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.

Building a stronger teacher workforce requires the thoughtful orchestration of multiple processes working together in a human capital system. This white paper presents a framework that can be used to take stock of current efforts to enhance the teacher workforce in school districts or educational organizations, as well as their underlying theories of how the teacher workforce improves over time. The paper refines and provides evidentiary support for a human capital system framework composed of four subsystems that ideally work together to build a stronger teacher workforce: (1) getting the right teachers in the right positions on time (Acquire); (2) supporting professional growth in school-based learning communities (Develop); (3) nurturing, rewarding, and challenging high-performing teachers (Sustain); and (4) informing evidence-based personnel decisions (Evaluate). Attention to this framework will engender a corps of teachers with the capacity and expertise to collectively facilitate enhanced educational outcomes.

What happens when teams from 57 cities building afterschool systems gather to discuss two key system responsibilities--improving afterschool programs and using data for informed decision-making? Lots of rich discussion. This report covers a national afterschool conference held in February 2013. It details what mayors, program providers, system leaders, researchers and others had to say on matters ranging from how to measure afterschool performance to how to boost program quality. [This conference was organized by: American Youth Policy Forum, The Collaborative for Building After School Systems, The Forum for Youth Investment, the National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education & Families, and the Wallace Foundation.]

State postsecondary education data systems are vital assets for policymakers, researchers, and the public. The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association's (SHEEO) Communities of Practice project builds upon SHEEO's efforts to measure the capacity and effective use of state postsecondary data systems and provides states with opportunities to develop solutions to common system issues. The seventh Community of Practice convening, "Improving Equity and Opportunity through Postsecondary Data," was held September 28-29, 2022, in Denver, Colorado. The two-day meeting included more than 80 representatives from 17 states: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Teams included representatives from SHEEO agency academic affairs, workforce, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and research and data offices and their partners at state agencies and two- and four-year postsecondary institutions. Given the recent impacts on higher education from the COVID-19 pandemic, social justice unrest, and economic pressures facing the country, a focus on equity and opportunity was timely for this Community of Practice. SHEEO agency staff communicated a need to inform state attainment and economic goals through improved collection and use of postsecondary student unit record data. Within and across state teams, Community of Practice attendees were able to learn more about the nuances and impacts of equity-and opportunity-focused data collection, disaggregation, and visualization; to better understand how to effectively communicate and illustrate the need for and the contributions of equitable student success in their states; and to reflect on their capacity, partnerships, and resources available to effectively engage in this work. In this paper, SHEEO shares the presentations, resources, and team activities from the convening. This information can be used by SHEEO agencies to reflect on their current practices, plan and develop effective data policies, and better use data to improve postsecondary equity and opportunity outcomes in their states.

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.

A total of 33 sites, including states, school districts, charter school coalitions, and other education organizations make up Cohorts 1 and 2 of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). These sites received funds beginning in the fall of 2006 and spring of 2007 to redesign compensation programs for teachers and principals. The U.S. Department of Education named a third cohort of TIF grantees on September 23, 2010. TIF grantees have confronted numerous challenges as they have worked to design and implement new performance-based compensation programs. These challenges include effectively engaging and communicating with stakeholders, developing a set of measures to assess teacher and principal effectiveness, and ensuring that data quality procedures are in place for such high-stakes decisions. As Cohort 1 and 2 grantees near the end of their five-year Federal funding period, fiscally and programmatically sustaining TIF programs has become a top priority. This paper describes the ways in which TIF grantees have approached fiscal and programmatic sustainability. The paper draws from multiple sources, including TIF program monitoring reports, Center for Educator Compensation Reform (CECR) technical assistance notes, grantees' internal and external evaluations, and interviews with selected grantees. The authors reviewed and analyzed these data with an eye toward shedding light on the following issues: (1) What fiscal and programmatic sustainability challenges have TIF grantees faced?; (2) What approaches to fiscal and programmatic sustainability have grantees taken?; and (3) What lessons can grantees learn about sustaining performance-based compensation systems in the current economic climate? This paper uses named grantees in describing examples of sustainability efforts. A few examples also use non-TIF sites that have developed innovative new compensation programs. Wherever the authors use examples, they are illustrative, not exhaustive, as the particular historic, economic, and political context of each district offers nuanced challenges and solutions. One goal of the brief is to share what has worked for some grantees as a means of helping Cohort 1 and 2 grantees sustain performance-based compensation after their grants end. Another aim is to help new TIF grantees develop their programs with an eye toward sustainability. Before beginning to answer the three focus questions that frame this paper, the authors first take up the issue of defining "fiscal" and "programmatic" sustainability. A list of data sources is provided. (Contains 4 tables and 5 footnotes.

