Search

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.

Anecdotal evidence points to the importance of school principals, but the limited existing research has neither provided consistent results nor indicated any set of essential characteristics of effective principals. This paper exploits extensive student-level panel data across six states to investigate both variations in principal performance and the relationship between effectiveness and key certification factors. While principal effectiveness varies widely across states, there is little indication that regulation of the background and training of principals yields consistently effective performance. Having prior teaching or management experience is not related to our estimates of principal value-added.

We use administrative panel data from seven states covering nearly 3 million students to document and explore variation in "academic mobility," a term we use to describe the extent to which students' ranks in the distribution of academic performance change during their public schooling careers. On average, we show that student ranks are highly persistent during elementary and secondary education--that is, academic mobility is limited in U.S. schools as a whole. Still, there is non-negligible variation in the degree of upward mobility across some student subgroups as well as individual school districts. On average, districts that exhibit the greatest upward academic mobility serve more socioeconomically advantaged populations and have higher value-added to student achievement.

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.

There is empirical evidence of substantial heterogeneity in economic mobility across geographic areas and the efficacy of schools has been suggested as an explanatory factor. Using administrative microdata from seven states covering nearly 3 million students, we explore the potential role of schools in promoting economic mobility by estimating cross-district variation in "academic mobility"--a term we use to describe the extent to which students' ranks in the distribution of academic performance change during their schooling careers. We show that there exists considerable heterogeneity in academic mobility across school districts. However, after aggregating our district-level measures of academic mobility to the commuting-zone level and merging them with geographically matched external estimates of economic mobility, we find little scope for geographic differences in academic mobility to meaningfully account for differences in economic mobility.

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

This report examines the relationship between students' participation in high-impact practices (HIP) and their perceived learning gains, with special attention paid to the nature of these relationships among Black and Hispanic students and among students 25 years or older. In 2018, with support from Lumina Foundation, the National Association of System Heads (NASH) launched an effort with four public college and university systems to demonstrate how a coordinated approach could expand and improve quality implementation of high-impact practices in an equitable manner. Drawing on National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) data involving more than 28,000 students from 15 institutions across three states participating in the Lumina-NASH initiative, this report assesses the benefits associated with participation in various HIPs in terms of students' academic and practical learning. Overall, analyses point to a substantial boost in perceived learning gains for students participating in HIPs, with an especially large benefit associated with participating in service-learning courses involving a community-based project. Participation in HIPs is strongly associated with learning gains for Black and Hispanic students as well as for students 25 years and older. However, analyses suggest that these relationships vary among the different HIPs measured by NSSE.

College students who are parents or caregivers of dependent children make up more than one in five U.S. undergraduates. Colleges need basic information about the experiences and outcomes of the student parents they serve, since these students face distinct challenges, including high rates of economic insecurity and significant time and caregiving demands that can affect their educational outcomes (Institute for Women's Policy Research and Ascend at the Aspen Institute 2019). This briefing paper discusses why data on student parents are critical to increasing equity in college outcomes, and reviews existing and potential new data sources on undergraduate college students with children. It also provides recommendations for improving data collection efforts around parent status, including examples of how these data can be collected by institutions of higher education.

Teacher turnover has adverse consequences for student achievement and imposes large financial costs for schools. Some have argued that high-stakes testing may lower teachers' satisfaction with their jobs and could be a major contributor to teacher attrition. In this paper, we exploit changes in the tested grades and subjects in Georgia to study the effects of eliminating high-stakes testing on teacher turnover and the distribution of teachers across grades and schools. To measure the effect of testing pressures on teacher mobility choices we use a "difference-in-differences" approach, comparing changes in mobility over time in grades/subjects that discontinue testing vis-à-vis grades/subjects that are always tested. Our results show that eliminating testing did not have an impact on the likelihood of leaving teaching, changing schools within a district, or moving between districts. We only uncover small negative effects on the likelihood of grade switching. However, we do find relevant positive effects on retention of beginning teachers in the profession. In particular, the average probability of exit for teachers with 0-4 years of experience fell from 14 to 13 percentage points for teachers in grades 1 and 2 and from 14 to 11 percentage points in grades 6 and 7.

