Search

The purpose of this annual survey developed and reported by the Friedman Foundation and our partner, Braun Research, Inc., is to measure public opinion on, and in some cases awareness or knowledge of, a range of K-12 education topics and reforms. We report response levels, differences ("margins"), and intensities for the country and a range of demographic groups. We also track response changes over time when possible.

The Common Core State Standards represent an exciting step forward for California, and for the nation as a whole, in supporting instruction that can better prepare students for college and career success. Concurrent with the transition to the new standards, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), of which California is a governing member, is introducing a new, large-scale assessment system in 2015 that aligns with the Common Core. The SBAC assessments aim to capture student learning in a deeper and more authentic way than the state's previous assessment system--the California Standards Test (CST). This is not the first time California has transitioned to a new system of academic standards, instruction, and assessment. In particular, potential parallels exist between the SBAC assessments and the short-lived California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) of the early 1990s. As educators embrace the challenges associated with assessment of the Common Core, it is instructive to learn from the CLAS experience, both to build on its successes and to avoid the mistakes that led to its demise. In September 2012, the California Collaborative on District Reform released a brief that drew connections between assessment efforts tied to the Common Core and the CLAS. Reflecting on both the successes and failures of the CLAS, "Learning From the Past" identified four key lessons that should inform current activities related to Common Core implementation and assessment. The standards and assessments landscape has evolved dramatically since the 2012 brief was published, and education leaders have taken steps to avert some of the problems that undermined the CLAS. Nevertheless, key challenges remain. The goal of this brief is to chart the progress that has been made since the original brief was released in 2012, while also highlighting areas that remain in need of attention as the state continues to develop and implement student assessment systems around the Common Core. Doing so emphasizes the importance of assessment not solely as an external accountability tool, but as an essential component of implementing the Common Core. As the first administration of the SBAC assessments begins in spring 2015, the brief will be most effective if read as a set of considerations for improving the ways in which educators at all levels can respond to evidence of, and develop better approaches to, improving student learning. [Additional funding for the development of this brief was provided by the California Education Policy Fund, and the Silver Giving Foundation.]

2013 was a year of positive change for millions of children, and each child has an individual story. The stories of individual children are their own; the efforts to reach them are the stories of UNICEF in 2013, and every year since the founding of UNICEF. 2013 either brought no change or violent change for far too many children, and disparities--among children from rich and poor countries and communities, among children from rural and urban environments, and among children from different ethnic groups--remain high, even as the 2015 target date for achievement of the Millennium Development Goals approaches. This report outlines UNICEF's efforts to reach the children who have gone unreached--to drive change for the most vulnerable, disadvantaged, and excluded children. The children's rights are not fulfilled as long as they are unreached, deprived, abused, exploited, and denied a voice. This report spotlights the Strategic Plan 2014-2017, UNICEF's blueprint for fulfilling the promises of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and directing equity-focused work for children beyond 2015. UNICEF's efforts in 2013 focused on multiple fronts: driving innovation; deepening partnerships; and engaging the public to mobilize change for children. In all UNICEF does, they continue efforts to streamline operations, to strengthen program monitoring to find out what is working and what is not, and to become more transparent. [Foreword by Anthony Lake.]

"America after 3PM" began in 2004, precisely because of the absence of reliable data about such topics. That year, the Afterschool Alliance set out to fill the information gap, conducting what was at that point the most in-depth study on how children spend their time after school. The 2014 "America after 3PM" edition spans a decade of data chronicling how children spend the hours between 3 and 6 p.m.--the hours after school ends and before parents typically return home from work. Together with its predecessor reports, it serves as a resource for policymakers, educators, parents and advocates on the trends of afterschool program participation, demand for afterschool programs, and the number of children who are alone and unsupervised during the after school hours. The data in this report show that parents are increasingly turning to afterschool programs to meet their own and their children's needs in the hours after school. The combined demand for afterschool, both met and unmet, exceeds 50 percent of school-age children in the United States. Parents who are fortunate enough to have access to afterschool programs are highly satisfied with those programs and are increasingly satisfied with aspects of the programs that are linked to quality. [For the 2009 edition, see "America after 3PM: The Most In-Depth Study of How America's Children Spend Their Afternoons" (ED506748).]