The National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL), an organization dedicated to redesigning and expanding school time to improve opportunities and outcomes for high poverty students, and the Education Commission of the States (ECS), with a mission to foster both the exchange of ideas on education issues among the states and long range strategic thinking, have joined forces to produce this review. Their goal is to help education leaders to better understand the complexities of time related policy and its far reaching educational implications. In exploring how policymakers and educators have dealt with the matter of school time at the federal, state, and local levels, NCTL and ECS hope to accelerate the national conversation on how they can best leverage the power of time to realize the vision of a high quality education for all. This paper offers a number of recommendations highlighting fresh ways that policy and research can best support efforts to expand learning time in schools. State policies on instructional time are appended. (Contains 82 notes and 51 footnotes.) [This paper was supported by The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation.]

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is working to respond to increased interest in the use of growth models for school accountability. Growth models are based on tracking change in individual student achievement scores over multiple years. While growth models have been used for decades in academic research and program evaluation, a wide cross section of policymakers at local, state, and national levels are now using different types of growth models. A total of 12 states are utilizing growth models that provide estimates of whether student achievement will meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) state proficiency targets within three years. These models were designed to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. In addition, 13 states have developed and implemented growth models as required by state policy; these models use different formulas to measure growth for students and schools. Finally, five states are reporting on growth under both NCLB and state policies. This paper is an overview and description of current state activities with growth models. Policymakers and educational leaders are also seeking more information on basic differences between various types of growth models and the assessments, data, and reporting systems necessary to implement them. CCSSO has developed an annual report and webpage focused on state accountability systems, and this paper provides a current snapshot of differences and similarities in growth models used by state education agencies. The present paper is one of CCSSO's recent efforts to provide information on this topic. (Contains 2 tables.)

Most institutions are collecting evidence of student learning, but it is not clear how these results are being used to improve student outcomes. To learn more about what colleges and universities are doing to use assessment data productively to inform and strengthen undergraduate education, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment conducted nine case studies. This report synthesizes the insights from these individual studies to discern promising practices in using information about student learning. Institutional behavior appears to be generally consistent with the Principles of Effective Assessment Practice identified by Banta and Associates (2002). For example, the case study institutions took advantage of calls for accountability to leverage internal improvement efforts, communicated widely about assessment efforts and results, and took time to reflect on their assessment activities and results. Equally important, the case study institutions aligned their assessment work with organizational structures and cultures, and focused their assessment efforts on specific problems or questions. The report concludes with lessons learned and reflective questions to help institutions advance their own assessment efforts within their specific institutional contexts. Appended are: (1) Methodology; and (2) Annotated Case Study List. [Funding for this paper was provided by the College of Education at the University of Illinois.]

The Internet has had a profound effect on everyone's lives, work, politics, and commerce--and increasingly, on the schools. Virtual schools have arrived, creating new opportunities for students, and also a set of challenges to the notions about schooling and the policies that govern public education. The potential application of technology in education may change the way that current versions of schools and schooling are limited in time and space. Will future technological innovations revamp educational conceptions of time, like class periods, grade levels, six-hour school days, and 180-day school years? These units of time, as well as physical school buildings, classrooms, and district boundaries, still define "school" for the vast majority of students. Will this change in the coming years? These are no longer unusual questions. Online and blended schools challenge some of the most basic assumptions about schooling. They no longer place groups of children of the same age in an assigned grade with a teacher and chalkboard in a room for 50-some minutes at a time in 180 six-hour days. With virtual schools, there has been a move to learning that is not bound by time, space, and pace, liberating education systems from the confines of rigid blocks of time and uninspired configurations of space to better meet the needs of students. While the potential for true educational transformation is great, one must begin by creating a shared understanding of what online and blended learning is, and how it is best implemented. This is the first in a series of briefs aimed at improving authorizer practices for virtual charter schools. This paper will define concepts in online learning, including full-time and blended learning, and will discuss recent trends in growth and governance of various types of online learning and virtual charter schools. (Contains 3 figures, 4 endnotes, and a glossary of key virtual school terms.)

