Search

Compensatory education, also known as compensatory services, is a judicially created remedy which entitles a student to receive additional special education and related services, accommodations, and modifications when their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have been violated. This report contains answers to questions regarding compensatory education in response to COVID-19. [For the first edition, see ED615639.]

Compensatory education, also known as compensatory services, is a judicially created remedy which entitles a student to receive additional special education and related services, accommodations, and modifications when their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have been violated. This report contains answers to questions regarding compensatory education in response to COVID-19.

On March 16, 2020, Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia issued an emergency closure of all public schools, changing the education system overnight from a brick and mortar face-to-face model to a remote learning model. Students with disabilities receiving special education and related services continue to be entitled to procedural safeguards and a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as outlined in the "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004" ("IDEA") and West Virginia Board of Education (WVBE) "Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities." At this time, Congress has not granted authorization to the United States Department of Education (USED) to allow flexibilities or waivers to IDEA. Therefore, districts must continue to comply with all federal and state regulations and policies pertaining to students with exceptionalities. The following information presented in this report focuses on re-entry, recovery, and the re-establishment of procedures, processes and protocols to provide the services students with Individualized Education Programs (IEP) need to receive FAPE and meaningful benefit from their educational programs.

This report presents the State Compensatory Education (SCE) report for the 201-2019 school year. Per Section 29.081 of the Texas Education Code (TEC §29.081), the SCE program is designed to reduce dropout rates and increase academic performance of students identified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCE operates as a funding source to supplement instructional services and offer academic support to students who meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by the state. Funds allocated under SCE law are to be channeled toward programs and services that eliminate disparities in performance on assessment instruments administered under TEC Chapter 39, Subchapter B. For this year's evaluation of SCE, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) served as the state assessment measures for grades 3 through 8 and the STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) served as the state assessment measures for students taking specific high school courses for the 2018-2019 school year. The completion status of the class of 2018 was also assessed.

The State Compensatory Education (SCE) program is designed to reduce dropout rates and increase academic performance of students identified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCE operates as a funding source to supplement instructional services and offer academic support to students who meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by the state. For this year's evaluation of SCE, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) served as the state assessment measures for grades 3 through 8 and the STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) served as the state assessment measures for grades 9 through 11 for the 2015-2016 school year. The completion status of the class of 2015 was also assessed. Because the district no longer administers a norm-referenced test, such as the Stanford or Iowa (for English speakers) or Aprenda or Logramos (for Spanish speakers) given in prior years, there was no assessment measure for grades 1 and 2. The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the SCE-funded programs in HISD as required by law. The district must evaluate and document the effectiveness of instructional programs in reducing any disparities in performance on the STAAR and STAAR EOC, as well as disparities in the rates of high school completion, between students at-risk of dropping out of school and all other district students. This evaluation compares at-risk students' performance on the STAAR and STAAR EOC with the performance of their notat-risk counterparts. As required by the TEA (2010), differences in passing rates between at-risk and notat-risk students are reported for the past three years when data are available so that movement in reducing the disparity in passing rates can be ascertained. In compliance with guidelines specified by the TEA (2010), high school completion rates are reported for at-risk and not-at-risk students attending HISD.

State Compensatory Education (SCE) is a supplemental program designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under chapter 39 of the Texas EducationCode (1995, amended 2013), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995, amended 2013), and all other students. SCE funds must be used for programs or services that are supplemental to the regular education program and aim to increase the performance of students identified as at risk of dropout.

The State Compensatory Education (SCE) program is designed to reduce dropout rates and increase academic performance of students identified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCE operates as a funding source to supplement instructional services and offer academic support to students who meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by the state. For this year's evaluation of SCE, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and Logramos Third Edition (formerly Stanford Tenth Edition and Aprenda Third Edition) served as the assessment measures for grades 1 and 2, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) served as the state assessment measures for grades 3 through 8, STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) served as the state assessment measures for grades 9 through 11 for the 2014-2015 school year. The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the SCE-funded programs in HISD as required by law. The district must evaluate and document the effectiveness of instructional programs in reducing any disparities in performance on the ITBS, Logramos, STAAR, and STAAR EOC and disparities in the rates of high school completion between students at-risk of dropping out of school and all other district students. This evaluation compares at-risk students' performance on the ITBS, Logramos, STAAR, and STAAR EOC with the performance of their not-at-risk counterparts. As required by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2004), differences in passing rates between at-risk and not-at-risk students are reported for the past three years when data are available so that movement in reducing the disparity in passing rates can be ascertained. In compliance with guidelines specified by the TEA (2010), high school completion rates are reported for at-risk and not-at-risk students attending HISD.