New Hampshire is often hailed as a state where children's well-being is high relative to other states. However, a 2017 RAND study pointed to the substantial share of children in the state who are at risk of adverse developmental outcomes because of low family resources and other factors that can compromise healthy development in the first few years of life. The RAND study also estimated that New Hampshire would gain from further investments in two types of evidence-based early childhood interventions: home visiting and preschool education, with estimated returns of $2 to $6 in benefits for every $1 invested. Despite this potential return, New Hampshire has fallen behind other states that have recognized the value of further investments in early childhood programs. Given the unmet need and potential for positive economic returns, the RAND Corporation was asked to identify ways that New Hampshire can be strategic in making new early childhood investments, with a focus on evidence-based home visiting and high-quality preschool. RAND researchers assembled data across communities in the state (defined by school districts) to understand the variation in the factors that place children and families at risk and where publicly funded early childhood programs are currently available. The 2017 RAND study showed the expected economic returns from expanding evidence-based home visiting programs and high-quality preschool programs, also informed by research evidence. The findings in this study point to a strategic approach to these investments, namely focusing first on those communities with the greatest need but with current low rates of access to early childhood programs. [For the main report, "Advancing Investments in the Early Years: Opportunities for Strategic Investments in Evidence-Based Early Childhood Programs in New Hampshire," see ED594802.]

A substantial share of children in New Hampshire are at risk of adverse developmental outcomes because of low family resources and other factors that can compromise healthy development in the first few years of life. This report examines the need for early childhood investments in communities across New Hampshire, the current investments under way and how they match with underlying needs, and where there are opportunities for further strategic investments in early childhood programs, particularly home visiting and preschool education. Drawing on data that characterize the variation in needs and services across the state and a study of four focal communities that are already making advances in this area, the author recommends a strategic approach to further investments in early childhood programs, focusing first on those communities with the greatest need but with current low rates of access. Key Findings: (1) Wide Variation in the Need for Early Childhood Programs in New Hampshire: There is tremendous variability across New Hampshire communities in the extent to which the state's youngest children and their families face various risks and stressors that can compromise healthy child development; (2) Unrealized Potential of Home Visiting Programs: (a) Family Resource Centers (FRCs) in many communities in New Hampshire implement home visiting as part of a larger set of comprehensive family support services; (b) Home visiting programs serve up to 1,100 families and children each year, far below the estimated 9,200 who would be expected to benefit; and (c) Further work is needed to map where the gap in home visiting services relative to need is greatest; and (3) School District Preschool Programs Support Early Learning Prior to Kindergarten: (a) There is little information about the nature and quality of school district preschool programs, which reach about 4,000 children annually, both children with special needs and their typically developing peers; (b) Information from the districts in four focal communities -- Claremont, Manchester, Nashua, and Coös County -- shows that most of their preschool enrollment is in part-day and part-week programs, with teacher qualifications, class sizes, and teacher-child ratios consistent with high quality; and (c) Access to district preschool programs is not aligned with the districts where children are most at risk of poor academic performance because of high rates of poverty and other disadvantages. Recommendations: (1) To maximize the expected return, expand evidence-based home visiting and preschool programs in a strategic fashion; and (2) Strategic investments should involve state and local public funds, as well as private contributions from philanthropy and business, to (a) expand access to high-quality evidence-based home visiting and preschool programs, starting in those communities with the greatest access gaps; (b) continue strategies to realize an effective and efficient integrated early childhood system; and (c) build the data systems and other infrastructure at the state level to support informed decisions about future investments and to ensure that quality is achieved and expected impacts are realized. [Additional funding for this report was provided by the New Hampshire Children's Health Foundation.]

A state education agency (SEA) can pull a powerful lever for school turnaround by setting goals publicly and releasing reports on progress toward those goals at turnaround schools to build public support for turnaround efforts. SEAs can gather information for reporting from data they already have available. This report clarifies indicators and metrics that can be most helpful for tracking progress toward goals and knowing where to find the data to inform those measures. The templates in this packet provided guidelines that will be useful to SEAs for setting bold and achievable goals and reporting publicly on metrics for low-performing schools. Keeping sight of these goals will redefine student success and provide impetus for public support around bold decisions required for school turnaround.

