Search

All states identify schools most in need of improvement by using school accountability systems and other metrics. State improvement strategies range in intensity from general technical assistance to alternative governance for identified schools or districts. This 50-State Comparison provides research into the K-12 school improvement policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This interactive resource provides information identified in statute, regulation and state Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plans as of September 2022. The following hyperlinks to data tables are included: (1) Improvement Categories; (2) Improvement Plans and Needs Assessments; (3) Strategies and Supports; (4) Alternative Governance; (5) More Rigorous Interventions; and (6) All data points for all states. Key takeaways are also listed.

At least 46 states have set postsecondary attainment goals to improve the educational opportunities and livelihoods of their citizens and to meet workforce demands in a changing labor market. While the data is still emerging, the widespread use of administrative holds by postsecondary institutions may be undermining state education and workforce goals since this practice may create barriers to students earning college credentials. This Policy Brief includes: (1) an overview of administrative holds; (2) an analysis of holds related to financial obligations by students; (3) a summary of state interviews on the use of administrative holds; (4) examples of relevant state policies on administrative holds; and (5) considerations for policy and education leaders. The interviews conducted with institutional, system and state leaders offered several insights about administrative holds and are noted throughout this analysis.

Students' mental health and wellness is an indicator of educational engagement and academic success. Studies have shown that school-based behavioral health interventions result in improved educational outcomes. In addition, research shows that access to school-based health centers increases student participation in mental health services and may improve overall child wellness, including health and education outcomes. In a time when approximately 7.7 million children ages 6 to 17 experience a mental health disorder each year and students consistently report high levels of stress, depression and anxiety, and youth suicide rates continue to rise, effective school-based interventions can have a positive impact on student outcomes. Despite the presence of these mental health challenges among school-age youths and the benefits of mental health services, estimates suggest that most students do not receive the treatment they need. Of the students who access treatment, the vast majority begin receiving support services, or are identified as needing additional support, at school -- underscoring the crucial role education systems can play in addressing students' mental health needs. For these reasons and more, student mental and behavioral health has been a priority of state education leaders in recent years. This Policy Brief highlights how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated student mental health challenges, illustrates a common framework for student mental health services and summarizes state legislative trends in supporting students to prevent, identify, and address student mental health in schools.

This interactive resource provides a comprehensive summary of the various entities that make up postsecondary governance ecosystems in each state and the District of Columbia. It also: (1) Focuses on and provides in-depth information about statewide coordinating boards/agencies and governing boards. If statewide boards do not exist, then information is provided for major systemwide coordinating and governing boards; (2) Includes general information about other state higher education entities, such as administrative/service offices, financial aid offices and advisory boards; and (3) Lists other postsecondary system-level governing boards, most multicampus institutional boards and membership organizations. Hyperlinked data tables for 50-state comparisons showing how all states approach governance structures are provided. A specific state's approach can be viewed by going to the individual state profile page.

Nearly half of the states allow community colleges to award bachelor's degrees as one strategy to meet workforce demands, increase access to educational and career advancement opportunities, address affordability and raise attainment rates. Emerging research also suggests that community college bachelor's degrees may play a role in better serving a more diverse student population. Students who enroll in community college bachelor's programs are typically adult learners who are working and may not be in a position to study full time toward a bachelor's or transfer to a four-year institution. Further, the programs may address the low rates of underserved students and rural residents with a bachelor's degree. This Policy Brief captures recent state policy activity pertaining to community college bachelor's degree programs, summarizes arguments for and against these policies and offers policy considerations for states starting or expanding these programs.

This Policy Snapshot provides summary information for 2017 legislation related to attainment goals and plans, as well as policy actions from previous years.

