Search

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.

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.

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.

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.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are viewed as fundamental elements in the preparation of our next generation. This is evidenced by President Obama's goal of "moving our nation from the middle to the top of the pack in math and science education" and his focus on (a) hiring additional STEM teachers; (b) enhancing STEM literacy so students can think critically in key subjects; (c) improving the quality of instruction to help U.S. students perform competitively with those in other nations; and (d) expanding STEM education and career opportunities for women, minorities, and other underrepresented groups (The White House, 2010). To begin laying this foundation for students as they compete in the 21st century economy, educators and decision makers must continue to increase their understanding of various STEM education opportunities. They must also realize the need to establish support systems for diverse learners as they relate to STEM education, while at the same time recognize the economic impact of not moving in this direction. However, before this journey can begin, a deeper understanding of STEM and a workable definition must be established. The components of STEM are discussed in this brief following descriptions of the procedure by which resources were selected for this paper and the limitations of this paper. Summaries of STEM education initiatives for the states of Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas as well as contact information for individuals in the state departments of education that may provide additional information is included.

The education field must go beyond calling attention to an adolescent literacy crisis and the need for additional resources--a critical need--to treating adolescent literacy as the foundation for more ambitious efforts to improve middle and high schools in their entirety (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Jacob, 2008). Instruction around adolescent literacy, or content-area literacy, is fundamental to building the kind of secondary schools that are necessary to support the nation's social and economic health. The challenge is to connect the teaching of literacy to the rest of the secondary education improvement agenda. This article is about a literature search that focused on studies on secondary content-area literacy that were published within the last 10 years. However, when reference lists were reviewed, staff found that some older research provided key information on the topic. Therefore, these seminal publications were included in the resources used to develop this paper.

It is difficult for secondary-level ELs to achieve academic success comparable to their non-EL peers because of linguistic challenges specific to secondary-level core-content areas, in addition to barriers faced by ELs in general. Some promising strategies for use in mathematics, science, and social studies are reported. Key points of this briefing paper include the following: (1) ELs in secondary schools face challenges different from those in elementary schools; (2) Explicit teaching of cognitive strategies has shown benefits for secondary ELs; and (3) Teachers need to use multiple ways of presenting information to support learning for secondary ELs.

Effectively meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse population of students presents challenges for educators across the United States, including the Texas and Southeast Comprehensive Center regions. Increasingly rigorous achievement expectations must be supported with flexible, accessible curricula, offering multiple pathways to success in order to secure opportunities for all children. Key points of this briefing paper include the following: (1) Multi-tier systems of support offer a research-based approach to addressing the myriad needs of youth struggling with school success; and (2) Application of the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can make curriculum and instruction both accessible and engaging for all learners, resulting in increased opportunities for learning success. The success of any public education reform effort will be tied, at least in part, to the ability to address appropriately the academic and social-behavior needs of diverse learners. By redefining the focus from one of "fixing students" to one of providing high-quality education that is responsive to individual needs (Riele, p. 141) the system will invariably improve experiences and outcomes for all students.

At open-access two-year public colleges, the goal of the traditional assessment and placement process is to match incoming students to the developmental or college-level courses for which they have adequate preparation; the process presumably increases underprepared students' chances of short- and long-term success in college while maintaining the academic quality and rigor of college-level courses. However, the traditional process may be limited in its ability to achieve these aims due to poor course placement accuracy and inconsistent standards of college readiness. To understand current approaches that seek to improve the process, we conducted a scan of assessment and placement policies and practices at open-access two-year colleges in Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. We describe the variety of approaches that systems and colleges employed to ameliorate poor course placement accuracy and inconsistent standards associated with the traditional process. Taking a broad view of the extent of these approaches, we find that most colleges we studied adopted a "measured" approach that addressed a single limitation without attending to other limitations that contribute to the same overall problem of poor course placement accuracy or inconsistent standards. Much less common were "comprehensive" approaches that attended to multiple limitations of the process; these approaches were likely to result from changes to developmental education as a whole. Drawing from the study's findings, we also discuss how colleges can overcome barriers to reform in order to implement approaches that hold promise for improved course placement accuracy, more consistent standards of college readiness, and, potentially, greater long-term academic success of community college students. Data Collection Process is appended. (Contains 3 tables and 3 footnotes.)

