Search

College costs and persistent workforce shortages have prompted educators, policymakers, and employers to shift the conversation on the transition from school from a narrow "college for all" emphasis to a broader "postsecondary education" and "career pathways" perspective. This paper describes an innovative effort to address these challenges in New Hampshire, focusing on a set of programs that follow a "hyperlocal" approach to career pathway development. Seeking to expose participants to careers in high-demand areas, the programs simultaneously address specific, local industry, community, and individual needs. Their purpose is to increase the likelihood of social mobility by using career exposure and hands-on involvement to spur interest and motivation toward additional education and training in promising fields. The research reported focused on programs that target youth approaching the secondary-postsecondary transition. The paper begins by briefly describing New Hampshire's unique demographic characteristics as they relate to the state's approach to education and workforce development. The characteristics help to understand the challenges involved in helping individuals make the transition from secondary education to postsecondary roles. The study's main findings focus on key elements of career pathway programs that align with the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation's (NHCF) hyperlocal model. Excerpts from participant interviews across six programs help to show what works in different career pathway sites, in terms of realizing effective collaboration among partners and providing learners with a positive experience. The paper concludes with a discussion about areas of ongoing need both within and outside of individual pathway programs.

To better understand the challenges and opportunities facing community colleges that want to expand apprenticeship opportunities to their students, New America conducted a year-long study. We created an advisory committee to guide this work and spoke to apprenticeship, workforce development, and community college leaders about the community colleges role in expanding apprenticeship. Based on these conversations, we chose case studies and conducted in-depth interviews with leaders from the Community College System of New Hampshire's ApprenticeshipNH, Arapahoe in Colorado, San Jacinto in Texas, and Howard Community College in Maryland's programs in IT and cybersecurity, and Coastal Alabama Community College's nursing apprenticeship. Each of these colleges found a different way to fill the role of intermediary, taking on funding from different sources, using a mix of strategies for sponsorship, and finding place-based approaches to strengthening workforce partnerships. In a variety of sectors, these five colleges found ways to fill the intermediary role that worked for their context, and in doing so provided excellent programming that filled their community's needs. This mosaic of case studies demonstrates that there are some common challenges and successful strategies that colleges looking to serve as apprenticeship intermediaries can learn from.

Implementation of ESA programs will not be easy. The ESA model is novel and foreign to most state education agencies, which have little to no experience with helping families purchase a wide variety of educational goods and services using government funds. Even if agencies had the relevant experience, ESA programs are complex, involving millions of individual transactions as thousands of families make purchases from thousands of schools and other education providers. EdChoice developed this guide to help state agencies succeed as they roll out ESA programs. EdChoice's goal is to ensure that ESA programs achieve their purpose: to empower families to choose the best education for their children.

Emotional, behavioral, and mental health challenges make it difficult for many children and adolescents to engage and succeed at school. Research indicates that at least 20% of all children and adolescents have been diagnosed with one more mental health disorders. Behavioral problems, anxiety, and depression are the most diagnosed mental health issues, and they often co-occur. Moreover, these conditions are being diagnosed at increasingly younger ages. In the past several years there has been a rise in the number of adolescents and young adults with serious mental health issues such as major depression and suicidal ideation, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated mental health problems for children and adolescents. Schools offer promise for providing intensive clinical support to the most at-risk students, and schools are necessary environment to explore the implementation of multi-modal youth mental health services. This paper provides an analysis of an intensive, in-school mental health services model developed and implemented by Effective School Solutions (ESS), a New Jersey based provider of high acuity school based mental health services for K-12 students. We analyze this multi-modal model for its effectiveness in improving educational outcomes for over 3,000 students identified as requiring intensive clinical mental health support across the 2021-22 school year. This analysis reveals that those students receiving High- versus Low-fidelity programming (i.e., multiple sessions per week for at least half of the school year versus for less than half of the school year) had better educational outcomes. Students receiving High-fidelity programming had greater improvements in grade point average (GPA) and greater reductions in absences across the school year. A higher number of in-school clinical sessions per week significantly predicted a greater increase in GPA and a greater reduction in total disciplinary incidents (including out of school suspensions) across the school year. This report provides initial promising evidence that in-school intensive mental health clinical services yield positive effects on students' educational outcomes. Though future research is needed to validate and extend these findings, schools may consider implementing such services onsite to meet students where they are and to optimize students' mental, behavioral, and educational well-being. [This white paper report was published by the Yale Child Study Center."]

