Search

Since 2019, the world has irrevocably changed, and public education is not exempt. The pandemic and related political, social, economic, and technological developments have indelibly changed the K-12 landscape. Over the past five years, the Canopy Project has documented innovations in K-12 education, uncovering how schools are addressing systemic challenges and envisioning the future of learning. This report highlights the progress and persistence of these trailblazing schools and offers actionable recommendations for sustaining and spreading innovation. To improve student experiences and outcomes on a large scale and in schools beyond the Canopy project, policymakers, funders, and researchers must play critical roles in strengthening the conditions for innovation in schools. This report demonstrates that reimagining learning environments in sustainable, school-wide ways is achievable in any school, anywhere in the country. This transformation is already underway, and students are reaping the benefits. However, for school innovation to endure and expand, policymakers, funders, and researchers must support the conditions necessary. [This report was produced with Transcend.]

The education landscape is rapidly evolving as state policymakers enact and significantly expand private education choice initiatives. These initiatives, currently operating in 29 states and counting, provide public dollars directly to families to support approved educational purchases, including, but not always limited to, private school tuition. Families made choices about education before policymakers advanced initiatives that sought to increase opportunities to do so, and they will continue to make choices even if those policies go away, which seems unlikely to happen anytime soon. Given that choice has been and will continue to be firmly rooted in the public education system, it is incumbent on policymakers and those that influence them to take stock of families' experiences and address the obstacles they confront along the way. This report provides an up-to-date account of families' experiences in education choice programs. Existing evidence makes clear that while education choice can be life-changing for families who find success with it, this outcome is far from guaranteed. Information gaps, competitive admissions, and weaknesses in the supply of educational alternatives constrain what families can secure from the marketplace. These constraints affect all families--rich and poor, rural, suburban and urban, white and nonwhite, immigrant and native born.

This document describes how the Florida Linkage System approach to local problem solving might be implemented in other school districts. It is presented here as a general strategy that can be adapted to meet the specific needs of a given school. The FLS model is comprised of a sequence of steps and activities leading to continuous improvement by making maximum use of the human resources in an educational system. Case studies of the application of the model are given. (Author/LH)

The "Fall 2024 Snapshot on International Student Enrollment" findings are based on responses from over 690 U.S. higher education institutions on current patterns in international student enrollment as of fall 2024. The report, conducted by the Institute of International Education (IIE) and ten partner higher education associations, complements the "Open Doors® Report on International Educational Exchange." The findings from the Fall 2024 Snapshot reflect a continued rise in international student enrollment numbers. A 3% growth in international student totals (undergraduate, graduate, non-degree, and Optional Practical Training [OPT]) builds on the 7% growth in 2023/24 and the 12% growth in 2022/23 according to "Open Doors." This marks four years of international student increases since the COVID-19 pandemic. 84% of reporting institutions indicate that financial support for their international student recruitment efforts is the same or higher than in the previous year. U.S. institutions report working with current international students, collaborating with agents, building international partnerships, and conducting in-person recruitment events to support outreach and recruitment. [This report was co-produced with the Association of International Enrollment Management (AIRC).]

While U.S. voters delivered a significant change in the 2024 federal elections, they opted for steady leadership at the state level. No state board of education shifted in partisan control, and only five seats saw a shift in political party out of 27 races that were contested in the general election. This policy update looks at the results of governor elections, elected chief state school officers, elected state boards, and ballot initiatives.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the education landscape, but are teacher preparation programs keeping pace? In this report, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) reached out to over 500 U.S. education school leaders to understand how they currently integrate AI into their teacher training programs, how their faculty and preservice teachers engage with AI, their perceptions of the technology's long-term impact on education, and their institution's efforts to embed AI into curricula and coursework. These data should concern those who believe students and teachers need support to engage safely and effectively with this fast-emerging set of tools. This report offers recommendations for higher education institutions, policymakers, philanthropists, and researchers to better support preparing the next generation of teachers to thrive and adapt in the age of generative AI.

While the United States leads the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) innovation, the schools lag behind in preparing teachers and students for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The extraordinary pace of technological change, and the potential for both opportunity and risk, may be unprecedented. What leaders in education and education policy do next matters. To help accelerate action in U.S. public education and develop a short-term roadmap for districts and other education leaders, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) brought together over 60 state and federal policymakers, edtech innovators, school system leaders, and advocates in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in April 2024 to participate in the Think Forward: Learning with AI forum. This report reflects key learnings and conversations that emerged from CRPE's Think Forward convening, including: (1) how AI can enable needed changes in our schools; (2) how current conditions in the edtech market act as barriers to closing equity gaps; and (3) how policy and practice must adapt for lasting system change. It concludes with a short-term action plan developed by forum participants that provides an immediate path forward and outlines the roles wide-ranging stakeholders must play to address our shared challenges and opportunities.

