Search

The Charter Schools Program (CSP) is a key lever that the federal government uses to ensure charter schools provide more students access to excellent public schools. As the U.S. Department of Education studies the program, a new National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) brief, "U.S. Department of Education's CSP: Investing in Students by Investing in Charter School Authorizing," provides four recommendations for improving technical assistance in the CSP State Entity grant -- a critical component to ensuring strong, equitable, and effective authorizing: (1) Boost funding for technical assistance, by increasing the 7% set-aside to at least 10%; (2) Promote and support high-quality authorizing by ensuring half of all technical assistance funding is used on authorizing; (3) Provide flexibility for grantees to spend more technical assistance funding in the first two-years of grants; and (4) Ensure transparency and effectiveness by requiring grantees to conduct a needs assessment when applying for and an evaluation when concluding a CSP grant.

This document summarizes a review of research, evaluation, resources, and stakeholder knowledge related to the topic of "Remote Learning Support for Students with Disabilities." Databases used for conducting this review included: Google Scholar, EBSCO general Academic Search, EBSCO ERIC, and 'Disability in the Modern World.' Literature from peer-reviewed, scholarly journals were reviewed (noted with an asterisk), along with conference papers, reports, and resources from education research centers and institutions. The search was limited to studies and sources published from 2000-2020. Sources were also vetted for readability. Search terms used include but are not limited to: "Remote Learning Support for Students with Disabilities" or "Remote learning support." The search for resources about "Remote Learning Support for Students with Disabilities" turned up many research papers and also a handful of resources from research and education centers. The knowledge database describes these resources in two tables, one for research papers and one for technical assistance and education centers. Overall, findings indicate that challenges involved with remote learning for students with disabilities are not new and that over the last five years, many resources have been developed. A handful of themes, listed in this review, emerged from the knowledge base.

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.

When the "AEM Quality Indicators with Critical Components for Higher Education: Institutes of Higher Education" (ED613012) was updated, a series of interviews were conducted with experts in colleges, universities, and related associations with knowledge and experience in system- or campus-wide accessibility. Additionally, a literature and federal policy review was conducted to highlight areas of specific relevance to the provision of accessible materials and technologies in higher education settings. Knowledge gained from these activities is reflected in the report. The goals of this document are to: (1) better understand the higher education landscape as it relates to the provision and use of materials and technologies for college and university students; and (2) revise version 1.0 of the Center's Quality Indicators with Critical Components for the Provision of AEM and Accessible Technologies in Higher Education (QIs). [The report was written by the National AEM Center at CAST.]

Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs are an important investment in Ohio's youngest learners. Ohio has worked to increase the availability of high-quality early learning programs for preschool children by providing the Early Childhood Education grants. Funded programs deliver high-quality, comprehensive learning environments focused on healthy development and intellectual, social and emotional success. Research is clear: children who participate in high-quality early learning programs begin school better prepared for educational success. In Fiscal Year 2020 (July 1, 2019-June 30, 2020), 369 Early Childhood Education Grant-funded programs served 17,870 children as a result of a $71,480,000 investment in state funding. These grantees included public school districts, educational service centers, joint vocational schools, community schools, chartered nonpublic schools and community-based child care providers who earned 3-, 4- or 5-star ratings in Ohio's quality rating system, Step Up To Quality. This annual report meets the requirements of Section 263.20 of House Bill 49 (C), which says: "The Department shall provide an annual report to the Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate and post the report to the Department's web site, regarding early childhood education programs operated under this section and the early learning program standards." [This report was prepared by the Ohio Department of Education's Office of Early Learning and School Readiness. For the 2019 edition of this report, see ED605040.]

Training is an integral part of school safety, security, emergency management and preparedness; everyone involved in the plan needs to know his or her roles and responsibilities before, during, and after an emergency. As one's emergency operations plan (EOP) planning team develops the training and exercise schedule, keep in mind that the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) Technical Assistance (TA) Center has a free training program, Virtual Trainings by Request (VTBRs), to assist with emergency management planning efforts. These interactive VTBRs were developed to provide training support to education agencies through a virtual platform. They are designed to assist education agencies, including school districts, schools and institutions of higher education (IHEs), state education agencies, and regional education agencies, with their professional development and their school safety, security, emergency management, and preparedness capacity-building efforts. This fact sheet provides a description of the VTBR training topics that are currently available, explains how VTBRs can support professional development, and provides instruction on how to request a free VTBR for one's own education agency.