The growth of homeschooling from a somewhat fringe movement during the 1970s and 1980s to a more widespread and socially accepted approach in recent decades has provided a strong foundation of flexible learning models. When Florida's school choice expansion, House Bill 1, was introduced in January 2023, one of its goals was to allow more homeschoolers to participate in the education savings account (ESA) program. But many homeschoolers and homeschool advocacy groups balked at the proposal. Having worked hard to achieve independence, they were loath to be linked to government funding. Even if the program were optional, they feared that associated regulations would eventually extend to traditional homeschoolers. In the end, the bill passed with new language that satisfied traditional homeschoolers by creating a new option for parents to educate their children at home. As states continue to enact and expand education savings accounts, Colleen Hroncich argues that it is crucial that policymakers craft bills in a way that maximizes freedom and minimizes roadblocks.

This brief from the Region 2 Comprehensive Center, in consultation with the New York State Education Department, presents seven state case studies that illustrate the implementation of performance-based assessments. It contributes to the growing research on performance-based assessment, highlighting specific state-level policies that include performance-based assessments as part of a more robust assessment system.

While COVID-19 caused unimaginable disruptions to public education, we saw remarkable examples of innovation and commitment to supporting high school student success. In our New England landscape of learning research, we learned that the boundaries of what it means to "reinvent" high school stretched, and in some systems, the momentum for change accelerated. Students and teachers learned to work in new ways and reached new understandings about each other. Now, building off these lessons and in partnership with the Center for Public Research and Leadership (CPRL), we are engaged in an in-depth look at the American Rescue Plan (ARP), post-pandemic recovery in New England high schools. Our research is designed to reveal whether and how federal dollars are being directed toward supporting a better adolescent experience, how high schools are innovating and adapting to advance equity, and what kinds of choices students are making about their futures after high school. The results from this investigation will equip school and system leaders, state policymakers, and advocates--in New England and beyond--to better understand and support pandemic-era innovations that connect to what students and families need and want from high school.

There is a growing call to reconsider current approaches to national and state assessment system policies and practices. State and local education agency leaders, educators, community leaders, and advocates have voiced concerns that current state assessment systems--defined primarily by end-of-year multiple-choice tests--are unable to meet contemporary needs for information that supports teaching and learning. More than 20 states are involved in efforts to transform one or more aspects of their assessment systems; however, the process of securing federal assistance and approval to make transitions to substantially improved systems poses numerous challenges. This report synthesizes policy analyses and findings from legal and research analyses, as well as consultations with national, state, and local leaders, to (1) outline the history of federal testing guidance and state responses that have shaped the current context, (2) describe strategies states and districts are pursuing to evolve their assessment programs into high-quality systems that both signal and support better teaching and learning processes for all students, and (3) identify key ways that the federal government could support assessment reforms that enable thoughtful assessment of meaningful skills in ways that also better support teaching and learning. [This report was written in collaboration with Michael DiNapoli, Tara Kini, Tiffany Miller, and Julie Woods. For the Policy Brief, see ED630213.]

This appendix volume supplements "Evaluating the Federal Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority: Early Implementation and Progress of State Efforts to Develop New Statewide Academic Assessments. Evaluation Report. NCEE 2023-004" analyzing the early progress of the first five assessment systems participating in the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) created by the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These systems include: (1) the New Hampshire Performance Assessment of Competency Education (NH PACE); (2) the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program 2025 Humanities (LEAP 2025 Humanities); (3) the North Carolina Personalized Assessment Tool (NC PAT); (4) the Georgia MAP Assessment Partnership (GMAP) through-year assessment and (5) the Georgia Navvy assessment system. The volume documents the features of the IADA program and the five IADA systems, the study team's research activities, and includes more detailed findings than were summarized in the report. [For the full report, see ED627872. For the Study Highlights, see ED627880.]

Education officials have long hoped that the statewide academic assessments most students take each year could be used not only for accountability but also to guide instruction. Congress established the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) program in 2015 to help address this goal, offering up to seven states temporary flexibility from federal testing requirements so that they may more easily make progress toward replacing their current assessments with more innovative ones. The key incentive to participate in IADA is that students trying out the innovative assessment are not required to also take the state's current assessment. However, states approved for IADA must still show that their innovative assessments meet most requirements for federal accountability, and they are expected to implement the new assessments statewide within 5 years. This report describes the progress of the first five assessment systems approved under IADA in order to help policymakers consider expanding the program to more states. The report is primarily based on an analysis of states' IADA applications and performance reports to the U.S. Department of Education through the 2020-2021 school year and is part of a broader evaluation of IADA required by Congress. [For the Appendix, see ED627873. For the Study Highlights, see ED627880.]

