Search

Interior immigration enforcement continues to have a significant impact on children in mixed-status families. Numerous studies have demonstrated the association between the detention and deportation of parents-- including the threat of these actions--and negative outcomes for children and their families. These include developmental concerns, housing instability, educational setbacks, poor physical and mental health, and economic insecurity. While there have been overall decreases in arrests and detention numbers since 2009, funding for enforcement continues to grow. Moreover, despite reforms at the local, state, and administrative levels over the years, the interior enforcement policies that cause harm to children in immigrant families remain in place, and well-intentioned policies aimed at mitigating the harm are often stalled by federal courts or face implementation challenges. This brief presents key data on immigration enforcement and its impact on the nation's children, and it proposes action steps for the federal government as well as state and local policymakers. Building upon findings in the 2018 CLASP "Our Children's Fear" (ED582818) and the 2019 UnidosUS "Beyond the Border" (ED603926) reports, this brief focuses on interior immigration enforcement--policies carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the interior of the United States--not on enforcement policies at the country's border.

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of public policy decisions in each state that contribute to public higher education funding levels and funding distributions across states and nationally. The SHEF report supplies important context and trend analysis to help inform state postsecondary finance policy decisions. SHEF provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recently completed fiscal year. This year's report focuses on fiscal year 2022, which for most states ran from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. [For the related report, "SHEF: State Higher Education Finance. State Effort and Capacity to Fund Higher Education, FY 2020 and 2021," see ED631023. For "SHEF: State Higher Education Finance, FY 2021," see ED623743.]

The per-student data included in the State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report provide useful information about revenues relative to the need to fund higher education and are important for examining the impact of funding differences on public institutions and students across states and over time. However, examining state support on a full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment basis does not account for the varying ability of states to fund higher education and says nothing about a state's relative effort. In an effort to provide this additional context about a state's effort and ability to fund higher education, this report uses publicly available data to estimate state tax capacity and tax effort. It combines external data with SHEF data on state funding for public and private higher education to construct three indicators of state effort to fund higher education: (1) funding for higher education as a percentage of total state and local tax revenues and lottery profits; (2) funding per capita; and (3) funding per $1,000 of personal income. The information presented here is intended to provide contextual and comparative information for policymakers and researchers as they evaluate public policy decisions for higher education. The information presented in this report utilizes the most recent publicly available data, which lags the latest SHEF report data by one to two years. [For "SHEF: State Higher Education Finance, FY 2022," see ED631022. For "SHEF: State Higher Education Finance. State Effort and Capacity to Fund Higher Education: FY 2019 and 2020," see ED623744.]

Current assessments of college value fall short of centering race in its measurements by ignoring the unique economic conditions students of color face. To support ongoing advocacy for equitable investments in both students of color and institutions serving the largest shares of racially marginalized students, in its latest analysis, The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) introduces a new metric, Race and Economic Mobility (REM), which captures economic outcomes by institutions' composition of racially marginalized students. TICAS' analysis found that students who attended colleges that serve greater shares of students of color earn less in income 10 years after graduation than their peers who attended colleges with fewer shares of students of color. Even more alarming, at colleges serving the largest share of Black students, students owe more in student loans than they originally borrowed.

As the youth mentoring field has expanded and diversified in America over the last 30-plus years, many adults who care about getting these valuable relationships to more young people have asked questions about the scope and scale of mentoring in American society. In 2014, MENTOR first started to examine these societal level trends in a seminal research study that resulted in a report called "The Mentoring Effect," a first-of-its-kind attempt to capture the prevalence of both program-provided and naturally occurring mentoring relationships for America's youth. Needless to say, this research was highly illuminating as to who in society was receiving mentoring, what they were getting out of those relationships, and where there were critical gaps that needed filling. The years since that report have seen tremendous turmoil and changes in American life. Thus, MENTOR thought that the time was right to take a fresh look at some of these topics and to dig a bit deeper into the mentoring relationships that young people experience and the ways in which those relationships supported personal development and growth. MENTOR launched this research project with four core goals in mind: (1) Taking a fresh look at the mentoring "gap"; (2) Creating understanding about the growth of the mentoring movement over time; (3) Deepening the understanding of the value of mentoring on all American lives; and (4) Examining the things mentors do that young people find valuable. [This report was produced with Pacific Market Research. Funding for this report was provided by EY. For the Executive Summary, see ED626844. For "The Mentoring Effect: Young People's Perspectives on the Outcomes and Availability of Mentoring. A Report for Mentor: The National Mentoring Partnership," see ED558065.]