At Virginia's public institutions of higher education, the process of determining eligibility for accommodations occurs in two main steps: (1) establish that a student has a disability; and (2) determine the appropriate accommodations for the individual student. Given students' varied experiences at different Virginia public institutions of higher education (IHEs) regarding their eligibility for disability services and the required processes and documentation to establish such eligibility, the General Assembly enacted into law a study bill during the last legislative session. House Bill(HB) 509/Senate Bill(SB) 21 directs the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) to study the first step: "the processes by which each public institution of higher education determines eligibility for accommodations for students with disabilities and to identify in such processes and make recommendations to reduce any barriers to establishing eligibility." SCHEV convened a workgroup of accessibility professionals and students over the past four months to: define best practices; survey accessibility offices as to whether and how best practices are used at their respective Virginia public institutions of higher education; and identify barriers that exist for students and staff. The workgroup offers recommendations relative to a series of distinct inflection points in the educational journey of students with disabilities: K-12; transition to college; and college. These recommendations include: (1) develop, strengthen and scale transition programs/programming for students with disabilities in high school and college; (2) create education opportunities, training and/or resources for staff and students that shift the paradigm from mere compliance to comprehensive support and inclusion; and (3) obtain additional student input on current IHE processes to establish eligibility for disability services.

The Kansas Graduate and Dropout Handbook provides a comprehensive overview of how the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) calculates and reports the Adjusted Cohort Graduation and Annual Dropout Rates. Sections include: (1) Introduction; (2) Terminology; (3) Data Sources; (4) Graduation Calculations; (5) Dropout Calculation; and (6) Dropout Graduation Summary Report (DGSR). [For the previous handbook, see ED624065.]

Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) are colleges and universities across the United States and U.S. Territories enrolling significant percentages of racially minoritized undergraduate students or created with the explicit purpose of serving specific populations of racially minoritized students under various programs created by U.S. Congress (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). About one in five Title IV-eligible postsecondary institutions is eligible for MSI funding (Nguyen, Ramirez, & Laderman, 2023). All MSIs must be accredited, degree-granting public or private non-proprietary (not-for-profit) colleges and universities. While MSIs are federal institutional-level designations codified in the Higher Education Act of 1965, states have a stake in this matter. The following analysis is an opportunity to highlight MSIs, given their outsized roles in educating racially minoritized and other minoritized students. Because most studies have focused on discussing MSIs solely at the institutional or national levels, this piece explores MSIs at the regional and state/territory levels. Using available information from the MSI Data Project (2017-2021), this piece contributes to our knowledge of MSIs by reporting on MSIs across U.S. Census divisions and states/territories. Moreover, different from how existing literature describes seven MSI designations, following Nguyen, Ramirez, & Laderman (2023), this piece reports on 11 MSI designations. Namely, this offers more precision around which designations an institution may be eligible for. This descriptive analysis is appropriate for laying the landscape of public MSIs (Loeb et al., 2017).

Research on test accommodations provides valuable information that informs policy and practice. This report presents a synthesis of the research literature published in 2022 on testing accommodations for U.S. elementary and secondary students (K-12). The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has reported on accommodations research since 1999. In 2022, NCEO identified four research studies on testing accommodations that met the criteria for inclusion. This was fewer studies than in previous years. The limited number of published studies focusing on accommodations may be the result of gaps in testing data due to COVID-19, as well as other lingering effects of the pandemic. All the studies published in 2022 that met the criteria were dissertations. The studies presented in this report provide an update on the state of the research on testing accommodations. These studies addressed several topics including research on teacher, student, and parent perceptions and perspectives regarding accommodations. Primary data were collected for all of these studies, and most of the studies used qualitative methods. The studies published in 2022 included studies conducted at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. The studies addressed the use of accommodations on mathematics, reading, and science assessments; one study did not specify the content area.

There has been a paradigm shift from accommodations to the identification of levels of accessibility (e.g., universal features, designated features, and accommodations). A consequence of this shift is that many students with disabilities who previously were assigned accommodations now access many of them as universal or designated features. This Brief highlights what states and Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams can do to avoid possible unintended consequences of the paradigm shift.

