Search

This report focuses on the progress made and challenges faced by the nine states in achieving the first three objectives for which they were held accountable for use of their Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge (RTTELC) funds. It discusses discrete findings related to these objectives in relevant chapters of the report: Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System (TQRIS) implementation and participation is discussed and in Chapter II, TQRIS structure, in Chapter III, and the process to generate TQRIS ratings in Chapter IV. Chapter V, reviews the refinements Round 1 states made to their TQRIS since receipt of the RTT-ELC grant. Chapter VI, describes the other studies that are being conducted to shed light on whether states achieved these objectives, along with findings on key features of states' TQRIS that may affect their ability to achieve those objectives. Appendix A contains profiles for each of the nine states.

This, the 31st annual National Child Count of Children and Youth Who Are Deaf-Blind, is the first and longest running registry and knowledge base of children who are deaf-blind in the world. Begun in 1986 on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, it represents a thirty-plus year collaborative effort between the National Center on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB), its predecessors, and each state and multi-state deaf-blind project throughout the country, as well as projects funded in the Pacific Trust territories, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Initially requested by the U.S. Department of Education as an examination of the discrepancy between the National Deaf-Blind Child Count and the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP) annual December 1 counts of children and students with disabilities being served under IDEA Part C or Part B, the child count has expanded over time to inform the work of a range of OSEP-funded deaf-blind projects during the ensuing years, including the current national, state, and multi-state technical assistance and dissemination projects. The National Deaf-Blind Child Count has been collaboratively designed, implemented, and revised to serve as the common vehicle to meet federal grant requirements for both the State and Multi-State Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance Projects and the National Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance Center, as well as serve as a common data collection and reporting mechanism for use across the country. [For the 2015 report see ED581439.]

The Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA, Title I of P.L. 107-279) established the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) as an independent research arm of the Department of Education (ED). The IES Director, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, serves a six-year term and is advised by a technical panel composed primarily of educational researchers, the National Board of Educational Sciences (NBES). Along with ESRA, P.L. 107-279 enacted two additional acts--the Educational Technical Assistance Act (ETAA, Title II of P.L. 107-279) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (NAEPAA, Title III of P.L. 107-279). ETAA authorizes the Secretary of Education to make grants to local entities for the purpose of supporting varied technical assistance activities and to states for statewide, longitudinal data systems. NAEPAA authorizes the Commissioner of Education Statistics to carry out a national assessment, state assessments, and a long-term trend assessment in reading and mathematics. This report provides a concise description of programs and authorities established by ESRA, ETAA, and NAEPAA as amended. It is organized in a manner that aligns with the legislation, P.L. 107-279, which enacted these three measures. The report concludes with a discussion of recent legislative action.

Increasingly, early education, regardless of setting type, is considered to be an educational intervention that sets the stage for children's long-term school success. Accordingly, policymakers are focused on how to develop and support educators who have the skills and capacity to deliver high-quality programming to children. A pressing question for the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) and the driving question behind this report is: what kinds of coaching supports are effective at building the capacity of early childhood educators and, as a result, improving the quality of early education programming for children? In April 2017, Abt Associates was hired by the EEC to support the Department in the design of a system for the delivery of coaching-based technical assistance to early education and out-of-school time providers across Massachusetts. To accomplish this, Abt conducted four activities: (1) reviewed recent and relevant research and policy literature to determine the features and elements of a coaching model that evidence might support (literature review and annotated bibliography appear in Appendix A); (2) scanned statewide coaching models operating in other states (scan of state models appears in Appendix B); (3) inventoried Massachusetts's current state-level initiatives that have a coaching component (inventory appears in Appendix C); and (4) conducted a gap analysis, comparing findings from the review and scan versus Massachusetts's current coaching initiatives captured in the inventory. This report summarizes that work and provides recommendations, based on evidence and practice, for a proposed statewide model of coaching for early educators in Massachusetts. Chapter 2 summarizes findings from the three information-gathering activities and the gap analysis. The report concludes with recommendations for a proposed statewide coaching model (Chapter 3) and a preliminary implementation plan (Chapter 4).