The Iowa Department of Education collects information on joint enrollment in Iowa's 15 community colleges. Jointly enrolled students are high school students enrolled in community college credit coursework. Most jointly enrolled students enroll through Senior Year Plus programs such as PSEO (Postsecondary Enrollment Options) and concurrent enrollment. Others enroll independently by paying tuition or enrolling in courses delivered through contractual agreements that do not meet the definition of concurrent enrollment. This report consists of academic year (AY) and trend data for 2021 on joint enrollment, including headcount enrollment, credit hours taken, student demographics and enrollment by program type and offering arrangement. All data included in this report is taken from the Community College Management Information System (MIS) and confirmed by each college, unless otherwise noted. [For the 2020 report, see ED617608.]

Texans ages 25-34 who earn an associate degree are nearly twice as likely to earn at least $50,000 per year than those who don't earn a degree (24% vs. 13%). Those earning a bachelor's degree or higher are nearly four times as likely to reach this self-sustaining wage (49% vs. 13%). If every eighth grader in Harris County were to earn an associate degree, that one graduating class would collectively earn nearly $818 million in additional annual income. Across the eight largest counties in Texas, annual income gains would total $6.1 billion. Today, only 22% of Harris County students complete a postsecondary certificate or program within six years of their high school graduation This brief explains the two different definitions for "College and Career Readiness" in Texas and the resulting outcomes for Harris County students so that policymakers and advocates can better assess and improve students' readiness to succeed after high school.

The number of college graduates in the United States reached nearly 68.6 million in 2021, of which approximately 68 million had ever held a job, with nearly 52 million currently employed and 16 million not employed. Although the number of employed college graduates increased by 1.2 million (2.5%) between 2019 and 2021, the number of nonemployed college graduates increased by 2.5 million (17.9%). This large increase in nonemployment coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and signals important changes in the labor market for college graduates. This InfoBrief provides an overview of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the college-educated workforce, drawing on new data from the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG). In addition to collecting basic information on labor force status and earnings, the NSCG collects detailed information on reasons for nonemployment, access to various job benefits, participation in professional activities, and measures of job satisfaction. The 2021 cycle of the NSCG elicited additional information related to the pandemic, such as pandemic-related reasons for not working, presence of telework arrangements, and pandemic-related salary effects. Some of this information is highlighted below.

Over the last several decades, postsecondary institutions have increasingly enrolled out-of-state and international nonresident students. The increase in out-of-state enrollment has important implications for state higher education funding and policy. Public institutions, particularly research institutions, increased nonresident student enrollment in part to increase their tuition revenue as state funding declined and became less stable. Nonresident student enrollment can increase tuition revenue for public institutions in two ways. First, institutions are more likely to have control over setting and raising nonresident tuition rates. Second, out-of-state and international nonresident students pay much higher tuition rates than state residents. In the 2020-2021 academic year, public four-year institutions charged out-of-state students over 2.5 times the rate of in-state tuition, on average. Despite the growing importance of nonresident tuition revenue in many public institutions' budgets, there is little information about exactly how much of an institution's tuition revenue comes from nonresident tuition and fees. To fill this gap and provide useful data for states and institutions, SHEEO began collecting data on residency annually as part of the fiscal year (FY) 2020 State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) project. This report provides the first look at a new set of state-level data on tuition revenue and student enrollment by residency for FY 2020 and 2021. All data presented in this report are for four-year public institutions. [A complete dataset is available online at shef.sheeo.org/data-downloads.]

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments next month about whether President Biden has the authority to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for millions of borrowers. Part of the Biden administration's legal argument rests on the claim that borrowers as a group were made worse off financially by the pandemic. Urban Institute's analysis indicates that most borrowers are currently in a similar or stronger financial position than they were in 2019, but there are warning signs that many borrowers will be in a weaker position once the payment pause ends. Key findings from this report include: (1) Most borrowers said they were doing at least as well financially in 2021 as they were before the pandemic; (2) Credit records also show financial improvement; and (3) The role of the payment pause is unclear, as is what will happen when payments resume.