Providing and using technical assistance for capacity building within educational agencies is a complex endeavor. The U.S. Department of Education funds technical assistance centers to support state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) in the capacity-building process. Established in 2018, the Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety (CISELSS) was charged with providing support to and building the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to implement social and emotional learning and school safety--related policies, programs, and practices. In this report, the authors review the literature on organizational and individual capacities and develop a conceptual framework that ties these capacities with common aspects of technical assistance provision. Using this framework, they describe how CISELSS designed and implemented its technical assistance, as well as the technical assistance recipients' existing, desired, and built organizational and individual capacities and capacity-building experiences. The analyses presented in this report reveal important insights and implications for technical assistance providers. [For a related report, "Seeking Balance in the Provision of Technical Assistance: Insights from the National Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety. Research Report. RR-A1161-1," see ED616025.]

The start of kindergarten signifies the beginning of elementary school and everything that may come with it: a new building, new teachers, new expectations, and a different routine and culture. These new students transition into kindergarten from different settings, bringing with them a variety of assets and experiences. From a holistic perspective, this transition necessitates a focus on the social, emotional and health needs of children and families; the culture in a community and in individual schools; and the resources available to support individual children, family members, teachers and school leaders. It requires relationships, collaboration and partnerships across the community, as well as time and energy from school leaders well before children enter their building. State policymakers, from state departments of education and health and human services agencies, governors' offices and state boards of education, all have a role to play in setting policy goals to enable successful transitions for young children. Acknowledging the complex nature of this transition will enable state and district leaders to identify the necessary pieces to build comprehensive systems of support. Understanding the components of a comprehensive and effective transition system can help state leaders steadily make improvements and monitor these changes over time. States have made some progress on this issue, yet knowing exactly where to begin or how to improve existing systems can be difficult. This Policy Brief highlights the variety of student experiences prior to kindergarten; focuses on the importance of early education and health; and provides a comprehensive set of state policy strategies, examples and considerations that enable the conditions for successful transitions.

For thousands of young children in Hillsborough County, Florida, this story includes unprecedented changes in the care and teaching they receive from adults, all of whom are impacted by the societal upheaval caused by the pandemic. The changes in young children's experiences that began on March 13--the day the U.S. government declared the COVID-19 outbreak a national emergency--have the potential to impair their social, emotional, and cognitive growth. For this reason the Quality Early Education System (QEES) program--a comprehensive, multiagency effort to support the adults involved in caring for young children aged birth to 5 years and their families--pivoted on the first day of lockdown to developing new approaches to delivering this support to mitigate the negative impacts of the pandemic on the program's long-term vision: All children arrive at school with the benefit of high-quality positive life experiences that matter for brain development in all of the areas that play critical roles in school success. The plan for the second year of QEES implementation aimed to sustain and build on the program's achievements aligned to its objectives by strengthening program components. With the onset of the pandemic, however, the QEES story shifted. This Year 2 evaluation report is not the envisioned story of how QEES staff strengthened the established program components described herein. Instead, it is an account of how of a program that provides multiple types of training and coaching rose to the challenge after schools and child care centers closed in mid-March, pivoting quickly to reinvent these services and develop additional supports to meet the avalanche of new and evolving needs of young children. Overall, the data QEES collected toward the original program objectives; the comparison of outcome data from October to March of Year 1 and 2; and the testimonials from parents, teachers, and center directors support the conclusion that prior to the pandemic QEES was on track to meet its Year 2 objectives. A comprehensive look at the Year 2 QEES program and the sheer amount of new development that happened as a result of the grit and determination of QEES leaders and staff merits the following conclusion: QEES leaders and staff creatively pivoted the program to meet pandemic needs and successfully provided strong, high-quality, and comprehensive benefits to those in their circle of care. [This report was produced in partnership with Early Literacy Matters, Conscious Awareness Learning Model (CALM), and Hillsborough County, Florida. For "Quality Early Education System: Year 1 Evaluation Report," see ED613839.]