In January 2016, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) commenced an 18-month project to study the implementation of California's Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) initiative. AEBG's purpose is "to improve coordination and better serve the needs of adult learners within each region." CLASP set out to foster greater understanding of the implementation of California's AEBG governance and direct service activities, analyze current and potential impacts of the AEBG initiative for partners and participants, and offer recommendations for potential policy and implementation changes in future rounds of AEBG funding and other coordinated funding streams, for consideration by the California Community College Chancellor's Office (CCCCO), the California Department of Education (CDE), and other policymakers. While CLASP has used study methods including surveys, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews, the project design also included intensive on-going communication with AEBG leaders and practitioners during the period of transition from AB86 planning to AB104 implementation. This approach can be described as action research, modeling a reflective process of progressive problem solving to address issues and suggest potential solutions. The full report includes 19 detailed recommendations in the following four categories: (1) Clarification of AEBG's mission and vision; (2) Use of AEBG to drive a comprehensive career pathways system; (3) Tethering AEBG accountability to impact through the establishment of a cross system structure; and (4) Provision of comprehensive technical assistance and professional development. Some Adult School practitioners have experienced AEBG simply as a funding stream that restored funds to Adult Schools with some requirement to talk with a college partner. Some Community College partners have experienced AEBG as "a different pot of money…they change names periodically" for services that remain the same. What appears to be missing for these AEBG professionals is an overarching purpose for doing the hard work of creating a new regional adult education delivery system. The majority of AEBG professionals report a growing awareness and respect for the work of one another's systems. This has definitely improved relationships and holds the promise of continued efforts to align practices and policies to create seamless transitions for California's low-skill adults. Many in the field express hopes for enhanced technical assistance for AEBG accountability; support for professional development for teaching staff, support staff, administrators, and partners; and help from state leaders in thinking about the many initiatives underway to support workforce development that should be aligned but are currently siloed.

States that received federal waivers to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act were required to implement reforms in designated "Focus Schools" that contribute to achievement gaps. In this study, we examine the performance effects of such "differentiated accountability" reforms in the state of Louisiana. The Focus School reforms in Louisiana emphasized school-needs assessments and aligned technical assistance. These state reforms may have also been uniquely high-powered because they were linked to a new letter-based school-rating system. We examine the impact of these reforms in a sharp regression discontinuity (RD) design based on the assignment of schools to Focus status. We find that, over each of three years, Louisiana's Focus School reforms had no measurable impact on school performance. We discuss evidence that these findings may reflect policy uncertainty and implementation fidelity at the state and local level.

This edition of "Equity Dispatch" welcomes subscribers to the Midwest and Plains Equity Assistance Center (MAP Center). This newsletter introduces readers to the characteristics and benefits of equity-focused technical assistance. It also provides a broad overview of the MAP Center and the center services.

The McKinney-Vento Act was originally authorized in 1987 and originally sponsored programs to provide services to the homeless. The McKinney-Vento Act is designed to address the challenges that homeless children and youths have faced in enrolling, attending, and succeeding in school. Under the McKinney-Vento Act, State educational agencies (SEAs) must ensure that each homeless child and youth has equal access to the same free, appropriate public education, including a public preschool education, as other children and youths. Homeless children and youths must have access to the educational and related services that they need to enable them to meet the same challenging State academic standards to which all students are held. In addition, homeless students may not be separated from the mainstream school environment. SEAs and local educational agencies (LEAs) are required to review and undertake steps to revise laws, regulations, practices, or policies that may act as barriers to the identification, enrollment, attendance, or success in school of homeless children and youths. The McKinney-Vento Act includes, among other things, new or changed requirements focused on: (1) Identification of homeless children and youths; (2) Preschool-aged homeless children, including clarification that local liaisons must ensure that these children and their families have access to and receive services, if eligible, under LEA administered preschool programs, including Head Start, Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities), and other preschool programs administered by the LEA; (3) Collaboration and coordination with other service providers, including public and private child welfare and social services agencies; law enforcement agencies; juvenile and family courts; agencies providing mental health services; domestic violence agencies; child care providers; runaway and homeless youth centers; providers of services and programs funded under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; and providers of emergency, transitional, and permanent housing, including public housing agencies, shelter operators, and operators of transitional housing facilities; (4) Professional development and technical assistance at both the State and local levels; (5) Removing enrollment barriers, including barriers related to missed application or enrollment deadlines, fines, or fees; records required for enrollment, including immunization or other required health records, proof of residency, or other documentation; or academic records, including documentation for credit transfer; (6) School stability, including the expansion of school of origin to include preschools and receiving schools and the provision of transportation until the end of the school year, even if a student becomes permanently housed; (7) Privacy of student records, including information about a homeless child or youth's living situation; and (8) The dispute resolution process. In addition, the ESSA removes "awaiting foster care placement" from the definition of "homeless children and youths." This revised non-regulatory guidance for the McKinney-Vento program replaces the July 2004 guidance and includes new questions that reflect both the amendments to the McKinney-Vento Act made by the ESSA, which take effect on October 1, 2016,9 and new technical assistance on promising practices for implementing homeless education requirements at the State and local levels. The guidance describes the requirements of the new statute and provides recommendations for addressing many of those requirements