Educational inequality is a long-standing and persistent challenge. Never has this inequality been more evident than during the COVID-19 era. The pandemic put existing divisions into sharp relief, and made them worse. Recent evidence tells a terrible story of the consequences of the pandemic--and the response of the education system to the pandemic--for educational inequality. Today, as the pandemic recedes, its effects are still there, in education as well as in other domains. Fortunately, there is considerable knowledge about how to respond to growing inequality. As the authors explain in this report, they have learned through research that effective responses include high-quality tutoring, effective expanded learning time, and strengthened relationships between learners and educators. Yet many questions remain, and new research is needed to help ensure that our education system not only overcomes the increase in inequality induced by the pandemic, but reduces the inequality that was already in place prior to 2020. In this report, the authors discuss the consequences of the pandemic for educational inequality, examine research-based strategies for responding to inequality, and identify new areas for research that can take everyone further down the road to an equitable education system.

Living in poverty worsens every type of life outcome for children, from physical and mental health to earnings, educational attainment, child welfare involvement, and risky behavior--and the longer children live in poverty, the worse their outcomes are as adults. Guaranteed Income (GI) is a policy that seeks to redress such inequities by providing recurring, unconditional cash to eligible participants. Substantial prior research has shown that increasing a household's income improves children's outcomes--and that a key path by which that happens is by improving the mother's mental health. This brief is woven from the stories shared by 67 parents and guardians participating in city-led 12-month guaranteed income (GI) pilot programs in the Southeast (USA)--in Atlanta, GA, Birmingham, AL, Louisville, KY, and Shreveport, LA. This brief shows how that process unfolds through parents' own stories of how GI pilots affected their and their children's lives. [Abt Associates acknowledge support and coordination from: Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, IMPACT (Atlanta, GA), Embrace Mothers (Birmingham, AL), YaLIFT! (Louisville, KY), and Shreveport Guaranteed Income Pilot (Shreveport, LA).

In this 2023 NEA Special Salary issue, a post-pandemic look at faculty salaries in 2022. What was found, looking at federal data, is that U.S. faculty's purchasing power--that is the value of your salary, considering inflation--is at historical lows. All the gains that were made incrementally since the Great Recession of 2008 have evaporated in pandemic-related inflation. This year's analysis also shows persistent gaps in pay for HBCU faculty and for women, in general, who typically work in the lowest paid ranks in the lowest-paid types of institutions. On the bright side, this issue's Special Salary issue also points to one possible solution. The data shows clearly that faculty represented by unions are paid more. In other words, the solution to low pay can be found in the power of your voices, raised together, in union.

Policymakers enacted a series of reforms in the mid-2000s that significantly expanded benefits in the federal student loan program for students pursuing graduate degrees. These reforms allow students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance for their degrees and use an Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) program that offers loan forgiveness after 20 years of payments or as early as 10 years for those who use the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. Despite virtually unlimited access to federal loans and the availability of a generous IDR program, policymakers have done little to prevent institutions from offering high-cost programs and those that consistently leave students with high debts relative to their incomes. To inform the future development of quality assurance policies, this report analyzes debt and earnings data in the Department of Education's College Scorecard for master's degree programs. Although federal loan policies increase access to graduate degrees and the economic payoff they provide, these policies also entail risks for both students and taxpayers. The College Scorecard provides a new source of information that policymakers can use to determine where those risks are greatest and gauge the potential effects of quality assurance policies that target programs where borrowers take on high debt relative to what they can expect to earn with their degrees.

When the Obama administration implemented the first gainful employment (GE) rule in 2014 to protect students from education credentials that lead to unaffordable debts, virtually all programs at public institutions passed the test. The Biden administration is developing its own GE rule after the Trump administration repealed the Obama-era rule. A discussion draft of the rule released earlier this year included a new minimum earnings test based on high school graduates' earnings. One in five certificate programs at public institutions could fail this requirement, causing them to fail the overall GE rule and lose eligibility for federal aid. This essay examines the undergraduate certificate programs at public institutions that fail this proposed high school earnings test. Understanding the characteristics of these programs and the students they enroll can inform the ongoing development of the GE rule. This information can help policymakers judge whether the GE rule effectively targets low-quality programs and whether these programs leave students worse off than if they had never enrolled, the commonly cited rationale for a high school earnings test. [Additional funding for this essay was provided by the Stand Together Trust.]

