Search

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.

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.

Industries in every state are struggling to find qualified applicants for jobs, while job seekers too often find they lack the skills needed to enter or move along a career pathway to a good job. Preparing a workforce that is poised to meet the needs of businesses and ultimately to make the state more economically competitive is a top priority for many governors. "State Strategies to Scale Quality Work-Based Learning" highlights strategies governors can implement to increase opportunities for high-quality, demand-driven work-based learning and prepare their citizens for the modern workforce.

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.

In fall 2009, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launched the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project to test new approaches to measuring effective teaching. The goal of the MET project is to improve the quality of information about teaching effectiveness available to education professionals within states and districts--information that will help them build fair and reliable systems for measuring teacher effectiveness that can be used for a variety of purposes, including feedback, development, and continuous improvement. The project includes nearly 3000 teachers who volunteered to help researchers identify a better approach to teacher development and evaluation, located in six predominantly urban school districts across the country: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools (including Tampa, Florida), Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. As part of the project, multiple data sources are being collected and analyzed over two school years, including student achievement gains on state assessments and supplemental assessments designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding; classroom observations and teacher reflections on their practice; assessments of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge; student perceptions of the classroom instructional environment; and teachers' perceptions of working conditions and instructional support at their schools. The current findings include: (1) In every grade and subject, a teacher's past track record of value-added is among the strongest predictors of their students' achievement gains in other classes and academic years. A teacher's value-added fluctuates from year-to-year and from class-to-class, as succeeding cohorts of students move through their classrooms. However, that volatility is not so large as to undercut the usefulness of value-added as an indicator (imperfect, but still informative) of future performance; (2) Teachers with high value-added on state tests tend to promote deeper conceptual understanding as well; (3) Teachers have larger effects on math achievement than on achievement in reading or English Language Arts, at least as measured on state assessments; and (4) Student perceptions of a given teacher's strengths and weaknesses are consistent across the different groups of students they teach. Moreover, students seem to know effective teaching when they experience it: student perceptions in one class are related to the achievement gains in other classes taught by the same teacher. Most important are students' perception of a teacher's ability to control a classroom and to challenge students with rigorous work. Appended are: (1) Sample 8th Grade BAM Item; and (2) Example from Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment. (Contains 1 figure, 11 tables and 14 footnotes.) [For "Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Policy Brief. MET Project," see ED528388.]

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.

Since the announcement in 1999 of a plan to tie teachers' salary increases to student achievement by Denver Public Schools, there has been a flood of nationwide policy activity around teacher compensation. This paper examines pay plans in Denver, Toledo, Minneapolis, and New York City, offering a snapshot of the changing landscape of teacher compensation while suggesting a number of factors and conditions that contribute to developing and implementing these new forms of teacher pay. (Contains 8 online resources and 11 footnotes.)

Our education system is in desperate need of innovation. Despite radical advances in nearly every other sector, public school students continue to attend school in the same buildings and according to the same schedule as students did more than a hundred years ago, and performance is either stagnant or worsening. One of the most important innovations in the past half-century is the emergence of charter schools, which, when first introduced in 1991, came with two distinct promises: to serve as an escape hatch for students in failing schools, and to create and incubate new educational practices. We examine charter schools across the quality spectrum in order to learn which practices separate high-achieving from low-achieving schools. An expansive data collection and analysis project in New York City charter schools yielded an index of five educational practices that explains nearly half of the difference between high- and low-performing schools. We then draw on preliminary evidence from demonstration projects in Houston and Denver and find the effects on student achievement to be strikingly similar to those of many high-performing charter schools and networks. The magnitude of the problems in our education system is enormous, but this preliminary evidence points to a path forward to save the 3 million students in our nation's worst-performing schools, for a price of about $6 billion, or less than $2,000 per student. (Contains 1 table, 2 boxes, 3 figures and 5 endnotes.)