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education funded the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII, or the Center) in 2011. NCII's mission during the first five years of funding was to build the capacity of local education agencies (LEAs) to support schools, practitioners, and other stakeholders in the implementation of intensive intervention in reading, mathematics, and behavior for students with severe and persistent learning and/or behavioral needs. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the Center's accomplishments during the initial funding cycle and to highlight a set of lessons learned from the 26 schools that implemented intensive intervention while receiving technical support from the Center. First, the authors provide a description of NCII's approach to intensive intervention and summarize the Center's initial technical assistance efforts. Next, they describe their methodology and outline the lessons learned from the implementation sites. Then, they offer guidance for practitioners who are interested in implementing intensive intervention. Finally, the authors close with an overview of NCII's plans for building upon this work over the next five years.

California's alternative education options for youth vulnerable to dropping out of school have been established at different historical points and for different student age and target populations. For purposes of this brief, "alternative school" is defined as belonging to one of six legislatively authorized types of public (non-charter) schools that meet the definitions of the Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM). These schools are operated by different local agencies--school districts, county school boards, or juvenile justice agencies and the courts--and governed by overlapping and sometimes legislatively superseded or otherwise inoperative portions of the state Education Code. Currently, the California Department of Education (CDE) is considering the development of a new accountability system for alternative schools that aligns with Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) for all public schools. This report considers how other states are approaching accountability for alternative schools, focusing attention on Colorado, Kentucky, New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin. These states all use multiple indicators including school-level performance on state tests as well as indicators of enrollment, attendance, completion, and graduation in their accountability systems. These state systems have two key features in common: (1) They allow alternative schools to select the indicators that local school leaders believe are most appropriate for their education program or school; and (2) These states hold schools accountable for improvement and/or performance trends rather than to absolute performance standards. In developing an accountability system for California's alternative schools, the State Board of Education (SBE) may consider indicators or metrics adopted by other states that align with or can be nested within the design of the evolving statewide system for all public schools. This report reviews that evolving state accountability system as it may inform options for alternative schools. The report concludes with a discussion of challenges and opportunities that alternative schools face.

