Search

Sixty-seven school finance reforms (SFRs) in 26 states have taken place since 1990; however, there is little empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of SFR effects. We provide a comprehensive description of how individual reforms affected resource allocation to low- and high-income districts within states, including both financial and non-financial outcomes. After summarizing the heterogeneity of individual SFR impacts, we then examine its correlates, identifying both policy and legislative/political factors. Taken together, this research aims to provide a rich description of variation in states' responses to SFRs, as well as explanation of this heterogeneity as it relates to contextual factors.

In 2012, five foundations launched the Credit When Its Due (CWID) initiative that was "designed to encourage partnerships of community colleges and universities to significantly expand programs that award associate degrees to transfer students when the student completes the requirements for the associate degree while pursuing a bachelor's degree" (Lumina Foundation, 2012, n.p.), also known as "reverse transfer." Initially, 12 states (Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon) were funded to develop and implement these reverse transfer programs and policies, and the Office of Community College Research and Leadership (OCCRL) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was chosen as the research partner. In late 2013, three states (Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas) were added to bring the total number of states to 15. At least six additional states have legislation, pending legislation, or statewide initiatives related to reverse transfer. This thought paper describes changes that are occurring at the state, system, and institution levels with implementation of reverse transfer in the 12 original states. Using qualitative and quantitative data collected from the CWID Implementation Study, the authors describe efforts related to the optimization of reverse transfer in these 12 states. The authors define optimization as policy and program change at any level--state, system, or institution--that yields the largest number of students who are eligible for and able to benefit from reverse transfer. The initial results suggest that some states are piloting reverse transfer with a limited set of public community college and university partnerships, and others are striving for system-level reforms that eventually may impact all forms of transfer. Understanding what optimization means and how it works is possible because of this variation in implementation approaches among states, and this thought paper explores how states are implementing and optimizing reverse transfer.

Building a stronger teacher workforce requires the thoughtful orchestration of multiple processes working together in a human capital system. This white paper presents a framework that can be used to take stock of current efforts to enhance the teacher workforce in school districts or educational organizations, as well as their underlying theories of how the teacher workforce improves over time. The paper refines and provides evidentiary support for a human capital system framework composed of four subsystems that ideally work together to build a stronger teacher workforce: (1) getting the right teachers in the right positions on time (Acquire); (2) supporting professional growth in school-based learning communities (Develop); (3) nurturing, rewarding, and challenging high-performing teachers (Sustain); and (4) informing evidence-based personnel decisions (Evaluate). Attention to this framework will engender a corps of teachers with the capacity and expertise to collectively facilitate enhanced educational outcomes.

With the tuition cost of traditional colleges and universities soaring and education technology advancing, online courses and degree programs are becoming more common. Some critics argue that an online degree cannot provide all the important features of a traditional college education, from extracurricular activities to new professional networks, but the evidence disputes much of that criticism, especially for certain groups of students. Indeed, some aspects of online education may provide a better experience than a traditional brick-and-mortar college for some students. (Contains 49 footnotes.)

In fall 2009, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launched the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project to test new approaches to measuring effective teaching. The goal of the MET project is to improve the quality of information about teaching effectiveness available to education professionals within states and districts--information that will help them build fair and reliable systems for measuring teacher effectiveness that can be used for a variety of purposes, including feedback, development, and continuous improvement. The project includes nearly 3000 teachers who volunteered to help researchers identify a better approach to teacher development and evaluation, located in six predominantly urban school districts across the country: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools (including Tampa, Florida), Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. As part of the project, multiple data sources are being collected and analyzed over two school years, including student achievement gains on state assessments and supplemental assessments designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding; classroom observations and teacher reflections on their practice; assessments of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge; student perceptions of the classroom instructional environment; and teachers' perceptions of working conditions and instructional support at their schools. The current findings include: (1) In every grade and subject, a teacher's past track record of value-added is among the strongest predictors of their students' achievement gains in other classes and academic years. A teacher's value-added fluctuates from year-to-year and from class-to-class, as succeeding cohorts of students move through their classrooms. However, that volatility is not so large as to undercut the usefulness of value-added as an indicator (imperfect, but still informative) of future performance; (2) Teachers with high value-added on state tests tend to promote deeper conceptual understanding as well; (3) Teachers have larger effects on math achievement than on achievement in reading or English Language Arts, at least as measured on state assessments; and (4) Student perceptions of a given teacher's strengths and weaknesses are consistent across the different groups of students they teach. Moreover, students seem to know effective teaching when they experience it: student perceptions in one class are related to the achievement gains in other classes taught by the same teacher. Most important are students' perception of a teacher's ability to control a classroom and to challenge students with rigorous work. Appended are: (1) Sample 8th Grade BAM Item; and (2) Example from Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment. (Contains 1 figure, 11 tables and 14 footnotes.) [For "Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Policy Brief. MET Project," see ED528388.]

