Search

Emotional, behavioral, and mental health challenges make it difficult for many children and adolescents to engage and succeed at school. Research indicates that at least 20% of all children and adolescents have been diagnosed with one more mental health disorders. Behavioral problems, anxiety, and depression are the most diagnosed mental health issues, and they often co-occur. Moreover, these conditions are being diagnosed at increasingly younger ages. In the past several years there has been a rise in the number of adolescents and young adults with serious mental health issues such as major depression and suicidal ideation, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated mental health problems for children and adolescents. Schools offer promise for providing intensive clinical support to the most at-risk students, and schools are necessary environment to explore the implementation of multi-modal youth mental health services. This paper provides an analysis of an intensive, in-school mental health services model developed and implemented by Effective School Solutions (ESS), a New Jersey based provider of high acuity school based mental health services for K-12 students. We analyze this multi-modal model for its effectiveness in improving educational outcomes for over 3,000 students identified as requiring intensive clinical mental health support across the 2021-22 school year. This analysis reveals that those students receiving High- versus Low-fidelity programming (i.e., multiple sessions per week for at least half of the school year versus for less than half of the school year) had better educational outcomes. Students receiving High-fidelity programming had greater improvements in grade point average (GPA) and greater reductions in absences across the school year. A higher number of in-school clinical sessions per week significantly predicted a greater increase in GPA and a greater reduction in total disciplinary incidents (including out of school suspensions) across the school year. This report provides initial promising evidence that in-school intensive mental health clinical services yield positive effects on students' educational outcomes. Though future research is needed to validate and extend these findings, schools may consider implementing such services onsite to meet students where they are and to optimize students' mental, behavioral, and educational well-being. [This white paper report was published by the Yale Child Study Center."]

The growth of homeschooling from a somewhat fringe movement during the 1970s and 1980s to a more widespread and socially accepted approach in recent decades has provided a strong foundation of flexible learning models. When Florida's school choice expansion, House Bill 1, was introduced in January 2023, one of its goals was to allow more homeschoolers to participate in the education savings account (ESA) program. But many homeschoolers and homeschool advocacy groups balked at the proposal. Having worked hard to achieve independence, they were loath to be linked to government funding. Even if the program were optional, they feared that associated regulations would eventually extend to traditional homeschoolers. In the end, the bill passed with new language that satisfied traditional homeschoolers by creating a new option for parents to educate their children at home. As states continue to enact and expand education savings accounts, Colleen Hroncich argues that it is crucial that policymakers craft bills in a way that maximizes freedom and minimizes roadblocks.

This briefing paper explores Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health (IECMH) policies and practices that state early intervention (Part C) programs may consider implementing to meet the social-emotional and mental health needs of infants and toddlers in the context of relationships with their parents and other caregivers.

Asthma is the leading chronic health condition among children in the United States and a major cause of childhood disability. It also disproportionately affects low-income and racial and ethnic minorities. Although a wide range of interventions have been implemented to improve asthma-related outcomes among socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority children, disparities persist. This paper, which was commissioned by the JPB Foundation and conducted by MDRC in partnership with the National Academy for State Health Policy, standardizes and compares effects from rigorous evaluations across three main types of interventions: those that focus on improving education and self-management, those that focus on addressing remediation of the conditions that trigger asthma in the home environment, and those that focus on improving health care provider practice. While prior reviews have summarized findings for each intervention type, this review systematically compares findings across a range of outcomes and a spectrum of different approaches to addressing childhood asthma, drawing from about 30 independent studies and earlier published reviews. In addition, the paper includes case studies of various local programs and state-level policy initiatives to illuminate current efforts to address childhood asthma in low-income communities and barriers faced in sustaining asthma programs. Key findings include: (1) Providing education on how to manage asthma is fundamental to improving outcomes, but it may not be enough to alleviate disparities in asthma management; (2) Some local programs are clearly bridging informational gaps among low-income families and are helping them maintain a safe home environment for their children with asthma; (3) The health care benefits of interventions that go beyond education are unclear; (4) Barriers to medication management are complex and medication adherence is difficult to influence; and (5) The role of the state, and the Medicaid program in particular, is relevant for the financing and sustainability of asthma programs for low-income children. Although the long-run sustainability of some of the programs highlighted in this report is uncertain, what is clear is that combating the disparities in the prevalence of asthma among different populations will require more than an agreement on standard asthma management practices within the medical community. The following are appended: (1) Methodology for Literature Review; (2) Summaries of Asthma Studies; (3) Detailed Case Studies of Local Asthma Programs; and (4) Detailed State-Based Case Studies. [This working paper was written with Felicia Heider, Carrie Hanlon, and Taylor Kniffin.]

