Search

In many parts of the country, enrollment in traditional public schools has fallen to its lowest point in decades. However, states, cities, and school districts have been slow to respond to the reality of empty desks. This report examines trends in school enrollment, focusing on several of America's most populous cities, as well as the budgetary and staffing responses to those trends. It also examines the states where these large cities are located. Key findings include: (1) New York, Illinois, and California experienced the largest declines in enrollment between 2013 and 2022, while Texas and Arizona had the largest increase in enrollment; (2) Texas will soon surpass California with the most public school students; (3) In California's two biggest cities, Los Angeles and San Diego, enrollments fell between 2013 and 2022; (4) Philadelphia experienced a decline in enrollment that mirrored overall statewide trends; (5) Although Texas experienced a strong uptick in student enrollment statewide, its four biggest cities--Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and Austin--all experienced slight declines over the last decade; (6) Costs per student rose between 2013 and 2022 in New York City, Houston, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Antonio, and Los Angeles; and (7) Total staff increased in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Dallas over the 2013-22 period.

At their best, K-12 public school systems can be engines of social and economic mobility. Unfortunately, schools in lower-income districts -- whose students have the greatest academic needs -- often receive less funding than their counterparts in more affluent districts. Discussions about closing these funding gaps usually zoom all the way out to the state level or all the way down to the district level. But a big part of the problem lies in how funding is distributed across districts in the same metro area -- and in state policies that allow wealthy communities to raise and keep large amounts of local revenue exclusively for their own schools. "Leveling the Landscape: An Analysis of K-12 Funding Inequities Within Metro Areas" takes a closer look at the scale and sources of education funding within 123 large metro areas in 38 states, focusing on funding disparities among districts serving the same region. Key takeaways include: (1) a majority of public school students (62%) live in large metro areas with more than five districts -- a level of fragmentation that makes funding disparities more likely; (2) within fragmented metro areas, wealthy districts often generate much more local funding per student than less affluent districts; (3) state policies, despite their progressive tilt, rarely bridge this gap -- and often don't even come close; (4) in 49 of the 123 large metro areas we examined, school districts in affluent areas receive the most funding per pupil; (5) closing the state and local funding gap between districts within the metro areas we examined would cost $26 billion in additional state funding per year; and (6) more ambitious policies can greatly reduce or even eliminate funding disparities. The report also explores policy tools state leaders can use to ensure all districts within the same metro area at the very least receive similar funding per student and ideally, set the stage for even greater levels of per-pupil funding to flow to higher-needs districts.

For decades, college tuition costs have been skyrocketing, yet state financial aid has failed to meet the increasing economic needs of college students -- leaving many young people with the choice of bridging the financial gap by taking out student loans or not attending college at all. This pressing issue of rising college tuition is not just a matter of economic inconvenience; it is a harbinger of deepening racial and socioeconomic inequalities. The lack of financial aid disproportionately deters Black and Latino students and students from low-income backgrounds from pursuing higher education and earning a college degree. In this report, we explore state financial aid funding and associated program requirements in 10 distinct states: California, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. In it, we shed light on the 12 key eligibility requirements that often serve as barriers for students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, undocumented students, and justice-impacted students to afford college: (1) Program type (Need, Merit, or Need and Merit); (2) FAFSA completion required; (3) Alternative to FAFSA; (4) Low-income requirement; (5) Available without standardized test score; (6) Available without mandated GPA; (7) Marginalized student populations included; (8) FAFSA as a state high-school graduation requirement; (9) Institution types eligible; (10) Average undergraduate cost of attendance (COA) for in-state students (2022-23 academic year); (11) Annual award amount description; and (12) Enrollment intensity. This analysis is designed to help educators, policymakers, and advocates better understand the barriers, strengths, limitations, and influences that state financial aid programs can have on the ability of students of color and students from low-income backgrounds to access and afford college.

Systems navigators help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet the needs of students experiencing homelessness and decrease barriers to their education by connecting them--and often their families--to resources and community organizations that can provide wraparound services. This National Center for Homeless Education brief: (1) provides information on what systems navigators are and the role they play in supporting children and youth experiencing homelessness; (2) explores how LEAs leverage the systems navigator role as a helpful resource for meeting the needs of children and youth experiencing homelessness; and (3) provides examples from communities and LEAs that have expanded their services and coordination by hiring systems navigators.