Our education system is in desperate need of innovation. Despite radical advances in nearly every other sector, public school students continue to attend school in the same buildings and according to the same schedule as students did more than a hundred years ago, and performance is either stagnant or worsening. One of the most important innovations in the past half-century is the emergence of charter schools, which, when first introduced in 1991, came with two distinct promises: to serve as an escape hatch for students in failing schools, and to create and incubate new educational practices. We examine charter schools across the quality spectrum in order to learn which practices separate high-achieving from low-achieving schools. An expansive data collection and analysis project in New York City charter schools yielded an index of five educational practices that explains nearly half of the difference between high- and low-performing schools. We then draw on preliminary evidence from demonstration projects in Houston and Denver and find the effects on student achievement to be strikingly similar to those of many high-performing charter schools and networks. The magnitude of the problems in our education system is enormous, but this preliminary evidence points to a path forward to save the 3 million students in our nation's worst-performing schools, for a price of about $6 billion, or less than $2,000 per student. (Contains 1 table, 2 boxes, 3 figures and 5 endnotes.)

In response to concern about the supply of minority faculty available to replace retiring academics, a study investigated academic achievement in doctoral programs by two of the United States' fastest-growing subpopulations, Mexican-Americans (MA) and American Indians (AI). The objectives were to establish a conceptual framework, to refine existing methodology, and to develop a model of minority student achievement in doctoral programs, extending earlier research not focusing on these groups. The study targeted this population in six universities in five southwestern states. A total of 343 students (291 Hispanic and 52 American Indian) in all disciplines awarding Ph.D. or Ed.D. degrees were surveyed, and from these, 214 usable responses were received--176 from Hispanics identified as MAs and 38 from AIs. The variables investigated were those with the greatest effect on four outcomes: doctoral satisfaction, doctoral grade point average, intent to finish, and intent to enter college faculty. Results demonstrate that there are strong effects of the extracted factors relating to the doctoral academic experience that ultimately lead to doctoral achievement for these populations. Especially salient were effects of gender, mentoring, faculty relationships, feelings of racial discrimination and alienation, perceptions and experiences of faculty and departmental attitudes, academic self-concept, aspirations, and family support. Based on the findings, a structural model for academic achievement factors among Mexican-American and American Indian doctoral students is being developed. Includes 15 references. (MSE)

Jobs for the Future's (JFF) vision for the Big Blur calls for entirely new educational institutions and systems to better prepare 16-to-20-year-olds for college and careers. This paper examines the new type of governance needed to help states create more effective grade 11-14 schools and systems by erasing the arbitrary dividing line between high school and college to open opportunities for the learners the current systems leave behind. JFF makes the case for an entirely new type of public institution, neither high school nor college, designed to better meet the needs of 16-to-20-year-olds by enabling them to earn a postsecondary credential and prepare for a career--free of charge.

State postsecondary education data systems are vital assets for policymakers, researchers, and the public. The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association's (SHEEO) Communities of Practice project builds upon SHEEO's efforts to measure the capacity and effective use of state postsecondary data systems and provides states with opportunities to develop solutions to common system issues. The seventh Community of Practice convening, "Improving Equity and Opportunity through Postsecondary Data," was held September 28-29, 2022, in Denver, Colorado. The two-day meeting included more than 80 representatives from 17 states: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Teams included representatives from SHEEO agency academic affairs, workforce, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and research and data offices and their partners at state agencies and two- and four-year postsecondary institutions. Given the recent impacts on higher education from the COVID-19 pandemic, social justice unrest, and economic pressures facing the country, a focus on equity and opportunity was timely for this Community of Practice. SHEEO agency staff communicated a need to inform state attainment and economic goals through improved collection and use of postsecondary student unit record data. Within and across state teams, Community of Practice attendees were able to learn more about the nuances and impacts of equity-and opportunity-focused data collection, disaggregation, and visualization; to better understand how to effectively communicate and illustrate the need for and the contributions of equitable student success in their states; and to reflect on their capacity, partnerships, and resources available to effectively engage in this work. In this paper, SHEEO shares the presentations, resources, and team activities from the convening. This information can be used by SHEEO agencies to reflect on their current practices, plan and develop effective data policies, and better use data to improve postsecondary equity and opportunity outcomes in their states.

What happens when teams from 57 cities building afterschool systems gather to discuss two key system responsibilities--improving afterschool programs and using data for informed decision-making? Lots of rich discussion. This report covers a national afterschool conference held in February 2013. It details what mayors, program providers, system leaders, researchers and others had to say on matters ranging from how to measure afterschool performance to how to boost program quality. [This conference was organized by: American Youth Policy Forum, The Collaborative for Building After School Systems, The Forum for Youth Investment, the National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education & Families, and the Wallace Foundation.]