Over the past decade, research on dropout prevention has become focused on using evidence-based practice, and data-driven decisions, to mitigate students' dropping out of high school and instead, support and prepare students for career and college. Early warning systems or on-track indicators, in which readily available student-level data are used to predict whether a student is likely to drop out, are being harnessed by schools, districts, states, and support organizations nationwide to help prevent students from falling off the track to graduation and offer additional educational and support services to those who need them (Pinkus, 2008). Initiatives to create early warning systems are aligned with the What Works Clearinghouse Dropout Prevention Practice Guide recommendation that "utilizing data systems that support a realistic diagnosis of the number of students who dropout and that help identify individual students at high risk of dropping out" is a "critical first step" in effective intervention (Dynarski et al., 2008, p. 12). This paper provides information on K-12 early warning and success indicators. An annotated bibliography is included. (Contains 1 table and 1 footnote.)

In fall 2009, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launched the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project to test new approaches to recognizing effective teaching. The project's goal is to help build fair and reliable systems for teacher observation and feedback to help teachers improve and administrators make better personnel decisions. With funding from the foundation, the data collection and analysis are led by researchers from academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and several private firms and are carried out in seven urban school districts. Although the project is ongoing (the final report will not be released until winter 2011-12), the researchers report their findings as they become available in order to inform the important reform work already under way in states and districts around the country. The researchers currently have four general findings to report. First, in every grade and subject they studied, a teacher's past success in raising student achievement on state tests (that is, his or her value-added) is one of the strongest predictors of his or her ability to do so again. Second, the teachers with the highest value-added scores on state tests also tend to help students understand math concepts or demonstrate reading comprehension through writing. Third, the average student knows effective teaching when he or she experiences it. Fourth, valid feedback need not be limited to test scores alone. By combining different sources of data, it is possible to provide diagnostic, targeted feedback to teachers who are eager to improve. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [For "Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Research Paper. MET Project," see ED528382.]

This study evaluates how welcoming thirty American cities--the twenty-five largest and five smaller "hotspots"--are to "nontraditional" problem-solvers and solutions. It assumes that the balky bureaucracies meant to improve K-12 education and hold leaders accountable are so calcified by policies, programs, contracts, and culture that only in the most exceptional of circumstances can they be fixed simply by top-down applications of new curricula or pedagogy. To determine the cities with the most reform-friendly ecosystems, analysts examined six domains that shape a jurisdiction's receptivity to education reform: (1) Human Capital; (2) Financial Capital; (3) Charter Environment; (4) Quality Control; (5) District Environment; and (6) Municipal Environment. Drawing on publicly available data, national and local survey data, and interviews with on-the-ground insiders, analysts devised a grading metric that rated each city on its individual and collective accomplishments in each of these areas. What did they discover? Few cities are rolling out the red carpet for education entrepreneurs. No cities were awarded As and just a handful of cities received Bs when measured for their hospitability towards reformers. The majority fell in the C range, half a dozen in the D to F range, and the remainder had too little data to judge (see Table 1, page 8). Low-scoring cities were characterized by lethargic district administration, inert political leadership, arcane staffing policies, and unsupportive (or silent) local business and philanthropic communities. They also found that cities are making greater strides in some areas than others: (1) They do best at drumming up sources of financial capital to advance reform: Nine cities earned As and ten earned Bs; support from outside the district is also strong, with municipal environment seeing nine As and eight Bs; (2) They fare least well when it comes to district environment, where a third got Fs; and (3) Grades were generally mixed with respect to human capital, charter environment, and quality control. Finally, substantial variation exists within states that had more than one city in the study. This suggests that entrepreneurial fate is not sealed by state lines: local officials, educators, and reformers can shape their own destiny. Appendices include: (1) Methodology; (2) Scoring Rubric; and (3) A list of organizations whose members helped to shape the study design and survey instruments. Individual sections contain footnotes and tables. [The foreword for this report was written by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Amber M. Winkler. Funding for this paper was also provided by the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation, Inc.]