Since the 1990's, the federal government has allocated funds to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) to through the Title V, Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions program. However, this program has become increasingly competitive such that less than half (40 percent) of all eligible HSIs received Title V funds in 2020. The competitive nature of HSI federal funding has increased the importance for HSIs to plan effectively for grant competitions and utilize funds in a sustainable manner that supplements existing institutional efforts. The increasingly limited reach of federal funding has raised questions regarding how institutions participate in HSI federal grant programs and the impact these programs have on sustaining institutional practices that facilitate Latino student success. "Excelencia" in Education interviewed six HSIs to understand how these institutions have participated in HSI federal grant competitions, specifically the Title V and HSI STEM grant programs. The institutions shared their current strategies for preparing federal grant applications, how they have leveraged federal funding to advance and sustain institutional efforts, and what it means to them to be an HSI. From the interviews, the HSIs demonstrated strategies that can refine the way policymakers and HSI advocates approach the way they support HSIs. The implications of the institutional practices shared in this brief may inform how other HSIs strategize their own federal grant participation strategies and inform the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in how their grant application and evaluation processes look in practice.

Much attention has been focused on the importance of providing physical and mental health services to students in educational environments in recent years. Millions of students receive school-based health services, and for many students, schools are their first and only option to receive health care. State policymakers have a lot to consider in this policy area, including funding, workforce needs and coordination of efforts across agencies. State leaders are not only enabling health services to be offered in schools but working to ensure equitable access to those services for students who may otherwise struggle to receive them. This Policy Brief outlines how some states have been using school-based health services in K-12 environments -- particularly through the school-based health center (SBHC) and community school models -- to pursue equitable access to both physical and mental health services for all students.

More than 427,000 undocumented students are enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions. That's an impressive number, considering the many hurdles they must overcome on the road to college and a degree, including restrictions on their ability to enroll in higher education institutions; limits on access to in-state tuition, state financial aid, professional and commercial licenses, driver's licenses, state health care, and food and housing assistance; and difficulties obtaining work authorization and employment -- not to mention the threat of deportation they are under. Providing equitable higher education access for undocumented students means making college accessible and affordable for them. But it also means acknowledging the unique challenges they face because of their immigration status and ensuring that they get the additional supports they need. Researchers from The Education Trust analyzed 9 criteria in the 15 states with the largest shares of undocumented college students -- Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington -- to determine whether state policies are helping or hurting undocumented students' ability to attend college and how access and success for this underserved student population could be improved. [This report was supported by the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, FWD.us, and United We Dream.]

Each year, NASSGAP completes a survey regarding state-funded expenditures for postsecondary student financial aid. This report provides data regarding state-funded expenditures for student financial aid and illustrates the extent of efforts made by the states to assist postsecondary students. Information in this report is based on academic year 2021-22 data from the 53rd Annual NASSGAP survey. Data Highlights include: (1) In the 2021-22 academic year, the states awarded almost $14.9 billion in total state funded student financial aid, a slight increase about 1.0 percent in nominal terms and a decrease of about 6.4 percent in constant dollar terms from the $14.8 billion in aid awarded in 2020-21; (2) The majority of state aid (87 percent) remains in the form of grants. In 2021-22, about 4.1 million grant awards were made representing about 13.0 billion in need and nonneed-based grant aid. This represents an increase of about 0.8 percent from the $12.9 billion in grants awarded in 2020-21. Of the grant money awarded in 2021-22, about 73 percent was need-based and about 27 percent was nonneed-based, a breakout consistent with historical data; (3) Funding for undergraduate need-based grant aid decreased slightly nationwide from $9.4 billion in 2020-21 to about $9.5 billion in 2021-22, a change of about 1.6 percent in nominal terms; (4) Eight states (California, Texas, New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania) collectively again awarded about 6.4 billion in undergraduate need-based grant aid, accounting for about 68.7 percent of all aid of this type; and (5) States provided about $1.9 billion in nongrant student aid, including loans, loan assumptions, conditional grants, work-study, and tuition waivers. Tuition waivers represented about 48 percent of nongrant aid.