This is the third paper on the topic of outcomes-based funding written by Dennis Jones for Complete College America. The first paper, "Performance Funding: From Idea to Action" (ED535356), proposed a set of design and implementation principles to help states develop and implement their own outcomes-based funding models. The second paper, "Outcomes-Based Funding: The Wave of Implementation" (2013) described features of models being implemented in states and the extent to which they conformed to the principles presented in the first paper. This third paper documents the continued spread of adoption with an increased focus in the field on whether outcomes are equitable across populations, with states disaggregating results by race, ethnicity, age and income and reporting those publicly. The additional purposes of this paper are threefold: (1) To reinforce the point that outcomes-based funding is but one component of the overall financing model for higher education in a state. The power of outcomes-based funding models is enhanced if the other components are designed so as to strengthen the alignment between funding streams and desired results; (2) To once again revisit the lists of design and implementation principles presented in the earlier document and (slightly) revise them in light of states' actions and experience; and (3) To describe the models that are being employed in implementing states and to assess the extent of conformance with the proffered set of design and implementation principles. This for the purpose of identifying areas of non-conformance to catalog potential weaknesses in models and questioning the applicability of certain of the principles. As with earlier versions of the document, the ultimate objective is to provide clear, straightforward guidance to policymakers who are searching for ways to better align their approaches to resource allocation with the educational outcomes that are of highest priority in their state.

A significant movement is underway across the nation to design K-12 assessment systems that better equip stakeholders to provide an equitable and excellent education to each child. While some of these innovations emerged before the pandemic, the massive disruption to instruction fueled a new urgency to rethink the potential of assessments to drive better teaching and learning. States and communities are working together to create more balanced systems of assessment that better support instruction while still providing the information necessary to inform policy and resource decisions. There is much to learn from the ideas emerging across the nation--particularly where states are trying to innovate despite limitations of federal policy. The insights and innovations emerging from this paper have the potential to cast a new vision for K-12 assessment in the United States. This work details efforts across the nation to encourage, support and grow innovative state assessment systems, and represents a significant increase in recent state-level energy and action around new forms of assessment to provide deeper and more meaningful understanding of student learning. [Additional producers of this report are Center for Innovation in Education (C!E), Envision Learning Partners, and the Great Schools Partnership.]

Given the positive impacts of the small, stand-alone early college model and the desire to provide those benefits to more students, organizations have begun efforts to scale up the early college model in a variety of settings. These efforts have been supported by the federal government, particularly by the Investing in Innovation (i3) program. This paper will describe current efforts to take the early college model and apply it in multiple settings and It will describe programs being supported by three i3 grants, focusing on the commonalities of these three efforts. The specific questions addressed by this paper include: 1) How are providers conceptualizing the scaling up of the early college model? 2) What adaptations are expected as the model is being scaled up? 3) What are early lessons learned from the scale-up efforts? The results report that one of the primary lessons learned by project and school staff was the importance of early and frequent communication about the goals of the project and the importance of working with leadership at both the district and school levels.

At a time of sustained unemployment and sluggish job growth, students and policymakers are increasingly asking tough questions about postsecondary education and training outcomes. Do graduates find jobs? What are they paid? What will they earn in the future? Despite growing national interest in this information, good answers are not widely available for many programs. As college costs have soared in recent years, "unmet financial need" (the share of college costs not covered by financial aid or what the family is expected to contribute) has also climbed sharply. Rising costs and increased student debt, combined with a weak economy, make college a riskier investment than in the past. Students and families can reduce that risk by gauging the quality of institutions and programs and choosing carefully among fields of study. Armed with better information about post-graduation outcomes, low-income and first-generation students and their families are more likely to consider the full range of programs and institutions that can help them succeed. This paper focuses on the need for better information about post-graduation outcomes of postsecondary education and training, with a particular focus on workforce results. Workforce results include employment-related outcomes, such as post-graduation employment rates and earnings levels. Survey research and other evidence reviewed below shows that consumers are keenly interested in these outcomes. This paper suggests the types of employment measures and data that would help meet this demand for better information and describes recent progress by states in producing more comprehensive and consistent information about labor market results. Federal and state policymakers are grappling with the best ways to improve employment data and incorporate metrics into higher education policy. Developing a fair, accurate method for measuring and presenting workforce results should be a top priority for institutions and policymakers at all levels of government. [For the companion report "Transparency and Accountability: 'Implementing a Postsecondary Institution Rating System That Empowers Students While Avoiding Unintended Consequences'", see ED561779.]