As New York State transitions from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge economy, few institutions are playing a more important role than the state's 35 community colleges. With more than 328,000 students enrolled statewide, community colleges are boosting New York's economic competitiveness by upgrading the skills of a large chunk of the state's workforce. They are enabling displaced workers to acquire skills in occupations that are growing, and helping businesses across the state meet their evolving workforce needs-from photonics in Rochester to nanotech in Albany. Perhaps most importantly, community colleges have become the state's key opportunity institutions. At a time when a high school diploma is no longer sufficient to obtain a decent paying job in most industries but the cost of getting a college education has skyrocketed, the state's community colleges offer the most accessible path for tens of thousands of low- and moderate- income New Yorkers to obtain a post-secondary credential. However, the state's community colleges have only just begun to deliver on their potential and face enormous challenges in the years ahead. Far too few students who enroll at community colleges in New York end up graduating or moving on to a four-year institution. Statewide, only 35 percent of full-time students who enroll in community college courses obtain an associate or bachelor's degree after six years. And in New York City, where a much higher percentage of students qualify as low-income, the six-year graduation rate is just 29 percent. While some schools do better than others at graduating students, every community college in the state has a six-year graduation rate below 50 percent. This report details the increasing importance of community colleges to New York State's economy and documents why raising graduation rates at the state's community colleges by even a small amount would result in significant benefits to the state's employers, young adults and the working poor. [This report was written with the assistance of David Shaffer.]

The low rates at which U.S. college students complete a degree and the amount time they spend in remedial coursework are national problems. The situation is particularly acute for low-income and other underserved youth, including populations such as Hispanic students that are growing the fastest in the country and that have some of the lowest success rates in our K-12 and postsecondary education systems. It is a problem not only for the students, and not only because our economy and democracy depend on well-educated citizens, but also because it represents an inefficient use of personal and public investments in education. Every student who falls short of the goal of earning a high school diploma and a college degree represents a financial investment that did not pay off in a credential of value in the labor market. In response, state policymakers and major foundations have invested in a variety of strategies to improve the college readiness of high school graduates, reduce the need for remedial courses in college, improve college completion rates, and reduce the "time to completion" of a degree. This brief supports the economic logic of such investments, in particular those that result in more low-income youth attaining the postsecondary credentials that can yield enormous benefits to students, families, and taxpayers. [This report was produced by Jobs for the Future's Early College Design Services.]

Every week in the United States, nearly 11 million children younger than age 5 are in some type of child care arrangement. On average, these children spend 36 hours a week in child care. While parents are children's first and most important teachers, child care programs provide early learning for millions of young children daily, having a profound impact on their development and readiness for school. For many parents, one of the initial shocks in becoming a parent is discovering the high price of child care. "Parents and the High Cost of Child Care: 2013 Report" uses 2012 data to show the average fees families are charged for legally operating child care centers and family child care homes in every state and the District of Columbia. The report looks at why child care is so expensive and families' options for paying for child care. The following tabular appendixes are included: (1) 2012 Average Annual Cost of Full-Time Care by State; (2) 2012 Ranking of Least-Affordable Child Care for an Infant in a Center; (3) 2012 Ranking of Least-Affordable Child Care for a 4-Year-Old Child in a Center; (4) 2012 Ranking of Least-Affordable Child Care for a School-Aged Child in a Center; (5) 2012 Average Child Care Center Costs and Median Housing Costs by State; (6) 2012 Average Annual Costs of Full-Time Child Care in a Center and Public College Tuition and Fees by State; (7) 2012 Average Costs for Center-Based Care for an Infant Compared to Varying Poverty Levels; (8) 2012 Average Costs for Center-Based Care for a 4-Year-Old Compared to Varying Poverty Levels; (9) 2012 Average Costs for an Infant in a Family Child Care Home Compared to Varying Poverty Levels; (10) 2012 Average Costs for a 4-Year-Old in a Family Child Care Home Compared to Varying Poverty Levels; (11) 2012 Ranking of Affordability of Center-Based Care for Single Mothers; (12) 2012 Urban-Rural Cost Difference for Center-Based Care, by State; and (13) 2012 Urban-Rural Cost Difference for Family Child Care, by State. A list of resources for families and a glossary are also provided. [For the 2012 report, see ED559910.]

