Search

The recent wave of new legislation affecting public school teachers has its roots, in part, in the budget shortfalls that have challenged states for the past several years. The first signs of fiscal troubles for many states became evident in 2008, and most instituted midyear budget reductions in 2009. In response, the U.S. Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 to offset state budget deficits. The federal government used the ARRA program to kick-start state economies by investing a total of $787 billion from 2009 to 2011 in several state and local government sectors, including education. Roughly $4.35 billion of ARRA funds also were reserved for awards in the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) competitive education program. To receive any federal funds linked to the ARRA or RTTT programs, states were required to meet a list of minimum criteria, including revising state statutes for particular educational policies. These funding restrictions have given policy-makers in many states a new incentive to transform their education statutes by altering policies affecting a number of common issues, including teacher evaluations, tenure, dismissal and compensation. This "Focus" report on teacher evaluation policies is the first in a series of reports on these bills. Of the 11 states and the District of Columbia that have won RTTT funding to date, six are SREB states (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee). Some SREB states modified their evaluation systems prior to RTTT; other SREB states made the most of the opportunity to restructure their systems with federal funding assistance. In total, in 2010 and 2011, legislatures in seven SREB states approved changes to their teacher evaluation systems. Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia amended previous policies or established new teacher evaluation systems. (Contains 2 tables.)

In recent years, lean economic conditions have led to state and local agency budget cuts, including reductions to elementary and secondary education. To compensate for less state funding and decreasing local revenues, many state legislatures have passed policy and funding bills that give school systems more latitude in making finance and program decisions. A key area where more flexibility is apparent is the scheduling of school calendars. One of the first responses to the downturn in the economy was to explore the four-day school week as a money-saving measure. Statutes in nearly half of the 16 SREB (Southern Regional Education Board) states now permit local school districts to adopt calendars where students attend school for longer but fewer days. With renewed focus at the state and federal level on reforming education and increasing student learning, state policy-makers also are looking for more creative ways to arrange the instructional school year. The concept of altering the traditional school calendar is not new, but few schools and districts across the country have embraced the idea. Those that have chosen alternative calendars typically have similar reasons, including raising student achievement, reducing the achievement gap among groups of students, saving money, and decreasing school overcrowding. In the SREB region, most schools and districts that operate on an alternative calendar use either a year-round school program or a four-day school week, although year-round schedules are more prevalent. Year-round school calendars reorganize minimum instructional time requirements across the school year; reduce the time students spend on summer vacation; and provide multiple opportunities for tutoring, remediation and enrichment throughout the school year. This "Focus" report provides an overview of year-round programs and examines the advantages and challenges that are inherent to most, if not all, of these programs. It also provides an update on actions relating to the four-day school week. Although only a small percentage of schools in the SREB region have year-round programs in operation, it is important for education leaders and legislators to explore whether this type of calendar contributes to stronger academic achievement results for students. (Contains 5 tables.)

Over the last several years, questions have risen across the nation regarding the public school calendar and how to make it a more effective tool for operating schools. These questions are the product of a variety of conditions occurring in states, including a renewed focus on student learning and closing achievement gaps among students, sizable state budget reductions, and scheduling problems due to inclement weather and other disruptive events. These conditions, along with many other circumstances, are considerations lawmakers may take into account as they look at policies to modify school calendars. This report in the SREB Focus series looks at the origins of the 180-day calendar, current instructional requirements in SREB states, opening and closing dates, and recent changes in school calendar flexibility--including the four-day school week and year-round calendar. In 2010, school calendars and calendar policies in SREB states remain relatively unchanged, although a few key differences exist. In some cases, state policy changes offer school districts more calendar flexibility, while other differences reflect a desire for uniformity and consistency throughout a state. (Contains 3 tables.)

In elementary and secondary education governance, the need to build an effective system of public education is the driving force behind the selection of a state's key education leaders. This paper provides a snapshot of what state K-12 governance looks like in SREB states. (Contains 7 tables.)

In elementary and secondary education governance, the need to build an effective system of public education is the driving force behind the selection of a state's key education leaders. This paper provides a snapshot of what state K-12 governance looks like in SREB [Southern Regional Education Board] states. (Contains 3 footnotes and 6 tables.)