A total of 33 sites, including states, school districts, charter school coalitions, and other education organizations make up Cohorts 1 and 2 of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). These sites received funds beginning in the fall of 2006 and spring of 2007 to redesign compensation programs for teachers and principals. The U.S. Department of Education named a third cohort of TIF grantees on September 23, 2010. TIF grantees have confronted numerous challenges as they have worked to design and implement new performance-based compensation programs. These challenges include effectively engaging and communicating with stakeholders, developing a set of measures to assess teacher and principal effectiveness, and ensuring that data quality procedures are in place for such high-stakes decisions. As Cohort 1 and 2 grantees near the end of their five-year Federal funding period, fiscally and programmatically sustaining TIF programs has become a top priority. This paper describes the ways in which TIF grantees have approached fiscal and programmatic sustainability. The paper draws from multiple sources, including TIF program monitoring reports, Center for Educator Compensation Reform (CECR) technical assistance notes, grantees' internal and external evaluations, and interviews with selected grantees. The authors reviewed and analyzed these data with an eye toward shedding light on the following issues: (1) What fiscal and programmatic sustainability challenges have TIF grantees faced?; (2) What approaches to fiscal and programmatic sustainability have grantees taken?; and (3) What lessons can grantees learn about sustaining performance-based compensation systems in the current economic climate? This paper uses named grantees in describing examples of sustainability efforts. A few examples also use non-TIF sites that have developed innovative new compensation programs. Wherever the authors use examples, they are illustrative, not exhaustive, as the particular historic, economic, and political context of each district offers nuanced challenges and solutions. One goal of the brief is to share what has worked for some grantees as a means of helping Cohort 1 and 2 grantees sustain performance-based compensation after their grants end. Another aim is to help new TIF grantees develop their programs with an eye toward sustainability. Before beginning to answer the three focus questions that frame this paper, the authors first take up the issue of defining "fiscal" and "programmatic" sustainability. A list of data sources is provided. (Contains 4 tables and 5 footnotes.

The National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL), an organization dedicated to redesigning and expanding school time to improve opportunities and outcomes for high poverty students, and the Education Commission of the States (ECS), with a mission to foster both the exchange of ideas on education issues among the states and long range strategic thinking, have joined forces to produce this review. Their goal is to help education leaders to better understand the complexities of time related policy and its far reaching educational implications. In exploring how policymakers and educators have dealt with the matter of school time at the federal, state, and local levels, NCTL and ECS hope to accelerate the national conversation on how they can best leverage the power of time to realize the vision of a high quality education for all. This paper offers a number of recommendations highlighting fresh ways that policy and research can best support efforts to expand learning time in schools. State policies on instructional time are appended. (Contains 82 notes and 51 footnotes.) [This paper was supported by The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation.]

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is working to respond to increased interest in the use of growth models for school accountability. Growth models are based on tracking change in individual student achievement scores over multiple years. While growth models have been used for decades in academic research and program evaluation, a wide cross section of policymakers at local, state, and national levels are now using different types of growth models. A total of 12 states are utilizing growth models that provide estimates of whether student achievement will meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) state proficiency targets within three years. These models were designed to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. In addition, 13 states have developed and implemented growth models as required by state policy; these models use different formulas to measure growth for students and schools. Finally, five states are reporting on growth under both NCLB and state policies. This paper is an overview and description of current state activities with growth models. Policymakers and educational leaders are also seeking more information on basic differences between various types of growth models and the assessments, data, and reporting systems necessary to implement them. CCSSO has developed an annual report and webpage focused on state accountability systems, and this paper provides a current snapshot of differences and similarities in growth models used by state education agencies. The present paper is one of CCSSO's recent efforts to provide information on this topic. (Contains 2 tables.)

This paper examines a burgeoning network of organizations that is inventing new forms of community renewal and citizenship education. Their names vary--some call themselves public policy institutes, others centers for civic life--yet they share a common methodology, one aimed at tackling tough public issues, strengthening communities, and nurturing people's capacities to participate and make common cause. Today, there are more than 50 of these centers operating in almost every state in the union, most of them affiliated with institutions of higher learning. Except for a handful that are freestanding, the centers combine the best of what colleges and universities provide--civics courses, leadership development, service-learning programs, community-based research--with the kinds of hands-on, collaborative problem solving traditionally done by nongovernmental organizations. Because they operate at the intersection of the campus and the community, their impact extends to both: they nurture and sustain public life while at the same time enriching higher education. This paper surveys the state of the network today, how it has evolved over the years, and what it has achieved. It also looks at how the centers carry out their activities, the varying orientations and essential practices that define their work, and some of the challenges they face in coming years as they continue to deepen and expand their efforts.