Recommendations of six state reports that addressed issues confronting state governments and public higher education in the last 2 decades, as well as some new issues, are considered using content analysis. The reports were prepared by formal study commissions in the following states: Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, and New York. In addition to briefly reviewing related literature, the recommendations are categorized, and new trends in the relationship between the state and higher education are identified. The potential impact of the recommendations on flagship universities are also assessed. The 301 recommendations are grouped into 18 categories, of which those most represented in the reports are: program review, finances, governance, size and scope, and economic development. For each of the 18 categories, tables indicate the frequency of the recommendations found in the six reports, and the distribution of the categories by state. The following conclusions are offered: many of the issues affecting statewide governance have persisted over time; new issues are found; both increased centralization and decentralization are recommended; flagship universities are likely to benefit from recommendations aimed at differentiation; and governors are becoming more active in higher education issues. Four pages of references are included. (SW)

This report describes the use of Lead Turnaround Partners (LTPs) in the current School Improvement Grant (SIG) program and provides the results of document review, surveys, and interviews with eight State Education Agencies and seven Lead Turnaround Partner organizations. The study focuses on the implementation of the transformation and turnaround models under the SIG program during the 2010-2011 school year. The current marketplace of Lead Turnaround Partner (LTP) providers and the organizational structures of existing LTPs are explored. In addition, the communication strategies and the roles of various players involved in aspects of SIG implementation, including State Education Agencies (SEAs), Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and LTPs are discussed. Lessons learned and recommendations for improvement for each entity are summarized. Document review, surveys, and interviews were gathered/conducted from/with: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, and Virginia. Document review, surveys, and interviews were gathered/conducted from/with the following LTPs: Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL), America's Choice, Cambridge Education, EdisonLearning, Learning Point Associates/AIR, Pearson School Achievement Services, and WestED. Based on the findings, this report offers recommendations for states; districts; the field; states, districts, and LTPs; and the U.S. Department of Education (USED) and states. An appendix provides LTP profiles.

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).

The following profiles address how the state departments of education are supporting local educators in classroom implementation of the Common Core by providing and/or facilitating the development of instructional resources and materials aligned to the new standards. In order for instructional resources and materials to be aligned to the Common Core, 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. Resources and materials addressed in these profiles were provided by states as "supplementary supports that educators can use on a voluntary basis, and are not required curriculum." These profiles provide a descriptive overview of each state's efforts in this area.

By 2012, all of the states in this study had started implementing new or revised teacher and leader evaluation systems. There are many and varying updates to these systems, and some of them have been made to meet conditions for a state's federal "Race to the Top" (RTT) grant. Other updates have been 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 the Common Core 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 that sharpens understanding of teacher and principal performance in terms of their implementation of, support for, and effect on student learning of the Common Core?

All of the 15 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 accountability 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 of the changes states make vary, all states must adopt certain policies the U.S. Department of Education considers fundamental to school accountability reform. These policies include, among others, college- and career-ready standards and assessments, Common Core-aligned alternate assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities, English language proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments for English learners (ELs), and educator effectiveness systems that incorporate the use of student performance data. States are working hard to integrate the work of such complex reforms. These profiles examine how states' new statewide accountability systems incorporate measures that hold schools accountable for student learning of the Common Core. The profiles also explain how states' accountability reporting for the use of federal Title III funds to serve ELs incorporates such measures. In each profile, the accountability measures are listed, followed by what is known about the extent of their alignment to the Common Core.

The following profiles address how the state departments of education are helping educators prepare for and implement the Common Core and aligned assessments through professional learning. The major professional development efforts around the Common Core were examined in order to understand the overall efforts of each state. An exhaustive list of all of the professional learning that departments provide was not sought. These profiles provide a descriptive overview of each state's efforts in this area. For trends across the 15 states in their efforts, successes, challenges, types of support states need to move this work forward, and practitioner reflections of their own professional learning and experiences of implementation on the ground.

The following profiles address the basic 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 the new standards and aligned assessments in 15 states. 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.

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.]

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.]

"Next Generation Learning Models for English Language Learners" seeks to highlight the promising practices and trends in new designs to advance learning for English language learner (ELL) students. This paper is designed for practitioners, including educators and education leaders, who want to advance next generation learning models to reach every student. The intent is to inform and empower the field with examples from schools and programs who are creating personalized, competency-based learning environments for ELL students. The aim of this paper is to explore early stages of innovation for new school models to better serve ELL students and provide recommendations and lessons learned to build knowledge in the field of K-12 education.

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.]