Utah Code 53F-2-522 and Board Rule R277-625, "Mental Health Screeners," sets standards for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to implement approved mental health screening programs for students. The legislature has appropriated a $1,000,000 for the program in 2024, however prior the allocation was $500,000. During the 2023-2024 school year, 60 of the 155 LEAs statewide participated in the school-based mental health screening program. Those 60 LEAs screened 10,380 students for the possible presence of symptoms related to anxiety, depression, or suicidal ideation. As a result of the screenings, approximately 2,869 students (or 28%) were then connected to services either within the LEA or as a referral to community resources. Charts within the report provide a comparison from the 2020-2021 school year to the 2023-2024 school year.

School improvement is an iterative process through which districts and schools develop their capacity, implement and refine new policies and practices, and respond to new developments and needs over time. School improvement policy can also be considered an iterative process, with policy implementors learning from previous rounds of a policy. Michigan developed the Partnership Model for School and District Turnaround to provide support and accountability for its lowest-performing schools (i.e., Comprehensive Support and Improvement schools, or CSI schools). In November 2022, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) identified the current round (Round 4) of Partnership schools and districts. By the spring of 2023, Partnership districts outlined new improvement goals and accountability measures, and by fall of 2023 they developed improvement plans to meet those goals. Throughout the 2023-2024 school year, they began to implement those improvement plans. This report describes the goals and planning activities for Round 4 of Partnership schools and districts and analyzes the targets that they set, the accountability measures they selected, and the specific activities they planned to implement as part of their improvement efforts.

Early childhood educators play essential roles in providing stable and high-quality child care for young children and supporting their development and growth. As is also true nationwide, historically low wages in the District of Columbia have led to challenges in compensating and retaining qualified early childhood educators, and in turn, building quality child care systems from which families benefit. In 2022, the District of Columbia passed legislation to tax the wealthy, generating revenue to increase compensation for early educators working in the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE)-licensed child care programs. The first of its kind nationwide, the Pay Equity Fund represents an innovative, long-term, and sustainable strategy for addressing early childhood educator compensation. This technical report documents the steps the Urban Institute and OSSE took to design and administer a set of surveys to learn more about the opportunities and challenges wage supplements offered child care employers and early educators in the first 1.5 years of implementation (FY 2022 and FY 2023). The authors begin by describing the survey development process, survey administration procedures, response rates, and characteristics of the target population (i.e., the set of educators identified as potentially eligible for the Pay Equity Fund, based on administrative data) and the survey sample (i.e., the set of educators who submitted a valid survey response). This is done once for the Early Educator and Home Operator Surveys, and then once more for the Center Director Survey. These steps are presented separately, given different sampling frames and different constructs of interest across samples, and then the steps taken to weight, clean, and analyze survey data are described. The report concludes by summarizing demographic information for each of the survey samples.

In the face of financial, political, and capacity constraints, leaders within the Baltimore City Public School System and Chicago Public Schools are making progress toward closing post-pandemic gaps in student learning. The executive leadership teams serving Baltimore City Public School System and Chicago Public Schools are using several strategies to help their systems build back after the pandemic including: (1) standardizing key elements of instructional cores and adding instructional staff across their systems, while maintaining some school-level flexibility; (2) supporting existing staff to become teachers and "building the bench" of new principals, while also promoting school leaders and administrators from within; (3) spending federal pandemic-relief money Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) and other supplements, while hoping to avoid cutting into funding for instruction; (4) insulating schools as much as possible by taking the political hits themselves and making concessions to demanding stakeholders; and (5) confronting continued enrollment declines, limited central office capacity, constrained teacher labor markets, changes in school boards, shifting local interests, and uncertain state-level financial support. The strong leadership modeled in both districts remains at the heart of moving forward, despite the fact they are straining against their capacities. While there may be nuanced differences, all leaders in maxed-out districts will have to search for new options and forge alliances with new partners within school boards, unions, and state-level governments. This project is part of the American School District Panel (ASDP), a research partnership between the RAND Corporation and the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at Arizona State University's Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College.