By 2025, 22 percent of the U.S. college-age population will be Latino, a level already exceeded in four states: California, Florida, New York, and Texas. However, today, only seven percent of Latinos ages 18 to 24 have an associate's degree or higher compared to 9 percent of African Americans, 16 percent of white, and 25 percent of Asians of the same age cohort. Given the importance of college degree completion for U.S. society and economic competitiveness, meeting the country's future human capital and workforce needs make it imperative to improve outcomes for Latino students. As public attention is focused on achievement gaps in education, educators and policymakers search for what they can do to improve education outcomes for Latino students. Finding the right solutions can be difficult. "Excelencia" in Education responds to this challenge by linking research, policy, and practice that supports higher educational achievement for Latino students. Premier in this effort is Examples of "Excelencia," a national initiative to systematically identify and honor programs and departments boosting Latino enrollment, performance and graduation. This compendium is a central component of the Examples of "Excelencia" initiative. By sharing best practices, the authors hope to prompt educators and policymakers to challenge the current state of Latino achievement in higher education and inspire them to work to increase Latino student success. All the programs profiled in this compendium are at the forefront of meeting the challenge of improving higher educational achievement for Latino students and the authors congratulate them for their current and continued efforts. (Contains 4 footnotes.) [This paper was compiled with the assistance of Estela Lopez and Maureen Skoloda. Additional funding for this paper was provided by Diverse Issues in Higher Education and Univision Communication. For the 2008 edition of this report, see ED540161.]

As the college-age Latino population continues to increase throughout the nation, meeting the country's future human capital and workforce needs make it imperative to improve outcomes for Latino students today. As public attention is focused on existing achievement gaps, educators and policymakers are seeking ways to improve educational outcomes for Latinos. "Excelencia" in Education responds to this need through research, analysis and initiatives advancing practices and policies supporting Latino student achievement in colleges and universities. Premier in this effort is Examples of "Excelencia," a review of national nominations to recognize exemplary programs and departments at the associate, baccalaureate, and graduate levels with evidence of improving Latino access, retention, and success in higher education. Now in its fourth year, Examples of "Excelencia" is identifying programs at institutions throughout the country investing strategically to improve results for Latino students, and all students. This compendium is a key component of the Examples of "Excelencia" program. By providing descriptions of approaches used and results achieved by these programs that work, "Excelencia" in Education strives to make educators and policymakers aware of the available tools to challenge the current state of achievement in higher education for Latino students. The promising practices profiled in this edition are successful in propelling Latino students forward and can be adapted to suit the needs of colleges and universities throughout the nation. These practices are at the forefront of a long-needed movement to improve higher educational achievement for Latino students and are to be commended. The compendium begins with an explanation of the Examples of "Excelencia" selection process. Following this section is a brief overview of the program services and the strategies employed in one-page summaries of each program's goals, outcomes, and key personnel. [This paper was compiled with the assistance of Lourdes Guerrero and Estela Lopez. Additional funding for this paper was provided by Univision Communication. For the 2007 edition of this report, see ED540160.]

The experiences of 10 states described in this paper illustrate how higher education can be a constructive force for change in the schools, and how the changes taking place in school-based curriculum and assessment provide valuable lessons for collegiate reform. The 10 states profiled are California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin. The paper reviews current admission policies and practices in these states. Section 1 explains the need to clearly communicate to high school students expectations for college-level work to foster greater collegiate retention and graduation. Section 2 examines the need to strengthen the quality of the high school curriculum. Section 3 outlines the need to reduce remediation in postsecondary education. Section 4 explores the need to improve the levels of access and academic achievement of underrepresented students. Section 5 discusses the need to manage enrollment within constrained budgets and section 6 addresses the need to align high school student outcomes and college expectations. Appendixes contain more state-by-state detail and information on state officers who provided additional detail on their state's programs. Contains 25 references. (JB)

The well-being of a large portion of American children is distressingly low. Integrated service delivery--which provides the broadest range of education, health, housing, and social services--is viewed as one way to remedy the failure of public and private institutions to deliver effective services that can ameliorate or reverse these problems and conditions. This paper focuses on exemplary examples of community-based comprehensive service initiatives (CCBSS) in five pertinent areas: (1) restructuring intergovernmental relationships in California (Bill 1741), Iowa (Decategorization), Virginia (Comprehensive Services Act), Wisconsin (Community Aids), and Tennessee (Children's Plan); (2) tying outcome accountability to budgets in Oregon and in Minnesota; (3) efforts to create cross-system decision making bodies in Georgia (Savannah Youth Futures Authority), Missouri (Family Investment Trust), and West Virginia (Governor's Cabinet on Children and Families); (4) linking education with human services in Colorado (Family Resource Schools), California (Healthy State initiative), New Jersey (school-based services program), California (San Diego's New Beginnings program), New York (Beacons program in New York City), and Kentucky (Kentucky Education Reform Act); and (5) building comprehensive services at the neighborhood level in Maryland (Lafayette Courts, Baltimore project services team), New York (Brooklyn Center for Family Life program, and the South Bronx CCRP: Comprehensive Community Revitalization Project), and Texas (Austin's Empowerment Zones programs). The paper concludes with observations and conclusions. (ET)