The premise of the white paper is that education policy results are better for students when policies are informed and shaped by highly effective educators who know firsthand what it takes to deliver excellent teaching and learning. Policymakers and educators should share a sense of urgency to work together to provide every child in our country with an excellent education. Through interviews with ten educators throughout the United States, the authors provide real-life examples of ways in which these practitioners have successfully engaged in the policy process. In some examples, that engagement is at the local level; at the state or national level; and through different policy mechanisms. The paper is organized by the types of policy engagement experienced by State Teachers of the Year (STOYs) and Finalists. These are: (1) Informing and Shaping Federal Policy; (2) Engaging Educator Colleagues in the Policy Process; (3) Working With Policymakers to Craft Legislation; (4) Effectively Engaging With State Policymakers; (4) Hybrid Roles: Bridging Policy Development and the Classroom; (5) Advancing Teacher Leadership Through Policy at the National and International Levels; (6) Shaping Policy Through Relationships with Unions and Organizations; (7) Educators Serving as Policymakers; and (8) Supporting Engagement in Policy Through Teacher Leadership.

The well-being of a large portion of American children is distressingly low. Integrated service delivery--which provides the broadest range of education, health, housing, and social services--is viewed as one way to remedy the failure of public and private institutions to deliver effective services that can ameliorate or reverse these problems and conditions. This paper focuses on exemplary examples of community-based comprehensive service initiatives (CCBSS) in five pertinent areas: (1) restructuring intergovernmental relationships in California (Bill 1741), Iowa (Decategorization), Virginia (Comprehensive Services Act), Wisconsin (Community Aids), and Tennessee (Children's Plan); (2) tying outcome accountability to budgets in Oregon and in Minnesota; (3) efforts to create cross-system decision making bodies in Georgia (Savannah Youth Futures Authority), Missouri (Family Investment Trust), and West Virginia (Governor's Cabinet on Children and Families); (4) linking education with human services in Colorado (Family Resource Schools), California (Healthy State initiative), New Jersey (school-based services program), California (San Diego's New Beginnings program), New York (Beacons program in New York City), and Kentucky (Kentucky Education Reform Act); and (5) building comprehensive services at the neighborhood level in Maryland (Lafayette Courts, Baltimore project services team), New York (Brooklyn Center for Family Life program, and the South Bronx CCRP: Comprehensive Community Revitalization Project), and Texas (Austin's Empowerment Zones programs). The paper concludes with observations and conclusions. (ET)

This brief begins with a discussion of the composition of state leadership teams and organizing structures for supporting a Pathways to Prosperity Network initiative, and then describes effective strategies currently at play in the network states for jumpstarting work in the regions. It goes on to review state policies that support 9-14 collaborations, including dual enrollment, career and technical education policy, and funding. The 9-14 career pathways policy lever is well developed as a result of extensive work by several organizations, including Jobs for the Future (JFF), which has a decade of experience in high school-to-post-secondary transitions that incorporate dual enrollment. JFF has also developed a specific 9-14 policy set to support Early College Designs. The organization has led the Early College High School Initiative nationally since 2002. The paper then becomes more speculative. In the sections on career advising, employer engagement, and intermediaries, the paper lists and briefly describes policies that could be deployed in the service of 9-14 career pathways development, but are not currently widespread or designed specifically to support 9-14 career pathways. These sections are shorter, and while they do include some examples, they also point in new directions that might be explored and raise questions about where state-level policies are needed and where regional and local decision making are more effective. [This paper was produced with the Pathways to Prosperity Network, a collaboration of states, Jobs for the Future, and the Pathways to Prosperity Project at Harvard Graduate School of Education.]

Boston Public Schools is at a crossroads. Nearly one-third of the system's schools operate under one of several "autonomy" structures, where school leaders have increased flexibility regarding staffing and other resources, and choice data indicate parents are far more likely to prefer these schools over so-called "traditional" schools. This paper explores the question of how Boston Public Schools can strengthen and support autonomy and accountability across its portfolio to promote innovation for equity and high performance. The findings and recommendations draw on detailed investigations of how five other urban school systems are navigating many of the same challenges that Boston faces today. The paper divides the research into six chapters. Chapter One: Introduction; Chapter Two: Methodology and Approach; Chapter Three: Findings from Boston; Chapter Four: Findings from Peer Districts; Chapter Five: A Proposed Path Forward; and Chapter Six: Conclusion. The paper also includes nineteen appendices: (1) Growth of Autonomous Schools in the Boston Public Schools; (2) Growth of Boston Student Population; 1990-2012, (3) Members of BPS Cross-Functional Working Group; (4) Boston Public Schools and Related Staff Interviewed for the Research; (5) Current Boston Public Schools School-Based Autonomies; (6) Growth in Scores by School Type and Subject; (7) Case Studies of BPS "Top Quadrant Schools";;(8) Case Studies of Peer Districts; (9) Members of the Advisory Group; (10) Student Choice and Assignment by School Type; (11) Flexibilities Available through School Site Council Waivers; (12) BPS Principal Survey Results--Preferred Autonomies,; (13) School-by-School Demographic and Incoming Proficiency Data, SY2013-2014; (14) Extended Learning Time Analysis; (15) Time in School for Commonwealth Charters vs. BPS; (16) Teacher Demographics and Compensation Across School Types; (17) School Leader Experience, by School Type; (18) BPS Principal Survey Results--Evaluation of District Services, and (19) BPS Teacher Survey.