In spring 2022, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Technology (OET) committed to advancing digital equity through the Digital Equity Education Roundtables (DEER) Initiative. Through DEER, OET hosted a series of national conversations with leaders from community-based organizations, as well as families and learners furthest from digital opportunities. The "Advancing Digital Equity All" resource illuminates insights from these conversation to highlight the barriers faced by learner communities and promising solutions for increasing access to technology for learning. The historic federal investments authorized by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act offer critical opportunities for broadband planning that can identify and equitably address the various availability, affordability, and adoption challenges described. Using this guidance resource as a starting point, it is essential that leaders collaborate with those most impacted by the digital divide to develop comprehensive digital equity plans that outline strategies to meet the needs of learners, their families/caregivers, and communities effectively and sustainably.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implementation and impacts of the Building Assets, Reducing Risks (BARR) model in its first year of implementation in 66 schools across the U.S. and to document scale-up progress during the Investing in Innovation (i3) grant period (2017-2021). The impact evaluation included 21,529 9th grade students and 524 teachers from 66 schools across three cohorts (2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years). The schools were recruited from 12 states and the District of Columbia, with a focus on relatively low-performing schools and districts. Schools in each cohort were randomly selected to receive the BARR model immediately (the treatment group) or receive BARR after one year (a 'wait-list' control group) to provide a reference for measuring the impacts of the BARR model on a range of academic and nonacademic outcomes after the first year of implementation. Across the three study cohorts combined, BARR had substantial and statistically significant impacts on the proportion of students who passed all their core courses. BARR had a statistically significant impact on student achievement for mathematics, but not for reading, as measured by the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), for the two combined cohorts for which this outcome was available. Assignment to BARR caused a negative (favorable) impact on the percentage of students who were chronically absent but did not have a statistically significant impact on suspension rates or persistence to 10th grade across the combined cohorts. The evaluation also found significant positive program effects on seven of nine measures of teacher experiences, with the most substantial effects on teacher collaboration with and view of colleagues, teacher use of data, and teachers' views of school supports. Schools assigned to receive the BARR model as part of the evaluation experienced both challenges and successes in implementing the eight BARR model components with fidelity. BARR Center also made significant progress in implementing the six scaling strategies they considered important to grow and sustain the model over time. The findings from this evaluation indicate that BARR is an effective model for schools aiming to improve students' transitions into ninth grade, reduce course failure, and narrow existing gaps in student academic outcomes between different demographic subgroups of students. [The report was written with Ashley Sunde, So Jung Park, Briana Garcia, and Connie Chandra.]

The method California uses to count students for funding purposes is an important decision that drives both resources and behaviors. For more than 100 years, California has funded school districts based on the average number of students who attend school each day. Although this average daily attendance (ADA) method was once used by many states, the practice has faded. Now, California is one of just six states that use ADA to allocate state education funding to school districts. The remaining states use other student count methods such as average enrollment. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced shocks to attendance and enrollment patterns in schools, creating budgetary uncertainty as well as challenges regarding how to effectively engage and serve all students. Some state legislators, advocates, and education leaders have proposed that California switch from an attendance-based funding system to one that funds based on enrollment, and some are debating ways to adjust count methods to protect districts experiencing attendance volatility and declining enrollment. As policymakers engage in these discussions, it is critically important that they understand California's current count method as well as potential alternatives to it. This report reviews student count methods used in California and other states, and then explores the following: (1) To what extent do ADA-based funding systems incentivize higher attendance? (2) What is known about enrollment and attendance trends before and since the pandemic? (3) What would the fiscal impact be if California were to shift from attendance-based to enrollment-based funding? and (4) How might various state goals be addressed by the current ADA-based system, an alternative enrollment-based system, or other policy solutions? This study aims to inform policymakers and advocates as they consider whether and how to revise existing policies or craft new policies to address a variety of state priorities related to fiscal stability, equity, attendance, and more.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic shut down public school buildings across the United States in early 2020, research on academic indicators has documented disproportionate--and potentially long-lasting--impacts on Latino students. This report examines several strategies and practices that have tremendous promise for accelerating Latino students' recovery and promoting continued educational progress. Within the report, snapshots highlight promising practices in five states where Latino students represent a significant percentage of the student population: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas.

