [concerned]. I'm less concerned about a credential than I am about making sure the teacher is effective. My report card will speak for itself. We received an A on the last report card, and we hit 26 out of all 26 performance goals while reducing our expenditures.

Dave Wilson was asked to take over as principal at the high school with the worst graduation rate in Nevada. He observed that much of the school's problem was due to high truancy rates, as many students worked full-time to help support their siblings. Wilson said, "I decided that what matters is whether the students are learning the material-not whether they're necessarily sitting in classrooms."

It turned out the principal has the authority to look at each case and determine whether to issue credit, despite the number of absences the student had that semester. Wilson decided, "If the student can pass the exams and demonstrate mastery, this is what matters." He increased the number of absences allowed by two and saw a 15-point graduation boost.

Is Wilson's strategy the right one? Not necessarily. But Wilson owned his judgment and led accordingly. How did the superintendent respond? He said, "I just get out of Dave's way. I wish I had more like him."

Cage-busters try to begin every conversation-with parents, board members, staff, and the pizza delivery guy-by talking about the problems they've identified and how they might solve them.

Is reading performance far below where it should be? OK. Moral urgency is swell, but what are you going to do besides care more and work harder?

You don't need "innovation" or "reform." You need to solve a problem. Why are you coming up short? Is it the curriculum? The amount of time on task? The caliber of instruction? The lack of student engagement? The lack of parental support? Some of these? All of these?

Define, as concretely as possible, the problem you're trying to solve. Remember, excuses love ambiguity. Once you focus on this problem, as it exists here and now, it's a lot easier to identify possible solutions.

Take, for example, professional learning communities (PLCs). Nearly every school claims to be-or aspires to be-a PLC, but it's remarkably hard to make it happen. Between contracts and master schedules, schools can't find the requisite planning time for teams. It takes days, or sometimes weeks, to get the results of formative assessments-and the data or the data analysis tools may not be granular enough to inform instruction. Professional development is too often provided through drive-by workshops or in generic monthly staff meetings. A problem-solving approach can't birth a PLC, but it helps identify and deliver what is needed for PLCs to fulfill their promise.

Ultimately, a problem-solving focus helps you continually circle back to six questions that should guide every action you take:

That's it. You can boil cage-busting down to those six questions.

An ancient Chinese proverb advises, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names." Doing so helps focus the mind and pierce the fog of platitudes. It permits us to see problems and to surface solutions.

For instance, if you'd like 50 percent of your students to master a second language and currently only 40 percent do, that's a problem. If you don't know how you're faring because you don't track those data, that's a big problem. It's a problem even if your numbers are relatively good. Why? Because you just said so. When you identify objectives you deem important and then determine that you're falling short (or don't even know how you're faring!), you've identified problems.

And identifying problems is great! It generates clear, concrete goals. It flags precise opportunities to get better. And it enables you to identify and cast into sharp relief the obstacles in your way.

I recall one principal who said it was hard to drive improvement because his school already performed well on California's accountability rubric and thus lacked clear, motivating challenges evident in turnaround schools. When asked if he had goals beyond California's reading and math metrics, he said, "In a perfect world, 100 percent of my students would be able to speak two languages." When asked what the number currently was, he said, "About 5 percent."

"So, you're failing there," I said.

He reflexively responded, "No, we're not." Then he paused, thought, and said, "Yeah, we are." He explained, "Not everyone is interested in our language offerings, and I'd like to offer sign language. But I can't fund it. I want to bring in people who aren't credentialed to teach other languages, but we don't have any way to do that."

Able to articulate his goal, the principal focused on solutions. Could he get a waiver or memorandum of understanding that would allow uncertified sign language instructors to come in and teach? (He didn't know.) Could he use Rosetta Stone or another computer-assisted provider to offer language instruction that he couldn't afford to hire teachers for? (He would ask.) Could he find a way to reconfigure his budget or staffing to fund language offerings? (He hadn't looked.) Identifying the problem unlocked a raft of potential new ways to tackle it.