The infrastructure for arts and cultural support in the United States is complex and adaptive. Citizens who enjoy the arts can choose from a wide array of drama, visual and media arts, dance, music, and literature available in formal and informal settings--theaters, museums, and concert halls, but also libraries, schools, places of worship, open-air venues, restaurants or nightclubs, and, via technology, at home or on the move. In the last two decades, the number of arts and cultural organizations has grown, even as revenues from sales and attendance have risen to all-time high levels. In the following chapters, this monograph identifies three basic types of financial support for the arts: (1) direct public funds awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and by state, regional, and local arts agencies; (2) funding from federal departments and agencies other than the NEA; and (3) private sector contributions, which make up the lion's share of contributed income for arts organizations. This third revenue stream flows from individual and corporate donors and from charity foundations, and it flows more smoothly because of incentives in the U.S. tax system.

California has long been viewed by the rest of the nation as leader in many areas, including education. The state's K-12 and higher education systems were once the envy of other states. Of late, though, the news from the Golden State has not been so rosy. For the last three decades California has faced increased demands on public services while suffering through economic cycles that have had exaggerated effects on the state budget. The result has been increased competition for limited resources, budget uncertainty and steadily eroding state dollars for a local schools. At the same time, demands on schools to produce better educated students have increased. In 1999 the state introduced its own standard-based accountability system (the Public Schools Accountability Act), which was then overlaid by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. As expectations for students and schools have risen, however, and budgets have fluctuated wildly, relatively little systemic education reform has taken place. California faces major challenges that the state seems unable to tackle. Given this backdrop, how does the public view California's schools and education policy effectiveness? Do voters understand the challenges that California faces, and are they prepared to make the tough choices and tradeoffs that potential solutions entail? This brief presents the findings from recent polling directed by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, and conducted by M4 Strategies/Tulchin Research. The PACE/USC Rossier poll is a new attempt to learn in more detail about how Californians perceive and understand the challenges now facing California's education system. [For "How Californians View Education Standards, Testing and Accountability: Results from the Third PACE/USC Rossier Poll," see ED564340.]

Researchers and policy analysts have documented the challenges in collecting pre-K and other early childhood data, and reports on disparities in full-day kindergarten from the Education Commission of the States and the Children's Defense Fund place the disorganized state of kindergarten data on full display. But in both cases, organizations have focused on data at the state level. In this issue brief, the authors turn to an arguably knottier problem: the dearth of reliable, complete, and comparable data on pre-K and kindergarten in school districts and local communities. As the Federal Education Budget Project expands to include data on publicly funded pre-K, the extent of the problem has come into greater focus (see "Including Pre-K Data in FEBP"). New questions about kindergarten data have surfaced as well. This brief pinpoints problems of incomplete data at the local level and explains why, in many cases, the data that do exist cannot be accurately compared to data in other districts or states. It ends with a discussion of steps that states, districts, and policymakers should take to repair these holes and ensure that PreK-12 policymakers and the public have a well-informed view of the state of pre-K and kindergarten in their states and localities. (Contains 13 notes.)

In "The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State," the Thomas B. Fordham Institute criticizes local urban governance structures and presents the decentralized, charter-school-driven Recovery School District (RSD) in New Orleans as a successful model for fiscal and academic performance. Absent from the review is any consideration of the chronic under-funding and racial history of New Orleans public schools before Hurricane Katrina, and no evidence is provided that a conversion to charter schools would remedy these problems. The report also misreads the achievement data to assert the success of the RSD, when the claimed gains may be simply a function of shifting test standards. The report also touts the replacement of senior teachers with new and non-traditionally prepared teachers, but provides no evidence of the efficacy of this practice. Additionally, the report claims public support for the reforms, but other indicators--never addressed in the report--reveal serious concerns over access, equity, performance, and accountability. Ultimately, the report is a polemic advocating the removal of public governance and the replacement of public schools with privately operated charter networks. It is thin on data and thick on claims, and should be read with great caution by policymakers in Ohio and elsewhere. (Contains 51 notes.) [This paper reviews the following document: "The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State" (ED528943).]