This report presents data on public elementary and secondary education revenues and expenditures at the local education agency (LEA) or school district level for fiscal year (FY) 2020. Specifically, this report includes the following types of school district finance data: (1) revenue, current expenditure, and capital outlay expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) current expenditures by function and object; (4) and revenues and current expenditures per pupil. The finance data used in this report are from the School District Finance Survey (F-33), a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is the primary National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) database on public elementary and secondary education in the United States. [For "Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: FY 19. Finance Tables. NCES 2021-304," see ED615713.]

When it comes to providing children with a high-quality education, money matters. Research shows that sustained and significant increases in school funding can have a lasting positive impact on student achievement and other outcomes -- especially for students from low-income backgrounds. Yet, the U.S. education system is plagued with persistent and longstanding funding inequities -- with the majority of states sending the fewest number of resources to the districts and schools that actually need the most resources. This analysis examines how revenues of districts serving the most students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, or English learners compare with those of their counterparts in each state and across the country. The analyses compare the average revenues of districts grouped into quartiles based on the student demographic characteristics. This report helps to provide decisionmakers with a clear roadmap for creating policies that can transform state funding systems into vehicles to address racial, socioeconomic, and sociocultural inequities. [For the technical appendix, see ED626475.]

In compliance with the Indian Education Act (NMSA1976 Section 22), the purpose of this Tribal Education Status Report (TESR) is to inform stakeholders of the New Mexico Public Education Department's (NMPED) and Local Education Agency's (LEAs) current initiatives specific to American Indian (AI) students and their educational progress. This report examines both the current conditions and recent trends in the education of New Mexico's American Indian students and provides action steps to strengthen existing programs or propose new activities to yield a positive outcome for American Indian students. Of the 89 public school districts, 57 state charter schools, and 48 local charter schools in New Mexico, 23 public school districts and 10 charter schools (five state and five local) are located on or near tribal land and required to complete an annual TESR. Twenty-two districts and four charters submitted a TESR that supports the following sections: school safety, parent and community involvement, education programs (focusing on tribal students and incorporating Indigenous research, evaluation, and curricula), and access to native languages, the data collected include attendance, dropout rates, and graduation rates. The NMPED is committed to providing guidance and support to Tribes and school districts to foster partnerships, to reach the growth outcomes, and set out for AI students within the New Mexico's Every Student Succeeds Act Plan. [For the 2020-2021 report, see ED619539.]

A postsecondary degree is widely promoted as a great intergenerational economic equalizer for individuals born into disadvantaged economic circumstances. Yet, there is little empirical evidence documenting the extent that this may be true and whether people from all racial and ethnic, and language backgrounds are benefitting equally. We provide a rare glimpse of this by reporting the patterns of economic mobility for Washington residents who received need-based financial aid and graduated with an associate or bachelor's degree from a public postsecondary institution in Washington. To provide insights, we match wage records from Washington's Unemployment Insurance program with financial aid records that report parental family income. The matching of data allows us to directly compare the annual wages of adult children in the third year after postsecondary graduation to their parents' family income. The findings from our descriptive analysis are promising and show that need-based aid and postsecondary degrees offer a path towards economic mobility for Washingtonians.

The Student Financial Wellness Survey (SFWS) provides a snapshot of student financial wellbeing during the fall of 2021. Over 700,000 students were surveyed from 104 schools in 25 states and 63,751 students responded. During this period Federal stimulus funding helped stabilize finances for many students, but many still struggled to make ends meet. This report is meant to amplify the lived experience of these students. Understanding these experiences will allow college administrators and policymakers to better serve students, enabling them to reach their academic potential. The Fall 2021 SFWS questionnaire went through a thorough reassessment. To reduce survey burden, many questions were removed and others rewritten based on feedback from students, school administrators, and various experts in collegiate finances. This resulted in an instrument that was easier for students to understand and quicker to complete. The report is divided into the following sections: (1) Paying for College; (2) Student Credit Card Use and Risky Borrowing; (3) Financial Decision-Making Factors and Financial Behaviors; (4) Student Financial Security; (5) Basic Needs Security; (6) Students Who Are Parents; and (7) Mental Health Challenges.

