Search

This report presents trends on the implementation of Title I parental choice options from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB). The report uses data from state-level interviews; surveys of a nationally representative sample of district officials, principals and teachers; surveys of parents in eight school districts; and surveys of supplemental educational service providers in 16 districts to examine the implementation across the country of the school choice and supplemental educational service components of Title I through 2006-07. It is based on data collected in 2004-05 and 2006-07, updating findings from the interim report that was based on data collected in 2004-05. Most districts reported that they offered Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services if they were required to do so, and the number of students participating in both options increased substantially from the initial implementation of NCLB to the most recent year with available data. However, only a small proportion of eligible students actually participated in school choice or supplemental educational services, and participation rates have remained relatively constant. Four notable issues appeared to continue to contribute to low participation rates, in spite of the progress that had been made on some of these issues: (1) Supply of options for both Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services was limited at the secondary level; (2) Approximately half of districts continued to be unable to notify parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice of that option before the beginning of the school year; (3) A majority of parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice and more than one-third of parents of students eligible for supplemental educational services continued to say they were not notified of those options, even though the districts documented that written notifications had been sent out; and (4) Even when parents said they were notified, nine out of 10 parents of students eligible for Title I public school choice and nearly half of parents of students eligible for Title I supplemental educational services chose not to participate, primarily due to satisfaction with the child's current school. The report concludes that, although there continue to be issues around availability of Title I public school choice and supplemental educational services and timely notification of and communication with parents, it is parents of eligible students who ultimately decide whether they want to avail themselves of the options offered to their children. To date, parents have shown a low propensity to do so for both public school choice and supplemental educational services. Three appendices are included: (1) Description of NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB Methodologies; (2) Standard Error Exhibits; and (3) Supplemental Exhibits. (Contains 34 footnotes and 88 exhibits.)

The U.S. Air Force has a continuing interest in reducing high rates of attrition and training-block failures (known as washbacks, in which portions of training must be repeated) during initial skills training. High attrition requires a significantly greater input into the schoolhouses, increasing training and recruiting costs. High washback rates reduce the capacity of the schoolhouses by requiring that seats be set aside for students who need to retake training blocks, and such rates incur greater costs by increasing training time. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) Directorate of Force Management Policy (AF/A1P) tasked the RAND Corporation to investigate enlisted USAF specialties with high attrition and washback rates. The research described in this report extended over two years, divided into two phases. The first phase was the investigation of five career fields defined by the following Air Force specialty codes (AFSCs): 1C1X1, air traffic control (ATC); 1C2X1, combat control (CCT); 1T2X1, pararescue (PJ); 2A6X2, aerospace ground equipment (AGE); and 3E8X1, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD). This research was conducted as part of a fiscal year (FY) 2008 umbrella study called Enhanced Testing and Screening for High Value and High Attrition Programs. The second phase continued the investigation into four other career fields: AFSCs 1N0X1, operations intelligence; 1N4X1, network intelligence analysis; 1N3X4X, Far East linguist; and 1N3X5X, Middle East linguist. This research was conducted as part of an FY 2009 umbrella study, Personnel Selection and Screening. Over the course of the research, RAND researchers briefed numerous senior decisionmakers on its findings. Consequently, many of the recommendations have been or are in the process of being implemented. The report credits the Air Force for changes made through 2010 but does not include changes made after 2010.

How should enlisted initial training be divided between centralized initial skills training (IST) and decentralized on-the-job training (OJT)? This document provides recommendations to address this question based on a cost-benefit analysis of seven Air Force specialties. The underlying methodology includes a mechanism for developing specialty learning and productivity curves that are used to capture the full human capital development (HCD) cost (IST and OJT). All too often, only IST costs are considered when pricing training. When this is done, the overall cost to train an airman is seriously underestimated. When the full costs are considered, decisions related to the length of IST are better informed. The Air Force typically trains 30,000 to 40,000 new airmen in some 300 specialties each year. We estimate IST costs at $700 million per year, with OJT costs reaching perhaps $1.4 billion each year. In developing new airmen to required levels of productivity, IST and OJT can, to some degree, substitute for each other. An appropriately designed cost-benefit analysis is necessary to find the best balance between them. Productivity is difficult to measure. We equate a productive airman with one who possesses the skills to be fully mission capable. But then, in what ways must an airman in a particular specialty be skilled in order to be fully mission capable? How should a training program prepare airmen to obtain these skills and this experience? At what skill level do airmen currently graduate from IST? How does productivity increase with time in OJT?, ISBN-978-0-8330-4045-9