Search

Educational inequality due to family socioeconomic status (SES) has been the focus of both public dialogue and education research in the United States for many years. The current study aims to understand how educational inequality due to family SES has changed in the United States. Specifically, the study focuses on the changes in achievement gaps between high and low SES students between 2003 and 2017 and the changes in the performance of low-SES students over time. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) grade 8 mathematics assessment were used for the analyses. Results show that the SES achievement gap at the national level has remained the same over time. State-level results suggest that 34 of the 50 states' SES achievement gaps experienced no significant change between 2003 and 2017, 14 gaps widened, and only two SES gaps narrowed. In addition, at the national level, more low-SES students achieved at the NAEP Basic and at the NAEP Proficient levels over time with a majority of states improving their low-SES students' performance. In conclusion, the study contributes to the existing literature not only by reflecting on U.S. national trends using an effective SES index, but also by providing state-level results. It also collects trend data on states' macro-level indicators, including economic growth, social inequality, and educational expenditures, allowing state-specific findings to be presented in the context of changes in macro-level context. Initial explorations of relationships between state SES achievement gap trends and macroeconomic factors are presented to motivate future research. The trends in SES achievement gaps and the specific policy contexts are presented in greater detail for 13 states/jurisdictions.

The role of the public school principal has expanded dramatically in recent decades. The expanded role means they are now significant multipliers of effective teaching and have a real opportunity to affect student achievement. Most states have spent recent years working to improve teacher effectiveness, recognizing its importance in improving student outcomes. States have focused considerably less on principals as levers for school improvement, however, research on the importance of school principals in advancing student learning is compelling. Governors have authority over principal preparation programs in their state and are uniquely positioned to address gaps in the systems that influence aspiring and current school leaders at the state and local school district levels. "Promising Practices in Boosting School Leadership Capacity: Principal Academies" explores principal academies--a tool that governors can add to their policy toolkit to augment preparation and training for aspiring and sitting public school principals.

Initiatives to increase leadership accountability coupled with efforts to promote data-driven leadership have led to widespread adoption of instruments to assess school leaders. In this paper we present a decision matrix that practitioners and researchers can use to facilitate instrument selection. Our decision matrix focuses on the psychometric properties of the instrument; the model of leadership used to construct the instrument; the feasibility of implementation; and the extent to which feedback lends itself to changes in behavior (actionability). We apply this decision matrix to two of the most prominent leadership feedback instruments, CALL and VAL-ED. We find substantial similarities between the instruments, yet each has unique strengths and drawbacks. We discuss the implications of the comparative strengths and drawbacks of the two instruments and how they might be most effectively deployed to improve leadership practices.

As governors respond to the need to significantly improve the quality of public education, they should consider incorporating stronger actions to improve mathematics instruction as part of their overall reform agenda. Governors can take the following actions to promote high-quality mathematics instruction for young children: (1) Become a champion for improvements in the quality of early math education with legislators, business leaders, educators, parents, and students; (2) Align high-quality mathematics standards through the educational pipeline, and support appropriate use of student assessments to measure results. State leaders could consider raising standards for the math skills and concepts children should learn in their state's early learning guidelines; and (3) Promote changes in policies that improve educator preparation and that support their capacity to teach mathematics to young children. Although governors are already strong proponents of early reading initiatives, they have an opportunity to become champions for improving early mathematics instruction in their states, as well. Many of the actions described in this brief require no or minimal new state funding and can help lay the groundwork for a state's focus on high-quality early mathematics teaching and learning.

The education field must go beyond calling attention to an adolescent literacy crisis and the need for additional resources--a critical need--to treating adolescent literacy as the foundation for more ambitious efforts to improve middle and high schools in their entirety (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Jacob, 2008). Instruction around adolescent literacy, or content-area literacy, is fundamental to building the kind of secondary schools that are necessary to support the nation's social and economic health. The challenge is to connect the teaching of literacy to the rest of the secondary education improvement agenda. This article is about a literature search that focused on studies on secondary content-area literacy that were published within the last 10 years. However, when reference lists were reviewed, staff found that some older research provided key information on the topic. Therefore, these seminal publications were included in the resources used to develop this paper.

Preparing future citizens for postsecondary education and careers that span a continuum of sophistication is not a new topic in education. However, the rapid changes in technology and increased competition from industrialized nations have changed the landscape and meaning of college and career readiness. As part of a strategy to better prepare students, since 2005, 31 states have implemented college- and career-readiness standards (CCRS), with 20 states also requiring that students complete high school graduation requirements that will make them college and career ready (Howard & Madison-Harris, 2011). This briefing paper provides details on the meaning of college- and career-readiness standards, effective implementation of these standards, next steps in the implementation process, and progress being made by state departments of education (SDEs) in the southeast region toward this crucial objective.