This paper identifies approaches, challenges, and best practices related to planning and designing today's academic library learning spaces. As part of the Project Information Literacy (PIL) Practitioner Series, qualitative data is presented from 49 interviews conducted with a sample of academic librarians, architects, and library consultants. These participants were at the forefront of the same 22 recent library learning space projects on college and university campuses in the US and Canada between 2011 and 2016. Most library projects had allocated space for supporting at least one of these four types of academic learning activities: collaborative, individual study, tutoring by campus learning partners, or occasional classes taught by campus instructors. Successful collaboration between the architect and the librarian was fostered by their shared commitment to meeting users' needs, though few stakeholders systematically collected input from users beyond standard usage statistics and gate counts. Most interviewees reported facing some common challenges during their project planning and implementations. One challenge was translating design goals into tangible designs while trying to resolve issues of noise mitigation, shared space allocations, and providing enough electrical power for IT devices. Another challenge was ensuring effective communication practices with planning teams as well as campus-wide constituents throughout projects. Additional challenges included building consensus, compensating for project interruption and inadequate knowledge about both architecture and library IT issues, and having too few a priori evaluation metrics for linking learning outcomes to goals of the library space projects. Taken together, the success of library learning space projects depends upon shared knowledge and understanding of the sweeping learning, pedagogical, and research changes facing the academy. Librarians and architects need to work together to apply that knowledge and understanding to the unique environment and learning and teaching needs of their specific institution. Contains a list of further readings. [Funding from a Strategic Research Grant from the University of Washington Information School helped to make this report possible.]

Within the constitution of each of the 50 states, there is language that mandates the creation of a public education system. The authority for public education falls to states because of a 1973 Supreme Court case which determined that the federal government has no responsibility to provide systems of public education. These constitutional education provisions vary from state to state, with some states specifically laying out the foundation of their education system while others leave the details to the legislature. Because some state constitutions date back centuries, constitutions can contain outdated language, which can decrease the relevance of the constitution to current-day policy issues. State constitutions vary on whether they include language about public school funding, religious restrictions, the education of disabled students, the age of students, the duration of the school year, and the establishment of state higher education systems. The table in this paper provides a 50-state overview of the constitutional foundation for public education in each state. It includes the location of the foundational language, which is hyperlinked to that section in the constitution. Additionally, the table looks at whether the constitution includes language on the following topics: (1) public school funding; (2) religious restrictions; (3) the education of disabled students; (4) the age of students; (5) the duration of the school year; and (6) the establishment of state higher education systems. [This report is an update to the 2002 report, "Constitutional Language: State Obligations for Public School Funding."]

Accessing affordable facilities has long been identified as one of the most significant challenges facing charter schools. In response to this challenge, an array of policy and market-based approaches has emerged over the years. Examples of these approaches include: public and private credit enhancement, tax-exempt bond financing, community development lending, commercial facilities development, state per pupil facilities aid, constitutional mandates for fair treatment, state facilities grant programs, federal tax credits, co-location with other public schools, and charter schools accessing vacant district facilities. In January of 2014, New York City Mayor, Bill DeBlasio, put forward a proposal to no longer allow charter schools to use district-owned facilities at no cost. Instead, he proposed to charge charter schools rent for the use of these facilities. The resulting debate has brought national attention to this topic and highlighted the need for more data and a common framework for understanding the nature of transactions between charter schools and districts for the use of district-owned facilities. Against this backdrop, the National Charter School Resource Center has developed this paper to provide policy-makers and sector stakeholders with a more data-driven and nuanced exploration of the issue. This white paper is organized as follows: (1) Section I provides information about our primary data source: the Charter School Facilities Initiative (CSFI) survey and dataset; (2) Section II describes the landscape of charter schools in district-owned facilities using data from the CSFI dataset; (3) Section III provides a framework for financial transactions between charter schools and districts for the use of district-owned facilities and shares data on these transactions; (4) Section IV highlights trends in the use of district-owned facilities by charter schools over time and explores possible reasons for the growth of this phenomenon; and (5) Section V concludes the paper by noting key considerations for policymakers and charter sector stakeholders.

Most institutions are collecting evidence of student learning, but it is not clear how these results are being used to improve student outcomes. To learn more about what colleges and universities are doing to use assessment data productively to inform and strengthen undergraduate education, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment conducted nine case studies. This report synthesizes the insights from these individual studies to discern promising practices in using information about student learning. Institutional behavior appears to be generally consistent with the Principles of Effective Assessment Practice identified by Banta and Associates (2002). For example, the case study institutions took advantage of calls for accountability to leverage internal improvement efforts, communicated widely about assessment efforts and results, and took time to reflect on their assessment activities and results. Equally important, the case study institutions aligned their assessment work with organizational structures and cultures, and focused their assessment efforts on specific problems or questions. The report concludes with lessons learned and reflective questions to help institutions advance their own assessment efforts within their specific institutional contexts. Appended are: (1) Methodology; and (2) Annotated Case Study List. [Funding for this paper was provided by the College of Education at the University of Illinois.]