This paper reports results from a resume-based field experiment designed to examine employer preferences for job applicants who attended for-profit colleges. For-profit colleges have seen sharp increases in enrollment in recent years despite alternatives such as public community colleges being much cheaper. We sent almost 9,000 fictitious resumes of young applicants who recently completed their schooling to online job postings in six occupational categories and tracked employer callback rates. We find no evidence that employers prefer applicants with resumes listing a for-profit college relative to those whose resumes list either a community college or no college at all. Appended to the paper are; (1) Supplementary Tables and (2) Experiment Details.

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.]

Earning college credit in high school matters to students and parents. Students who earn college credits by taking a college-level course while in high school are more likely to enter college and succeed. Through these experiences, students become familiar with college expectations, academic behaviors, and habits of mind; get a head start on postsecondary education and gain academic momentum toward a degree or credential; and begin to develop a college identity. Additionally, just as states should know whether students are progressing toward and reaching certain benchmarks of college and career readiness, they should also know whether high school students are exceeding those goals by taking the advanced courses that further solidify their transition to college and put them a step ahead once they arrive. Policymakers and educators who value this indicator for key student subgroups can drive improvements in outcomes for low-income and minority students who are historically less likely to earn a postsecondary degree or credential. There is clear evidence that earning college credit prior to postsecondary enrollment is a predictor of college success. As a result, both Achieve and Jobs for the Future have encouraged states to incorporate into their accountability systems measures related to earning college credit while in high school. This paper provides research-based guidance to states contemplating whether and how to incorporate indicators of students earning college credit during high school into their accountability systems, including through their accountability formulas and public reporting. The first section describes the three most common models of earning college credit in high school: Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and dual enrollment. The second section describes the research that shows the positive relationship between earning college credit while in high school and later college success. The third section looks at the landscape of current state policies on incorporating college course taking into accountability systems and highlights different state approaches in both accountability formulas and public reporting. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations for states interested in valuing students earning college credit while in high school in state accountability systems and provides concrete steps for ensuring that those policies serve all students.

In September 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1458, which calls for California's school accountability system to shift from a near-exclusive reliance on state test scores to a broader range of measures demonstrating student achievement. At the high school level, starting in the 2015-16 school year, the Academic Performance Index will include an indicator composed of measures reflecting students' college and career preparedness. This white paper, however, concerns itself exclusively with high school performance. As a result, this report uses school and high school interchangeably. To determine exactly what measures will be included in this new indicator, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education will consider input from regional public meetings, a statewide survey, and recommendations from the Public Schools Accountability Act Advisory Committee. To further support this decision-making process, the California Department of Education has contracted with the Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) to evaluate five different categories of potential measures of college and career preparedness. This white paper considers the benefits and limitations of multiple measures of college and career preparedness. It uses theory and practice related to measures of college and career preparedness as its frame of reference and primary organizing structure. The paper also considers the historical context for how accountability measures have been used in American education. It explores a set of criteria to consider when designing a multiple-measures system, then examines current multiple-measures systems used across the nation, and summarizes emerging themes from the literature on multiple measures for accountability of college and career preparedness. The paper concludes with a consideration of cutting-edge concepts and uses of multiple measures to ascertain college and career preparedness. [This report was written with Michael Thier, Paul Beach, Sarah Collins Lench, and Kristine L. Chadwick.]

This paper explores what happens to similar groups of children educated in different school districts. In this case, the "twins" in the study are groups of students who live in the same state in similar geographies and who share certain demographic characteristics. For this report, "twin districts" have very similar sizes and they have the following in common: (1) The proportion of students who are from low-income families; (2) The proportion of students who have limited English proficiency or are English language learners; and (3) The proportion of students who receive instruction through individualized educational programs. The study's twin districts, however, differ in terms of per-pupil spending and revenues. The goal of this paper was to study twin districts and use the data culled to provide recommendations for how districts can best leverage their school funding investments--in other words, achieve a bigger bang for their educational buck. Using data available from the U.S. Department of Education, the authors compiled a dataset with over 7,000 K-12 districts from over 15,000 local education agencies across the county. All data on spending and achievement was from the 2009-10 school year. In this analysis, they identified 424 pairs of districts to analyze from this larger dataset. Given that tests and proficiency definitions differ across states, only twin districts within the same state are identified and compared. Additionally, the authors also completed interviews with 20 district superintendents from across the United States to discuss what control they have over their districts' spending and what spending constraints they face from outside governing bodies--the state, the federal government, and school boards. Based on their in-depth look at twin districts and their subsequent analysis of the data, the authors offer the following findings: (1) When it comes to education, spending does not always equal results; (2) There are significant funding inequities between demographically similar districts; and (3) Districts have limited control over their own expenditures. A table showing descriptive statistics for 424 sets of twins from the 2009-10 school year is appended. [For the accompanying report, "Return on Educational Investment: 2014. A District-by-District Evaluation of U.S. Educational Productivity" (2014), see ED561093.]