Competency-based education--also known as proficiency-based, mastery-based, and performance-based education--has received increased attention in recent years as an education approach that may help ensure that students graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills necessary for college and their careers. In competency-based education, students must demonstrate mastery of course content to be promoted to the next class or grade, rather than spending a required number of hours in a class and meeting minimum course requirements to earn course credit. The approach helps guarantee that students attain competency in course content, with students allowed to take as much or as little time as they need to achieve such competency. Many states, including those in the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Central Region, have revised or are considering revising their policies to align more with competency-based education and other innovative education practices (National Governors Association, 2012). Education leaders in the REL Central Region are interested in learning about policies that affect implementation of competency-based education by understanding policies already in place in their state and learning about the policies of states further ahead in implementation. To help meet this need, this report summarizes the laws and regulations of the seven states in the REL Central Region (Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming), as well as the policies of five states outside the region identified as being advanced in aligning their policies to support competency-based education (Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, and Oregon). This scan of state policies also categorizes the different types of supports these 12 states have provided to intentionally support competency-based education. State and district policymakers can use the information in this report to increase their understanding of the current laws and regulations in their state that may facilitate or hinder competency-based education and to learn about the policies and resources that other states have to support this education approach. State laws and regulations were classified into three broad policy categories, each with several subcategories and associated policy types: (1) Credit flexibility: credit requirements, assessment of student competency, and graduation requirements; (2) Progression flexibility: additional education time, accelerated curriculum, early high school credit, and early graduation; and (3) Individual learning options: online or blended learning; early college, dual, or concurrent enrollment; and experiential learning. Policies on credit flexibility can influence the flexibility by which educational experiences are applied toward graduation and whether it is necessary for students to have mastered course content before progressing. Progression flexibility policies can support or hinder the ability of students to progress through their coursework and classes at their own rate, while policies associated with individual learning options can influence the education opportunities available to students, particularly options that allow education to occur outside the traditional classroom. The study found that: (1) States vary in the extent to which and manner in which they allow flexibility in how students earn academic credits and qualify for high school graduation; (2) Advanced competency-based-education states have more progression flexibility policies in place than do Regional Educational Laboratory Central Region states; and (3) All states have policies that provide students individual learning options. Through examination of publicly available documents, the policy scan also categorized the different types of supports states provide to facilitate competency-based education. These included informational and technical assistance, support for competency-based-education collaboratives, and pilot and special program funding. Results indicated that one Regional Educational Laboratory Central Region state and all five advanced competency-based-education states provide support specifically intended to facilitate competency-based education. The following are appended: (1) Data and methodology; (2) Summaries of policies and supports associated with competency-based education in advanced competency-based-education states; and (3) Policies in each competency-based education category, by state.

This report presents information provided by New Jersey public schools for the 2015-16 school year on incidents of violence; vandalism; weapon offenses; substance offenses; and harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). The information is presented annually by the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) to the Governor and Legislature to fulfill the requirements of the "Public School Safety Law" (N.J.S.A. 18A:17-46 through 48), as amended by P.L. 2010, c.122. This report is divided into two main sections: "Key Findings" and "Programmatic Response." In the "Key Findings" section, the NJDOE presents incident counts reported by schools by the main categories of violence, vandalism, weapon offenses, substance offenses, and HIB. Other incident characteristics, such as location and gang-related offenses, are also reported in this section. In addition, a review of programs/services provided to the student when disciplinary action removes a student from the usual education setting, as well as details specific to HIB investigations, incidents, trainings, and programs, are also included. In the "Programmatic Response" section, prevention methods, NJDOE recommendations, and an overview of NJDOE supports are reviewed in relation to developing and maintaining safe and supportive schools in New Jersey. [For the 2014-2015 report, see ED590616.]

Preparing for emergencies is an ongoing process--even if a school (public or nonpublic) is at a high state of readiness for an emergency, there will still be a need for continued security, safety, and emergency management. School preparedness is strengthened by: (1) prevention; (2) protection; (3) mitigation; (4) response; and (5) recovery activities (also known as the five preparedness mission areas). This fact sheet describes: (1) what protection is; (2) how protection is connected to the other preparedness missions; (3) what protection efforts planning teams may want to consider; and (4) how protection activities can be integrated into planning efforts; additional resources are provided.

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 2017 (July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017), the number of Early Childhood Education funded children expanded as a result of the $73,760,000 investment in state funding. These additional funds allowed for a total of 399 grantees that were funded to serve 18,440 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 a 3-, 4- or 5-star rating in Ohio's quality rating system, Step Up To Quality (SUTQ). High-quality preschool programs were identified within each targeted high needs community, invited to apply for new funding, and selected based on a competitive process. This annual report meets the requirements of Section 263.20 of House Bill 64 (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 2016 edition of this report, see ED600129.]