Hawaii's largest populations of at-risk youth include those youth who have dropped out of school, are at-risk of not completing high school, and youth who have completed school but are still not prepared for the workforce. Depending on estimates used, between 20 and 25 percent of Hawaiian youth are at risk of dropping out school. For older youth, 28 percent of 16 to 19 year olds and 14 percent of 20 to 24-year olds are neither employed nor enrolled in school. Efforts to address the needs of at-risk youth are critical to future success and stability of Hawaii's economy. The costs incurred by high school dropouts from one year alone (2008) is estimated to cost Hawaii $1.4 billion over the course of their lifetime in lost wages and other costs. To achieve key goals for at-risk youth in Hawaii, state leaders need information on which programs are currently used to support youth, what resources are available to fund initiatives for youth, and how resources can be used to deliver services to youth. The Hawaii Community Foundation commissioned The Finance Project (TFP) to conduct a fiscal mapping study to identify the public and private funding available to support at-risk youth, ages 13 to 24. This report also analyzes the extent to which the state is using funding effectively to sustain services for at-risk youth. Several questions guided the research including: (1) What are the major funding sources that support youth, ages 13 to 24?; (2) Where does the funding come from (i.e., federal, state, or other sources)?; (3) Which state agencies administer funding?; (4) How does funding align with key goals for youth and their families?; and (5) Who does the current funding support (e.g., eligibility, age groups, and special populations)? Appended are: (1) Summary List of Publicly Funded Programs Supporting At-Risk Youth, Ages 13 to 24, in Hawaii, by State Agency; (2) Funding Landscape: Publicly Funded Programs Supporting Youth, Ages 13 to 24, in Hawaii; (3) Funding by Type of Services Provided for Youth, Ages 13 to 24, in Hawaii; and (4) Promising Strategies for Financing Services for At-Risk Youth in Hawaii. [Funding for this paper was provided by the Hawaii Community Foundation and the Omidyar Ohana Fund.] (Contains 8 figures, 8 tables, and 18 footnotes.)

The Committee for Economic Development (CED) has a decades-old commitment to quality early childhood education. CED Trustees have always been in the forefront of the effort to promote early learning and development for all children. Over recent years, the case for investment in the early years of childhood has become stronger and more urgent. Scholars from several disciplines have learned more in fields that range from the first stages of development of the brain to the demonstrable life-long consequences of past high-quality investments in young children. Accordingly, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood Education reconvened to accumulate this knowledge, and to explain it to the newest generations of business leaders. CED continues to believe that these human investments are among the most important that the nation can make, and that the business community should take the lead in making this case to both policymakers and the public at large. (Contains 3 figures and 74 endnotes.)

Two years after the onset of the Great Recession, nonprofit colleges and universities found themselves struggling with their finances. Average per-student spending on academics declined in fiscal year (FY) 2010, and despite per-student spending cuts to prerecession levels at four-year institutions, students shouldered a larger share of the cost this time around. Even in private nonprofit colleges, average educational spending per student declined for the first time in a decade. However, it is higher education's most accessible institutions--community colleges--that took the greatest financial hit in 2010. As funding failed to keep pace with historic increases in enrollment, educational spending per student plummeted to its lowest level in a decade. These are some of the key findings in this annual update to the Delta Cost Project's "Trends in College Spending" report series--a series of data briefs highlighting patterns and trends in institutional revenues, spending, subsidies, and outcomes for public and private nonprofit colleges and universities between 2000 and 2010, with particular attention given to changes between 2009 and 2010. (Contains 4 figures and 12 footnotes.)

Since the mid-1990s, constituency building and advocacy for better public education have grown steadily in New York City. "Working Together to Achieve Greater Impact" explores how that growth was fueled by the Donors' Education Collaborative of New York, which pools its members' financial resources and expertise to advance shared grantmaking goals. The case study illustrates the importance--and challenges--of the sixth of Grantmakers for Education's eight Principles for Effective Education Grantmaking: "leverage," "influence" and "collaboration." [For the full report, "Working Together to Achieve Greater Impact: The Donors' Education Collaborative of New York City. Principles for Effective Education Grantmaking. Case Study Number 3," see ED537197.]

