Search

Sixty-seven school finance reforms (SFRs) in 26 states have taken place since 1990; however, there is little empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of SFR effects. We provide a comprehensive description of how individual reforms affected resource allocation to low- and high-income districts within states, including both financial and non-financial outcomes. After summarizing the heterogeneity of individual SFR impacts, we then examine its correlates, identifying both policy and legislative/political factors. Taken together, this research aims to provide a rich description of variation in states' responses to SFRs, as well as explanation of this heterogeneity as it relates to contextual factors.

While sparse literature exists investigating the impact of the Great Recession on various sectors of the economy, there is virtually no research that studies the effect of the Great Recession, or past recessions, on schools. This paper starts to fill the void. Studying school funding during the recession is of paramount importance because schools have a fundamental role in fostering human capital formation and economic growth. We exploit unique panel data and trend shift analysis to analyze how New Jersey school finances were affected during the Great Recession and the ARRA federal stimulus period. Our results show strong evidence of downward shifts in both revenue and expenditure following the recession. Federal stimulus seemed to have helped in 2010, however both revenue and expenditure still declined. While total revenue declined, the various components of revenue did not witness symmetric changes. The infusion of funds with the federal stimulus occurred simultaneously with statistically and economically significant cuts in state and local financing, especially the former. Our results also show a compositional shift in expenditures in favor of categories that are linked most closely to instruction, while several non-instruction categories including transportation and utilities declined. Interestingly, budgetary stress seems to have led to significant lay-offs for untenured teachers, leading to a rightward shift of the teacher salary and experience distributions. Heterogeneity analysis shows that high poverty and urban districts sustained the largest falls in the post-recession era, with Abbott districts specifically falling the furthest from pre-recession trends. Of importance, the Abbott districts were the only group in our expansive analysis to show statistically significant negative shifts in instructional expenditure even with the federal stimulus. The findings of this paper contribute valuable insight regarding schools' financial situations during recession and can serve as a guide to aid future policy decisions.

An extensive Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I data base was developed in order to study the distribution and effect of Title I funds in New Jersey. The information in this data base was then analyzed in conjunction with information concerning reading and mathematics achievement, program adoption, and demography, to determine correlations with ESEA Title I programs. The following conclusions were drawn from the analysis: (1) Those school districts with higher average staff Title I salaries usually reported poorer performing students in both reading and mathematics. (2) Those districts with a larger ratio (more students per instructor) were the poorer performing districts. (3) Those schools allotting more time per student per instructor for Title I instruction were the better performing schools. (4) There was generally no association between achievement and number of compensatory education programs adopted. (Author/MV)

The New Jersey Educational Assessment Program (EAP) is a statewide testing program used to assess reading and mathematics achievement, and to provide useful information to educational decision makers at the state and local levels. In May 1976, the State Department of Education conducted a survey of all local school superintendents regarding their districts' uses of the statewide EAP data. Approximately half of the districts responded. The utilization survey questionnaire focused on four categories of action resulting from use of the data: program changes, instructional changes, administrative changes, and dissemination of information. Results showed that, of the responding districts, 63.9% and 72.9% used the statewide test data to modify their reading and mathematics curricula, respectively. Moreover, 68.6% and 72.5% used the data to modify their instruction in reading and mathematics, respectively. It was also reported that 86.4% of the districts compared the test data from year to year; and that 36.8% used the data to initiate administrative changes involving the use of funds, the use or addition of staff, or the conduct of inservice workshops. A copy of the school district utilization survey and tables presenting the survey results are included. (Author/MV)

This paper discusses the potential fiscal effects of education savings accounts for K-12 in New Jersey on the state and local taxpayers. Education savings accounts are a way to expand educational opportunity for all families, particularly those in need. For parents who voluntarily elect to customize their child's education, a specified amount is annually deposited to an education savings account (ESA) at a state-selected agency. Families can then draw on this account for a variety of approved instructional expenses, including tuition and fees for independent school placements, textbooks, tutoring, online classes, transportation, and special services. This brief examines the potential fiscal effects of ESAs in New Jersey and proceeds as follows: the first section summarizes research on non-fiscal outcomes of educational choice programs that already exist in other states, followed by a discussion about how ESAs could improve New Jersey's finances. The next section explains the methodology for estimating the fiscal effects of educational choice programs. The paper then presents the results of a fiscal analysis of two hypothetical ESA programs and concludes.