The 2019-20 year continued the important work of refining and improving the new accreditation system. Significant progress was made by the Commission, the Committee on Accreditation (COA), and the Commission staff with respect to implementation of the revised accreditation system. The accreditation system is the primary means by which the Commission ensures quality in educator preparation in California. Following a multi-year effort to strengthen and streamline accreditation, including the development of new or revised activities and requirements envisioned by the Commission, and a year of substantial technical assistance to the field in 2016-17, the Commission resumed full accreditation activities, including site visits in 2017-18, and this work continued in 2019-20. The major objectives of the revised accreditation system, as outlined in the Accreditation Framework, include the following: (1) Accreditation assures that programs meet state standards for professional preparation programs, and, in so doing, are allowed to recommend candidates for state licensure; (2) Accreditation assures candidates and the public that educator preparation programs are of high quality and effective in preparing candidates to meet licensure requirements; (3) Accreditation assures candidates and the public that programs are accountable for the quality and effectiveness of the preparation they provide to candidates; (4) Accreditation assures that peers determine each program's quality and effectiveness in order to retain their accreditation status; and (5) Accreditation provides the means for programs to continuously improve based on evidence of candidate outcomes, program effectiveness, and on feedback from ongoing peer review processes. This report presents information about the major activities of the accreditation system, the COA decisions that were made, and some of the major areas of focus for academic year 2019-20. [For the previous report, "Annual Report of the Committee on Accreditation to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2018-19," see ED610430.]

In early 2020, the AEM Center turned its focus to the start of the education continuum by developing Critical Components for providing accessible materials and technologies for children in early childhood programs. Knowledge development activities focused on understanding the complex early childhood educational system, particularly with respect to programs serving children with disabilities under Part B, Section 619 of IDEA. This synthesis summarizes the knowledge development activities that informed the development of the Critical Components for early childhood, including a literature review, insights gained from a partnership between CAST and the Santa Clara Office of Education, interviews/focus groups with national and state technical assistance providers and a crosswalk between the National AEM Center's existing Quality Indicators and the Indicators of High-Quality Inclusion (ECTA and NCPMI).

This report documents the results to date of reforms underway from Strong Start Arkansas, one of the six systems that make up the first phase of the Strong Start to Finish initiative, an initiative of Education Commission of the States. Building on previous initiatives, Strong Start Arkansas (SSARK) was created as a partnership between the Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE) and Arkansas Community Colleges (ACC), which together include all 22 public 2-year and 10 public 4-year institutions in the state. As part of the project, Strong Start Arkansas is partnering with math and English faculty with the goal of scaling corequisite instruction that can support more students deemed as underprepared. To that end, Strong Start Arkansas project activities are focusing primarily on professional development and training for faculty that are tailored to the particular needs of each campus, supplemented by convenings for institutional academic leadership and other campus personnel involved in implementing the Strong Start Arkansas reforms. Overall, Strong Start Arkansas has a goal of increasing corequisite courses to reach 50,000 students per year by 2021. This report describes the context of reform within the state, the current status of project activities, and some early insights coming out of the work.

As this paper was being written, school systems across the country were increasingly announcing plans for full or partial distance learning to respond to COVID-19, and it seems likely that more school systems may implement these plans should the pandemic surge in the fall or winter. As a result, working parents with school-age children are faced with the challenge of how to ensure that their children are in a safe learning setting while they work--a challenge that is even more daunting for families with low incomes, families who face greater health risks, and families who face inequities in access to educational and health resources as well as employment options. Unfortunately, these challenges are even greater because the pandemic has seriously constrained before- and after-school programs along with the center-based and home-based child care settings that usually provide after-school and child care supports to working parents. This working paper gives an overview of the key issues and challenges facing both parents and after-school programs and child care providers as they try to ensure that school-age children are safe, supervised, and able to engage in quality distance learning while their parents work. It then lists policy strategies that policymakers could implement to better support these families and caregivers. These policy areas include cross-system coordination and collaboration, funding, child care subsidies, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, child care licensing, grants, training and technical assistance, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