Concerned with low on-time graduation rates, state lawmakers continue to turn to outcomes-based funding (OBF) as one policy approach to support postsecondary degree attainment and workforce goals. Policymakers have also been confronted with constituent complaints about student debt loads, course schedules and academic programs that force students to enroll in additional terms, and transfer policies that require students to retake courses already completed at other public two- and four-year institutions in the same state. This Policy Snapshot defines and explores outcomes-based funding, and provides summary information on 2016 and 2017 legislative activities.

Guided pathways are emerging as a strategy to help students complete a credential in a timely manner by encouraging or requiring them to select a program, and develop a degree plan or map, on a specified timeline. At a minimum, institutions may ask students to identify a meta-major, which is a broad area of academic programs with related courses (for example, business, health care or social sciences). Guided pathways programs typically include structured course plans and intensive support services to keep students on track to finish their credential or transfer to complete a degree. This report from the Education Commission of the States examines state policies related to guided pathways and concludes that in 2016 two bills were enacted, ten were introduced, and at least six states considered guided pathways legislation. The report provides an additional update from the 2017 legislative session and profiles states that have passed related policies in recent years.

Substantial increases in federal support for higher education over the last decade or more have made the federal government the largest direct investor in U.S. higher education. That increase however, has not produced the expected level of increase in college educated people in the workforce. This is largely for two reasons. First the investment model and the higher education system itself are misaligned with the students we must serve and the goals we are trying to achieve. Second, much of the federal investment has supplanted rather than supplemented state investment in higher education. To improve the return on investment in higher education, a redesigned system that requires a different partnership between states and the federal government that defines a new form of federalism for the 21st century is needed. The redesign builds on proposals to better integrate economic and workforce development and higher education agencies, programs and funding streams at all levels to create coherent pathways to and through college to successful careers. This paper also recommends the creation of affordability standards through federal/state/institutional partnerships that ensure a sustainable cost-containment model for all students. This partnership involves federal incentives to state and college partners to invest in higher education adequately, target resources appropriately, contain costs effectively and implement reforms that provide equitable outcomes for all students.

NASPA--Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education and Education Commission of the States (ECS) have partnered to address legislative developments and offer considerations for leaders in higher education and policy on two top-level safety issues facing the higher education community: campus sexual violence and guns on campus. The first in a series jointly released by NASPA and ECS, this publication looks at recent state legislation on campus sexual violence. By offering in-depth analyses of state legislation and framing key issues and considerations for leaders in higher education and policy across the states, NASPA and ECS look to support constructive dialogue toward effective action on campus safety. The following are appended: (1) State Legislation in the Four Primary Policy Areas: Enacted, 2013-2015; and (2) Four Primary Policy Areas by State: Legislation that Died or Was Vetoed, 2013-2015. A list of NASPA resources on campus sexual violence law and policy is included.

A growing number of states allow community colleges to award bachelor's degrees as one strategy to meet workforce demands, address affordability, and increase access to educational opportunities. Offering bachelor's degrees traditionally has been the domain of four-year institutions, while community colleges have been established to award associate degrees and certificates. Further, community colleges have served as open-enrollment institutions with few, if any, admission requirements. As a result, the expanded role of community colleges into the bachelor's degree arena is not without controversy. Concerns center on the historically distinct missions of the two postsecondary sectors, competition with four-year institutions, duplication of programs and quality of the bachelor's degrees conferred by community colleges, among others. This Education Commission of the States' Policy Analysis examines state policies that allow community colleges to offer four-year degrees, summarizes arguments for and against these policies, and offers key policy considerations related to community college bachelor's degree programs.