The lack of productivity of school systems stems from a number of reasons, including the way in which schools are governed. The author explains in this paper that policies from on high often work against campuses being more productive. His list includes state policies that stop districts from hiring experts to teach subjects that other educators aren't prepared to teach. As with the other papers in this series, Hill explains how to change the bias against productivity. This paper ends with definite recommendations about how new governance arrangements can promote productivity.iii Many of these ideas are already present, in at least rudimentary form, in leading school districts including New York City, New Orleans, and Denver. These are pursuing a "portfolio strategy" of continuous improvement.iv However, districts following this strategy are exceptions to the norm in K-12 public education. This paper will show how, in the vast majority of localities, current governance arrangements encourage little effort on behalf of productivity. It will also lay out preconditions for productivity, which will establish premises for a proposed new governance system. [A list of resources is included.]

Each year, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) publishes the "State Teacher Policy Yearbook," a comprehensive examination of the state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession, measured against a realistic set of reform goals. For five years running, the full "Yearbook" compendium (www.nctq.org/stpy) presents the most detailed, thorough analysis of teacher policy in the United States, covering topics related to teacher preparation, licensure, evaluation, career advancement, tenure, compensation, pensions and dismissal policies. The next full nationwide analysis of state teacher policy will be released in January 2012, presenting the legislative, regulatory and policy developments achieved in 2011. In advance of the next "Yearbook," this paper offers a closer look into what is shaping up to be a very important education policy trend. With unprecedented momentum toward performance-based teacher evaluation across the states, the goals of this paper are to: (1) Present a detailed picture of the teacher evaluation policy landscape across the states; (2) Highlight noteworthy state policies; and (3) Provide early observations on current challenges. Appended are: (1) Links to state legislation/regulations and resources on teacher evaluation systems; and (2) Results of the states examination. (Contains 13 figures and 33 footnotes.)

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.]

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.

This brief is based on the 61-page report of the same name. This paper, commissioned by the Brookings Institution, studies the emergence of the mixed delivery model, in which pre-kindergarten is delivered in community-based settings and schools. It describes findings of a state survey CLASP conducted to understand the policy choices, opportunities, and challenges of including community-based child care providers in pre-kindergarten programs. At the conclusion of the study period for this paper (November 2004), at least 29 states that are currently operating at least one pre-kindergarten program using a mixed delivery approach were found. Those states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Other states, for example Florida, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, are considering or expanding pre-kindergarten policies but were not yet established enough to be included in our study. This policy brief describes principal approaches to state implementation of the mixed delivery model but does not provide examples of state policies. (Contains 1 figure.)

The experiences of 10 states described in this paper illustrate how higher education can be a constructive force for change in the schools, and how the changes taking place in school-based curriculum and assessment provide valuable lessons for collegiate reform. The 10 states profiled are California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin. The paper reviews current admission policies and practices in these states. Section 1 explains the need to clearly communicate to high school students expectations for college-level work to foster greater collegiate retention and graduation. Section 2 examines the need to strengthen the quality of the high school curriculum. Section 3 outlines the need to reduce remediation in postsecondary education. Section 4 explores the need to improve the levels of access and academic achievement of underrepresented students. Section 5 discusses the need to manage enrollment within constrained budgets and section 6 addresses the need to align high school student outcomes and college expectations. Appendixes contain more state-by-state detail and information on state officers who provided additional detail on their state's programs. Contains 25 references. (JB)