It is not unusual in higher education circles to talk about issues affecting the campus. Experts might write about how shifting demographics are changing the campus, or say technology is becoming more pervasive on campus. The campus itself evolves alongside pedagogical practices, technological innovations, student needs, and the mission of the institution. The purpose of APPA's Thought Leaders Series is to assess how higher education trends will shape the campus. Its starting point every year is that both senior facilities officers and leaders across the campus need to understand significant trends and their predicted impact on classrooms, laboratories, residence halls, energy systems, building management processes, and all of the other myriad places and operations that constitute the campus. Along with a discussion of the issues, the series also posits strategies that college and university leaders can use to address coming challenges. The goal is to help institutions prepare themselves and their facilities for the future. Two major issues facing higher education identified in the 2011 Thought Leaders report are changes in the demographics of the campus workforce and the ever-evolving role of technology in higher education. Drawing on the discussion of workforce demographics and technology, this Thought Leaders report provides a list of the top ten critical higher education facilities issues of 2011, along with key strategies to address these issues. The issues are: (1) Establishing a culture of innovation and collaboration; (2) Improving productivity with level or decreasing resources; (3) Leveraging technology to improve decision making; (4) Alignment of IT and facilities; (5) Creating a new budget model for IT and facilities; (6) Confronting shifting workforce demographics; (7) Increasing the flexibility of the workplace; (8) Making smart decisions about outsourcing; (9) Improving emergency preparedness; and (10) Managing the existing built environment. At a two-day symposium, presidents, chancellors, and higher education experts (both in facilities management and technology and in operations from finance to administration to human resources) met to analyze issues, discuss the effect of these issues on the built environment, and propose strategies for the future. The yearly Thought Leaders Report summarizes the discussions at the symposium and provides additional context about major trends. The purpose of the report is both to inform and to prompt discussion. Campus senior facilities officers use this report as a resource both within their own academic departments and with their counterparts in administration. Appendices include: (1) References and Resources; and (2) Participants in the 2011 Thought Leaders Symposium. [Sponsorship assistance was provided by UGL Services, and Jacobs. To review "Assessing and Forecasting Facilities in Higher Education Including the Top Facilities Issues. APPA Thought Leaders Series, 2010", see ED517059.]

Since 1967, the Nevada State Legislature has mandated that public higher education institutions compile a comprehensive report on program plans. Therefore, this report is prepared in accordance with state law requiring the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) to prepare a biennial report for submission to the Nevada State Legislature that outlines a plan for new programs and expansions of existing programs of instruction, public service and research. This report summarizes the institutions' academic and research plans, also in accordance with Board policy ("Title 4, Chapter 14, Section 3"). However, these plans must be viewed in the context of an institution's overall budget and fiscal capacity. In some cases, the plans may include academic programs that are being discussed or considered for the future, but that may not be realistic given the current fiscal constraints facing the NSHE. However, they are included in the report as an indication of what may come if funds should become available either through grants or public support. Many of the anticipated programs are projected to be funded with federal grants, making some programs more likely than others to begin in this time of limited state resources. To that end, these lists may be viewed as "wish lists" based on resource availability. Because this report is updated and published every two years, it is often the case that institutions may have programs on the list from several years back and continue to roll them forward in the hope that eventually resources will be available to develop such programs. The plans are intended to notify various constituencies, including the Board of Regents and the Legislature, of what institutions are hoping to develop and believe is needed for them to meet their mission and the needs of the state, but they may not be construed as definitive in terms of the date of implementation. (Contains 1 footnote.)

For years, state and local policymakers and education leaders have embraced the goal of graduating students college and career ready, vaulting the agenda to become a national priority--as evidenced by the more recent dialogue on education reform, including Race to the Top, Common Core State Standards, and common assessments. But, while policy leaders at all levels embrace the goal of college and career readiness for all, what does the public think? To find out, Achieve commissioned a survey of registered voters to find out whether they support both the goal of graduating all students from high school ready for college and careers and the necessary policies to meet that goal. Key findings from the poll are: (1) There is widespread agreement that all students need additional education and training beyond high school; (2) Support for policies aimed at preparing high school students for college and careers is broad, deep and fully bipartisan with equally high numbers of Democratic, Republican and Independent voters supporting such reforms; (3) There is strong support for the specific policies that put common expectations in place for all students--including common standards, common assessments and graduation requirements; and (4) There is near universal agreement across partisan, ethnic/racial and geographic lines that some education and training beyond high school is necessary--and that stronger expectations in high school will go a long way towards preparing students for their next steps. (Contains 5 footnotes.)