This report is an evaluation of efforts made by Illinois Action for Children (IAFC), with oversight from the Illinois Governor's Office for Early Childhood Development (OECD), to test, support, and facilitate innovations in the early childhood system in 11 communities across the state. The Early Childhood Innovation Zones (IZ) initiative, funded by Illinois' Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge (RttT-ELC) grant, was designed to spur experimentation with new systemic strategies for increasing the number of children from priority populations enrolled in high quality early learning programs. This mixed methods study is designed to help further the state's understanding of the functioning of the project's logic model and describe the relationships between stages in the theory of action. The analyses focus on identifying and describing the supports, capacities, strategies, and outcomes observed within each collaborative, as well as across collaboratives. The analyses utilized the following: (1) qualitative data, including interviews with zone partners and state level program staff; (2) project documentation, along with quantitative data on enrollment and quality collected by each zone; and (3) surveys distributed to all program participants. The first section addresses innovations in capacity-building, technical assistance and other supports facilitated by IAFC, and describes the problem-solving and decision-making strategies introduced to the zones, as well as the obstacles to implementing the project framework. The second section provides information about barriers to enrollment in early learning programs, and an in-depth exploration of the strategies zones used to overcome these barriers and increase enrollment of priority populations. The third section of this report describes innovations for improving quality implemented by the four zones that chose this path. The report concludes with a discussion of key lessons learned and questions arising from this study, along with implications for future policymaking efforts. The following are appended: (1) Innovation Zone Interview Protocol; (2) IAFC Interview Protocol; (3) Innovation Zones Interview Coding Schema; (4) Innovation Zones End-of-Grant Survey; and (5) Appendix Tables 1 and 2. [For the executive summary, "Illinois' Early Childhood Innovation Zones: A New Model for State Policy? IERC 2017-1. Executive Summary," see ED574336. For the research highlights, "Illinois' Early Childhood Innovation Zones: A New Model for State Policy? IERC 2017-1. Research Highlights," see ED574339.]

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides increased flexibility for states and districts to develop strategies to support school improvement while, at the same time, emphasizes the importance of implementing evidence-based interventions to support low-performing schools. As states and districts implement comprehensive college and career readiness initiatives, one challenge is the identification and selection of evidence-based practices for high schools. This snapshot is part of a series by the College and Career Readiness and Success Center highlighting evidence-based practices that promote college and career readiness in high schools. This brief focuses on early college high schools which are partnerships between secondary and postsecondary institutions and businesses that allow students to earn both a high-school diploma and an associate's degree or postsecondary credit towards a bachelor's degree. This evidence-based practice provides a learning environment that enhances students' education experience and improves student outcomes in high school and postsecondary education.

In 2011, the Washington Dyslexia Resource Guide was created as a capstone document highlighting the multiple professional learning resources used by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Educational Service Districts (ESDs). From 2005 to 2010, OSPI received funding from the WA State Legislature to work closely with school districts, ESDs, and the Washington Branch of the International Dyslexia Association (WABIDA) to develop resources for families and educators focused on the identification and support of students with dyslexia. During the 2016-17 school year, the Regional Literacy Cadre (RLC) representing each of the nine ESDs reported the following: (1) RLC members presented on dyslexia at state and regional conferences; (2) OSPI staff attended conferences and events on dyslexia around the state; (3) OSPI has started collaborating with researchers at the University of Washington; and (4) The ELA Office at OSPI and the RLC provided technical assistance (phone calls and email correspondence) to families and districts on dyslexia identification, legality and support.

The U.S. Department of Education's review of state assessment systems is an evidence-based, peer review process for which each state submits evidence to demonstrate that its assessment system meets a set of established criteria, called Critical Elements. Critical Elements represent the Elementary and Secondary Education Act statutory and regulatory requirements that state assessment systems must meet. The six sections of critical elements that cover these requirements are: (1) Statewide System of Standards and Assessments; (2) Assessment System Operations; (3) Technical Quality--Validity; (4) Technical Quality--Other; (5) Inclusion of All Students; and (6) Academic Achievement Standards and Reporting. To support states and ensure that the correct evidence is submitted for each critical element, the Center on Standards and Assessment Implementation (CSAI) can provide technical assistance supporting the different requirements. This report provides data organizers that highlight critical elements of peer review, specifically, those critical elements for which CSAI can provide support and/or resources.

The Adult High School (AHS) program enables an adult no longer enrolled in public high school to complete the required courses and state assessments to earn a standard high school diploma. Course requirements are in accordance with standards established by the state. A program of instruction for both traditional and co-enrolled AHS students shall be based on the State of Florida adult education frameworks and the Florida Standards. Instructional methodologies may include, but are not limited to, traditional lecture instruction, competency and performance-based adult education, distance learning, and computer-assisted instruction. This guide provides information for adult high schools regarding the following topics: (1) enrollment criteria; (2) tuition and out-of-state fees; (3) assessing students for National Reporting System (NRS) reporting; (4) accountability and reporting; (5) graduation requirements; (6) statewide assessments; (7) assessment requirements for students with disabilities; (8) transfer of credit guidelines; (9) diploma/completion options; (10) course code directory; and (11) adult education instructor certification requirements. [For the 2015-2016 version of this paper, see ED579159.]