This report examines the evolving landscape of English language arts (ELA) curriculum and instructional support in Michigan elementary schools from the 2019-20 to the 2022-23 school years. Recognizing the pivotal role instruction plays in shaping students' literacy development, this report explores which curriculum resources teachers are using to provide ELA instruction and the infrastructure of support surrounding curriculum implementation. Relying on statewide survey data, we find that: (1) Districts made many changes to their ELA curriculum resources due to the COVID-19 pandemic but few due to the Read by Grade Three Law; (2) Variability remains a feature of Michigan's ELA curriculum resource landscape; (3) Elementary classroom teachers are more likely to use only one core curriculum resource than they were in 2019-20; (4) Elementary classroom teachers are more likely to supplement their core curriculum with additional writing, phonics, or spelling resources than they were in 2019-20; (5) More teachers are using curriculum resources that EdReports rates as "Meets Expectations" than they were in 2019-20, particularly in districts serving higher proportions of students from historically underserved populations; (6) The majority of the most-used core ELA curriculum resources are not rated by What Works Clearinghouse or Evidence for ESSA; and (7) Teachers reported increased access to curriculum-aligned professional development compared to 2019-20.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

Simplification of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) entails significant changes to the FAFSA and the methodology for determining eligibility for federal financial aid for the 2024-25 academic year. The changes to the FAFSA form that were mandated by the Simplification Act delayed implementation and shifted the timeline for release of the 2024-25 FAFSA from October to December 2023. This shift has also led to delays in processing the FAFSA. Through a partnership with the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP), SHEEO initially convened 12 states from across the country (now expanded to 17 states) in 2022 to participate in a learning community. The learning community provided states with opportunities to examine the impact of FAFSA simplification on state financial aid programs and to take advantage of the open policy window to reconsider state financial aid policies and processes. Feedback from state members has confirmed that, despite the challenges and uncertainties around the rollout of the new FAFSA, states were as prepared as possible to implement the new FAFSA due in part to their participation in the learning community. As the first phase of the learning community concludes, SHEEO staff have conducted case-study interviews with state members of the learning community and the larger SHEEO membership. While all states have worked diligently to help students complete the new FAFSA, the four states selected -- Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, and Minnesota -- were chosen to represent states that implemented successful strategies for taking advantage of the policy window (Minnesota), employing FAFSA completion initiatives (Alabama, Illinois, and Louisiana), and preparing for the new FAFSA (all states).

Many students with disabilities use accessibility features and accommodations during instruction and when taking assessments. It is important to consider teacher perceptions and experiences when making accessibility decisions. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) synthesized and summarized research conducted between 1999 and 2022 on the perceptions of teachers regarding accommodations. Based on this research on teachers' perceptions of accommodations, NCEO suggests several strategies that could improve practice.

This report highlights the findings of the sixteenth survey of states conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). It has been administered for more than three decades to collect information from states about the participation and performance of students with disabilities in the assessments that comprise the comprehensive assessment system. Topics addressed included: accessibility and accommodations, alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS), interim assessments, accountability, English learners with disabilities, technology, graduation requirements, State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs)/State-identified Measurable Results (SiMRs), family engagement, and technical assistance needs.

This report summarizes an investigation of literature published in 1985-2023 on universal design (UD) of large-scale assessments. State education agencies, K-12 assessment vendors, teacher trainers, and classroom teachers are increasingly applying the principles of UD to the instruction and assessment of students from special populations. In theory, UD ensures that instruction and assessment are created from the beginning to be accessible to the widest population of students possible. Yet, it is unclear how these UD frameworks and their associated principles and elements are being applied, or even which UD framework is used. This obscurity and lack of defined UD principles in the research literature creates obstacles in research replication and in identification of evidence-based practices. This scoping review identifies how the concept of UD has been applied to the broad range of U.S. district and state large-scale academic assessments. We included literature on the application of UD to the broad range of K-12 district and state large-scale academic assessments in the U.S.

Alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) are designed and implemented for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Historically, these assessments have been described as reflecting reduced "depth," "breadth," and "complexity." Yet, the meaning of these terms is often not defined. The purpose of this report is to provide: (1) an overview of relevant history and legislation that address depth, breadth, and complexity of AA-AAAS; and (2) questions for states to consider as they revise or develop new AA-AAAS. This information also can be useful for states submitting evidence for an existing AA-AAAS to the U.S. Department of Education peer review process.