On March 25-26, 2010, a cadre of urban education leaders gathered in Baltimore, Maryland for the "Fair Student Funding Summit," a conference that brought together districts that use weighted student funding (WSF) as an approach for allocating dollars to schools. Convened by Education Resource Strategies (ERS) and hosted by Baltimore City Public Schools, the purpose of the summit was to provide a forum for districts to share ideas on school funding, discuss what is and isn't working, and spark new approaches. Participants included a mix of those who have well-established WSF systems, those who recently adopted WSF, those who are in the planning stages of implementation, and those who have returned to a more centralized system. More than 60 educational leaders from 14 school districts and several other organizations attended. The purpose of this conference proceedings report is to document and share the conversations from this first-of-its-kind event so that participants can: (1) Revisit the discussion in its entirety, make connections between sessions, and use findings in current practice; (2) Learn what happened in concurrent sessions that they could not attend; (3) Share the conference discussion with colleagues who did not attend the summit; and (4) Use this as a primer to educate others on the constructs, advantages, and challenges of WSF, and to generate discussions on the issues involved. (Contains 1 footnote and 4 resources.)

"Charter Schools in Eight States" uses longitudinal data from eight states to evaluate the effects of charter schools on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. The findings are mixed. "Achievement": The study examines seven jurisdictions and finds insignificant effects on reading and math performance in five, and small negative effects in two others. "Attainment": In the two jurisdictions with data, the study finds positive effects for charter high schools' rates of graduation and college matriculation. "Integration": The study finds no evidence that charter schools are skimming high-achieving students away from public schools, or that charter schools lead to increased racial/ethnic stratification, but these findings should be regarded as equivocal because the supporting analyses use highly aggregated data. "Competition": The study finds no evidence that the average student achievement at public schools either increases or decreases in response to entry of charter schools to the educational "marketplace." On the whole, the methods used in this report are exemplary. The authors describe their statistical analyses in a transparent manner that makes it possible for readers to form their own opinions about the strength of the argument being advanced. The review does raise questions about all four of the report's sections, particularly stressing some weaknesses in the data and analyses regarding the integration and competition findings. Overall, however, the report makes an important contribution to the empirical literature on charter school effectiveness. (Contains 14 notes.) [This paper reviews the following document: "Charter Schools in Eight States: Effects on Achievement, Attainment, Integration, and Competition" (ED504520).]

Few people realize the impact that high school dropouts have on a community's economic, social, and civic health. Business owners and residents--in particular, those without school-aged children--may not be aware that they have much at stake in the success of their local high schools. Indeed, everyone--from car dealers and realtors to bank managers and local business owners--benefits when more students graduate from high school. Nationally, more than seven thousand students become dropouts every school day. To better understand the various economic benefits that a particular community could expect if it were to reduce its number of high school dropouts, the Alliance for Excellent Education (the Alliance), with the generous support of State Farm[R], analyzed the local economies of the nation's fifty largest cities and their surrounding areas. Using a sophisticated economic model developed by Economic Modeling Specialists Inc., an Idaho-based economics firm specializing in socioeconomic impact tools, the Alliance calculated economic projections tailored to each of these metro regions. These projections estimate the gross increase in important local economic factors such as individual earnings, home and auto sales, job and economic growth, spending and investment, tax revenue, and human capital based on two scenarios: (1) Reducing by half the number of local students from the Class of 2008 who failed to graduate with their class; and (2) Reducing by one thousand the number of local students from the Class of 2008 who failed to graduate with their class. This paper presents the findings for each of the forty-five metropolitan areas that together encompass the nation's fifty largest cities, as well as aggregated findings across these areas. These findings are powerful reminders that entire communities are impacted by the educational outcomes of their youth, and they underscore the notion that the best economic stimulus package is a high school diploma. Individual sections contain footnotes.