The state's Race to the Top (RTT) application requires changes to the state's evaluation/accountability system. It requires a teacher effectiveness measure, district effectiveness measure, leader effectiveness measure. Regarding the teacher effectiveness measure, RTT requires linking the data of individual students to individual teachers as part of teacher evaluation (value added modeling). This paper responds to a request asking for information on which of the 50 states may currently have or have had in the past, a school level pay for performance/merit pay evaluation/accountability program. This paper identifies the states and provides information on what the program involved and/or its implementation, including any relevant URL links to further detail. (Contains 1 footnote.)

Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) researchers visited 38 public high schools around the United States in 2007 and 2008 with the goal of validating and operationalizing a definition of college readiness. Schools in the sample were selected because they were demonstrating success at enabling more students from underrepresented groups to be ready for postsecondary education. This paper presents a qualitative summary of what researchers collected--programs, activities, practices, attitudes, and cultures of the schools visited. The results of the study include the identification of seven key principles underlying a comprehensive approach for promoting college readiness. In addition, the findings have resulted in the creation of an instrument, the CollegeCareerReady School Diagnostic, to measure school level college readiness over time and provide a detailed profile tied to actionable recommendations and resources. (Contains 3 footnotes, 3 tables, and 3 figures.)

This paper examines a burgeoning network of organizations that is inventing new forms of community renewal and citizenship education. Their names vary--some call themselves public policy institutes, others centers for civic life--yet they share a common methodology, one aimed at tackling tough public issues, strengthening communities, and nurturing people's capacities to participate and make common cause. Today, there are more than 50 of these centers operating in almost every state in the union, most of them affiliated with institutions of higher learning. Except for a handful that are freestanding, the centers combine the best of what colleges and universities provide--civics courses, leadership development, service-learning programs, community-based research--with the kinds of hands-on, collaborative problem solving traditionally done by nongovernmental organizations. Because they operate at the intersection of the campus and the community, their impact extends to both: they nurture and sustain public life while at the same time enriching higher education. This paper surveys the state of the network today, how it has evolved over the years, and what it has achieved. It also looks at how the centers carry out their activities, the varying orientations and essential practices that define their work, and some of the challenges they face in coming years as they continue to deepen and expand their efforts.

The purpose of this working paper is to review current literature on literacy programs for parents of English language learners (ELLs). The paper includes a summary of five literacy programs for ELL parents throughout the United States of America. Four of these were system-wide interventions affecting more than one school or classroom. Each program had a positive impact on student academic achievement. Three programs focused on empowerment for both students and parents. The most powerful interventions were supported by the community, parents and school and school district personnel and included varying degrees of involvement by university educators. Three interventions specifically targeted students and parents at the secondary level. The paper concludes by summarizing the success criteria shared by the programs. (Contains 1 table and 1 footnote.)

This paper presents a list of resources on what states are doing on the topic of Black male dropouts. These resources are taken from the report abstracts or summaries. This paper is a response to a request asking for these resources. (Contains 5 footnotes.)