Roughly one third of all U.S. high school graduates do not enroll in college soon after earning a diploma. There are many reasons why students do not do so, including work obligations, affordability concerns and lack of academic preparation. Yet research suggests that many of these students often aspire to a college education. Helping these students turn aspiration into action is a policy priority for states. One important factor in successful transitions for high school to college is demonstration of college readiness--traditionally measured by course seat time. However, as one strategy to enhance student transitions from high school to college, statewide and system-wide admission policies are beginning to assess college readiness through multiple measures. This Education Trends report reviews these multiple measures, provides a deeper look at competency-based assessments, and offers policy considerations for state and system leaders. Key takeaways include: (1) At least 18 states have complete or partial alignment between high school graduation course requirements and statewide or system-wide admission standards; (2) Instead of completing coursework, a growing number of states allow high school students to pass competency-based assessments to demonstrate mastery of subject content; and (3) State, K-12 and higher education leaders should continue to work closely and explore and evaluate more effective measures to gauge students' college readiness and chances of success.

Ensuring access and affordability to a postsecondary education for veterans and their dependents has long been a focus of federal and state education policy. Developing policy to support educational attainment among these individuals has required state policymakers to address residency requirements for veterans to determine eligibility for in-state tuition benefits. Yet recent revisions to federal statute--changes that go into full effect in July 2015-- have shifted the policy landscape in a significant and meaningful way. Beginning July 1, 2015, the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (Choice Act) requires that all public postsecondary institutions offer in-state tuition rates to qualified veterans and their dependents, regardless of state residency status. This ECS Policy Analysis provides state and postsecondary leaders with a review of the Choice Act requirements, key information on deadlines, considerations for evaluating state policy for compliance and examples of policy actions. Appended to the document are: (1) Data Snapshot: Veteran population; Percent Change in Veteran Population by State; and Endnotes.

The Education Commission of the States launched the Blueprint for College Readiness initiative to provide guidance and support to the growing number of states working to improve student success and transition from high school into postsecondary. Designed by state leaders for state leaders, the Blueprint features a menu of 10 critical policies promoting college readiness and success. This 50-state analysis explores the extent to which states are pursuing these policies. The accompanying resources, technical assistance and online database are designed to respond to the unique needs of states. The Blueprint is designed to serve as a framework to help K-12 and higher education leaders conceptualize the multitude of education reform efforts underway in their states. The analysis includes four high school policies, four postsecondary policies and two "bridge" policies that impact both stakeholders. Collectively, the 10 policies described in the Blueprint enable states to bring together college and career readiness, transition and degree attainment goals. The second section of the report contains individual state profiles as a way for leaders to quickly discern where strengths and opportunities exist and where they can get more information and resources should they decide to take action. Finally, a 50-state searchable data portal will provide an array of content-rich, easy-to-understand features.

In December 2013, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) convened a steering committee of state education policy leaders from throughout the nation to discuss the implications of the inconsistent remedial education reporting practices in the states. After the conversation, the Remedial Reporting Steering Committee--which included elected officials, chief state school officers, state higher education executive officers, and numerous education policy experts--advanced two recommendations: (1) States should work together to develop and implement standard procedures for measuring and reporting placement into and progression through remedial instruction; and (2) In developing these new procedures, states should create a dynamic, comprehensive measurement methodology focused on progress and success rather than state-level accountability or comparative rankings. This report explores the two recommendations for consistent remedial education reporting practices. The full report from the convening, "A Cure for Remedial Reporting Chaos: Why the U.S. Needs a Standard Method for Measuring Preparedness for the First Year of College," (see ED561915) includes details of state-level reporting practices, and is available from ECS. The following is appended: Proposed Common Framework for Reporting on Student Placement and Progress. [This report is part of the ECS Remedial Education Reporting Project.]