This brief is one in a five-part series in which the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) documents insights from their efforts to understand how educators and researchers can build relationships that support a shared action research agenda around social and emotional learning (SEL). CASEL has developed three theories of action, guided by four focus areas that are scaled to their position within the system. Each theory of action provides a roadmap to systemic SEL implementation. This Research-Practice Partnership (RPP) series inquiry seeks to demonstrate the emerging coherence of CASEL's theories of action across the tiers of our education system and provide insights into where additional action and support are needed to foster equitable learning and development for children from diverse backgrounds. Specifically, they want to understand how actions within CASEL's State Theory of Action influence district and school actions. When states engage in the activities within the State Theory of Action, the assumption is that states are creating the conditions for districts and schools to implement systemic SEL. To begin exploring those assumptions in this RPP, CASEL and Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction (DPI) co-constructed research questions to examine ways in which its resources, guidance, and professional learning promote systemic SEL. The insights presented here were co-constructed by CASEL with DPI staff. This RPP presents evidence supporting how a state education agency (SEA) can approach and lead SEL professional learning and the influence these sessions have on the perceptions and actions of district- and school-level educators that attended the professional learning.

Schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to provide services for eligible students with disabilities, such as learning disabilities or health impairments. Services for these students are listed in individualized education programs (IEP). The Department of Education has raised concerns about BIE's implementation of IDEA in recent years, including its long-standing noncompliance with IDEA requirements. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to examine the provision of special education and related services to eligible BIE students. This report examines the extent to which: (1) BIE students with disabilities are provided the special education and related services required by their IEPs; and (2) BIE oversees and supports the provision of special education at its schools. GAO analyzed data on special education and related services for a generalizable sample of 138 BIE students with IEPs at 30 schools over a 4-month period in school year 2017-2018 (the most recent complete school year at the time of our analysis); compared BIE special education practices with its policies and Interior and IDEA requirements; visited schools in two states selected for their large numbers of BIE schools; and interviewed school and agency officials. GAO is making seven recommendations, including that BIE establish consistent requirements for schools on making up missed services, annually verify special education services at all schools, comply with high-risk monitoring and technical assistance requirements, and ensure that BIE staff receive needed training.

This brief identifies the steps necessary to realize an integrated system of care, reviews two current approaches, and makes recommendations--including specifying policy reforms that would promote interagency collaboration, integration, service delivery, and improved outcomes for California's children, both with and without disabilities. As a full commitment from the state administration is necessary to realize the proposed solutions at scale, this brief recommends the formation of a statewide interagency leadership council that has legitimacy, decision-making authority, and accountability across state and local policy and administrative levels. We also present recommendations for integrating California's many child-serving agencies and organizations that simultaneously serve children and families into a "Whole System" approach.

The purpose of the National AEM Center's Quality Indicators with Critical Components for Higher Education is to assist institutes of higher education, both at the system and campus level, with planning, implementing, and evaluating dynamic, coordinated systems for providing accessible materials and technologies for all students who need them. The ultimate goal of an AEM provision system is that accessibility becomes an essential criterion in the procurement and creation of high-quality educational materials and technologies. To that end, the Quality Indicators with Critical Components are a means to provide institutions with consistent objectives, and to promote discussion around multiple methods to achieve those objectives. The Quality Indicators with Critical Components for Higher Ed are intended to be implemented in partnership with a state education agency (SEA) that is creating and sustaining a statewide AEM provision system for K-12. University and community college systems should coordinate with the SEA to ensure that higher education students with disabilities are benefitting from that provision system, as well as its own best practices aligned with the Quality Indicators with Critical Components for Higher Ed. [The report was written by the National AEM Center at CAST. For "Higher Education and Accessible Materials and Technologies: Synthesis of Knowledge Development Findings," see ED612987.]