The abrupt shift to distance learning at the onset of the COVID-19 crisis exacerbated inequalities in California's K-12 system and added urgency to an ongoing discussion about the role of high school graduation policy in promoting equitable student outcomes. More rigorous graduation requirements, particularly in math and science, can improve access to college by increasing enrollment in advanced courses, which might enhance college readiness and performance on standardized assessments. While high school graduation rates in California have increased in the past decade, nearly 40 percent of California high school graduates do not enroll in college; the disruptive impact of the pandemic has heightened this concern. In this report, the authors review district graduation policies for the 2018-19 school year and examine the relationship between math and science requirements and student outcomes. Given the disruption caused by COVID-19, the first priority should be for districts to set up support systems to mitigate learning loss and prevent backtracking on improvements in high school graduation and college enrollment. [This report was written with research support from Courtney Lee and Andrew Lee. For the technical appendices, see ED611479.]

With the passage of the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states were required to add a fifth indicator on "School Quality or Student Success" (SQSS) to their school accountability systems. An analysis of submitted ESSA state plans found that 13 states included measures of school climate as their SQSS indicator or incorporated measures of school climate for quality improvement purposes. In addition, three states and the District of Columbia indicated plans to pilot and/or incorporate measures of school climate in the future, signaling a growing recognition of school climate assessment and improvement to support the whole child. As an increasing number of states consider including school climate measurement as an indicator within their ESSA plans, and more districts move toward implementing district-wide school climate surveys, it is critical to equip schools with the tools they need to productively engage with school climate data. This brief presents advice to other researchers or school districts providing school climate data to ensure that schools are best able to use those data.

The U.S. Department of Education funds various types of technical assistance centers with the goal of providing the expertise and resources needed by state education agencies (SEAs), regional education agencies, and local education agencies (LEAs) to effectively implement federal education programs. Given the complexity of technical assistance for both providers and recipients, understanding technical assistance provision requires a deeper and more nuanced examination of (1) how recipients use, combine, align, and manage sources of support and (2) how providers design, adjust, and coordinate the support provided directly and in collaboration. The purpose of this report is to provide policymakers and technical assistance providers and recipients with an analysis of how a federally funded technical assistance center balances competing pressures amid unexpected challenges so that it can address the needs of its clients and fulfill its charge. The authors examine the Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety (CISELSS)'s first three years of operation. They explore how CISELSS balanced competing pressures and the influence of shifting contextual conditions in the provision of technical assistance to SEAs and LEAs and offer insights about CISELSS's early implementation that might help guide efforts to continuously improve its provision of supports.

This resource was prepared in response to a request for information about the innovations and lessons learned as the result of the investments States have made in transforming their workforce using their Race to the Top -- Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants. These strategies and accomplishments will be helpful to other States as they explore ways to provide all children with high-quality early education. To address this request, ELC TA reviewed the "2015 Annual Performance Report" (APR) data that the 20 RTT-ELC States submitted to the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services in the spring of 2016 detailing their grant work in 2015. These examples are intended to provide information about which States to contact to find out more information. This State Technical Assistance Resource is a companion piece to the October 2016 Webinar by the National Center for Early Childhood Development, Teaching, and Learning about "Transforming the Workforce: Innovations and Lessons Learned from Race to the Top -- Early Learning Challenge States." A list of resources is provided.

This, the 30th annual "National Child Count of Children and Youth Who Are Deaf-Blind," is the first and longest running registry and knowledge base of children who are deaf-blind in the world. Begun in 1986 on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, it represents a nearly thirty year collaborative effort between the National Center on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB), its predecessors, and each state and multi-state deaf-blind project throughout the country, as well as those projects funded in the Pacific Trust territories, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Initially requested by the U.S. Department of Education as an examination of the discrepancy between the National Deaf-Blind Child Count and the Office of Special Education Program's (OSEP) annual December 1 counts of children and students with disabilities being served under IDEA Part C or Part B, the child count has expanded over time to inform the work of a range of OSEP-funded deaf-blind projects during the ensuing years, including the current national, state, and multi-state technical assistance and dissemination projects. The National Deaf-Blind Child Count has been collaboratively designed, implemented, and revised to serve as the common vehicle to meet federal grant requirements for both the State and Multi-State Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance Projects and the National Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance Center, as well as serve as a common data collection and reporting mechanism for use across the country. [For the 2014 report see ED581437.]