While COVID-19 is capable of infecting anyone, the level of risk is far from equal. Data show that Black and Latino communities, already suffering from deep-rooted economic and health inequalities, have borne the brunt of the pandemic. Latinas, in particular, have suffered some of the most egregious economic and health disparities over the past year. Latinas were already saddled with significant disadvantages pre-pandemic; they had lower wages, higher levels of poverty and were the least likely to have access to health care compared to other demographic groups. COVID-19 compounded these inequities, and the outcomes for Latinas have been devastating. This report surveys the economic, health and social impact of COVID-19 on Latinas from data gathered through 41 interviews. Latinas interviewed lived in states with significant Latino populations, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Texas and Virginia.

What works to improve the success of Latino college students? Examples of "Excelencia" is the only national effort to identify and promote evidence-based programs accelerating Latino student success in higher education. Since 2005, "Excelencia" in Education has recognized over 350 programs making a positive difference in the lives of Latino students at the associate, baccalaureate, graduate, and community-based organization levels. "Excelencia" is committed to leveraging these programs to build a national community of common cause toward Latino student success. In 2021, "Excelencia" recognizes 4 programs as the 2021 Examples of "Excelencia," one at each level --associate, baccalaureate, graduate, and community-based organizations--for their evidence-based practices, cultural relevance, and commitment to intentionally serve Latino students. In addition, "Excelencia" recognizes 17 programs as 2021 Examples of "Excelencia" Finalists also effective in improving Latino student success at institutions and in their communities. [Additional funding was provided by Ad Astra, Territorium, and Workday. For the 2020 report, see ED611163.]

One year after the COVID-19 pandemic forced state and school leaders across the nation and around the world to immediately close school buildings, the lasting impact on students is increasingly evident: Months of online learning and limited in-person interaction with educators, coaches and mentors have led to gaps in learning, and unknown emotional impacts on millions of K12 students and educators. Experiences of the past year have brought deeper understanding and greater clarity on how best to organize schooling and deliver instruction in a way that minimizes health risks and maximizes learning and engagement. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association (NGA) analyzed emerging state efforts to accelerate student learning this summer and during the 2021-22 school year. They reviewed available state plans, websites, media reports and gubernatorial State of the State addresses for most states. Because each state is at different stages in their planning, in many cases, the documents reviewed were initial drafts, plan outlines (with specifics still being developed) or the first in a series of resources being developed. This memo provides an overview of notable strategies and trends that were identified through this analysis, and is organized around four major steps, which serve as the framing for this memo. Along with describing the activities states are taking as part of each step, this memo includes a range of state examples and links to related resources. As state approaches continue to evolve and plans are finalized, states are encouraged to share their detailed strategies with CCSSO, NGA and the field. The four major steps states are taking include: (1) Getting organized and understanding what needs to happen; (2) Using summer 2021 to accelerate learning; (3) Supporting more students to be successful learners; and (4) Tackling other challenges: Future considerations.

Despite advances made in broadening access to higher education, some evidence suggests that college completion rates have actually declined over time, and attainment gaps stemming from race/ethnicity and socioeconomic background have remained stubbornly persistent (Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2010; National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Colleges and universities are searching for ways to better identify students with lower odds of postsecondary success and develop programs to support their persistence and completion. This paper presents collaborative research from four different states -- Texas, New York, Virginia and Illinois -- examining the feasibility and accuracy of models that predict students' likelihood of degree completion using only administrative data on students' pre-college characteristics and early college experiences. The authors employed fairly simple statistical methods on statewide longitudinal data systems (also known as student unit records systems or "SURDS") to predict degree completion for undergraduate students. Their focus was on the overall predictive validity of these models, which is often neglected in educational research that focuses on relationships between student characteristics and degree completion (American Diploma Project, 2004; Adelman, 1997, 1999, 2006; Attewell, Heil & Reisel, 2011; Braxton, 2000; Chen & Carroll, 2005; Complete College America, 2011; Horn, Kojaku & Carroll, 2001; Tinto, 1994, 2012). [The paper was written with Christopher Maggio, Frederick Tucker, Jay Brooks, Xiaodan Hu, Tod Massa, Feng Raoking, and Nathan Wilson.]

Over the years, as states have sought to incorporate more inclusive and relevant academic standards and curriculum for K-12 students, they have interpreted ethnic studies in both broad and narrow terms. While most states use the term ethnic studies to describe their efforts to incorporate the knowledge and perspectives of traditionally excluded groups, some prefer multicultural education or diversity studies. As part of its mission to support and enhance the capacity of state, local, and regional agencies to improve education outcomes for all students, the Region 15 Comprehensive Center produced this scan to generate understanding of relevant legislative efforts across the country. To that end, it summarizes recent legislative initiatives--those between February 2019 and January 2021--that require ethnic studies to be incorporated in the K-12 standards or curricula in 19 states (i.e., California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia.