The State Compensatory Education (SCE) program is designed to reduce dropout rates and increase academic performance of students identified as being at-risk of dropping out of school. SCE operates as a funding source to supplement instructional services and offer academic support to students who meet the SCE at-risk criteria established by the state. For this year's evaluation of SCE, the Stanford 10 and Aprenda 3 served as the assessment measures for grades 1 and 2, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) served as the state assessment measures for grades 3 through 8, STAAR End-of-Course (EOC) served as the state assessment measures for grades 9 through 11 for the 2013-2014 school year. The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the SCE funded programs in HISD as required by law. The district must evaluate and document the effectiveness of instructional programs in reducing any disparities in performance on the Stanford, Aprenda, STAAR, and STAAR EOC and disparities in the rates of high school completion between students at-risk of dropping out of school and all other district students. This evaluation compares at-risk students' performance on the Stanford, Aprenda, STAAR, and STAAR EOC with the performance of their not at-risk counterparts. As required by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2004), differences in passing rates between at-risk and not at-risk students are reported for the past three years when data are available so that movement in reducing the disparity in passing rates can be ascertained. In compliance with guidelines specified by the TEA (2004), high school completion rates are reported for at-risk and not at-risk students attending HISD.

This report describes the AISD at-risk student population and expenditures for 2012-2013, results from program evaluations conducted in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, and the longitudinal disparity between performance of at-risk and not-at-risk students.

Each year, Austin Independent School District Department of Research and Evaluation (DRE) staff develop a plan of work to describe the scope of work for the coming year. The plans that make up this document identify programs to be evaluated and services to be provided by DRE staff and provide the blueprints for evaluation that staff will follow throughout the year.

New York City's College Access and Success Initiative (CAS) focuses on improving the odds of success for young people who have graduated from failing high schools, are recent immigrants, or who have dropped out and then attained a GED. Begun in 2004, it demonstrates how colleges and community organizations can integrate education and youth development to improve student success. CAS brings together: (1) The New York City College of Technology--City Tech--is a college within the City University of New York system; (2) The Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation is a community-based organization that provides housing development and human services in East New York; and (3) The Youth Development Institute, an intermediary, develops, supports, and assesses practice and policy innovations in New York City and nationally. A predecessor to this report, "Building a Better Bridge," by Michael Chavez Reilly (2008), describes the experiences of students and staff in the early stages of CAS. This report describes the initiative's key components as they have evolved over five years. It explores the practices, challenges, and policy implications of this innovative programming. The two reports seek to build understanding of: (1) The needs and strengths of young people who are underrepresented in higher education and who too rarely complete a credential; and (2) The ways that youth development organizations and colleges--institutions that rarely work together and that have differing strengths, sizes, and professional cultures--can collaborate to improve student success. The results are encouraging. According to data from the college, CAS students have graduated from City Tech at more than twice the rate of their peers from the same community in East New York, and 75 percent of the graduates have gone on to Bachelor's programs. Appended are: (1) Partnership Agreement; and (2) Partnership Chart. (Contains 19 endnotes.) [This paper was written with Justine Beaton and Vivian Vazquez.]

Each year, Austin Independent School District Department of Research and Evaluation (DRE) staff develop a plan of work to describe the scope of work for the coming year. The plans that make up this document identify programs to be evaluated and services to be provided by DRE staff and provide the blueprints for evaluation that staff will follow throughout the year.

This technical brief responds to an Arizona Department of Education request to study academic performance in schools receiving funding through the federal Title I compensatory education program, the section of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 governing resources for schools and districts serving disadvantaged populations. The brief describes for 2005/06-2008/09 the numbers and distribution of Arizona public schools and students across school levels (elementary, middle, high) for three school types: Title I Schools in Improvement (participating in the school improvement program, a public program to improve the academic performance of students in schools not meeting adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years); Title I Schools Not in Improvement; and non-Title I schools. It reports how Schools in Improvement are distributed across school improvement statuses, compares trends in reading and math proficiency for students attending each school type, and examines patterns of movement in and out of school improvement among Title I schools. Appended are: (1) Study methods; (2) Detailed school- and student-level data; (3) School-level reading and math proficiency trends, 2005/06-2008/09; and (4) Movement in and out of Title I and the school improvement program among all Arizona schools receiving Title I funding any year over 2005/06-2008/09. (Contains 2 boxes, 12 tables, 9 figures, and 5 notes.)