A cage-buster can't settle for ambiguity, banalities, or imprecision. These things provide dark corners where all manner of ineptitude and excuse-making can hide. Craig Pliskin, an assistant principal in Cypress-Fairbanks, a district just outside of Houston, Texas, put it beautifully:

There are four kinds of barriers. There's "We don't have to" or "You can't make me," which is culture. There's the legal "We're not allowed to." There's "Why we can't do it," which is about logistics. Finally, people will explain, "Why we shouldn't do it."

These excuses thrive in ambiguity and shrink when subjected to scrutiny. We can combat "You can't make me" by making clear that they do have to or by offering incentives so that they'll want to. We can fight "We're not allowed to" by finding specific policies or contract provisions that permit action or, more often, by showing that supposed prohibitions don't actually exist. We can counter "Why we can't" by scrutinizing resources to find a way forward. And that narrows objections to "Why we shouldn't," a complaint that's surprisingly tractable in isolation.

I recall a meeting with school leaders to discuss parental involvement in which I asked one principal from a high-performing school what percentage of her parents attended parent-teacher conferences. She said the figure was around 50 percent. I asked what percentage she'd like it to be. She said 90 percent. Suddenly, instead of vague pledges to "boost parental engagement," we had an actual goal and a specific problem to solve.

She began to focus on solutions. The school could have parents sign in on big nights to get hard numbers and track gains. She could ask staff to visit habitually absent parents and perhaps drive them to the school, if necessary. She could have teachers do more to ensure that notices made it home to parents or guardians in languages they understood. In hindsight, these ideas all struck her as obvious, leading her to good-naturedly grouse, "We should have started looking into these three years ago." Precise, identifiable problems lead to problem solving.

Now, you may be wondering, where are the paeans to children, best practices, and the grandeur of teaching? After all, most tomes on education leadership emphasize heart, culture, and instruction, and here I'm talking about bureaucracy, precision, and problem solving. The oft-overlooked truth is that you don't do cage-busting instead of mentoring, coaching, and inspiring, but so that you can do these things better.

Cage-busting helps create the conditions in which you can be the leader you want to be. The reward? The chance to create schools equal to your aspirations. The chance to spend time and energy supporting great teaching and learning, rather than begging for permission to act. The chance to create schools that can unlock the talents of teachers and leaders and begin to realize the new possibilities of 21st century schooling. Cage-busters believe that's a deal worth taking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. But taking that first step requires knowing where the heck you're trying to go. Here's a simple exercise I often use when working with school and system leaders: You're in Washington, D.C. You need to get to Los Angeles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've all had experience with two dramatically different types of leaders.

The first type, Diminishers, drains intelligence, energy, and capability from the people around them and always needs to be the smartest person in the room.

The second type, Multipliers, are the leaders who use their intelligence to amplify the smarts and capabilities of the people around them. When these leaders walk into a room, light bulbs go off over people's heads; ideas flow and problems get solved.

The world needs more Multipliers, especially now, when leaders are expected to do more with less.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've all had experience with two dramatically different types of leaders. The first type, Diminishers, drains intelligence, energy, and capability from the people around them and always needs to be the smartest person in the room. The second type, Multipliers, are the leaders who use their intelligence to amplify the smarts and capabilities of the people around them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gradients of Agreement is a consensus tool that has the ability to allow groups to move forward.

Michigan State University Extension educators are often asked for consultation on facilitation services for groups. One tool that is taught in the facilitative leadership session, and used by trained staff in facilitation, is known as The Gradients of Agreement Scale. It was developed in 1987 by Sam Kaner, Duane Berger and the staff of Community At Work. It enables members of a group to express their support for a proposal in degrees, along a continuum. Using this tool, group members are no longer trapped into expressing support in terms of yes and no.

The book, Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, featuring the tool is now in its third edition. It has served as a base for what many refer to as levels of agreement, as it may be adapted to suit the needs of the group.