Post-school transition is the movement of a child with disabilities from school to activities that occur after the completion of school. This paper provides information about: (1) post-school transition; (2) transition plan; (3) transition services; (4) transition planning; (5) vocational rehabilitation services; (6) services that are available for post-school transition in addition to vocational rehabilitation services; (7) what parents can do if they are not satisfied with the services and support provided by DVRS (Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services), DDD (Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services) and/or CBVI (Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired); (8) what parents can do to help their child prepare for transition; (9) how parents can make sure that a transition plan is included in their child's IEP (Individualized Education Program); (10) frequency of transition plan update; (11) what parents can do if they are not satisfied with the school district's provision of transition planning and services; and (12) additional resources for transition planning. [This paper was written with assistance from Elizabeth Athos, Ruth Deale Lowenkron, Sarah Logan and Joanne Winters. Funding for this paper was provided by Skadden Arps.]

This paper describes the activities and experiences of a technical assistance consultant working with a superintendent and assistant superintendent to implement the Achievement Directed Leadership (ADL) school improvement program during 1981-82. The paper's first section describes the ADL program's "top-down" implementation plan, with its step-by-step training first of central office administrators, then of principals, and finally of teachers. Following the second section's description of the troubled, unstable context for change in the urban New Jersey school district where the program was to be implemented, section 3 discusses the efforts of the technical assistance "external linker" to involve the district's central office administrators, principals, and curriculum supervisors in the program's planning stages. In three subsequent sections, the author describes how the external linker (1) mobilized program support by developing a Quarterly Topic Plan, (2) facilitated program implementation with the help of a Principal/Teacher Conference Form, and (3) sustained and supported the program's implementation by means of extensive followup observation and consultation. The paper concludes by affirming the successful efforts of the particular external linker in question and the value of effective in-person technical assistance generally in contributing to district-wide improvement. (JBM)

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

The Obama administration's Race to the Top competitive grant program initiated an unprecedented wave of state teacher-evaluation reform across the country. To date, most of the scholarly analysis of this activity has focused on the design of the evaluation instruments or the implementation of the new evaluations by districts and schools. But little research has explored how "states" are managing and supporting the implementation of these reforms. This paper offers an assessment of how early adopter states' departments of education have undertaken the preparation and implementation of new evaluation systems. It also identifies challenges and lessons that can be used to guide future reform efforts in this area. This assessment of the activities of state departments of education is based on comparative case studies of six states: Colorado, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. These particular states were selected because they are "early adopters" in the area of teacher-evaluation reform and because their states and/or education agencies have undertaken different approaches to implementing the reforms. Two of the states--Tennessee and Delaware--were initial Race to the Top winners, while the other states won smaller grants in later rounds. Research consisted of a review of the scholarly and think tank research on state education agency capacity and teacher-evaluation systems; analysis of reports and data from the state education departments' websites and from organizations such as the Council of Chief State School Officers; a study of media coverage of the reform efforts in the six states; and 15 interviews with national experts on teacher-evaluation reforms and state education agency and local education agency staff in each state. Interviews are appended. (Contains 48 endnotes.)

The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) published a series of case studies from 28 states to showcase examples of how ARRA EETT ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Enhancing Education Through Technology") grant funds have impacted teaching and learning. SETDA collected data for the case studies through a variety of mechanisms, including a detailed survey of the participating Local Education Agencies (LEAs), personal interviews with grant managers and teachers, and reviews of state and local program evaluations. The case studies in this paper highlight powerful examples of innovations resulting from the federal state/local partnerships created by the EETT program. They illustrate what can happen when "seed money" in the form of federal grants is leveraged by states, local school districts, and individual schools. Teachers and students across the country continue to benefit from these innovative programs as shown by higher formative and standardized test scores, increased technology literacy and technology integration, improved access to both digital curriculum resources and project-based learning initiatives, and increased student engagement.

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

"Curiosity Corner" is an early childhood curriculum emphasizing children's language and literacy skills. It comprises two sets of 38 weekly thematic units--one for three-year-olds and one for four-year-olds. Program staff conduct daily lessons using sequential daily activities. One study of "Curiosity Corner" meets the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards, and one study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The two studies included more than 500 preschool children from 34 preschools in Florida, Kansas, and New Jersey. Based on these two studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for "Curiosity Corner" to be medium to large for oral language and small for print knowledge, phonological processing, cognition, and math. No studies that meet WWC standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of "Curiosity Corner" in the early reading and writing domain. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [This report has been updated to include a review of two studies that have been released since 2006. A complete list and disposition of all studies reviewed is provided in the references. The following two studies are reviewed in this intervention report: (1) Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) Consortium. (2008). Chapter 5. "Curiosity Corner": Success for All Foundation. In "Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness" (pp. 75-83). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; and (2) Chambers, B., Chamberlain, A., Hurley, E. A., & Slavin, R. E. (2001). "Curiosity Corner: Enhancing preschoolers' language abilities through comprehensive reform." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 2001.]