Research has long been clear that teachers matter more to student learning than any other in-school factor. Improving the quality of teaching is critical to student success. Yet only recently have many states and districts begun to take seriously the importance of evaluating teacher performance and providing teachers with the feedback they need to improve their practice. The MET project is working with nearly 3,000 teacher-volunteers in public schools across the country to improve teacher evaluation and feedback. MET project researchers are investigating a number of alternative approaches to identifying effective teaching: systematic classroom observations; surveys collecting confidential student feedback; a new assessment of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge; and different measures of student achievement. In this report, the authors investigate the properties of the following five instruments for classroom observation: (1) Framework for Teaching (or FFT, developed by Charlotte Danielson of the Danielson Group); (2) Classroom Assessment Scoring System (or CLASS, developed by Robert Pianta, Karen La Paro, and Bridget Hamre at the University of Virginia); (3) Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (or PLATO, developed by Pam Grossman at Stanford University); (4) Mathematical Quality of Instruction (or MQI, developed by Heather Hill of Harvard University); and (5) UTeach Teacher Observation Protocol (or UTOP, developed by Michael Marder and Candace Walkington at the University of Texas-Austin). [For related reports, see "Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Research Paper. MET Project" (ED540960) and "Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Policy and Practice Brief. MET Project" (ED540962).]

The Internet has had a profound effect on everyone's lives, work, politics, and commerce--and increasingly, on the schools. Virtual schools have arrived, creating new opportunities for students, and also a set of challenges to the notions about schooling and the policies that govern public education. The potential application of technology in education may change the way that current versions of schools and schooling are limited in time and space. Will future technological innovations revamp educational conceptions of time, like class periods, grade levels, six-hour school days, and 180-day school years? These units of time, as well as physical school buildings, classrooms, and district boundaries, still define "school" for the vast majority of students. Will this change in the coming years? These are no longer unusual questions. Online and blended schools challenge some of the most basic assumptions about schooling. They no longer place groups of children of the same age in an assigned grade with a teacher and chalkboard in a room for 50-some minutes at a time in 180 six-hour days. With virtual schools, there has been a move to learning that is not bound by time, space, and pace, liberating education systems from the confines of rigid blocks of time and uninspired configurations of space to better meet the needs of students. While the potential for true educational transformation is great, one must begin by creating a shared understanding of what online and blended learning is, and how it is best implemented. This is the first in a series of briefs aimed at improving authorizer practices for virtual charter schools. This paper will define concepts in online learning, including full-time and blended learning, and will discuss recent trends in growth and governance of various types of online learning and virtual charter schools. (Contains 3 figures, 4 endnotes, and a glossary of key virtual school terms.)

Over the past decade, research on dropout prevention has become focused on using evidence-based practice, and data-driven decisions, to mitigate students' dropping out of high school and instead, support and prepare students for career and college. Early warning systems or on-track indicators, in which readily available student-level data are used to predict whether a student is likely to drop out, are being harnessed by schools, districts, states, and support organizations nationwide to help prevent students from falling off the track to graduation and offer additional educational and support services to those who need them (Pinkus, 2008). Initiatives to create early warning systems are aligned with the What Works Clearinghouse Dropout Prevention Practice Guide recommendation that "utilizing data systems that support a realistic diagnosis of the number of students who dropout and that help identify individual students at high risk of dropping out" is a "critical first step" in effective intervention (Dynarski et al., 2008, p. 12). This paper provides information on K-12 early warning and success indicators. An annotated bibliography is included. (Contains 1 table and 1 footnote.)

Mounting evidence suggests that the traditional sequence of developmental education courses hinders community college students from entering college-level coursework and ultimately earning a credential. For example, using data from colleges participating in the Achieving the Dream initiative, an analysis by Bailey, Jeong, and Cho (2010) found that only 33% of students referred to developmental math and 46% of students referred to developmental reading completed their recommended course sequence within three years. Among students referred to the lowest levels of developmental education (or "remediation"; I use these terms interchangeably), only 17% of math students and 29% of reading students completed the entire sequence of three or more term-length courses. The traditional sequence of developmental courses undermines academic achievement in part because it has a multitude of exit points. Many students never enroll in the courses to which they are initially referred; others drop out between courses in the sequence. This has led a number of practitioners to experiment with restructuring the developmental sequence. Acceleration is an increasingly popular strategy for improving the outcomes of students referred to developmental education. Advocates of acceleration argue that a greater portion of students may complete remediation and succeed in college-level courses if colleges either help them complete requirements more quickly or enroll them in higher-level courses while providing effective academic support. This Brief, based on a longer literature review, explores the evidence on the effects of acceleration, describes different acceleration models that are used with developmental education students, and discusses ways of dealing with challenges involved in implementing acceleration strategies. [This Brief is based on "Accelerating the Academic Achievement of Students Referred to Developmental Education. CCRC Working Paper No. 30" (ED516782).]