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, K-12 schools are under immense pressure to meet the diverse needs of students. But policies and practices have not evolved quickly enough to meet those needs -- and as a result, the system continues to fail far too many young people. In "Levers of Change: How State Policies Support District Innovation," Bellwether delves into the ways states can support and catalyze innovation in public school districts -- adopting new laws, amending or repealing existing laws, changing policy or regulation, providing funding, or creating new programs. The report identifies seven states that have taken steps to enable innovation in public school districts -- Colorado, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Utah, and Washington -- and explores the lessons they can offer to leaders looking to spark innovation in their schools.

In this brief, authors Jess Carson and Sarah Boege describe changes in the early childhood education and care landscape of Grafton and Sullivan Counties in New Hampshire and Orange and Windsor Counties in Vermont, collectively known as the Upper Valley. The authors find that the Upper Valley lost 25 regulated child care providers serving children under age 5 between 2017 and 2021. However, with closure rates twice as high among family-based providers than among center-based providers and some new providers opening, the net number of slots has remained relatively stable (5,169 slots in 2021). The overall effect has been to consolidate available care into fewer, larger settings across the region. Three-quarters of Upper Valley providers open in 2017 were still open in 2021, reflecting greater stability than in non-Upper Valley portions of New Hampshire (71 percent) or Vermont (65 percent). However, the authors caution that early childhood educator workforce shortages limit the ability of child care providers to remain fully operational. They conclude by noting that workforce-supporting policy proposals differ in intensity across states, building on a stronger foundation of investments in Vermont than in New Hampshire. [This brief is part of the "Early Childhood in the Upper Valley Series."]

In this brief, the authors illustrate New Hampshire and Vermont's different responses to supporting the early childhood education and care sector during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the limited publicly available data on pandemic relief funds through the lens of the interstate Upper Valley region. While data limitations preclude the authors from identifying which child care pandemic relief programs worked best and for whom, the authors find spatial and program type differences in relief receipt. Using data from interviews with early childhood educators in the Upper Valley, the authors identify the role that temporary relief funds have played in keeping the sector afloat during the pandemic. While relief funds served the role of "keeping the doors open" for many providers, these short-term funds are unable to address the deep-seated challenges of the sector's unsustainable economic model, a challenge that predated the pandemic and has worsened since. The authors conclude by identifying important policy steps to support the sector in New Hampshire, Vermont, and beyond. [This brief is part of the "Early Childhood in the Upper Valley Series." For the prior brief in this series, "Why Interstate Child Care Scholarship Policy Choices Matter in the Upper Valley: "You Can Only Charge the Families so Much." National Issue Brief #167," see ED629671.]

In this brief, the authors explore how state-level decisions in New Hampshire and Vermont manifest in the early childhood education and care sector, through the lens of the interstate Upper Valley region. They demonstrate the significant differences in the reach and adequacy of child care financial assistance programs ("child care scholarships") across state lines, with Vermont's program setting family income eligibility thresholds higher and delivering higher-value reimbursements to child care providers than New Hampshire's program. While scholarships are key for widening low-income families' access to high quality care, they are not a panacea. Not all eligible families participate in child care scholarship programs. Those who do may still be required to pay substantial cost shares. Similarly, not all providers accept scholarships as payment, due to low reimbursement rates and administrative burdens. The authors identify key policy opportunities to strengthen scholarships' impact, including expanding family eligibility, increasing reimbursement rates to providers, and encouraging providers to participate in scholarship programs. [This brief is part of the "Early Childhood in the Upper Valley Series." For the prior brief in this series, "Changing Child Care Supply in New Hampshire and Vermont's Upper Valley. National Issue Brief #166," see ED629709.]