"Curiosity Corner" is a comprehensive early childhood curriculum designed to help children at risk of school failure because of poverty. The program offers children experiences that develop the attitudes, skills, and knowledge necessary for later school success with a special emphasis on children's language and literacy skills. "Curiosity Corner" comprises two sets of 38 weekly thematic units, one for three-year-olds and one for four-year-olds. Each day the program staff present children with learning experiences through sequential daily activities. The program provides training, support, and teaching materials for teaching staff and administrators. Parents are encouraged to participate in children's learning through activities both inside and outside the classroom. One study of "Curiosity Corner" met the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards with reservations. The study included 316 three- and four-year-old children from four urban, high poverty school districts in New Jersey. This report focuses on immediate posttest findings to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. The WWC considers the extent of evidence for "Curiosity Corner" to be small for oral language and for cognition. No studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations addressed print knowledge, phonological processing, early reading/writing, or math. "Curiosity Corner" was found to have no discernible effects on oral language and cognition. [This publication was produced by the What Works Clearinghouse. The following study is reviewed in this intervention report: Chambers, B., Chamberlain, A., Hurley, E. A., & Slavin, R. E. (2001, April). "Curiosity Corner: Enhancing preschoolers' language abilities through comprehensive reform." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.]

Most of New Jersey's charter schools are located in the state's poorer, urban school districts, or "Abbott" districts, and exclusively serve students from those communities. A number of other schools are located outside of the Abbott districts but enroll students from these districts. Specifically, of the 50 charter schools operating in 2004-05, 39, or 78%, were located in Abbott districts. Seven more were located in other communities but still served Abbott students in addition to other students. In total, these schools served over 11,000 Abbott students; thus, 82% of students in charter schools in 2004-05 were Abbott students. Under a series of New Jersey Supreme Court rulings in the landmark "Abbott v. Burke" education equity litigation, students in Abbott districts are entitled to remedial funding and other programs and reforms designed to ensure them a constitutionally "thorough and efficient" education, defined as an education that enables them to meet the state's Core Curriculum Content Standards ("CCCS"). This package of remedies includes rigorous, standards-based, foundational education supported by per-pupil funding equal to the average spent in successful suburban schools "parity", as well as supplemental "at-risk" programs and funding to address the student and school needs associated with high-poverty communities. This paper examines the state's current framework for funding the education of students enrolled in charter schools in Abbott districts. First, the legal regime governing funding for students in Abbott charter and district-operated schools is described. This examination focuses on the most important education funding categories: per-pupil funding to support the K-12 foundational program defined by the CCCS and measured by State assessments; additional funding for K-12 "supplemental", or "at-risk", programs that address the effects of student poverty; and additional funding for preschool education and full-day kindergarten. Second, enrollment levels in Abbott charter schools and the demographic characteristics of these students are examined. Finally, the funding disparities between students attending Abbott charter schools and students attending district schools are analyzed. The conclusion is made that although enrollments in Abbott charter schools mirror the socio-economic and racial makeup of their district counterparts, their students receive substantially less educational funding than their peers. The funds that charter schools receive are far below the level determined by the court to be sufficient for the programs and services that are necessary to ameliorate the effects of concentrated poverty. Neither the "Abbott" rulings, nor the Legislature, have endorsed this funding disparity. (Contains 1 table, 4 figures, and 18 footnotes.)

This paper seeks to help state policymakers understand their relatively new role in improving the academic performance of local schools and districts. The first section, "Intervention Decision-Making Framework," focuses on the intervention decision making framework model, performance criteria, strategic criteria, diagnostic interventions, corrective interventions, targets and tactics, and exit criteria. The second section, "State Interventions in Districts," focuses on reviews of six states: West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois. The third section, "District Interventions in Schools," looks at the Chicago Public Schools, New York City Chancellor's District, and Massachusetts. The final two sections present conclusions, recommendations and questions for policymakers. Two appendices include a list of interviewees and an excerpt from "Scholastic Reviews find 17 Activities Common Across Successful Schools" (Faun S. Fishback). (SM)