This brief summarizes the findings from a study that surveyed principals of rural schools nationwide that were designated as in need of improvement and that used the transformation model under the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. It provides information about the use of SIG funds in rural areas and is designed to help state leaders as they assist schools in implementing current SIGs, create new statewide models for SIGs, and modify current requirements for rural schools. The study was not part of the federal evaluation of the SIG program, which provides more comprehensive information about SIG schools. [For the full report, see ED565803.]

This document is part of a Bridgespan Group research project that focused on the question: "How could a philanthropist make the biggest improvement on social mobility with an investment of $1 billion?" In answering this question, the authors have sought to understand "what matters most" for improving social mobility outcomes. To do this, the authors have drawn from extensive research conducted by leading scholars in the field. They have also outlined a range of tools to assist philanthropists seeking systemic and field-level changes that go well beyond scaling direct service interventions. Using the research and identified tools, the authors have created an illustrative set of "bets" that provide concrete roadmaps for high-leverage investments of $1 billion with the potential for sustainable change at scale. From a list of 15 high-potential bets through which philanthropists could have a significant impact on increasing upward mobility, six bets were selected that are particularly timely, suited to the unique role of philanthropy, have the potential to create significantly outsized impact, and, as a package, could truly sum to $1 billion. This concept paper illustrates one of the six bets. The paper explores potential solutions to the underperformance of social service programs. It focuses on ways to increase government use of data to improve their efficacy and proposes eight potential investments philanthropists can make. The paper quantifies the projected impact with estimates of the potential return on investment individuals and families would experience if a big bet were to be made to improve program performance. [For the main report, "'Billion Dollar Bets' to Create Economic Opportunity for Every American," see ED606509.]

For decades, the regulations attached to federal education funds have shaped the forms and functions of state education agencies (SEAs), especially as state funding for these agencies has stagnated or diminished. In fact, the relationship between the SEA and the state's districts and schools has been colored by the strong tint of federal influence. How will states now repurpose their education agencies in this era of devolved control? How will SEAs step back from the grinding demands of daily government activity, stave off the always-blazing fires of education politics, and with ample time and collective intelligence, reshape their organizations and reset their goals and strategies? How will they reconceive their relationships with their districts, schools, and communities? How will these agencies manage their own personnel in different ways as the nature of their work changes? Recognizing that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) would open opportunities for new thinking about the role of the state in education, the Building State Capacity and Productivity (BSCP) Center--one of seven national content centers supported under the U.S. Department of Education's Comprehensive Centers program--developed a strategic performance management (SPM) technical assistance process to assist SEA leadership in redefining their agency's direction, creating an organizational structure to carry out that direction, and putting in place a performance management system to encourage productivity and innovation. The process brings "strategic planning" together with "performance management" to build a cohesive system to engage people in performance-focused work, report on progress, adjust course based on results, and seek better ways to carry out the agency's mission. With a facilitation manual hot off the press, two BSCP Center consultants began working with the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) in September of 2015, just ahead of ESSA's passage. Two consultants from the South Central Comprehensive Center (SCCC) joined the BSCP Center personnel, meeting for two days in Little Rock each month. The first day, the four consultants and ADE Chief of Staff (designated as Chief Performance Officer for this project) nailed down the agenda for the following day's mental calisthenics with the ADE Commissioner and 15-member leadership team. In January 2016, the BSCP Center's consultants launched the same SPM process with the Virgin Islands Department of Education (VIDE), assisted by the Florida & Islands Comprehensive Center (FLICC), meeting with the VIDE team for three days each month. In both Arkansas and the Virgin Islands, the days with the BSCP and regional center consultants were matched by meetings and work between these sessions. Part of that work was the methodical vetting of the emerging strategic direction with internal and external constituencies, getting feedback, and making adjustments. Strategic Performance Management process is presented in this report.