In this brief we summarize findings from three surveys that sought to learn how county offices of education (COEs) are changing in response to the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and the Statewide System of Support (SSS). COEs have been assigned critically important responsibilities in the implementation of these initiatives, and our survey results suggest that most county superintendents are strongly supportive of the state's new policy direction. They are increasingly aware of the scale of change that will have to occur to fully implement the LCFF and the SSS, both in the organization and operation of their own COEs and in their relationships with other agencies, and they recognize that full implementation remains a work in progress.

Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs are an important investment in Ohio's youngest learners. Ohio has worked to increase the availability of high-quality early learning programs for preschool children by providing the Early Childhood Education grants. Funded programs deliver high-quality, comprehensive learning environments focused on healthy development and intellectual, social and emotional success. Research is clear: children who participate in high-quality early learning programs begin school better prepared for educational success. In Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2018-June 30, 2019), the number of Early Childhood Education grant-funded programs increased as a result of the $71,480,454 investment in state funding. These funds allowed for a total of 370 state-funded grantees that serve 17,870 children. Eligible grantees included public school districts, educational service centers, joint vocational schools, community schools, chartered nonpublic schools and community-based child care providers receiving 3-, 4- or 5-star ratings in Ohio's quality rating system, Step Up To Quality. This annual report meets the requirements of Section 265.20 of House Bill 166 (C), which says: "The Department shall provide an annual report to the Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate and post the report to the Department's web site, regarding early childhood education programs operated under this section and the early learning program standards." [For the 2018 edition of this report, see ED605038.]

To inform the "Leandro v. State of North Carolina" Action Plan, the Learning Policy Institute examined the within-school and out-of-school barriers to obtaining a sound basic education facing students who attend North Carolina's high-poverty schools. High-poverty schools are schools where 75% or more students are at risk because their families' low incomes qualify them for federally subsidized free or reduced-cost meal programs at school. Because of the concentration of at-risk students at high-poverty schools, these schools deserve focused attention as the state seeks to remedy its failure to provide all students with a constitutionally required opportunity for a sound basic education. The primary goal of this study is to understand the experiences of students attending high-poverty schools. This report provides dozens of findings about the challenges to obtaining a sound basic education experienced by students attending high-poverty schools in North Carolina. Several overarching themes emerge from these findings that form a coherent narrative into which the specific findings and recommendations should be placed and interpreted. [For the research brief, "Adequate and Equitable Education in High-Poverty Schools: Barriers and Opportunities in North Carolina," see ED614422.]

This demonstration features the collaborative work of a state-funded project matching university-based PBIS trainers with school level implementers in a rural setting. Strategies and lessons learned when implementing PBIS with fidelity during challenging times is shared. The information learned from this regional example highlights the need for considering adaptations to support the culture and context of rural settings while maintaining robust levels of fidelity and sustaining momentum for continued implementation.

The 2018-19 year continued the important work of refining and improving the new accreditation system. Significant progress was made by the Commission, the Committee on Accreditation (COA), and the Commission staff with respect to implementation of the revised accreditation system. The accreditation system is the primary means by which the Commission ensures quality in educator preparation in California. Following a multi-year effort to strengthen and streamline accreditation, including the development of new or revised activities and requirements envisioned by the Commission, and a year of substantial technical assistance to the field in 2016-17, the Commission resumed full accreditation activities including site visits in 2017-18, and this work continued in 2018-19. The major objectives of the revised accreditation system, as outlined in the "Accreditation Framework," include the following: (1) Accreditation assures that programs meet state standards for professional preparation programs, and, in so doing, are allowed to recommend candidates for state licensure; (2) Accreditation assures candidates and the public that educator preparation programs are of high quality and effective in preparing candidates to meet licensure requirements; (3) Accreditation assures candidates and the public that programs are accountable for the quality and effectiveness of the preparation they provide to candidates; (4) Accreditation assures that peers determine each program's quality and effectiveness in order to retain their accreditation status review evidence; and (5) Accreditation provides the means for programs to continuously improve based on evidence of candidate outcomes, program effectiveness, and on feedback from ongoing peer review processes. This report presents information about the major activities of the accreditation system, the COA decisions that were made, and some of the major areas of focus for academic year 2018-19. [For the previous report, "The Committee on Accreditation's Annual Accreditation Report to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2017-2018," see ED592982.]