The progress school districts throughout New Jersey made in implementing a system of portfolio assessment and the factors that promoted or prohibited the implementation of this system were studied. In all, 262 teachers and 109 administrators completed and returned questionnaires on portfolio assessment. Findings indicate that teachers and administrators believe that portfolio assessment can provide an effective means of assessing students' performance in schools, but that actual practices in their schools have not been as successful. Critical to the success of implementing a system of portfolio assessment is the need to identify clearly when and how portfolios are to be used. It is also important to identify the information that portfolios will contain, and teachers and administrators thought that these issues had not been resolved. Survey results highlight the importance of adequate staff training for teachers and administrators involved in the implementation process. (Contains 17 references.) (SLD)

The National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) program attempted to address concerns about student performance in science, mathematics, and technology education. The SSIs were supposed to increase and improve student learning in these areas by having challenging academic standards, a hands-on approach to instruction, the use of curricula relevant to students' lives, emphasis on higher-order thinking skills, the use of technology in the classroom, and assessments that reinforce these instructional practices. Over the last 4.5 years, the New Jersey SSI (NJSSI) spent $15 million SSI dollars. This evaluation centered on three questions: (1) do students learn more because of the SSI; (2) are they better equipped to apply what they are learning to everyday problems; and (3) are the inequities in performance among different groups of students being reduced? The NJSSI had some reach in 446 schools (19% of the schools in New Jersey), a little implementation in 409 schools, and no reach at all in 1,402 schools. Evaluation data came primarily from state-mandated assessments. No evidence was found for the first evaluation question; students in NJSSI schools did not learn more than their counterparts in schools without NJSSI affiliation. Evidence with respect to the second question was too limited, and the question could not be answered. With regard to question 3, it was found that inequities in performance had actually worsened. The knowledge gap between underserved school districts and the rest of the state increased on the state-mandated eighth grade assessment in mathematics during the time the NJSSI was in operation. In addition, the knowledge gap between students from affluent suburbs and urban students increased in Advanced Placement Calculus, Advanced Placement Biology, and Advanced Placement Computer Science. (Contains five figures, eight tables, and nine endnotes.) (SLD)

In March 1991, New Jersey's school finance reform law, The Quality Education Act, targeted 287 million dollars to 30 school districts with high proportions of at-risk students. This paper presents findings of a study that examined how 11 districts in New Jersey utilized state resources to meet the needs of their at-risk students. Five were classified as special-needs districts, two as moderately wealthy, and four as highly wealthy. Methodology involved analysis of census data and school district reports and a series of interviews conducted with key district leaders and school-based personnel. Findings indicate that great disparities existed between conditions in special-needs districts and other districts. Special-needs districts demonstrated a higher incidence of disadvantaging characteristics, such as poverty, less educated adults, minority groups, and student participation in free- and reduced-lunch programs. Staff who were asked to estimate the at-risk population tended to understate the differences between special-needs districts and other districts. In both special-needs and non-special-needs districts, the largest number of special programs were developed to meet academic needs. However, a high proportion of the programs in special-needs districts addressed students' social needs. Overall, the additional resources for special-needs districts appear to have created new program activity to meet the needs of at-risk students. However, the real question is whether these districts are in a position to offer the kind and intensity of programs that will fundamentally alter the educational prospects of their disadvantaged populations. Analysis of past initiatives indicates that efforts to date are necessary but unlikely to be sufficient. Five tables and 12 figures are included. (LMI)

New Jersey school administrators are finding themselves in need of the supports necessary to build on the state's existing model preschools toward a broader vision of early learning, including making strong connections to the early learning system. Clearly, changing the educational mindset and building the related capacity of front-line leaders is paramount for bringing about early learning reform at the district level. In an attempt to address this issue, representatives from Advocates for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ), the New Jersey Department of Education, Division of Early Childhood Education (DECE) and the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association (NJPSA) came together in the summer of 2009 to plan for a comprehensive early learning professional development program for school district administrators. The goal was to provide these administrators with research, strategies and techniques to effectively implement high-quality preschool through 3rd grade programs and to assist them in evaluating those programs, as they successfully lead their instructional staff. In the fall of 2009, New Jersey's "PreK-3rd Leadership Training Series" began, with approximately 200 district administrators participating from across the state. This case study describes the development and content of the series, a description of the participants and the findings from surveys that participants completed at the beginning and end of the series. Also discussed are the facilitators' impressions of the challenges and opportunities and corresponding recommendations for next steps in this work. (Contains 6 endnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Amy Goerl, Nonie Lesaux, Jill McLaughlin, David Nash, Nancy Parello and Kathleen Priestley.]