Hold-harmless provisions in state aid formulas are meant to restrict declines in revenues for school districts. They may take several forms, including limits on the changes in state aid from year to year, supplemental funding for districts with declining enrollment, alternatives for calculating the state aid amount, or use of past enrollments in grant calculations (Toutkoushian & Michael, 2008). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, school districts across the country are experiencing a decrease in student enrollments, while states face reduced revenues and budget deficits in education. Therefore, hold-harmless provisions become an option for policymakers to meet the financial challenges created by the pandemic. This research brief analyzes multiple online sources (e.g., state governments, state departments of education, state school boards associations, local news). It found that nearly three in five states have implemented hold-harmless provisions or are likely to implement hold-harmless provisions in the 2020-2021 school year. In 11 states, there are some types of hold-harmless provisions embedded in basic grants for schools. In 10 states, it is unclear whether hold-harmless provisions will be implemented

The National Math + Science Initiative (NMSI) is a nonprofit organization committed to improving educational outcomes that traces its roots back to the early 1990s. NMSI's College Readiness Program (CRP) is a long-standing program with the goal of promoting STEM education in high schools to improve students' preparation for college. The three-year program provides teacher, student, and school supports to promote high school students' success in English, mathematics, and science Advanced Placement (AP) courses, with a focus on students who are traditionally underrepresented in the targeted AP courses. Through a scale-up grant awarded to NMSI by the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, the CRP was implemented in 27 schools in the 2016-2017 school year (Treatment Schools) and in 21 schools in the 2017-2018 school year (Delayed Treatment Schools), collectively identified as Program Schools. CRESST conducted an independent evaluation of the impact of the CRP on students' AP outcomes using a randomized cluster trial with 48 CRP schools and 48 Comparison Schools in 10 states. The evaluation of the CRP consisted of three parts: (1) measuring the program's impact on selected student AP exam outcomes; (2) determining the impact of the program on school perspectives and culture; and (3) assessing of the fidelity of implementation of the CRP at the school level. AP exam data from 48 Treatment Schools, with a total of 8,778 exams in 2018 and 9,378 in 2019, and 48 matched control schools, with 7,505 exams in 2018 and 2019 in Year 3, were analyzed for this study. Program impact was evaluated using a 2-level hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) with students nested within schools. The analyses revealed that in 2018 the probability of a student taking an AP exam in the Program Schools was, on average, 7% higher than the paired Comparison Schools, and the difference was statistically significant. And in 2019 the effect was even greater with the probability of taking an AP exam being significantly higher in Program Schools (18%) than in Comparison Schools (3%). When looking at the probability of an exam yielding a qualifying score, in 2018, the HGLM analyses found no significant difference between the two groups. In 2019, however, exams taken at the Program Schools had a significantly higher overall probability (2%) of receiving a qualifying score than the Comparison Schools (0%). These analyses compared results to the total school population. In the next analyses, we looked only at those students who took AP exams. In 2018, overall, the fitted probability of achieving a qualifying score among the exams taken was 8% in the Program Schools, compared to 22% in the Comparison Schools. In 2019, however, the difference between the Program Schools (7%) and the Comparison Schools (9%) was not statistically significant. Fidelity of implementation was evaluated using a fidelity matrix approach (required as part of the evaluation of the i3 program), which showed that not all elements of the program were implemented with high fidelity. In 2018, results indicated that 43 out of 48 schools (90%) achieved 80% or better implementation fidelity, for an average fidelity score of 89%. Four schools achieved a perfect 100% fidelity score. In 2019, 88% of schools achieved 80% or better implementation fidelity. Ten schools achieved a perfect 100% fidelity score. In 2018 in more than 75% of schools, not all teachers fulfilled their requirements for attending the required teacher training sessions, and so this component was not implemented with fidelity. In 2019, this picture improved a little with 15 schools (31%) meeting the 80% threshold. Teacher stipends, administrator bonuses, and student qualifying score awards were paid as expected. Teacher survey data indicated that teachers found the training and professional development activities provided by the CRP to be the most beneficial program supports. Mentoring was chosen, across all years, as the least effective program component. When prompted for the second most effective CRP component, the same number of teachers selected the funding of classroom and lab supplies as did teacher training. [For "2016-2017 Implementation Evaluation of the National Math and Science Initiative's College Readiness Program," see ED615910.]