This study finds that, breaking with decades of slow improvement, U.S. reading and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and other assessments have seen historic declines since most states implemented national Common Core English and math curriculum standards six years ago. This descriptive analysis is designed to be understood by a general, non-technical readership. It primarily compares student achievement gains on the NAEP after implementation of Common Core to student achievement gains in the years preceding implementation of Common Core. Since test score results, by their nature, tend to "bounce" somewhat from one year to the next and gains are rarely perfectly smooth, a significant part of the analysis determines the average annual gain since implementation of Common Core and compares that to the average annual gain before implementation of Common Core. This report also includes a section addressing defenses by Common Core advocates denying responsibility for the poor results. The following state samples are included: (1) California; (2) Florida; (3) Georgia; (4) Illinois; (5) Kentucky; (6) Massachusetts; and (7) New York.

Traditionally, teacher salaries have been determined solely by experience and educational attainment. This has led to chronic shortages of teachers in particular subject areas, such as math, science and special education. We study the first long-running statewide program to differentiate teacher pay based on subject area, Georgia's bonus system for math and science teachers. Using a difference-in-differences strategy, we find the bonuses reduce teacher attrition by 18 to 28 percent. However, we find no evidence the program increases the probability that education majors become secondary math or science teachers upon graduation or alters specific major choices within the education field.

This white paper provides a snapshot of available policies and guidance related to online learning and students with disabilities from a small group of states that require online experience as part of high school graduation or report a higher number of online course enrollments. The Appendix allows for a quick scan of the following 12 elements that would be of interest to stakeholders and policymakers: terms, definitions, online learning options, enrollment estimates, approved providers of online learning, eligibility for participation/enrollment, high school graduation requirement, data collection or reporting requirements, eligibility to participate, online learning as high school graduation requirement, provision of special education and related services/implementation of IEP or 504 plan, and data collection or reporting requirements specific to students with disabilities. The following is appended: Selected State Policy on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities.

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

We provide the first estimated economic impacts of students' access to an entire sector of public higher education in the U.S. Approximately half of Georgia high school graduates who enroll in college do so in the state's public four-year sector, which requires minimum SAT scores for admission. Regression discontinuity estimates show enrollment in public four-year institutions boosts students' household income around age 30 by 20 percent, and has even larger impacts for those from low income high schools. Access to this sector has little clear impact on student loan balances or other measures of financial health. For the marginal student, enrollment in such institutions has large private returns even in the short run and positive returns to state budgets in the long run.

Diesel emissions from school buses expose children to high levels of air pollution; retrofitting bus engines can substantially reduce this exposure. Using variation from 2,656 retrofits across Georgia, we estimate effects of emissions reductions on district-level health and academic achievement. We demonstrate positive effects on respiratory health, measured by a statewide test of aerobic capacity. Placebo tests on body mass index show no impact. We also find that retrofitting districts see significant test score gains in English and smaller gains in math. Results suggest that engine retrofits can have meaningful and cost-effective impacts on health and cognitive functioning.

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.

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.

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).

Data systems are becoming powerful tools to address students' diverse and changing needs, but without comprehensive data privacy policies, the risks of unintentional or malicious disclosures of students' private information is increasing. Given the mounting challenges to protect data privacy, Education Commission of the States assembled data privacy experts and practitioners to consider strategies for protecting students' privacy without compromising the power of education data. This Policy Guide highlights participants' suggestions and offers actional approaches to maximize the use of education data while minimizing risk to students' privacy, including state examples and key considerations for state leaders.

State postsecondary education data systems are vital information assets for policymakers, researchers, and the public. The Communities of Practice project (funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) at the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) 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. Since the fall of 2017, SHEEO has held an ongoing series of Communities of Practice convenings. The April 2019 convening, "Developing Guided Pathways and Financial Aid Metrics in State Data Systems," was held in Seattle, Washington. Day Two of the convening focused on guided pathways, the importance of momentum metrics, and using data to support institutional reforms. This white paper highlights key themes and findings for the guided pathways segment of the convening and suggests topics for further consideration. A case study from Georgia is also included. A companion white paper, "Communities of Practice: Developing Financial Aid Metrics in State Data Systems" (ED603954) details information from the financial aid section of the Communities of Practice convening.