Expanded learning opportunities (ELOs) support state education goals by providing safe, structured learning environments for students outside the regular school day. ELOs include after-school and summer learning programs, as well as before-school, evening, and weekend programs. Although research demonstrates that high-quality expanded learning opportunities can improve a variety of student outcomes, these programs are frequently disconnected from larger, state-level school reform efforts. To address this problem, in 2007, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) launched "Supporting Student Success: The Promise of Expanded Learning Opportunities" (S3), with support from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Competitive grants of $50,000 were awarded to leadership teams in six states: Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Rhode Island. These states were charged with bringing together high-level policymakers and stakeholders to foster the integration of expanded learning opportunities into their state education reform agendas. To date, the six states have successfully applied the grant funds to pursue strategic reforms in state-level ELO policy. Many of the S3 states faced a number of challenges in launching this difficult work, including state budget crises and shortages of funds for ELOs; changes in state leadership and personnel; and the need to navigate complex governance structures that made systemic reform difficult. Nevertheless, the six states accomplished a number of policy changes during the two-year grant period: (1) Colorado secured ELO representation on the state P-20 Council and launched a county-level initiative that served as a statewide model; (2) Iowa created its Afterschool Executive Council, which raised awareness of ELOs through a publication that offered state policy recommendations and identified gaps in ELO access, funding, and quality; (3) Massachusetts generated additional funding for the state's major after-school grants program and secured positions for ELO representatives on key state commissions and subcommittees for education reform; (4) New Hampshire piloted a program allowing high school students to earn credit for participation in ELOs, which resulted in a reduced dropout rate among participating students; (5) Ohio collected data on ELO funding and sustainability challenges that ultimately increased support for ELOs within the state; and (6) Rhode Island secured ELO representation on a gubernatorial task force and launched a pilot extended-school-day program. For policymakers seeking to better integrate ELOs into state education reform agendas, this report provides an overview of the lessons learned from the S3 project. It describes the major policy strategies and processes by which the six states were able to improve education outcomes through the S3 grant. (Contains 7 notes.)

This report summarizes federal Title I services provided to eligible students at participating private school programs and facilities for delinquent or neglected students within the Austin Independent School District attendance area in 2009-2010.

State Compensatory Education (SCE) is a supplemental program designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (1995, amended 2007), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995, amended 2007), and all other students. This report examines the results for the State Compensatory Education program for at risk students in AISD for the 2008-2009 school year.

State Compensatory Education is a supplemental program in Texas designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (1995, amended 2007), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995, amended2007), and all other students. This report examines the results for the State Compensatory Education program for at-risk students in AISD for the 2007-2008 school year.

State Compensatory Education (SCE) is a supplemental program designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (1995, amended 2007), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995, amended 2007), and all other students. This report examines the results for the State Compensatory Education program for at-risk students in Austin Independent School District for the 2006-2007 school year.

State Compensatory Education (SCE) is a supplemental program in Texas designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (1995), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995), and all other students. This report examines the results for the State Compensatory Education program for at-risk students in AISD for the 2005-2006 school year.

State Compensatory Education (SCE) is a supplemental program in Texas designed to eliminate disparities in (a) student performance on assessment instruments administered under chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (1995), and (b) the rates of high school completion between students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Texas Education Code 29.081 (1995), and all other students. This report examines the results for the State Compensatory Education program for at-risk students in AISD for the 2004-2005 school year.

This report focuses on the efforts of two troubled high schools (Wallis Annenberg High School in Los Angeles and Dayton (OH) Early College Academy) to launch early college programs. These two schools are a new breed of institution that combines high school and college into a coherent educational program and helps to bridge the gap between graduating from high school and entering and succeeding in college. Because it is somewhat counterintuitive to take adolescents who are already at an educational disadvantage and push them further and faster, and because the idea is largely untested, a long-term research project was launched to track the progress of early college high schools and their impact on students. Conducted by researchers at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, the study has completed its first year with encouraging findings that are summarized in this document. With only its first phase completed, the research project's findings are preliminary and much remains to be learned. Still, the findings to date are compatible with previous research on effective schools. The key findings from surveys of and interviews with members of the early college high school community focus on eight areas: (1) An educational identity; (2) Continuous support; (3) Caring relationships; (4) Support for staff; (5) Challenging environment; (6) Importance of learning spaces; (7) Constructing knowledge; and (8) Widespread and intense commitment.

This report summarizes AISD's evaluation results of its 2003-2004 state compensatory education programs.

Many young people learn a discouraging set of lessons between the ages of 16 and 24. They come to see secondary school as irrelevant, available jobs as demeaning, and their prospects and choices as diminishing. Some continue to "drop in" to school long enough to get a diploma, but leave lacking the skills or interest to pursue further education. Others drop out of school altogether. Seen in this context, the ambitious promise implied in the federal law to "leave no child behind" will require moving expeditiously beyond the "one-size-fits-all," factory-model high school to a far richer diversity of learning environments. This paper focuses on four types of learning environments that appear to hold particular promise for vulnerable and potentially disconnected youth: reinvented high schools, secondary/postsecondary blends, education/employment blends, and extended learning opportunities beyond the school day, year, and building. The first section paints a statistical portrait of the substantial number of urban youth who could potentially benefit from these new programmatic options. The second section describes the authors' process for identifying and investigating emerging, powerful learning environments, then profiles four programs that show evidence of effectiveness. The report concludes with a discussion of the policy opportunities today for creating multiple avenues for young people to achieve to higher standards, along with four specific policy recommendations to meet this goal. (Contains 11 endnotes.)