Michigan's K-12 education system has arguably never truly supported all students to reach their full potential and prepare them for post-secondary opportunities and success. Instead, Michigan's education system has served as an engine of inequality when it should be providing opportunities for all kids to learn. Now is a critical time to address these long-standing education opportunity gaps, as Michigan works to utilize the historic federal investment in education and recover from the impacts of COVID-19 on student learning, which disproportionally affected historically underserved students. This report examines how Michigan can close the opportunity gaps by addressing the structural issues in Michigan's funding system that perpetuate inequities. This includes making significant investments to close the funding gap between what low-income students, English Learners and students with disabilities currently receive under Michigan's school funding formula and what leading states practice and what high-quality empirical research indicates they need to reach the same outcomes as their peers who have no additional needs.

The Latino population in the United States is large and growing. As a whole, however, it has been challenged with inequitable educational attainment rates compared to other groups, meriting the attention of public agencies, postsecondary institutions, and advocates. Latino economic and career success -- and the success of our overall economy -- depend on alleviating current educational inequalities. The most effective way to do that is by directing resources to effective, data-driven strategies. In 2018, 15 postsecondary institutions joined in the three-year Latino Adult Student Success (LASS) Academy to develop and implement targeted strategies that support Latino adult students (and adult learners generally) in their pursuit of postsecondary credentials. The LASS Academy was the inaugural cohort under the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL)'s Adult Learner Academy model, an approach that combines data analysis, technical assistance, and peer-to-peer learning to support new action plans and strategies for improving services and programs for important target populations. The data used in the initiative included enrollment, course completion, persistence, and graduation metrics along with surveys of the institutions' staff and current adult students through CAEL's Adult Learner 360™ process. The experience offered several important lessons that underscored the advantages of the Academy model. The institutions benefited from the opportunity to connect with each other and share strategies, and they valued the emphasis on the use of both quantitative data from their own student records and the analysis of new qualitative survey results. The initiative further showed the creative resilience of the institutions to quickly change course during the pandemic and adjust their implementation plans in the course of its shifting circumstances. As their new approaches to supporting Latino adults continue beyond the project, the participating LASS institutions expect to see even greater benefits to their Latino adult postsecondary enrollment and success.

Rising employer demand for skilled workers has driven efforts to better align occupational training programs to industry needs. Yet, even as the demand for skilled workers increases, less than half of students who enter occupational training programs receive a credential within six years. Community colleges are working to find faster and more effective ways to train those in need of basic skills instruction in math, reading, or job skills. Traditionally, basic skills courses are offered in a sequence that must be completed before students can begin college-level occupational training. However, most students referred to basic skills training never enroll in college-level courses. As its name implies, Washington State's "Integrated Basic Education Skills and Training (I-BEST)" provides integrated basic skills and occupational training that allows students to complete their training program faster, and provides supports designed to ensure students stay engaged in training. Washington State's "I-BEST" program was developed by the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) and was first implemented in the 2006-2007 school year. This What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) report, part of the WWC's Postsecondary Career and Technical Education topic area, explores the effects of "I-BEST" on education and labor market outcomes. The WWC identified 12 studies of "I-BEST." Three of these studies meet WWC standards. The evidence presented in this report is from studies of the impact of "I-BEST" on students in career and technical education programs--including African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and White students--in a variety of school settings, including urban, suburban, and rural community colleges. This intervention brief provides an overview of the full report. [For the full report, see ED607980. For the Intervention Report Snapshot, see ED607982.]