In the last 50 years, more than half of America's sustained economic growth was created by the five percent of the workforce who create, manage, and maintain the processes and products of innovation: engineers, scientists, and advanced-degree technologists. America's science, technology, and math workforce is aging while jobs requiring specialized training are growing at five times the rate of other occupations. The supply of new workers in these fields is struggling to keep up with demand, and women remain severely underrepresented. Women make up half of the population and are a largely untapped resource that could prove essential in maintaining the technological competitiveness of the United States. This paper offers suggestions on how this country can begin to close the gender divide in science, technology, engineering, and math. (Contains 50 endnotes.)

"Mixed-sector" institutions are relatively new in Australia, but numbers are likely to increase as the boundaries between vocational education and training (VET) and higher education become increasingly blurred. In 2009 the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) published research examining the nature of higher education offered by public VET providers ("Higher education in TAFE" by Leesa Wheelahan, Gavin Moodie, Stephen Billett and Ann Kelly). Gavin Moodie and his colleagues are continuing their research and this paper has been written with the intention of provoking discussion. It presents an initial account of mixed-sector tertiary education in Australia--separating institutions accrediting their own higher education programs, most of which are large public universities, from other tertiary education institutions, primarily smaller private providers. A range of issues about the emerging character of mixed-sector provision is flagged and will be considered as part of the research, including: (1) How relevant will the sector designations be if the distinctions relating to tertiary education continue to blur, and if Australian governments allocate public support for teaching by mechanisms that do not distinguish between types of institutions?; (2) To what degree is mixed-sector provision affected by the extent to which the smaller sector is integrated with an institution's organisational structure, the level of the organisation at which vocational and higher education are integrated and the level of autonomy granted to organisational units?; and (3) What are the implications of mixed-sector provision for the students, staff and institutional futures? (Contains 6 tables, 2 figures and 3 footnotes.)

The APPA (Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers) Thought Leaders Series turned five years old this year--a significant event in a momentous time for higher education. Participants in the 2010 symposium looked back at both the achievements and the missteps of higher education over the last half-decade, a period that posed many challenges for colleges and universities. Soaring enrollment, fluctuating energy prices, an economic crisis, demands for reform, sweeping changes in technology--all have stretched the resources and ingenuity of higher education leaders. The focus of this year's symposium was general, almost global, as the group worked to get a big picture of higher education in 2010. The group began by considering the origins and achievements of the Thought Leaders Series. Participants reviewed the results of previous symposia and evaluated the impact of the program on both higher education in general and facilities leaders in particular. This discussion is reviewed in Section II of this paper. Next, participants conducted what is known as a "SWOT analysis" on higher education, assessing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats confronting colleges and universities. Participants identified the mission and scholarship of institutions as key strengths, while an inability to be nimble and a flawed business model were noted as weaknesses. Nevertheless, higher education has an opportunity to build a new business model and take advantage of technology, so long as it overcomes the threats posed by economic stressors and lack of leadership. The next stage of the symposium was devoted to identifying major issues confronting higher education now and in the next five, ten, and twenty years. The top issues identified were: (1) securing the future of higher education; (2) reduced public support for higher education; (3) a broken financial model; (4) communicating the value of higher education; (5) campus safety and security; (6) shifting workforce demographics; (7) global competition; and (8) developing leaders to drive change. Participants considered the ramifications of these issues and proposed approaches institutions should take to minimize potential negative impacts. Section III of this paper reviews both the SWOT analysis and these major issues. The Thought Leaders symposium then turned to what has become a signature discussion of the event: the identification of the critical facilities issues for 2010. The results are wide-ranging, reflecting the multiplicity of challenges facing higher education and the built environment: (1) Crafting an integrated strategic plan; (2) Achieving financial sustainability; (3) Creating change agents in facilities; (4) Addressing regulatory compliance; (5) Facing the challenge of changing demographics; (6) Creating an environmentally sustainable and energy efficient campus; (7) Managing the impact of technology; and (8) Addressing campus safety and security. The final stage of the Thought Leaders symposium introduced a new area of discussion: the role of the senior facilities officer within colleges and universities. Appendices include: (1) References and Resources; and (2) Participants in the 2010 Thought Leaders Symposium. [Support for this symposium was provided by the UGL Services. For "The Economy's Influence on Environmental Sustainability and Energy: Including the Top Ten Facilities Issues. APPA Thought Leaders Series, 2009", see ED514817.]