Effectively meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse population of students presents challenges for educators across the United States, including the Texas and Southeast Comprehensive Center regions. Increasingly rigorous achievement expectations must be supported with flexible, accessible curricula, offering multiple pathways to success in order to secure opportunities for all children. Key points of this briefing paper include the following: (1) Multi-tier systems of support offer a research-based approach to addressing the myriad needs of youth struggling with school success; and (2) Application of the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can make curriculum and instruction both accessible and engaging for all learners, resulting in increased opportunities for learning success. The success of any public education reform effort will be tied, at least in part, to the ability to address appropriately the academic and social-behavior needs of diverse learners. By redefining the focus from one of "fixing students" to one of providing high-quality education that is responsive to individual needs (Riele, p. 141) the system will invariably improve experiences and outcomes for all students.

This paper examines the decision of Hurricane Katrina evacuees to return to their pre- Katrina areas and documents how the composition of the Katrina-affected region changed over time. Using data from the Current Population Survey, we show that an evacuee's age and the severity of damage in an evacuee's county of origin are important determinants of whether an evacuee returned during the first year after the storm. Blacks were less likely to return than whites, but this difference is primarily related to the geographical pattern of storm damage rather than to race per se. The difference between the composition of evacuees who returned and the composition of evacuees who did not return is the primary force behind changes in the composition of the affected areas in the first two years after the storm. Katrina is associated with substantial shifts in the racial composition of the affected areas (namely a decrease in the percentage of residents who are black) and an increasing presence of Hispanics. Katrina is also associated with an increase in the percentage of older residents, a decrease in the percentage of residents with low income/education, and an increase in the percentage of residents with high income/education. (Contains 35 footnotes, 6 figures, and 7 tables.)

This report was conceptualized as a document to offer perspective on mathematics and science reform in the Southeast. The intent was to provide a panoramic view of K-12 mathematics and science education reform in each SERVE state (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and, ultimately, a synthesis of mathematics and science reform in the Southeast region. It begins with an overview of mathematics and science education reform at the national level, including a section on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which will most certainly have an enormous impact on mathematics and science education across the country. The story of the Southeast's mathematics and science reform journey from the 1990s to the present. The paper highlights trends across the region in terms of standards and accountability, student achievement, teacher development, and programs supporting reform. Appendix A provides greater detail about reform initiatives for each of the individual SERVE states. Appendix B includes charts and detailed data from the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) for the six states. Appendix C lists the Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium @ SERVE's Regional Coordinating Board members. (Contains 10 tables and 11 figures.) [This report was produced by the Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education at SERVE.]

This paper describes state, institutional, and other community-based programs deemed exemplary (on the basis of design imperatives) for successful interventions to promote meaningful access of minority group youth to postsecondary education. The imperatives include early intervention, comprehensive and integrated intervention, intervention sustained for ongoing feedback and tracking, coordination with other education and training programs, and broad and long-term strategies providing a continuum of age-appropriate services. Following a general introduction, chapter 2, on state programs, describes programs developed by Arizona, Ohio, California, Texas, New York, Wisconsin, Washington, and Mississippi. Chapter 3 describes association and institutional programs including: "Syracuse Challenge," which provides support services to students from sixth grade on; "Middle College High School," an alternative high school housed in a New York City community college; "Career Beginnings," which uses a "case management" approach beginning in the high school junior year; "Mathematics, Engineer, Sciences Achievement," a program that encourages California minority students in grades 3-12 in these areas; and the "Hispanic Student Success Program" in San Antonio (Texas). Chapter 4 describes community-based programs like the "I Have a Dream" program, which began as a pledge by philanthropist of Eugene Lang to provide college tuition to Harlem sixth graders and later turned into a national foundation. Chapter 5 outlines federal programs, particularly the "Special Programs for Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds" effort. Chapter 6 draws conclusions and suggests recommendations. (Includes 16 endnotes.) (JB)

Value-added measures of teacher quality may be sensitive to the quantitative properties of the testing instruments upon which they are based. This paper focuses on the sensitivity of value-added to test-score-ceiling effects. Test-score ceilings are increasingly common in testing instruments across the country as education policy continues to emphasize proficiency-based reform. Encouragingly, we show that over a wide range of test-score ceiling severity, teachers' value-added estimates are only negligibly influenced by ceiling effects. However, as ceiling conditions approach those found in minimum-competency testing environments, value-added results are significantly altered. We suggest a simple statistical check for ceiling effects. (Contains 2 figures, 10 tables and 24 footnotes.)