Rising employer demand for skilled workers has driven efforts to better align occupational training programs to industry needs. Yet, even as the demand for skilled workers increases, less than half of students who enter occupational training programs receive a credential within six years. Community colleges are working to find faster and more effective ways to train those in need of basic skills instruction in math, reading, or job skills. Traditionally, basic skills courses are offered in a sequence that must be completed before students can begin college-level occupational training. However, most students referred to basic skills training never enroll in college-level courses. As its name implies, Washington State's "Integrated Basic Education Skills and Training (I-BEST)" provides integrated basic skills and occupational training that allows students to complete their training program faster, and provides supports designed to ensure students stay engaged in training. Washington State's "I-BEST" program was developed by the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) and was first implemented in the 2006-2007 school year. Since its creation, "I-BEST" has been replicated in other locations, sometimes under different names. "Accelerating Opportunity" was launched in four states in 2011 with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With support from the U.S. Department of Labor's Workforce Innovation Fund (WIF), the "Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE)" program was implemented in four states in 2013. Both "Accelerating Opportunity" and "ACE" programs note that they are based on the "I-BEST" model, with the same core commitment to integrated basic skills and occupational training. Supports provided by these programs differ slightly, and these differences are described in this report. This What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) report, part of the WWC's Postsecondary Career and Technical Education topic area, explores the effects of "I-BEST" on education and labor market outcomes. The WWC identified 12 studies of "I-BEST." Three of these studies meet WWC standards. The evidence presented in this report is from studies of the impact of "I-BEST" on students in career and technical education programs--including African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and White students--in a variety of school settings, including urban, suburban, and rural community colleges. [For the Intervention Brief, see ED607981. For the Intervention Report Snapshot, see ED607982.]

For many non-traditional candidates, the path into teaching is riddled with bumps and detours. They must pay for increasingly expensive coursework and certification costs, attend classes that conflict with work schedules, and forgo wages to complete unfunded student teaching requirements. These roadblocks can deter valuable local talent--paraeducators, afterschool staff, substitutes, parents, and students--from becoming teachers. The good news is that a number of states are using competitive grants to expand and strengthen GYO programs, which offer more hospitable pathways into the profession for candidates who share the same communities and demographic backgrounds as their students.

This Policy Brief outlines some of the challenges presented to students -- particularly those who are historically underserved -- who are transitioning from high school to college this fall. It shares the ways in which "near peer" advisors, or recent high school graduates, can help ease the transition and steer students toward success. This Policy Brief is one of six dedicated to various facets of the transition from secondary to postsecondary education, now complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses on the populations already underserved in the nation's education system. The series -- which builds upon "A State Policymaker's Guide to Equitable Transitions in the COVID-19 Era" (see ED606369) -- provides actionable steps and examples for state policymakers to consider as they address the transition from high school to college and the workforce.

This Policy Brief defines dual enrollment and common barriers to entry for historically underserved student populations. It identifies three opportunities for policies to expand access and make it more equitable: (1) Protect low-income students' access to dual enrollment; (2) Re-examine student eligibility policies; and (3) Encourage greater collaboration between K-12 and postsecondary education. This Policy Brief is one of six dedicated to various facets of the transition from secondary to postsecondary education, now complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses on the populations already underserved in the nation's education system. The series -- which builds upon "A State Policymaker's Guide to Equitable Transitions in the COVID-19 Era" (see ED606369) -- provides actionable steps and examples for state policymakers to consider as they address the transition from high school to college and the workforce.

COVID-19 shuttered schools across the United States, upending traditional approaches to education. We examine teachers' experiences during emergency remote teaching in the spring of 2020 using responses to a working conditions survey from a sample of 7,841 teachers across 206 schools and 9 states. Teachers reported a range of challenges related to engaging students in remote learning and balancing their professional and personal responsibilities. Teachers in high-poverty and majority Black schools perceived these challenges to be the most severe, suggesting the pandemic further increased existing educational inequities. Using data from both pre-post and retrospective surveys, we find that the pandemic and pivot to emergency remote teaching resulted in a sudden, large drop in teachers' sense of success. We also demonstrate how supportive working conditions in schools played a critical role in helping teachers to sustain their sense of success. Teachers who could depend on their district and school-based leadership for strong communication, targeted training, meaningful collaboration, fair expectations, and recognition of their efforts were least likely to experience declines in their sense of success.