There continues to be confusion among some educators and staff in State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) about what is an accommodation and what is a modification. This confusion about accommodations and modifications happens in how these words are used in both instruction and assessment. The confusion is further compounded by the use of the term "modified curriculum" when describing the academic content taught to some students with disabilities. The misunderstandings of these terms affect how Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are written and then implemented. The purpose of this Brief is to clarify what accommodations and modifications are for both instruction and assessment for students with disabilities. We also disentangle the use of the term "alternate or modified curriculum" from the meaning of modification used for instruction and assessment. Accommodations and modifications can also be appropriate for English learners; however, this Brief is focused on students with disabilities, including English learners with disabilities.

In response to urgent student mental health needs across Virginia's college campuses, the 2022 Virginia General Assembly appropriated funds to support a two-year mental health workforce pilot program at public institutions of higher education. The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), in consultation with the Virginia Health Care Foundation (VHCF), is charged with administering this pilot program. The mental health workforce pilot serves a dual purpose for higher education institutions. The pilot seeks to: (1) expand mental health services to students on campus at higher education institutions; and simultaneously (2) increase the mental health workforce pipeline by offering supervised clinical hours for the licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) and licensed professional counselor (LPC) candidates who delivered those services to become licensed. The mental health pilot's two-pronged purpose addresses immediate student demand for services and long-term campus behavioral health workforce development, both of which have been exacerbated by the pandemic. The pilot is approximately one and a half years into implementation. SCHEV is satisfied with the progress. Specifically, improving the ability to meet the student demand for counseling/social work services and stabilizing/reducing burnout of LPC and LCSW staff at the student health/counseling centers. Several key findings from the pilot, some recurring and some new along with recommendations from SCHEV, have emerged for consideration.

Direct Admissions policies, first pioneered by Idaho in 2015, aim to simplify the path to college for high school students by proactively admitting students to state colleges and universities. Idaho's decision to implement Direct Admissions was motivated by a desire to boost its relatively low college-going rates and ensure that more of its high school graduates pursue higher education, particularly at state institutions. Idaho's Direct Admissions system automatically qualified all 2016 public high school seniors for admission to participating colleges and universities based on their academic performance such as standardized test scores, GPA, and high school course credits, without requiring them to undergo the traditional application process. Using the student's SAT score and GPA, the Idaho Office of the State Board of Education (OSBE) proactively admits high school students to the "Letter of 6" or "Letter of 8." Students receiving the Letter of 8 are admitted to all of Idaho's public higher education institutions, while students receiving the Letter of 6 are admitted to all except Boise State University and the University of Idaho, the two more selective institutions in the state. Once a student is guaranteed a seat at any of the colleges listed in their Direct Admissions letter, students then apply to the institutions of choice to verify their enrollment intentions. Direct Admissions is designed to demystify the college application process, reduce barriers to entry, and encourage a higher rate of postsecondary enrollment. Since its implementation, the policy has garnered attention for its role in increasing postsecondary applications and enrollments. It has also emerged as a potential model for other states considering similar reforms. Previous research on Direct Admissions policies in Idaho has examined the policy's effectiveness on institutional applications and enrollment outcomes. This paper uses data on the receipt of a Letter of 6 and receipt of a Letter of 8 to understand how Direct Admissions policies influence student choice in institutional selectivity.

Concerns about the state of the teacher workforce are ever-increasing: the proportion of teachers who would recommend teaching continues to fall, as does interest in the profession among current students. Given these stark realities, many school systems are fundamentally redesigning teachers' roles in an attempt to make the job more attractive and sustainable, both to early-career teachers and seasoned veterans. These "strategic school staffing" solutions aim to improve both educator and student outcomes, based on convincing evidence that improved working conditions are critical both for teacher retention and for student success. This brief details early outcomes for educators in one specific strategic school staffing initiative: Next Education Workforce™ (NEW) team-based models. NEW models overhaul the standard "one teacher, one classroom" approach, which requires one teacher to be all things to all of their students. Instead, teachers in NEW models share a roster of students with a team of other educators with complementary skills and expertise. This brief contributes timely early-stage findings on Next Education Workforce team-based models as implemented in Mesa, Arizona. This study identifies several significant differences between teamed and non-teamed teachers in Mesa Public Schools (MPS), suggesting that NEW models are associated with improved educator outcomes.