The iDREAMS project aims to reinvent Computer Science education in K-12 schools, by using game design and computational science for motivating and educating students through an approach we call Scalable Game Design, starting at the middle school level. In this paper we discuss the use of Computational Thinking Patterns as the basis for our Scalable Game Design curriculum and professional development and present results from measuring student learning outcomes using our unique Computational Thinking Pattern Analysis. (Contains 7 figures and 2 footnotes.)

In December 2010, the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) staff surveyed public universities in other states to learn how they have dealt with cuts in state funding. All of the institutions CPEC surveyed have increased tuition and or fees at least once in the last two fiscal years, and many project additional increases. All have made cost-saving measures or efficiencies over the budget year. Many have reduced general administrative spending, cut academic programs and class offerings, and reduced faculty and staff with voluntary or involuntary retirement or termination. While none of these institutions have managed to completely protect academics, a few have managed to increase need-based financial aid. This paper presents their findings.

In fall 2009, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launched the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project to test new approaches to recognizing effective teaching. The project's goal is to help build fair and reliable systems for teacher observation and feedback to help teachers improve and administrators make better personnel decisions. With funding from the foundation, the data collection and analysis are led by researchers from academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and several private firms and are carried out in seven urban school districts. Although the project is ongoing (the final report will not be released until winter 2011-12), the researchers report their findings as they become available in order to inform the important reform work already under way in states and districts around the country. The researchers currently have four general findings to report. First, in every grade and subject they studied, a teacher's past success in raising student achievement on state tests (that is, his or her value-added) is one of the strongest predictors of his or her ability to do so again. Second, the teachers with the highest value-added scores on state tests also tend to help students understand math concepts or demonstrate reading comprehension through writing. Third, the average student knows effective teaching when he or she experiences it. Fourth, valid feedback need not be limited to test scores alone. By combining different sources of data, it is possible to provide diagnostic, targeted feedback to teachers who are eager to improve. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [For "Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Research Paper. MET Project," see ED528382.]

Now that all 50 states and the District of Columbia are building statewide longitudinal data systems, the next step is to ensure that the information in these systems is used to improve student learning. The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) has identified 10 actions that states can take to ensure that the right data are available and accessible and that users have the knowledge and skills to use the data well (see "10 State Actions To Ensure Effective Data Use," page 2). This paper discusses reports that states can create using longitudinal data. These reports include, but are not limited to: (1) Growth reports looking at changes in the achievement of the same students over time; (2) Diagnostic reports providing academic histories of students' mastery of specific concepts or skills; (3) Early warning reports identifying students who need immediate help based on at-risk indicators; (4) Predictive reports showing the relationship between earlier and later student outcomes--for example, the relationship between 8th grade test scores and students' readiness for college and careers in 12th grade; (5) Cohort graduation reports showing graduation rates of groups of the same students followed since the beginning of 9th grade; and (6) Feedback reports providing information on outcomes for students after they graduate from a school or district. (Contains 3 tables, 10 figures, 16 resources and 20 endnotes.)

This study evaluates how welcoming thirty American cities--the twenty-five largest and five smaller "hotspots"--are to "nontraditional" problem-solvers and solutions. It assumes that the balky bureaucracies meant to improve K-12 education and hold leaders accountable are so calcified by policies, programs, contracts, and culture that only in the most exceptional of circumstances can they be fixed simply by top-down applications of new curricula or pedagogy. To determine the cities with the most reform-friendly ecosystems, analysts examined six domains that shape a jurisdiction's receptivity to education reform: (1) Human Capital; (2) Financial Capital; (3) Charter Environment; (4) Quality Control; (5) District Environment; and (6) Municipal Environment. Drawing on publicly available data, national and local survey data, and interviews with on-the-ground insiders, analysts devised a grading metric that rated each city on its individual and collective accomplishments in each of these areas. What did they discover? Few cities are rolling out the red carpet for education entrepreneurs. No cities were awarded As and just a handful of cities received Bs when measured for their hospitability towards reformers. The majority fell in the C range, half a dozen in the D to F range, and the remainder had too little data to judge (see Table 1, page 8). Low-scoring cities were characterized by lethargic district administration, inert political leadership, arcane staffing policies, and unsupportive (or silent) local business and philanthropic communities. They also found that cities are making greater strides in some areas than others: (1) They do best at drumming up sources of financial capital to advance reform: Nine cities earned As and ten earned Bs; support from outside the district is also strong, with municipal environment seeing nine As and eight Bs; (2) They fare least well when it comes to district environment, where a third got Fs; and (3) Grades were generally mixed with respect to human capital, charter environment, and quality control. Finally, substantial variation exists within states that had more than one city in the study. This suggests that entrepreneurial fate is not sealed by state lines: local officials, educators, and reformers can shape their own destiny. Appendices include: (1) Methodology; (2) Scoring Rubric; and (3) A list of organizations whose members helped to shape the study design and survey instruments. Individual sections contain footnotes and tables. [The foreword for this report was written by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Amber M. Winkler. Funding for this paper was also provided by the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation, Inc.]