Reading Apprenticeship is a research-based professional learning model and instructional framework designed by the Strategic Literacy Initiative (SLI) at WestEd to improve student literacy and learning. Based on understandings of the close relationship between curricular reform and professional development (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007), Reading Apprenticeship components include an instructional framework and associated professional development model for secondary and post-secondary teachers across the academic subject areas. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education awarded SLI a Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) grant to disseminate the Reading Apprenticeship approach to literacy instruction across the subject areas in middle and high schools. The funded project, called Reading Apprenticeship Across the Disciplines (RAAD), was awarded in October 2015 and concluded in October 2019. Through RAAD, SLI served middle and high school teachers in 6 states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin). Three key goals shaped the RAAD project: (1) Increase the number of highly effective secondary teachers serving high needs students by providing Reading Apprenticeship professional learning; (2) Improve high needs students' reading comprehension, academic achievement, metacognitive skills, and positive learning dispositions by increasing opportunities to learn; and (3) Build local capacity for strong and sustained implementation and dissemination of effective academic literacy practices through teacher leader development, school, and regional network support. An independent impact study was conducted by IMPAQ International with 7% of participating sites to address project Goals 1 and 2. This report focuses on formative assessment of project activities that address SLI's capacity to accomplish project Goals 1 and 3. [For the impact study, "Evaluation of Reading Apprenticeship across the Disciplines (RAAD): Effective Secondary Teaching and Learning through Literacy Leadership," see ED622055.]

This report presents key findings from "Learning in the Fast Lane: The Past, Present, and Future of Advanced Placement," by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Andrew E. Scanlan, and published by Princeton University Press in 2019. American education has long been plagued by excellence gaps among the young people who make it into the highest levels of academic performance. Disadvantage, race, and gender matter far more than they should. Narrowing such gaps is imperative for a K-12 system that seeks both excellence and equity, and the Advanced Placement (AP) program is already making a major contribution, albeit one that could and should become even greater. Drawing on Finn's and Scanlan's important new book, this report--prepared for the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation--examines AP's role in helping students from underserved populations achieve high levels of academic success. It looks closely at differences in AP participation and exam success by geography, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, as well as AP's contribution to and potential for narrowing troubling gaps. Where students live is strongly correlated with successful AP participation. Rural high school seniors, for example, are only two-thirds as likely to take an AP exam as their suburban and urban peers, and more than half of high-poverty rural schools do not even offer any AP classes. Socioeconomic status makes a big difference, too. Whereas AP once focused on top students in elite private and public high schools, in recent decades it has sought to help capable disadvantaged youngsters master college-level coursework before graduating. Although they're still underrepresented, we've seen a dramatic increase in their AP participation. Yet students from lower-income families are less successful on the end-of-year AP exams. Though nearly half of low-income graduates who take an AP exam during their time in high school receive scores of 3 or higher, nearly two-thirds of their non-low-income peers earn similar scores. As for race, AP's cohorts have become markedly more diverse as participation by black and Hispanic students has grown faster than that of white and Asian students over this period. Yet here, again, we see that students of color do not fare as well on the exams. The report lauds the gains in AP participation among poor and minority youth while urging greater attention both to further gains on that front and to strengthening their AP performance. Given AP's capacity to help students prepare for college, gain admission, and succeed upon arrival there, expanding access to it remains an important national endeavor. States, school districts, philanthropies, and education reformers should redouble their efforts to ensure that students from all backgrounds have access not only to AP coursework but also to the preparation and supports needed to succeed on the exams. To do otherwise would wall off an important path to upward mobility, sustain societal inequalities, and constrain opportunities. [For "Learning in the Fast Lane: The Past, Present, and Future of Advanced Placement," see ED599694.]

How can institutions and communities accelerate Latino student success? Examples of "Excelencia" is the only national effort to identify and promote evidence-based programs accelerating Latino student success in higher education. Since 2005, "Excelencia" in Education has recognized over 300 programs making a positive difference in the lives of Latino students at the associate, baccalaureate, graduate, and community-based organization levels. "Excelencia" is committed to leveraging these programs to build a national community of common cause toward Latino student success. In 2020, "Excelencia" recognizes 4 programs as the 2020 Examples of "Excelencia," one in each respective category--associate, baccalaureate, graduate, and community-based organizations--for their evidence-based practices, cultural relevance, and commitment to intentionally serve Latino students. In addition, "Excelencia" recognizes 16 programs as 2020 Examples of "Excelencia" Finalists also effective in improving Latino student success at institutions and in their communities and highlights 17 innovative/up-and-coming programs that are making a positive impact on the success of their Latino students identified as Programs to Watch. [Additional funding was provided by Ad Astra, the Trellis Foundation, Pepco, and Facebook. For the 2019 report, see ED599622.]