Whether through transfer and articulation, through grants that bring disconnected learners back to higher education or through short-term credentialing and applied bachelor's degrees, four-year institutions remain integral to career pathways systems beyond the traditional degree pathway. They also have a clear role in supporting all learners, including those who matriculate at a different point than right after high school graduation, by breaking down the college-career silos and creating seamless transitions for learners who desire to continue their educational journey. This brief highlights: (1) the challenges facing postsecondary administrators in facilitating seamless transitions between institutions; (2) three major categories of strategies used at both the state and local levels to overcome those challenges and ensure that learners can seamlessly transition between and across institutions; (3) state and local examples of successful policies and initiatives that support these learners; (4) and policy and institutional recommendations for engaging partners and policymakers for further integrating four-year institutions in career pathways. This resource was developed through JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s "New Skills ready network," a partnership of Advance CTE and Education Strategy Group. "New Skills ready network," launched by JPMorgan Chase & Co. in 2020, bolsters the firm's efforts to support an inclusive economic recovery, as part of both their $350 million, five-year New Skills at Work initiative to prepare people for the future of work and their new $30 billion commitment to advance racial equity.

To advance WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies' (WCET) work on digital learning modalities, a survey was conducted in summer 2023 to gather insights on institutional definitions, policies, and their impact on students. We also conducted follow-up interviews with participating institutions to delve deeper into their policies and practices. The survey examined terms such as online learning, hybrid learning, hyflex learning, and blended learning, analyzing agreement with key aspects, policy variations, and students' perspectives. We aimed to understand the more practical aspects of the use of these terms, including the need for novel terms and institutional decision-making processes. Ultimately, individual institutional and student needs influence the definition of these modalities.

While the United States leads the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) innovation, schools lag behind in preparing teachers and students for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. To help accelerate action in U.S. public education and develop a short-term roadmap for districts and other education leaders, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) brought together over 60 state and federal policymakers, edtech innovators, school system leaders, and advocates in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in April 2024 to participate in the Think Forward: Learning with AI forum. The setting for the Think Forward AI learning forum emphasized the importance of collective decision-making--and the consequences of getting those decisions wrong. This report reflects key learnings and conversations that emerged from CRPE's Think Forward convening, including: (1) how AI can enable needed changes in our schools; (2) how current conditions in the edtech market act as barriers to closing equity gaps; and (3) how policy and practice must adapt for lasting system change. It concludes with a short-term action plan developed by forum participants that provides an immediate path forward and outlines the roles wide-ranging stakeholders must play to address our shared challenges and opportunities.

The EdResearch for Action "Overview Series" summarizes the research on key topics to provide K-12 education decision makers and advocates with an evidence base to ground discussions about how to best serve students. This research brief breaks down what is known about multilingual students classified as English Learners (ML-ELs), how ML-ELs perform in K-12 education, and what challenges they face. Key insights provided include: (1) research-based practices--such as bilingual program models--district and school leaders can use to support the academic success and linguistic development of ML-ELs; and (2) one-size-fits-all practices to avoid that can limit many students' opportunities to engage with rigorous content. [This brief was produced in collaboration with the University of Texas at Austin, College of Education.]

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted nearly every aspect of the social and economic lives of individuals, families, and communities. It also highlighted and deepened existing racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities. Education, too, was negatively impacted by the pandemic. Research has provided ample evidence about the challenges related to learning loss, access, and mental health among students in elementary and secondary schools. Students' achievement, attendance, and grade-level progression declined substantially more than expected during the pandemic (Fuller et al. 2023; Strunk et al. 2023). And students of color, low-income students, and those who attended high-poverty schools experienced substantially slower growth in their test scores during the pandemic as compared to their pre-COVID growth (Peters et al. 2023). This report builds on this emerging evidence, focusing on trends in Rhode Island and bringing granular, longitudinal, student-level administrative data to bear on the following questions: (1) How has postsecondary enrollment and persistence changed during the COVID-19 pandemic? (2) Did students change the kinds of institutions in which they enrolled? (3) How do trends in enrollment and persistence compare across student subgroups (for instance, by race and socioeconomic status) and by institution type? and (4) How do students' high school experiences shape their postsecondary pathways?

Innovative staffing models are promising, but challenging to scale up. What does the work of leading strategic staffing involve, and what could make scaling up easier? This report digs deep into the many challenges system leaders face when scaling up innovative staffing solutions. These leaders are trying to address longstanding teacher shortages and retention challenges by rethinking everything, including who they hire and how they design the job, provide support, build trust, and uproot old assumptions about the teaching role. The early results are promising: these leaders report fewer vacancies, higher staff satisfaction, and improved student learning experiences. This work is "so hard, but so rewarding"--and it could be much more manageable if policymakers, technical assistance providers, and researchers stepped up to share the load.