New Hampshire families have not been exempt from the disruptions and challenges associated with an enduring pandemic, including disruptions to their children's care and education arrangements, pressure on household budgets due to rising inflation, and challenges of meeting children's emergent social, emotional, and physical needs amid persistent stressors. The 2022 New Hampshire Preschool Development Grant's (PDG) Family Needs Assessment Survey explored how New Hampshire families with children under age nine fare in accessing early childhood care and education, measured their knowledge and use of supportive programs, and identified new and enduring needs. Using survey responses from a non-random sample of parents statewide, this brief focuses on early childhood care and education, a sector for which the pandemic exacerbated long-simmering challenges. Key findings include: (1) three-quarters of respondents with young children had searched for child care in the past year; half reported the search was difficult, most often due to a lack of openings; (2) seventy-four percent of responding parents used at least some nonparental care for their young children, most commonly using a licensed center; and (3) respondents were most likely to indicate that the way to improve their child care arrangement was if it were more affordable.

New Hampshire families have not been exempted from the disruptions and challenges associated with an enduring pandemic, including disruptions to their children's care and education arrangements, pressure on household budgets due to rising inflation, and new challenges of meeting children's social, emotional, and physical needs amid persistent stressors and healthcare workforce shortages. The 2022 Preschool Development Grant's (PDG) New Hampshire Family Needs Assessment Survey explored how New Hampshire families with children under age nine fare in accessing early childhood care and education, measured their knowledge and use of supportive programs, and identified new and enduring needs. Using survey responses from a non-random sample of parents statewide, this brief focuses on the use of programs to support families in caring for and educating their children.

Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. students attend rural schools. Researchers report that at least half of public schools are rural in 12 states (i.e., Montana, South Dakota, Vermont, North Dakota, Maine, Alaska, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Mississippi) (Showalter et al., 2019). Providing quality education to all rural students is a daunting task and needs the support of policy and research. In 2018, the Center for Public Education (CPE) of the National School Boards Association published "Out of the Loop: Rural Schools Are Largely Left out of Research and Policy Discussions, Exacerbating Poverty, Inequity, and Isolation" (ED608842), a comprehensive report on U.S. rural K-12 public education. Today, the data and research presented in the report are about five years old. However, the facts, together with the suggested policies and practices about rural education, are still valid and accurate. After a two-year pandemic, issues related to funding, teacher recruitment and retention, and serving disadvantaged students have become more severe in rural school districts. This five-part series is a data-driven study to inform policymakers, school leaders, educators, and parents. The primary research goal was to examine educational equity for rural students. In Part 3, this report focuses on the student achievement gap and teacher shortages in rural areas. It first looks at the diversity of rural students on the Nation's Report Card and examines whether there is any regional, demographic, or geographical pattern of student academic performance in fourth and eighth grade reading and math. Based on the findings, it also discusses five unique learning opportunities that rural students often miss and encourage education leaders to consider providing more policy and practice support in those fields. [For "Educational Equity for Rural Students: Out of the Pandemic, but Still Out of the Loop. A Five-Part Series. Part 2: An Urgent Need to Fix the Digital Divide," see ED628332.]

Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. students attend rural schools. Researchers report that at least half of public schools are rural in 12 states (i.e., Montana, South Dakota, Vermont, North Dakota, Maine, Alaska, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Mississippi) (Showalter et al., 2019). Providing quality education to all rural students is a daunting task and needs the support of policy and research. In 2018, the Center for Public Education (CPE) of the National School Boards Association published "Out of the Loop: Rural Schools Are Largely Left out of Research and Policy Discussions, Exacerbating Poverty, Inequity, and Isolation" (ED608842), a comprehensive report on U.S. rural K-12 public education. Today, the data and research presented in the report are about five years old. However, the facts, together with the suggested policies and practices about rural education, are still valid and accurate. After a two-year pandemic, issues related to funding, teacher recruitment and retention, and serving disadvantaged students have become more severe in rural school districts. This five-part series is a data-driven study to inform policymakers, school leaders, educators, and parents. The primary research goal was to examine educational equity for rural students. In Part 2, the report addresses how the persistent digital divide--often referred to as the homework gap--causes underserved rural students to face more challenges and disadvantages (NSBA, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgency of building equal access to internet services in rural areas. To fix the digital divide, we suggest that policymakers look at data about internet accessibility and affordability in rural areas and prioritize specific strategies to close the homework gap caused by the inadequate broadband access of rural students. [For "Educational Equity for Rural Students: Out of the Pandemic, but Still Out of the Loop. A Five-Part Series. Part 1: Growing Diversity of Rural Students," see ED628330.]

Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. students attend rural schools. Researchers report that at least half of public schools are rural in 12 states (i.e., Montana, South Dakota, Vermont, North Dakota, Maine, Alaska, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Mississippi) (Showalter et al., 2019). Providing quality education to all rural students is a daunting task and needs the support of policy and research. In 2018, the Center for Public Education (CPE) of the National School Boards Association published "Out of the Loop: Rural Schools Are Largely Left out of Research and Policy Discussions, Exacerbating Poverty, Inequity, and Isolation" (ED608842), a comprehensive report on U.S. rural K-12 public education. Today, the data and research presented in the report are about five years old. However, the facts, together with the suggested policies and practices about rural education, are still valid and accurate. After a two-year pandemic, issues related to funding, teacher recruitment and retention, and serving disadvantaged students have become more severe in rural school districts. This five-part series is a data-driven study to inform policymakers, school leaders, educators, and parents. The primary research goal was to examine educational equity for rural students. In Part 1, the report discusses enrollment changes in rural schools and the growing diversity of rural students. Overlooking the broad diversity of rural students can lead to oversimplifying issues in rural schools. To illustrate the diversity of rural students, it not only presents data about the demographic changes of rural students, but also report isolation levels, poverty concentration, regional differences in poverty, and other challenges.

In partnership with the Educating All Learners Alliance and the Canopy Project, CLE identified and interviewed school leaders who found innovative ways to provide meaningful inclusion for students with disabilities. This brief shares lessons from school leaders committed to ensuring that students with disabilities are meaningfully included and flourishing in their schools. CLE interviewed leaders from 12 schools, districts, or charter networks of varying sizes, geographies, and levels. In spite of their differences, the school leaders agreed on seven common themes for what enables them to work toward and implement meaningful inclusion. These factors include: (1) leadership knowledge and conviction for educational equity; (2) equity-centered mission and values; (3) collaboration that cultivates collective responsibility; (4) ongoing professional learning of evidence-based practices that benefit all learners; (5) community-informed continuous improvement; (6) external partnerships that extend capacity for meaningful inclusion; and (7) additional funding used to support best practices for inclusive education. [This brief was written with assistance from Lauren Morando Rhim and supported by additional funding from the Educating All Learners Alliance.]

Shared governance--the processes through which faculty, the administration, and even students and staff participate in creating the policies and charting a direction for an institution--is a major tenet of higher education. How to get cooperation and agreement to move an institution forward is one of the trickiest parts of the leader's job. Yet moving forward must be a priority as higher education copes with the emergence of technology-enabled learning solutions while maintaining an increasingly expensive traditional educational model. Add to this environment a number of stressors--from the challenges of educating during the pandemic, to shrinking numbers of high school graduates, to turbulent debates over what schools can and cannot teach and what faculty can and cannot say--and it is imperative to chart strategic paths forward rather than stay put or drift. There is arguably never been a more difficult time to be a leader of a higher education institution. The average tenure of a college president has consistently and steadily declined over the last couple of decades. It is no longer unusual to see presidential tenures end after three to five years. This report presents a theory from the Christensen Institute's research on innovation that can help leaders. It is a theory about what tools to use when there are varying levels of agreement within an organization. Used as a lens to better understand causal mechanisms, the theory reveals that not all the tools available to leaders work in all circumstances. To successfully chart a course forward, leaders need to understand the level of agreement inside their college or university and then use the right tools to forge ahead. [This report was written with contributions from Ryan Macinnis and Richard Price.]

An abundance of opportunities to innovate in public education have emerged post-pandemic and the rules for defining how schooling works are up for grabs like never before. Yet, school districts are struggling to keep teachers on the job and schools open, much less address the mental health and academic toll of the pandemic. How can school systems possibly find the bandwidth to act on new visions for public education when their leaders are constantly trapped in crisis mode? One particular mechanism might allow them to pull this off: statewide school districts. This report outlines several existing statewide oversight efforts that overcome barriers that traditionally constrain schools or traditional districts. The report also explains how statewide districts could promote creative new learning options, including the following: (1) Providing infrastructure and support to allow cities, community groups, or even individuals to form small learning communities; (2) Creating a statewide system to validate students' learning, and to provide credit for those efforts; (3) Allowing youth to access a variety of service providers and mentors; (4) Ensuring all families can access educational options; and (5) Conducting or commissioning research on K-12 education innovations. We can't afford to allow possibilities that came into view during the pandemic to vanish in a rush to return to normal school operations, nor can we afford to watch innovations flourish outside of public education but remain inaccessible to students who stand to benefit from them. We need to build public-education systems that encourage and support innovation--and we need new state policies to help encourage those actions. [This report was written with contributions from Travis Pillow and Emily Liebtag. Education Reimagined partnered with the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) to co-author this paper.]