The University of North Carolina School of the Arts (UNCSA), located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, is highly unusual. A component of the University of North Carolina system, it is "dedicated entirely to the professional training of students possessing talents in the performing, visual and moving image arts." This paper addresses the question of whether taxpayer funding is appropriate for a school that focuses on professional arts training, attracts nearly half its college students from outside the state, and appears to send most of its graduates elsewhere. It is, on a per capita basis, the most costly school in the University of North Carolina system. "The UNC School of the Arts: Should It Be Self-Supporting?" reflects the Pope Center's ongoing interest in encouraging a system of higher education in North Carolina that best meets the needs of students, their families, and taxpayers.

At the heart of progressivism is the belief that government--not big government, or small government, but effective government--has a critical role to play in ensuring the well being of its citizens. Public spending serves an important function in pursuing economic growth objectives while ensuring that gains are widely distributed to promote broad-based increases in living standards. But governments' relative fiscal positions, how much they spend, and the composition of that spending is likely to make a difference in achieving these objectives. Member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--an international organization consisting primarily of developed, free-market economies--vary significantly in (1) their relative fiscal positions, or deficits and surpluses; (2) their amount of public spending; and (3) how they allocate spending across different categories to reflect priorities. This descriptive study examines how OECD countries have addressed the current economic situation through their fiscal balance sheets, and then goes on to consider similarities and differences in public spending across OECD countries through the prism of economic and social objectives. Countries are compared according to three relative measures of government spending: spending as a share of GDP, spending per capita, and spending by category as a percentage of total government expenditure.

This document is the report of a study commissioned by Education International. The aim of this study is to present key characteristics of ECE systems, to highlight strengths and successful approaches and to identify major challenges and areas where urgent action is needed. To achieve this aim, the report comprises two main sections. The first section, Chapter 2 -- "Setting the scene" - provides insights into the richness of the diverse "landscape" of ECE across Europe and particularly the 27 member States of the EU, one candidate State, Croatia, and Norway and Russia. This section draws extensively on previously published reports, eg. Starting Strong I+II (OECD, 2001, 2006), the EFA report on early childhood education (UNESCO, 2007), the European information network on education, Eurydice (www.eurydice.org) and on the proceedings of two European conferences on the realisation of the Barcelona targets. The second section, Chapter 3 -- "Changing practice in early childhood education": seven European cases - presents seven case studies of projects and programmes that have developed responses to the needs of early childhood practice in their various contexts. All of them are examples of how to make a difference in children's and practitioners' lives in their everyday practice. "Key issues, challenges and possibilities" for joint action are drawn from both sections and proposed for discussion in Chapter 4. (Contains 1 footnote.) [Parts of chapter 2 of this report were prepared by Maria O'Dwyer.]

A review of over 50 studies of afterschool programs conducted by The Afterschool Alliance suggests: (1) quality afterschool programs improved school attendance, engagement in learning, test scores, and grades; (2) frequency and duration of afterschool participation increases benefits; and (3) high-risk youth show the greatest benefits. This fact sheet reports on research dealing with: (1) young people's need for out-of-school time opportunities; (2) the ways in which children and youth spend time after school; (3) the effects on the health and well-being of children and youth who participate in afterschool programs; (4) the opportunities offered by afterschool programs to students with special needs; (5) the growing need to learn 21st century skills, with which after school programs can help; (6) the out-of-school time workforce; (7) trends in public support and funding for after school programs; and (8) how the after school programs can be strengthened.