As the college-age Latino population continues to increase throughout the nation, meeting the country's future human capital and workforce needs make it imperative to improve outcomes for Latino students today. As public attention is focused on existing achievement gaps, educators and policymakers are seeking ways to improve educational outcomes for Latinos. "Excelencia" in Education responds to this need through research, analysis and initiatives advancing practices and policies supporting Latino student achievement in colleges and universities. Premier in this effort is Examples of "Excelencia," a review of national nominations to recognize exemplary programs and departments at the associate, baccalaureate, and graduate levels with evidence of improving Latino access, retention, and success in higher education. Now in its fourth year, Examples of "Excelencia" is identifying programs at institutions throughout the country investing strategically to improve results for Latino students, and all students. This compendium is a key component of the Examples of "Excelencia" program. By providing descriptions of approaches used and results achieved by these programs that work, "Excelencia" in Education strives to make educators and policymakers aware of the available tools to challenge the current state of achievement in higher education for Latino students. The promising practices profiled in this edition are successful in propelling Latino students forward and can be adapted to suit the needs of colleges and universities throughout the nation. These practices are at the forefront of a long-needed movement to improve higher educational achievement for Latino students and are to be commended. The compendium begins with an explanation of the Examples of "Excelencia" selection process. Following this section is a brief overview of the program services and the strategies employed in one-page summaries of each program's goals, outcomes, and key personnel. [This paper was compiled with the assistance of Lourdes Guerrero and Estela Lopez. Additional funding for this paper was provided by Univision Communication. For the 2007 edition of this report, see ED540160.]

Higher education is essential to accessing high-demand jobs with family-supporting wages and improving family financial wellbeing. This was true before the COVID-19 pandemic and is especially true now as the nation continues the process of recovering from one of the worst public health, economic, and social crises in modern U.S. history. To achieve recovery goals, states will need to invest in systemic reform that aims to increase affordable postsecondary opportunities and better service provision for student parents across higher education and workforce sectors. This briefing paper provides insight into some of the policy actions states have taken, both prior to and during the pandemic, that could promote the systemic change needed to increase access to educational opportunities and improve outcomes for student parents. It focuses on three states--Georgia, Texas, and Washington--to describe new and existing policies that impact student parents' access to postsecondary opportunities and supports needed for pandemic recovery and long-run economic stability. This brief highlights how applying a student parent lens to policy and decision-making at the state level could benefit recovery among current and prospective student parent families, providing concrete examples from the three states examined. It aims to equip advocates and state policy leaders with information needed to design strategic investments that will promote parents' access to education, accelerate economic recovery, and improve the wellbeing of families. [This brief was written with support from Susana Contreras-Mendez.]

A significant movement is underway across the nation to design K-12 assessment systems that better equip stakeholders to provide an equitable and excellent education to each child. While some of these innovations emerged before the pandemic, the massive disruption to instruction fueled a new urgency to rethink the potential of assessments to drive better teaching and learning. States and communities are working together to create more balanced systems of assessment that better support instruction while still providing the information necessary to inform policy and resource decisions. There is much to learn from the ideas emerging across the nation--particularly where states are trying to innovate despite limitations of federal policy. The insights and innovations emerging from this paper have the potential to cast a new vision for K-12 assessment in the United States. This work details efforts across the nation to encourage, support and grow innovative state assessment systems, and represents a significant increase in recent state-level energy and action around new forms of assessment to provide deeper and more meaningful understanding of student learning. [Additional producers of this report are Center for Innovation in Education (C!E), Envision Learning Partners, and the Great Schools Partnership.]

Accessing affordable facilities has long been identified as one of the most significant challenges facing charter schools. In response to this challenge, an array of policy and market-based approaches has emerged over the years. Examples of these approaches include: public and private credit enhancement, tax-exempt bond financing, community development lending, commercial facilities development, state per pupil facilities aid, constitutional mandates for fair treatment, state facilities grant programs, federal tax credits, co-location with other public schools, and charter schools accessing vacant district facilities. In January of 2014, New York City Mayor, Bill DeBlasio, put forward a proposal to no longer allow charter schools to use district-owned facilities at no cost. Instead, he proposed to charge charter schools rent for the use of these facilities. The resulting debate has brought national attention to this topic and highlighted the need for more data and a common framework for understanding the nature of transactions between charter schools and districts for the use of district-owned facilities. Against this backdrop, the National Charter School Resource Center has developed this paper to provide policy-makers and sector stakeholders with a more data-driven and nuanced exploration of the issue. This white paper is organized as follows: (1) Section I provides information about our primary data source: the Charter School Facilities Initiative (CSFI) survey and dataset; (2) Section II describes the landscape of charter schools in district-owned facilities using data from the CSFI dataset; (3) Section III provides a framework for financial transactions between charter schools and districts for the use of district-owned facilities and shares data on these transactions; (4) Section IV highlights trends in the use of district-owned facilities by charter schools over time and explores possible reasons for the growth of this phenomenon; and (5) Section V concludes the paper by noting key considerations for policymakers and charter sector stakeholders.