Search

People do better when more is expected of them. In education circles, this is called the Pygmalion Effect. It has been demonstrated in study after study, and the results can sometimes be quite significant. In one research project, for instance, teacher expectations of a pre-schooler's ability was a robust predictor of the child's high school GPA. Raising student expectations has been in the news a lot recently as part of a larger conversation about improving learning outcomes. Most notably, a group of states have developed the Common Core State Standards, which go a long way toward establishing higher standards by setting out what students should know and be able to accomplish in reading and math. More than 40 states have adopted the standards so far. Recently, however, there has been a great deal of political pushback against them; a number of states, including Oklahoma, recently abandoned the reform effort. To look at the issue of expectations more closely, researchers analyzed the National Center for Education Statistics' Education Longitudinal Study, or ELS, which followed the progression of a nationally representative sample of 10th grade students from 2002 to 2012. The ELS has a longitudinal design, which allows researchers to link teacher expectations to individual student data collected up to 10 years later. For some findings, researchers conducted a logistic regression of students' actual academic outcomes on teachers' expectations. In other areas, researchers reported simple frequencies. The study showed the following: (1) High school students whose teachers have higher expectations about their future success are far more likely to graduate from college; (2) Secondary teachers have lower expectations for students of color and students from disadvantaged backgrounds; and (3) College-preparation programs and other factors that support higher expectations are significant predictors of college graduation rates. These findings build on a large body of research on the power of expectations.

This paper explores what happens to similar groups of children educated in different school districts. In this case, the "twins" in the study are groups of students who live in the same state in similar geographies and who share certain demographic characteristics. For this report, "twin districts" have very similar sizes and they have the following in common: (1) The proportion of students who are from low-income families; (2) The proportion of students who have limited English proficiency or are English language learners; and (3) The proportion of students who receive instruction through individualized educational programs. The study's twin districts, however, differ in terms of per-pupil spending and revenues. The goal of this paper was to study twin districts and use the data culled to provide recommendations for how districts can best leverage their school funding investments--in other words, achieve a bigger bang for their educational buck. Using data available from the U.S. Department of Education, the authors compiled a dataset with over 7,000 K-12 districts from over 15,000 local education agencies across the county. All data on spending and achievement was from the 2009-10 school year. In this analysis, they identified 424 pairs of districts to analyze from this larger dataset. Given that tests and proficiency definitions differ across states, only twin districts within the same state are identified and compared. Additionally, the authors also completed interviews with 20 district superintendents from across the United States to discuss what control they have over their districts' spending and what spending constraints they face from outside governing bodies--the state, the federal government, and school boards. Based on their in-depth look at twin districts and their subsequent analysis of the data, the authors offer the following findings: (1) When it comes to education, spending does not always equal results; (2) There are significant funding inequities between demographically similar districts; and (3) Districts have limited control over their own expenditures. A table showing descriptive statistics for 424 sets of twins from the 2009-10 school year is appended. [For the accompanying report, "Return on Educational Investment: 2014. A District-by-District Evaluation of U.S. Educational Productivity" (2014), see ED561093.]

