Search

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

A number of English language proficiency exams target grades K-12 English language learners (ELLs) because of the rising need to identify their needs and provide appropriate support in language learning. A good example is the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs (hereafter ACCESS), designed to measure the English language proficiency of students identified as ELLs. Every year approximately two million K-12 ELLs in the WIDA Consortium take ACCESS. After students complete the exam, score reports are provided to relevant stakeholders, including teachers and parents of the students. Because score reports are widely used by stakeholders for many purposes (e.g., placement, reclassification of ELLs), it is necessary to understand how they are interpreted and used in educational and home settings. Such information could be used to understand the usefulness of score reports and also to enhance their quality. However, there is little research on stakeholders' interpretation and use of score reports, especially in the context of K-12 ELL exams in the Unites States. Existing research is limited to teachers' interpretation of score reports (Impara, Divine, Bruce, Liverman, & Gay, 1991; Luecht, 2003; Underwood, Zapata-Rivera, & VanWinkle, 2007). For example, Impara et al. (1991) investigated the extent to which teachers were able to interpret student-level results on a standardized state assessment and the extent to which interpretive information provided on the reverse side of the student score report improved teacher understanding. Findings suggest that interpretive material helped facilitate teachers' understanding of student scores on the assessment. However, few studies have examined how stakeholders actually use the interpreted information. Moreover, very few (Miller & Watkins, 2010) have examined score reports from the parents' perspective. To gain a deeper understanding of the meaningfulness and utility of score reports, it is necessary to examine both educators' and parents' perspectives. The study on which this paper is based investigated how two stakeholder groups--K-12 ELL educators and parents--interpret and use ACCESS score reports. Findings from qualitative interviews offer implications for score report development in general and how to further enhance the quality of ACCESS score reports. In the study, the authors addressed the following research questions: (1) How do K-12 ELL educators and parents interpret the information in an English proficiency exam score report?; and (2) How do K-12 ELL educators and parents use the information in an English proficiency exam score report?

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.

Children's academic and social development before third grade is highly predictive of later success in school and beyond. Research shows that during those early years, the gains children make in language and literacy, mathematics and social skills, and their growth as learners and thinkers are associated with a range of benefits, from academic achievement to economic stability to healthy habits and behaviors. "The Untapped Potential of an Early Childhood Assessment System: A Strategy for Improving Policies and Instruction from Early Childhood through 3rd Grade" outlines how state leaders can reduce or streamline the assessments being used in early learning programs and elementary schools, achieve economies of scale for educator training and leverage existing data systems to yield more powerful data to inform decision-making.

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.

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).

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.

The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association's (SHEEO) "Communities of Practice" project builds upon SHEEO's ongoing efforts to measure the capacity and effective use of state postsecondary data systems and provides states with opportunities to develop solutions to common issues with those systems. The sixth Community of Practice convening, "Aligning K-12 and Postsecondary Education," was held December 7-8, 2021, in Denver, Colorado. The two-day meeting included representatives from 13 states: Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. Teams included representatives from SHEEO agencies, state K-12 agencies, P-20 partnership organizations, state longitudinal data systems, and others. The Community of Practice also addressed the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on student transitions and how state data systems can be used to promote equitable outcomes for low-income students and students of color. During the convening, teams explored practical uses of state P-20 data for improving college access, equity, and success and how state postsecondary data can better inform the K-12 to postsecondary pipeline. This white paper highlights key themes and findings of the convening, including challenges and lessons learned from the participating state teams and suggestions of topics for further consideration. Case studies describing ongoing efforts in Georgia and Pennsylvania are included in the appendices. Presentations from the December 2021 convening are available on SHEEO's state postsecondary data website.

This paper outlines current trends, progress, and possibilities for fostering more authentic ways to assess students' competencies and mastery of skills needed for college, work, and civic life in the 21st century. It provides an introduction to performance assessments and their value. The authors highlight efforts to develop such assessments in k-12 districts, public high school networks, and independent schools, and they explore state and local policies that are bolstering such practices. This paper examines emerging higher education efforts to go beyond standardized tests in college admission, placement, and advising. It explores the opportunities and challenges associated with greater inclusion of performance assessments in college admission, placement, and advising. The authors identify steps that can build on the progress already made and help performance assessments be high quality, rigorous, and better known in the field. [For the research brief, see ED606783.]

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