Since 2012, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) has maintained a statewide predictive analytics system providing schools with an early warning in middle grades of students at risk for not completing high school. DPI is considering extending and enhancing this system, known as the Dropout Early Warning System (DEWS). The proposed enhancements include better understanding how and why schools use a tool like DEWS, supports and training necessary to translate DEWS into school change, and extending DEWS into other domains such as college and career readiness. This paper identifies national models of predictive analytic systems in education, including a focus on the Early Warning Implementation Monitoring System (EWIMS) (National High School Center, 2013). The paper explores how such policies might succeed in achieving their goals (e.g., dropout prevention and reduction of predictive at-risk behaviors), ways that districts and schools can make the policies more successful, and how states and state agencies like DPI might strengthen the policies, thereby facilitating local success. The paper recommends that DPI consider: (1) fostering a network of schools for professional development and support of implementation of predictive analytics like DEWS and EWIMS; (2) developing modifications of predictive analytic indicators to measure short-term change and progress; (3) merging predictive analytics with findings of current research funded by the statewide longitudinal data system grant that will identify effective strategies for supporting students with different at-risk profiles; (4) soliciting schools for voluntary implementation of the full DEW/EWIMS model; and (5) sponsoring research on existing practices of how schools identify and intervene on behalf of at-risk students. The analysis and recommendations of the paper should not be considered as final but rather as material for further discussion and deliberation--in essence as food for thought and inquiry. The paper is organized as follows. First is a description of the details of DEWS as an example of implementation of a predictive analytics tool. Second is a logic model of the policy, which is the theory of change underlying its intended positive effects on outcomes. Third, beginning an initial assessment of the theory of change tracing the policy from schools and students, is an analysis of the strength of predictive analytic policies, using a framework developed by Porter, Floden, Freeman, Schmidt, & Schwille (1988). Fourth, following the logic model to the school level, is an analysis of the characteristics of organization and process required for successful implementation in schools, using a framework developed by Gamoran and colleagues (2003). Finally, the paper turns to the question of how outside agencies might enable successful implementation of predictive analytics, with a description of the results of a study of how three school districts supported use of college readiness indicators, followed by a discussion of how DPI might strengthen its own policies.

This paper is the third in Pioneer Institute's "UMass at a Crossroads" series. This report takes a closer look at the university's growing dependency on increases in tuition and fees and expansion of out-of-state and international student enrollment to support continued expansion of the university. The first report examined whether UMass' continuing strategy of enrollment expansion makes sense given forecasts by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education of an 11.4 percent decline in Massachusetts high school graduates over the next twelve years. This study examines more closely the university's strategy of increasing out-of-state and international enrollment as a means of increasing revenue through higher tuition rates paid by this group of students. As this paper explains, UMass-Amherst made offers of admission to more out-of-state and international applicants to its 2015-2016 freshman class than it did to Massachusetts applicants for the first time in university history. Growing out-of-state enrollment is not limited to undergraduate programs at UMass. Overall, in-state students are in the minority in UMass graduate programs, representing 30 percent of the total master's degree student population. This study also examines state funding as measured by state support per full-time equivalent student (FTE), showing that Massachusetts' higher education institutions (including UMass, the state colleges and community colleges) receive the second highest level of state financial support of New England higher education systems by this metric, and also receive more than the national average. Pioneer Institute questions whether UMass' current strategy of increasing out-of-state and international enrollment is consistent with its primary mission of serving in-state students. Furthermore, this report raises the question of whether it makes sense to provide UMass with additional state funding for capital expansion if the intent of the expansion is in large part intended to attract and educate a rising percentage of out-of-state students. The recommendations of this report call for the Governor, state education leaders, the state legislature, and university leaders to consider whether UMass' current strategy of expanding the university's facilities and enrollment capacity in order to serve a growing percentage of out-of-state students serves the financial and educational interest of Massachusetts residents. [For "UMass at a Crossroads Part 1: Is the UMass Enrollment Expansion Plan Sustainable? White Paper No. 145," see ED598651. For "UMass at a Crossroads Part 2: Is UMass' Expansion Fiscally Sustainable? White Paper No. 146," see ED598659.]