There is growing interest in student-centered learning as a model to better support individual learners. In recent years, state policymakers have pursued multiple approaches to implement this instructional model, but many leaders still experience policy barriers that affect progress. This Policy Brief offers an analysis of policy trends, comprehensive state examples and key considerations for those interested in a personalized, competency-based system. Policy options for state education leaders fall into three categories: (1) Assessment of student mastery; (2) Flexible governance; and (3) Student-centered learning frameworks. The brief also highlights existing student-centered learning policies across the country in a 50-state policy scan.

For decades, researchers and educators alike have been caught in waves of reforms that sought to change the quality of teaching and learning at scale. Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) emerged as a promising strategy for generating new knowledge and building new capabilities for improving teaching and school systems through research. RPPs seeking to improve instructional practice at scale face dual learning imperatives in that partners must learn how to: (1) manage and confront the complexity involved in trying to change instruction at scale; and (2) develop a model of partnership that is equipped to the task. This paper presents a framework that is composed of four elements and a reflective tool for partnering for instructional improvement at scale. The following presents the structure of this report: (1) Description of the challenge of scaling instructional improvement; (2) Literature review of RPPs and organizations focusing on the challenges faced by RPPs; (3) Introduction of the framework, which is composed of commitments, structures, expertise, and social learning; and (4) A brief example of a reflective tool to be used for assessing partnering in an RPP.

In collaboration with the Arts Education Partnership, Education Commission of the States is turning its attention to STEAM education (adding the "A" for arts), which can promote a more comprehensive approach and provide state policymakers with more policy levers. Several states have already begun implementing STEAM education and are making progress. Yet more can be done to capitalize on the early years to build strong foundational skills. To explore the positive impacts of STEAM education for young learners in pre-K through fifth grade, this Policy Brief highlights four trends from arts integration and STEAM research over the past 20 years. It includes examples, along with implications for each trend, and closes with considerations for state policymakers.

For more than four decades, researchers, policymakers, professional educators, and the philanthropic community in education have wrestled with how to scale up promising pockets of reform. Centering equity in scaling efforts means working with and prioritizing students who have historically lacked access to powerful learning opportunities, including deeper learning, and have not reached the ambitious outcomes we desire for everyone. This report seeks to help school district leaders and improvement teams define what it means to scale for equity. Presented in this report is a scaling-for-equity framework informed by the experiences of 10 research-practice partnerships (RPPs) and designed to provide readers with multiple, iterative opportunities to think about equity as it relates to scale. The scaling-for-equity framework supports a journey in which members of a team work to improve educational practice by traveling over time from their origin to a destination. The framework and accompanying tools are designed to: (1) help improvement teams navigate their scaling-for-equity journey; and (2) support school district leaders striving to transform their communities' public education systems into equitable ones by prompting improvement team members to consider equity-related questions during all stages of the work and to develop shared responses, describing and categorizing scaling strategies so that teams can identify the strategies, alone or in combination, that will bring them closer to their equity goals, and providing support for disentangling and addressing the many influences and tensions at play when improvement teams aim to bring about change.

In summer 2020, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), with support from the Barr Foundation, began observing and learning from students, parents, and educators in New England high schools as they navigated the uncertainty of the pandemic. The authors wanted to see what challenges and opportunities they faced, the ways in which they adapted to disruptions, and the new strategies and capacities that took hold. After more than a year of disruption, the boundaries of what it means to "reinvent" high school stretched, and in some systems, the momentum for change accelerated. Students and teachers learned to work in new ways and reached new understandings about each other. When COVID wanes, schools will encounter a host of new and complex demands as they make sense of the pandemic's challenges and opportunities, including addressing unfinished learning, spending a tidal wave of federal funding, and navigating continued calls for racial and social justice amid a national culture war. The path forward raises a host of critical questions: (1) Will school systems leverage momentum from the pandemic to remake high school? If so, what adaptations and innovations will they embrace? And which students will benefit from these shifts?; (2) How do school system leaders, educators, families, and students redefine success in high school? To what extent and how are these aspirations reflected in the adaptations and innovations that school systems embrace?; and (3) What opportunities and obstacles do school system leaders, educators, families, and students confront as they seek to chart a new course to high school? How can they avoid the pitfalls that threaten to stall progress, especially for the most marginalized students? As the pandemic endures, and as we emerge from it, CRPE will continue to investigate whether and how the trends described lead to a more equitable, student-centered high school experience. In this effort, Think Forward New England explores not only what shifts emerge postpandemic but also why, for whom, and with what effect.