This document contains the technical appendix for the report, "Equal Is Not Good Enough: An Analysis of School Funding Equity across the U.S. and within Each State." The report describes an analysis of funding disparities between the highest and lowest poverty school districts, as well as districts serving the most and the fewest students of color or English learners. This technical appendix describes the data sources and methodology in detail. [For the full report, see ED626472.]

In 2015, Abt Associates received a grant from the Institutes for Education Sciences (IES) for a five-year "Development and Innovation" study of PTC. The purposes of the study were to gauge progress in implementing PTC and to develop and test improvements where needed. Fein et al. (2020) summarize the IES study's approach and findings. A subsequent grant from Arnold Ventures provided support for extending the two analyses--to three follow-up years for Study 1 and to four years for Study 2. This report provides findings from these longer-term analyses. Study 1 found no difference in average earnings or months enrolled in college in follow-up Years 2 and 3 between young adults assigned to PTC and their control group counterparts. (As expected, the PTC group earned less and spent more time in college than the control group in Year 1, when participants were still in the program.) The results also show modest increases in receipt of credentials (mostly short-term certificates based on credit earned at partner college during PTC).

Many factors impact one's ability to complete an apprenticeship program. According to the 2015 National Apprenticeship Survey, the most commonly stated reasons for not completing an apprenticeship program were job instability, receiving a better job offer and financial constraints. This survey also showed that apprentices who dropped out of their programs experienced difficulties securing permanent employment with adequate benefits and were more likely to be self-employed (Frank & Jovic, 2017). In addition, those who discontinued had a lower median employment income compared with those who completed their training (Jin, Langevin, Lebel and Haan, 2020). Using data from the Education and Labour Market Longitudinal Platform (ELMLP), this study looks at apprentices who registered between 2008 and 2010 and discontinued their apprenticeship programs within six years of registration. Their future interactions with the Canadian postsecondary education system, up to 2020, are then profiled.

Research and advocacy have pinpointed the necessity of improving access to broadband and electronic devices in addition to securing research skills as part of a well-rounded education. The numerous factors surrounding digital literacy are also directly related to equity. This literature review explores the research and data on digital access and digital audits, digital access and COVID-19, digital equity landscape post-COVID-19, digital literacy, digital citizenship, digital redlining and equity issues, and recommendations for action in general and at the state level, school level, classroom level and community level.

In this report, the authors propose and simulate a framework for a new foundation formula approach to distributing federal K-12 education aid. This proposal, with full funding and compliance, would provide every school district with the estimated revenues necessary to reach the goal of average national outcomes in mathematics and reading. The framework is designed to target assistance where it is most needed by allocating federal funds based not only on student need (as is currently the case), but also on states' and school districts' ability (and willingness) to contribute themselves, given their capacity to raise revenue--in other words, based on their "effort." [The following contributed to this report: Burnie Bond, Preston Green III, Esther Quintero, Mary Cathryn Ricker, John See, Ajay Srikanth, and Vicki Thomas.]

This report looks at the education and work outcomes of a national sample of bachelor's degree recipients four years after they earned their degrees. The findings are based on data from the 2016/20 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:16/20). B&B:16/20, which took place in 2020, is the second follow-up in a national study of students who completed the requirements for a bachelor's degree during the 2015-16 academic year. The first follow-up took place in 2017 and asked respondents about their bachelor's degree programs and any education and work they had in the first year after earning their degrees. The COVID-19 pandemic, which started a few months before B&B:16/20 began data collection in June 2020, likely impacted the data presented in this report. Outcomes described include enrollment and employment status, federal student loan debt and repayment, earnings and other job characteristics, financial well-being, and teaching status. [For the summary to this report, see ED622739.]

This report looks at the education and work outcomes of a national sample of bachelor's degree recipients four years after they earned their degrees. The findings are based on data from the 2016/20 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:16/20). This summary report presents selected findings from the full report including enrollment and employment status, federal student loan debt and repayment, earnings and other job characteristics, financial well-being, and teaching status. [For the full report, see ED622737.]

This summary report presents selected findings from the full report which describes the experiences of 2015-16 bachelor's degree earners during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 4 years after graduation. The findings in this report are based on data from the 2016/20 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:16/20), which took place in 2020. Findings include professional and personal experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, federal student loan repayment, employment status and characteristics, changes to work arrangements, and unemployment compensation during the COVID-19 pandemic. [For the full report, see ED622730.]