Between 2012 and 2018, the U.S. Department of Education invested nearly $350 million in 22 Comprehensive Technical Assistance (TA) Centers operating across the nation. These Centers were charged with delivering TA that builds the capacity of state education agencies (SEAs) to support local educational agencies (LEAs) in improving student outcomes. Centers were given broad discretion in interpreting and enacting this mandate. This evaluation sought to address the open questions about how the Centers designed and implemented the TA, what challenges they encountered, and what outcomes they achieved. With thorough documentation of how this process played out, stakeholders will be in a better position to inform future program improvement. Key takeaways from the study include: (1) Overall, Centers and their TA recipients reported that the Centers' TA improved the capacity of SEAs to meet their goals; (2) Centers shared similar approaches to the design and implementation of their TA. Those Center practices perceived to be instrumental to building capacity included: engaging a broad array of stakeholders to provide input on policy; providing products and tools for SEA staff to use as they took greater ownership of policy design and implementation; imparting organizational practices and structures resilient to SEA turnover and policy shifts; and flexibly adapting TA in response to changing priorities and needs. (3) Centers and their TA recipients pointed to a few areas for program improvement, including clarification of the Centers' role and expected outcomes related to their work with LEAs, and further guidance for SEAs about how best to use the Centers. Overall, the evaluation found that Centers shared similarities in their approaches to the design and implementation of their work, and Centers and key TA recipients reported that the work generally helped build SEA capacity. These two projects are not necessarily representative of all Center projects, but were selected to bring the overall findings in this report more to life while also recognizing the unique combinations of needs, strategies, challenges, and outcomes that may make up each project. This evaluation's findings are consistent with the findings of the prior national evaluation of the Centers, published in 2011. [For the 2011 report, see ED523401. For the study highlights of the 2019 report, see ED599102. For the appendices for the 2019 report, see ED599104.]

This evaluation, which focuses on the capacity-building mission of the Comprehensive Centers, was designed to add to the findings of the previous national evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program. That evaluation, completed in 2011, used survey data, structured interviews, and rating scales to analyze the extent to which State Education Agency (SEA) capacity changed and to assess the quality, relevance, and usefulness of Center services across all state priority areas. The current evaluation analyzed the processes by which Centers may produce SEA capacity change. In addition, by focusing on two priority areas, the current evaluation aimed to provide more nuanced information on the implementation processes and how they may lead to changes in capacity-related outcomes. [For the Final report, see ED599103. For the study highlights, see ED599102.

The Quality Early Education System (QEES) program is based on a vision where all children arrive at school with the benefit of high-quality positive life experiences that matter for brain development in all of the areas that play critical roles in school success. This vision is greatly needed in Hillsborough County, Florida, where data from 2018 indicate that only 50% of children arrive ready for school (Sokol, 2018). The key strength of the QEES program lies in its ambitious commitment to dramatically impact the quality of children's experiences prior to school at a level that can significantly improve children's chance for school success. This Year 1 report tracks the progress of the initial objectives set by the QEES program using measures and data developed and collected by the QEES team, led by Program Director Marni Fuente. The report presents each objective with an analysis of the breadth and effectiveness of the services provided. Breadth refers the quantity of the objective, whereas effectiveness refers to the quality of the objective. To be considered a success, the breadth and effectiveness targets of each objective need to be fulfilled. Overall, the QEES program demonstrated impressive success for both breadth and effectiveness targets. For 6 of the program's 9 objectives, the breadth and effectiveness goals met and exceeded, and in many cases the target was greatly exceeded. Not all of the targets were reached, but even in those cases the results illustrate large numbers of participants served effectively. [This report was produced in partnership with Early Literacy Matters, Conscious Awareness Learning Model (CALM), and Hillsborough County, Florida.]