Issues pertinent to evaluation of statewide boards of higher education are considered, and the cases of South Carolina and several other states are covered. Evaluation is seen as a form of accountability. Reasons why better, more formal evaluation of statewide boards will be important to a wide range of constituencies--such as trends toward performance budgeting--are examined, and various complexities of the evaluation process are addressed. The major relevant evaluation efforts undertaken recently are summarized, including the University of Missouri Task Force on State Level Coordination and Governance in Higher Education, two Alabama evaluations, evaluations by the Academy for Educational Development of consolidated governing boards of Mississippi, West Virginia, and Florida; and legislative performance evaluations in Connecticut and South Carolina. Evaluation criteria used by South Carolina's Legislative Audit Council to evaluate the Commission on Higher Education, critical reactions to the criteria from selected respondents around the country, and modifications based on the reactions are examined. The question of who should evaluate issues pertaining to higher education is addressed. Various supplementary materials pertaining to state evaluation efforts are appended. (SW)

A governor's State of the State address is an opportunity to outline policy priorities, highlight past accomplishments and reflect on the condition of the state and country. In 2018, 17 governors are serving their last year in office, having reached the end of their term or deciding not to seek re-election. Many of them used their State of the State addresses to emphasize the importance of collegiality among policymakers. When governing bodies function well, the state and its citizens reap the benefits--a principal benefit being an education that prepares citizens for well-paying jobs. Each year, Education Commission of the States tracks, analyzes and identifies trends in education policy proposals featured in governors' State of the State addresses. To date, 44 governors have delivered their 2018 addresses. The top six education priorities across states are discussed in this report: (1) School Finance; (2) Workforce Development; (3) Postsecondary Affordability; (4) Career and Technical Education; (5) Teacher Quality; and (6) Early Learning.

Research examining the impact of arts education on workforce preparation has confirmed that programs incorporating the arts can be educational, developmentally rich, and cost-effective ways of providing students with the skills needed for productive participation in today's economy. Arts education has been shown to help students develop basic, higher-order thinking, and affective skills needed for workplace success. Studies have shown that young people who study the arts show heightened academic standing, a strong capacity for self-assessment, and a secure sense of their own ability to plan and work for a positive future. Studies of arts-based education programs for general, at-risk, and incarcerated youth populations in 10 states have documented their effectiveness and illustrated how schools can make strategic use of states' cultural resources. Governors seeking to take advantage of the arts as a workforce development strategy can take the following policy actions: (1) include arts education as an element of comprehensive education reform legislation; (2) encourage artists to participate in community development programs; (3) leverage the private sector's willingness to contribute to the arts by providing seed funding and starter grants to innovative arts-based education programs; and (4) facilitate collaboration between arts educators and juvenile detention centers to promote programs for detained youth. (Contains 27 endnotes.) (MN)

By 2012, all of the states in this study had started implementing new or revised teacher and leader evaluation systems. The systems include many and varying updates. In some cases, the updates were designed to meet conditions for a state's "Race to the Top" grant. In others, the updates were made to meet conditions for a state's waiver for certain provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, currently known as "No Child Left Behind"). The following profiles examine one particular aspect of states' new teacher and leader evaluation systems: how states integrate the higher expectations for student learning inherent in their new college- and career-readiness standards within the systems' requirements for continuous improvement of teachers and principals. Essentially, these profiles ask, what measures within state teacher and leader evaluation systems generate information about teacher and principal performance in terms of their implementation of, support for and effect on student learning of the new standards. For trends across the states in the design of their systems, successes, challenges, types of support needed to move this work forward, and practitioner experiences with putting the evaluations into practice, see the accompanying "Cross-State Findings Report" (ED559248).

All of the states in this study have recently been involved in school accountability system reform. Since 2011, the states have taken advantage of a federal program to give them flexibility around certain requirements of the "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001 (NCLB), the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). States requesting ESEA flexibility waivers must meet federal guidelines as part of the changes they make to their statewide accountability systems. While some changes vary among states, all states must adopt certain policies the U.S. Department of Education considers fundamental to reform. These policies include, among others, having college- and career-readiness standards and assessments, aligned alternate assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, aligned English language proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments for English learners, and educator effectiveness systems that incorporate the use of student performance data. States are working hard to integrate the work of such complex reforms. The following profiles examine how states' new statewide accountability systems incorporate measures that hold schools accountable for student learning of the states' new college- and career-readiness standards. The profiles also explain how states' accountability reporting for the use of federal Title III funds to serve English learners incorporates such measures. In each profile, the accountability measures used by the state are listed, followed by what is known about the extent of their alignment to the state's new college- and career-readiness standards. (These profiles do not seek to explain each state's entire statewide accountability system, which can include many goals, only some of which relate to student learning of the state's new college- and career-readiness standards. See each state's profile for links to detailed information on the state's entire accountability system.) For trends across the states in the design of their systems, successes, challenges, types of support needed to move this work forward, and practitioner experiences with putting the evaluations into practice, see the accompanying "Cross-State Findings Report" (ED559248).