The purpose of this paper is to review state-level practices that identify, track and regularly report the numbers of students identified for remedial instruction. In doing so, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) hopes to begin a national dialogue regarding if and how states could share information about students' referral to and success in remedial and college-level courses. In fall 2013, ECS collected information on state-level remedial education reporting and standards. ECS established the Remedial Reporting Steering Committee, comprised of elected officials, state education policy officers and education experts. The findings in this report reveal that there is little consistency across the states regarding how and when remediation is measured and reported. A few states--Colorado, Nevada and Texas--prepare robust annual reports with information concerning placement, student characteristics and outcomes, and costs. Others, including Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Vermont, do not appear to report remedial data. Even among states that regularly report on remediation, the methods used to count and monitor students vary widely. As a result, it is not possible to accurately measure the incidence of remediation in many states or to conduct cross-state analyses of efforts intended to improve remedial outcomes. In response to these conditions, the Remedial Reporting Steering Committee developed two major recommendations to remedy the inconsistency in reporting on and measuring state remedial rates. The recommendations are as follows: (1) States should work together to develop and implement standard methods for measuring and reporting placement into and progression through remedial instruction; and (2) In developing these new methods, states should create a dynamic, comprehensive measurement methodology focused on progress and success rather than state-level accountability or comparative rankings. A smaller technical advisory subcommittee was convened to design a model framework for measuring and reporting remedial data. The elements of the model are presented in a companion document, "A Common Framework for Remedial Reporting" (see ED561916). The following are appended: (1) Remedial Reporting: State Summary Chart; (2) Remedial Reporting: States with Annual Reports; (3) Remedial Reporting Steering Committee; and (4) Resources: State Remedial Reports. [Additional contributors to this report include: Anne Button, Sarah Emery, Betsy Harper, and Matthew Weyer. This report is part of the ECS Remedial Education Reporting Project.]

Exhaustively researched and analyzed, this report examines the progress states made between March 2003 and March 2004 on 40 requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It also explores the issues and challenges remaining; looks at some of the policy approaches states are using to meet requirements; and offers recommendations and actions for fine-tuning the law. This report is organized around the seven major categories of the law's requirements. Each of the seven sections provides a look at: (1) How States Are Doing (graphics summarizing the progress and extent of implementation efforts); (2) What States Are Doing (examples of policy approaches within and across states and some state highlights); and (3) Issues and Challenges (a review of emerging issues and major difficulties facing states). The report notes five issues meriting immediate attention on the part of federal officials and state policymakers: (1) Embrace NCLB as a Civil Rights Issue; (2) Ensure Performance Growth of All Students, Not Just Low-Performing Students; (3) Reassess Adequate Yearly Progress; (4) Strengthen Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements; and (5) Build State and Local Capacity. Appended to this report are: (1) Recommended Actions; (2) Status of State Implementation of NCLB Requirements; and (3) Methodology.

For the past 12 or so years, policymakers, educators, and community members have been working to improve student achievement by reforming the public education system. However, progress has been slower than desired, and questions persist about which reforms return the most benefit for the money, time, and effort invested. This report summarizes findings of a review, conducted by the Education Commission of the States (ECS), of available research on education reforms. The report found evidence to support the effectiveness of certain initiatives; however, the findings about the outcomes of other initiatives were inconclusive or inconsistent, particularly for the new efforts. The reforms are divided into three categories. Category "A" initiatives have a long, reliable track record of providing return on one's investment; category "B" efforts have a shorter history with an uneven return; and category "C" initiatives are promising and/or popular newcomers whose success is unknown. Category A initiatives focus on providing a challenging coursework and curriculum, such as higher level mathematics, reading in the early grades, early childhood education, smaller schools, and tutoring. Category B initiatives include smaller classes, teacher professional development, teacher certification and licensing, interagency collaboration, children- and family-focused programs, full-day versus half-day kindergarten, school restructuring, and content and performance standards. Initiatives under Category C include performance-based pay for teachers, public school choice, school-based management, school-to-work programs, and the use of technology to improve teaching and learning. The report also offers recommendations to policymakers for choosing and evaluating reforms that improve student performance. (Contains 35 endnotes and 113 references.) (LMI)

Methods that will improve student achievement include: start early; focus on reading and math; bring in trained tutors; invest in teachers; shrink the size of classes and schools; and increase the amount of time spent learning. Offers guidelines for evaluating initiatives for improving student achievement, discusses technology, and provides resources. (MLF)