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the way that families and policymakers view K-12 education. Learning loss is having an outsized impact on students who were furthest from opportunity before the pandemic. And families are increasingly looking for new educational options for their children. For decades, access to educational options meant "school choice" -- now it's time to think broadly about an ecosystem of flexible "learning options." Beyond traditional options, such as school choice through open enrollment, charter schools, and private school choice, policymakers are increasingly providing families with access to more flexible learning opportunities through Education Savings Accounts and "learn anywhere" policies. This report examines some of the most important trends in the realm of option-expanding state policies, along with recommendations to ensure that all families have equitable access to these educational opportunities.

This implementation guide was developed to assist states that want to give more families access to needed educational opportunities and the ability to customize their children's learning. Surging enthusiasm among voters and policymakers means more states are likely to launch Education Scholarship Account (ESA) programs in the immediate future. The first part of this guide is written for a general audience, or anyone seeking a brief refresher on the decades-long rise of private school choice and the emergence of ESAs. The heart of this report draws on the wisdom of a broad group of ESA administrators. Each step includes both key questions to consider and a spotlight of a state that has implemented an ESA program. The purpose of the step-by-step guide is to support new ESA administrators as they make high-quality programs available to families and sustain those programs for the foreseeable future.

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont and Education Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker announced the expansion of the northeastern reciprocity agreement to include certified educators throughout the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and beyond. As of April 21, 2022, "educators in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia who hold an 'active, valid certificate' may apply and obtain a Connecticut certificate after verification by the State Department of Education," according to a press release. To help further inform the Connecticut State Department of Education's (CSDE) recommendation that the State Board of Education adopt the enhanced reciprocity policy, the Region 2 Comprehensive Center (R2CC) developed the "Teacher Certification Reciprocity Tool," which compares certification requirements among the identified states and territories. The tool also significantly reduces the time required for CSDE analysts to approve out-of-state candidates for certification.

Opponents of educational choice recycle the same false prophesies of doom without regard to the evidence or the size and scope of the proposals. Part I of this report assesses the validity of choice opponents' predictions that choice policies will lead to significant losses of district school funding and declining academic performance. Part II of this report explores whether there is any relationship between the intensity of choice opponents' rhetoric and the size and scope of the choice proposal on which they are commenting.

Student-centered, active, and engaging learning experiences that build on young people's interests, while developing their skills and knowledge, are at the heart of high-quality afterschool programs. Afterschool programs can provide older youth with opportunities to explore their interests and participate in activities that also allow them to earn credits toward their graduation requirements. These credit-for-learning opportunities can cover a wide range of content--from students earning physical education credits through a local YMCA to taking part in a boat-building course for elective math or science credit. This brief discusses the need for credit-for-learning opportunities, afterschool programs as a key partner to support credit for learning, and the current credit-for-learning policy landscape.

School choice critics argue that choice programs drain resources from public schools and therefore harm students who remain in them. Because policymakers are tasked with balancing their states' budgets and ensuring that their public schools meet educational provisions in their states' constitutions, they are concerned with the fiscal effects of these programs. More than two dozen studies have examined educational choice programs' effects on students enrolling in nearby public schools. Researchers have conducted a handful of systematic reviews of competitive effects research and, more recently, a meta-analysis of this body of research. In each of these reviews, researchers conclude that students who remain in district schools after exposure to educational choice programs tend to experience modest educational benefits. But the question remains whether educational choice programs lead to higher costs for taxpayers or fewer resources for students who remain in public schools. This report summarizes the fiscal effects of educational choice programs across the United States from an analysis of 40 private educational choice programs in 19 states plus D.C. The programs in the analysis include three education savings accounts programs, 19 school voucher programs, and 18 tax-credit scholarship programs. The report also provides context by presenting basic facts about the size and scope of each program, in terms of participation and funding, relative to each state's public school system. It presents the facts on taxpayer funding disparities between students using the choice programs and their peers in public schools.