The following profiles address how the state departments of education are helping educators prepare for and implement their states' new college- and career-readiness standards and aligned assessments, through professional learning. SREB researchers examined each state's major professional development efforts around its new standards in order to understand the approach and get a sense of the major efforts of each state. SREB researchers did not seek to compile an exhaustive list of all of the professional learning that departments provide. These profiles provide a descriptive overview of each state's efforts in this area. For trends across the states in their efforts, successes, challenges, types of support needed to move this work forward, and practitioner reflections on their own professional learning and experiences of implementation on the ground, see the accompanying "Cross-State Findings Report" (ED559248).

The following profiles address decisions and actions that state education policy-makers--in the state departments of education, unless otherwise noted--are taking to foster successful statewide implementation of their states' new college- and career-readiness standards and aligned assessments. These profiles provide a descriptive overview of each state's implementation efforts. For trends across the states in their efforts, successes, challenges, types of support needed to move this work forward, and practitioner perceptions of the effectiveness of state efforts and their experiences with implementation, see the accompanying "Cross-State Findings Report" (ED559248).

The following profiles address how the state departments of education are supporting local educators in classroom implementation of the states' new college- and career-readiness standards by providing (or facilitating the development of) aligned instructional resources and materials. These resources and materials are supplementary supports that educators can use on a voluntary basis; they are not a required curriculum. In order for instructional resources and materials to be aligned to the new standards, they must provide coherent and accurate information about the standards and clearly define the knowledge and skills contained within the standards and how these differ from the state's previous standards. Instructional resources and materials need to offer guidance to educators on the implications of the increased level of rigor required by the new standards for designing teaching and learning experiences. These profiles provide a descriptive overview of each state's efforts in this area. For trends across the states in their efforts, successes, challenges, types of support needed to move the work forward, and practitioners' reflections on their implementation experiences and the resources and support states provide, see the accompanying "Cross-State Findings Report" (ED559248).

By 2012, all of the states in this study had started implementing new or revised teacher and leader evaluation systems. There are many and varying updates to these systems, and some of them have been made to meet conditions for a state's federal "Race to the Top" (RTT) grant. Other updates have been made to meet conditions for a state's waiver for certain provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, currently known as "No Child Left Behind"). The following profiles examine one particular aspect of states' new teacher and leader evaluation systems: how states integrate the higher expectations for student learning inherent in the Common Core within the systems' requirements for continuous improvement of teachers and principals. Essentially, these profiles ask, what measures within state teacher and leader evaluation systems generate information that sharpens understanding of teacher and principal performance in terms of their implementation of, support for, and effect on student learning of the Common Core?

All of the 15 states in this study have recently been involved in school accountability system reform. Since 2011, the states have taken advantage of a federal program to give them flexibility around certain accountability requirements of the "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001 (NCLB), the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). States requesting ESEA flexibility waivers must meet federal guidelines as part of the changes they make to their statewide accountability systems. While some of the changes states make vary, all states must adopt certain policies the U.S. Department of Education considers fundamental to school accountability reform. These policies include, among others, college- and career-ready standards and assessments, Common Core-aligned alternate assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities, English language proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments for English learners (ELs), and educator effectiveness systems that incorporate the use of student performance data. States are working hard to integrate the work of such complex reforms. These profiles examine how states' new statewide accountability systems incorporate measures that hold schools accountable for student learning of the Common Core. The profiles also explain how states' accountability reporting for the use of federal Title III funds to serve ELs incorporates such measures. In each profile, the accountability measures are listed, followed by what is known about the extent of their alignment to the Common Core.

The following profiles address how the state departments of education are helping educators prepare for and implement the Common Core and aligned assessments through professional learning. The major professional development efforts around the Common Core were examined in order to understand the overall efforts of each state. An exhaustive list of all of the professional learning that departments provide was not sought. These profiles provide a descriptive overview of each state's efforts in this area. For trends across the 15 states in their efforts, successes, challenges, types of support states need to move this work forward, and practitioner reflections of their own professional learning and experiences of implementation on the ground.

The following profiles address the basic decisions and actions that state education policy-makers--in the state departments of education, unless otherwise noted--are taking to foster successful statewide implementation of the new standards and aligned assessments in 15 states. These profiles provide a descriptive overview of each state's implementation efforts. For trends across the states in their efforts, successes, challenges, types of support needed to move this work forward, and practitioner perceptions of the effectiveness of state efforts and their experiences with implementation.