In a 2012 paper for the Center for American Progress, "The State of Evaluation Reform," Patrick McGuinn (Drew University) identified the opportunities and challenges facing education agencies in Race to the Top (RTTT) grant-winning states as they prepared for the implementation of new teacher evaluation systems. The 2012 study undertook in-depth comparative case studies of six states: Tennessee, Colorado, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. For this paper the individuals interviewed in those states two years ago (or their replacements if necessary) were re-interviewed to understand how and why their efforts differ today. By analyzing state implementation efforts at two different points in time, the new study utilizes a longitudinal qualitative approach that can reveal the extent to which states are learning and adapting in this work over time. Rather than the detailed state case studies of State Education Agency (SEA) implementation work provided in the 2012 paper, this report uses a more thematic approach that will synthesize the lessons that have emerged from the field. This paper serves 2 purposes: (1) To provide a snapshot in time (Jan 2015) of SEA implementation efforts around new teacher evaluation systems; and (2) To contrast more recent implementation efforts with those two years earlier to understand the ways in which SEAs have (and have not) learned and adapted their implementation work over time. More specifically, the paper will address the following questions: What kinds of capacity--financial, personnel, technical--have SEAs added to support the implementation of new teacher evaluation systems? What kind of capacity is still lacking? How rapidly and how effectively are states implementing their new teacher evaluation systems? Why do some states appear to be having more success/smoother implementation than others? How are states approaching this implementation work differently from one another--do some approaches appear to be more or less effective than others? What challenges are emerging and how are states addressing these? What lessons can be learned from these "early adopter" states that can inform teacher evaluation reform in the rest of the country? How are states approaching the training of evaluators and the principals and teachers who are supposed to use the evaluations to improve personnel decisions and classroom instruction? How well are new teacher evaluation systems being aligned with other reforms such as the move to Common Core and new assessments? How are states dealing with the challenge of measuring student achievement in non-tested subjects? The following is appended: Interviews Conducted As Part of Research.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for K-12 English language arts/literacy and mathematics, released in 2010, have been adopted by 49 states and territories; the District of Columbia; and the U.S. Department of Defense schools, which serve the children of U.S. service members around the world. The widespread adoption of the CCSS is a major step forward, yet significant work remains for states to successfully implement the new more rigorous and relevant academic standards--notably, the adoption of new tests to measure students' progress against the CCSS. This paper reports on states' challenges and progress in creating and launching assessments of students' learning that are aligned with the CCSS.

This paper examines strategies for interpreting and reporting estimates of intervention effects for subgroups of a study sample. Specifically, the paper considers: why and how subgroup findings are important for applied research, the importance of pre-specifying sub- groups before analyses are conducted, the importance of using existing theory and prior research to distinguish between subgroups for whom study findings are confirmatory (hypothesis testing), as opposed to exploratory (hypothesis generating), and the conditions under which study findings should be considered confirmatory based on their pre-specification and pattern of statistical significance for the full sample, its subgroups, and their differences. These issues are illustrated by empirical examples from past work by the authors. (Contains 5 footnotes and 5 tables.) [This paper was also supported by funding from Judith Hispanic Fund for Methodological Innovation in Social Policy Research at MDRC.]

