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.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides services to students who have disabilities. These IDEA-funded services are afforded to students between the ages of 3 and 21 who attend not only public schools (including charter schools), but also private schools. IDEA contains comprehensive guidelines on 3 processes which, by design, are meant to ensure that IDEA-funded services are granted without prejudice to any private school student who may by law be eligible to receive them. These processes IDEA refers to as "child find," "consultation," and "proportionate share." For a variety of reasons, the execution of these processes has been decidedly flawed. As a result, tens of thousands of private school students with disabilities have been denied the services to which IDEA, as a federal law, entitles them. Relying on raw data from certain public-school districts and state departments of education regarding their respective execution of the "child-find" process, the authors assess the extent to which, nationwide, private school students' (and their teachers') fair and full access to IDEA-funded services has been systemically denied. Based on this assessment, the authors offer recommendations on how, in the short-term, the current IDEA statute and regulations might be better enforced and IDEA's regulations might be improved. In view of IDEA's anticipated re-authorization, the authors also offer recommendations on how Congressionally approved statutory changes to the current law would ensure that, in the future, private school students will finally be able to freely and fully participate in IDEA.

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.

While it is generally understood that defined benefit pension systems concentrate benefits on career teachers and impose costs on mobile teachers, there has been very little analysis of the magnitude of these effects. The authors develop a measure of implicit redistribution of pension wealth among teachers at varying ages of separation. Compared to a neutral system, often about half of an entering cohort's net pension wealth is redistributed to teachers who separate in their fifties from those who separate earlier. There is some variation across six state systems. This implies large costs for interstate mobility. Estimates show teachers who split a thirty-year career between two pension plans often lose over half their net pension wealth compared to teachers who complete a career in a single system. Plan options that permit purchases of service years mitigate few or none of these losses. It is difficult to explain these patterns of costs and benefits on efficiency grounds. More likely explanations include the relative influence of senior versus junior educators in interest group politics and a coordination problem between states. (Contains 7 tables, 16 figures, and 40 footnotes.)

Defined Benefit pension plans often generate odd time patterns of benefits. One typical pattern exhibits low accrual in early years, accelerating in mid-late years, followed by dramatic decline, or even negative returns in years that are relatively young for retirement. We consider four states for specific analysis: Arkansas, Missouri, California and Massachusetts. There are interesting variations among these states' formulas, which affect the incentive to retire early. We identify key factors in the defined benefit formulas that drive such patterns and likely consequences for employee behavior. We examine the efficiency and equity consequences of these systems and lessons that might be drawn for pension reform. (Contains 1 table, 2 figures and 18 footnotes.)

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.

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.

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.]

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.)

"School Readiness Indicators: Making Progress for Young Children" was a multi-state initiative that used child well-being indicators to build a change agenda in states and local communities in order to improve school readiness and ensure early school success. The central premise behind this initiative was that top-notch school readiness indicator systems at the state and local levels can be used to build support for early childhood investments. The task of the 17 participating states was to develop a comprehensive set of school readiness indicators from birth through third grade. The attention to tracking state level outcomes for the youngest children was a unique focus of the initiative's work. The 17 states involved in the initiative assembled teams comprised of government leaders, child advocates, and researchers to accomplish the following objectives: (1) create a set of measurable indicators related to and defining school readiness that can be tracked regularly over time at the state and local levels; (2) have states and local governments adopt this indicators-based definition of school readiness, fill in the gaps in data availability, track data over time, and report findings to their citizens; and (3) stimulate policy, program, and other actions to improve the ability of all children to read at grade level by the end of third grade. This paper discusses how states participating in this ground breaking initiative understood the importance of addressing the comprehensive nature of school readiness. It also provides examples of the many ways states have used their school readiness indicators to change policy on behalf of young children and their families. [This brief was produced by Voices for America's Children. The 17 State School Readiness Indicators Initiative was sponsored by the David and Lucile Packard, Kauffman, and Ford Foundations and managed by Rhode Island KIDS COUNT. This paper is based on the work of the School Readiness Indicator Teams in each of the 17 states.]

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.)

This is the third and last paper in a series published by the National Alliance in partnership with Public Impact, highlighting the experiences of school leaders in charter schools across the country. While the impact school leaders have on student performance has been well documented, there has been little attention to how leaders' experiences and racial identities inform and influence their practice. Many practices of good leadership are universal, but an individual's identity can shape how they approach situations and inspire new and innovative practices. This report includes the profiles of two leaders--Kathleen "Kathy" Wang of the Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School in Massachusetts, and Maurice Thomas of Milwaukee Excellence Charter School in Wisconsin. Both leaders have found the value of building a strong school culture to ensure that students feel accepted, respected, and supported at school--which in turn leads to high performance academically. [For the second report in this series, see "Identity and Charter School Leadership. Profiles of Leaders of Color: Engaging Families" (ED600929).]

As states are working to align their education systems with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in support of the goal of graduating all students ready for college, careers and life, academic and career and technical education (CTE) leaders at the state and local levels can and should maximize this opportunity to finally break down the silos between their disciplines and collectively find ways to ensure that the new standards rigorously engage all students in both academic and CTE courses. Bridging this divide, however, will happen only with intentionality and forethought at the policy and program levels. A substantial gap remains between the opportunity and need for engagement of the CTE community and CTE's current level of involvement in the implementation of the CCSS. Nearly half of the states that responded to an Achieve survey report that they have no CTE representation on their CCSS implementation teams, implying that in their states the CCSS are (currently) being viewed as purely an academic initiative, despite interest from CTE leaders to be involved. This paper aims to provide guidance to state education leaders about how they can maximize the opportunity to better align academics and CTE through the implementation of the new CCSS by: (1) Summarizing what state leaders are currently doing to integrate the CCSS and CTE; (2) Providing specific strategies and supporting examples of what particular states are doing; and (3) Identifying common barriers and challenges that state leaders face. The Survey and Its Findings are appended. (Contains 2 endnotes.)

The Institute for Youth, Education, and Families (YEF Institute) is a special entity within the National League of Cities (NLC). The YEF Institute helps municipal leaders take action on behalf of the children, youth, and families in their communities. The YEF Institute's first-ever report on The State of City Leadership for Children and Families identifies the nation's most cutting-edge city strategies to help children and families thrive. This paper highlights the broad range of innovations and trends in municipal leadership around youth in transition. .

This paper presents the appendices to the "High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act" report. It contains the following appendices: (1) Example of Context for Assessing State-Level Stakes Sheet--Connecticut; (2) Example of Completed Rewards and Sanctions Worksheet--Connecticut; (3) Directions Given to Judges; (4) Data Collection Sheet; (5) Correlations and Scatter Plots--Threat Change and NAEP Gain; (6) Method for the Inclusion of Media in Portfolios; (7) Summary News Search: Massachusetts; (8) Summary of News Searches in Five Pilot States; and (9) Summary of New Search Rationale--Finalized System. (Contains 38 tables, 16 figures and 241 notes and references.) [For the full report, "High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act," see ED531184. For executive summary, "High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act. Executive Summary," see ED531535.]