The tool is outlined in the Facilitative Leadership Participants Guide, which is received by participants enrolling in the facilitative leadership session provided by MSU Extension staff.

Instructions:

Ask the group what consensus means. With a marker, write participants' thoughts on a flipchart, then give the following definition, "the level of agreement necessary to move a group forward."

Explain that there are levels of agreement and that some decisions need a high level of agreement, while others need a relatively lower level of agreement. Ask what determines how high a level of agreement is needed.

Answers should get at the importance of the decision, the need for stakeholder support or implementation and so on. Explain that before using any decision-making method, the group must decide on the level of agreement needed. The level of agreement will depend on the number of people needed to agree or strongly agree before moving forward. It will also depend on whether vetoes can be tolerated and if so, the number of vetoes that will be tolerated.

Hand out the Gradients of Agreement 5-Point Scale handout or refer to the flip chart drawing if you made one. Explain that the scale is a polling tool, not a voting tool. For example, polling determines consensus on a topic and stimulates discussion. It gauges where people are on a topic. Voting indicates a win or a loss. Using this tool helps a group push through the groan zone into closure as described in The Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making by Sam Kaner (1996). There are five steps in this cyclical process:

1. After a time of discussion, have someone suggest a proposal for action or next steps. Write the proposal on a flip chart.

2. Poll each person in the group to determine his or her level of agreement, putting a check mark for each on the scale. Have them hold explanations until the next step.

3. Discuss responses round-robin style allowing each person to explain his or her level of agreement or disagreement. Ask those who have the highest level of agreement how the proposal could be modified to better suit those with a lower level of agreement. Then ask those with the lowest level of agreement how the proposal could be modified to better suit those with a higher level of agreement.

4. Modify the proposal according to the group's ideas.

5. Poll the group again. Repeat steps two to five until the necessary level of agreement is reached.

This five-step process repeats a three-step cycle of polling, discussion and modification (steps two to five).

Demonstration:

Optionally, before using this tool for a real situation, demonstrate its use with a simple situation such as the following, so participants clearly understand its purpose:

Let's pretend that after this session we're all going to go to lunch (or dinner) together. My proposal is that we walk a half mile down the street to an Ethiopian restaurant.

First, what level of agreement do we need for this decision?

Now let's poll each of us. Where do you each fall on this scale?

Use the scale on the flip chart and mark each person's vote. Then, ask each one to explain why. Next, ask those who disagreed most how the proposal could be modified to suit them. Check with the group to be sure there's agreement before making any modifications. Repeat the polling and modifying process as necessary.

Debrief by asking the whole group some questions to process their experience. Some examples are:

How did the tool work for your group?

What level of agreement did you think was necessary?

How did your level of consensus change from one round to the next?

What agreement did you come to?

What would you do differently next time?

How do you think this tool would work in your real life situations?

Once the group reaches consensus, plan or brainstorm how the proposal will be accomplished.
Did you find this article useful?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gradients of Agreement can help move groups forward

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gradients of Agreement is a consensus tool that has the ability to allow groups to move forward. Michigan State University Extension educators are often asked for consultation on facilitation services for groups. One tool that is taught in the facilitative leadership session, and used by trained staff in facilitation, is known as The Gradients of Agreement Scale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poor Students, Rich Teaching: Mindsets for Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover practical and research-based strategies to ens…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Implementation Research Network is a network of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. All NIRN materials are disseminated through the NIRN UNC website with appropriate attribution and copyright notices. NIRN materials retrieved from other websites may have incorrect attribution or copyright notices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New WWC Methodological Report on Using Bayesian Meta-Analysis to Explore the Components of Early Literacy Interventions

This WWC methodological report explores to what extent components of early literacy interventions can explain which interventions have positive effects on alphabetics outcomes. The components examined in this report have a limited role in explaining variation in intervention effects, but this report identified positive associations between intervention impacts on alphabetics outcomes and components related to using student assessment data to drive decisions and teaching social-emotional learning strategies. >> More info

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was created in 2002 to be a central and trusted source of scientific evidence for what works in education.