The top priority for the U.S. Department of Education's new Race to the Top-District (RTT-D) competition is to create personalized-learning environments to bolster student achievement: "Absolute Priority 1: Personalized Learning Environments. To meet this priority, an applicant must coherently and comprehensively address how it will build on the core educational assurance areas (as defined in the notice) to create learning environments that are designed to significantly improve learning and teaching through the personalization of strategies, tools, and supports for students and educators that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in the notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in the notice); accelerate student achievement and deepen student learning by meeting the academic needs of each student; increase the effectiveness of educators; expand student access to the most effective educators; decrease achievement gaps across student groups; and increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers." Using online learning in blended-learning environments will be critical for most Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to realize this priority. As Innosight Institute has written in several reports, there are a growing number of schools and districts across the country that are implementing blended-learning models. Innosight Institute has collected dozens of case studies of blended-learning programs on its website. These profiles may be an important resource for those LEAs seeking to apply to the competition, as the profiles chronicle the history of how schools and districts started their blended-learning programs, the effect of these programs on student achievement, the blended-learning models they use, and the software or Internet tools that power these programs. This paper describes how personalized learning looks like in practice and discusses the essential elements of an effective transformation. (Contains 2 figures.)

This document, which is intended for staff of state occupational information coordinating committees (SOICCs) and career information delivery systems (CIDS), examines the pros and cons of career information hotlines and their use in selected states. "Foreword--Career Information on Call" (Juliette N. Lester) provides a brief overview of selected states' efforts to provide career information and lists benefits of CIDS hotlines. The hotlines can reach a broad spectrum of the public; offer users a degree of privacy and anonymity; help callers clarify their information needs; and are a cost-effective way of serving large and diverse populations. "Career Counseling by Telephone in Rhode Island" (Mildred T. Nichols) describes a model for using paraprofessional counselors to provide home-based adults (primarily women) with career counseling and information by telephone. "Fourteen Years and 42,000 Calls: Virginia's VIEW" (Carl McDaniels, Mary Anne Knoblock, Gale A. Watts, Mary Landon-Moore) details a comprehensive, multimedia state CIDS. "Starting a Career Information Hotline? Experiences and Insights from the Texas SOICC" (Caesar Andreas) discusses a career information hotline that focuses primarily on secondary school students, teachers, and counselors throughout Texas. A list of SOICC contacts for career information is appended. (Contains 15 references.) (MN)

Afterschool and competency-based learning are increasingly emerging as student-centered, supportive learning models to prepare students for college and career. This white paper explores the intersection and relationship between these two fields, recommends ideal policy environments for implementing successful programs, provides real-world examples, and shines a spotlight on emerging trends for the future.

The effects of Chapter 2 block grants on fund distribution, programs, and school district spending, and the role played in Chapter 2 implementation by parents and citizens were investigated. Interim findings include the following: (1) there has been a massive redistribution of Federal funds away from States serving large numbers of poor nonwhite children; (2) small school districts are winning small amounts of money, big districts are losing very large amounts; (3) there has been a pronounced shift away from support of competitive grants in local districts for school improvement projects; (4) 88% of local districts are spending more than half of their grants for materials, about 30% are supporting school improvement projects, and about 15% are supporting guidance and testing programs or programs for the gifted; most other categorical programs are not being funded at all by most school districts (only 5.7% are funding desegregation programs); and nearly 50% are spending money on computers. Following presentation of these findings, the role of the state education agency (SEA) and of the State advisory committee (SAC) is analysed and seven case studies (written by parents or educational activists) describe how SACs have served (or not served) as vehicles for public involvement in California (Myron Puckett); New Jersey (Vernell Patrick); Ohio (Carla Edlefson); Rhode Island (Eleanor King); South Carolina (Joy Sovde); South Dakota (Phyllis Willging); and Washington (Pamela Keating). Appendices present State demographic material, material on funding formulas and SEA Chapter 2 spending, Chapter 2's text, and nonregulatory guidelines on public involvement. (CMG)

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.

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.]

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.