Historically, state departments of education, or SEAs, have--for the most part--been compliance-focused organizations that managed federal education policy. Over the past several decades, these agencies have been education policy implementation entities. Today, while their compliance responsibilities have remained, they are taking on more responsibility for education and academic outcomes than ever before, substantially increasing the scope of their work. State leaders and their staffs must distribute federal education dollars and monitor the districts' use of these funds in accordance to regulations set by federal policymakers. To make compliance easier, state leaders have traditionally separated agency staff into different areas responsible for each federal fund. Once an approach has passed external audits, they then have maintained the status quo of SEA staffs' work. To support this work, the U.S. Department of Education, or DOE, allows states to set aside certain amounts of federal funds to cover SEA administrative costs. Tensions between states and the federal government are inherent to the enterprise of co-governance, but state education leaders can point to specific federal regulations that have a direct impact on their work decisions and that make it difficult for them to meet the demands of federal policymakers. This paper explores states' uses of federal education dollars and how federal policy conditions might lead states to use funds in the ways that they do, which are not always the most productive ways. This study focuses on how the eight study SEAs use federal dollars for their own activities, rather than on how school districts--another major recipient of federal education support--use federal resources. The goal was to learn more about state leaders' use of federal dollars to administer these programs and what implications that had for how they organized their own agencies. Based on the findings, the following are recommended: (1) Congress and the U.S. Department of Education should strategically reduce compliance and reporting requirements for state education agencies; (2) DOE should highlight federal compliance flexibilities that exist and ensure state education agencies will not be incentivized to use staff in ways that foster silos; and (3) State education leaders should take another look at their regulatory environment and find new ways to improve how they organize their agencies. In the effort to achieve better outcomes for today's students, education leaders and policymakers must achieve a new equilibrium where the conditions set by federal policymakers meet the intents of federal education policy itself. [This report is part of a larger multi-year project on governance, conducted in partnership with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which evaluates the governance arrangements of the nation's K-12 education system and how they may be improved.]

States serve a special role in the nation's public education system. Through elected legislatures, states have endowed their various state departments of education with powers over public education, which include granting authority to local entities--typically school districts--to run schools. In their oversight capacity, states--traditionally through state education agencies, or SEAs--monitor districts and schools to ensure that students are safe in school and that their education meets minimum quality standards. But such standards are typically not explained with any specificity. Inspired by a national movement to provide equitable opportunities to all children, states also collect and redistribute dollars intended to reduce local funding disparities. Moreover, many policymakers--particularly federal policymakers--and advocates have asked states to drive large-scale educational improvement through federal programs, including No Child Left Behind waivers, Race to the Top initiatives, or the No Child Left Behind, or NCLB, Title I School Improvement Grant program. Because of this wide scope of duties, those who lead SEAs--not just their executive administrators but also other high-level managers--serve an important role in the future of the country as schools are pivotal to the nation's global competitiveness. One major impediment to their success is bureaucracy. In this paper, the authors explore the red tape that binds state education leaders as they seek to make today's ambitious reforms a reality. In doing so, they examine state laws and regulations in four states: California, Louisiana, New York, and Ohio. This purposeful sample, which varies by geographic location and politics, includes states with straightforward, easy-to-navigate resources on state laws. The discussion is organized by five strategic areas that are critical to the successful functioning of SEAs: developing skills; aligning the organization to priorities; evaluating staff performance; recruiting talent; and paying competitively. [This report is part of a larger multi-year project on governance, conducted in partnership with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which evaluates the governance arrangements of our nation's K-12 education system and how they may be improved.]

Although there is some debate over the exact mix of student achievement, observations, and results from other measures that combine to create an evaluative rating for a teacher's effectiveness, there is consensus among researchers that it should include multiple measures. Most states have already begun to use new systems to evaluate teachers or will begin to do so in the upcoming school year. The data from these systems, which are ratings of teachers based on multiple measures, can be used to probe whether all students--regardless of background--have access to highly effective teachers. In this study, the authors took a close look at Louisiana (1,265 schools) and Massachusetts (1,849 schools), two early adopters of new teacher evaluation systems that have released effectiveness data using new measures. These states released the percentages of teachers in each rating category by state, district, and school. The authors compiled poverty data for each school in the two states based on the percentage of students in each school who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, as well as enrollment data based on the percentage of students of color enrolled. Using these data for each school available on the states' websites, they were able to estimate the level of poverty and minority enrollment for each school. Key findings included: (1) The new evaluation data confirms previous findings--in many places, poor children and children of color are less likely to be taught by a highly effective teacher; (2) Despite the overall pattern of inequitable distribution, there are some places where excellent teachers are more evenly deployed; and (3) The places with a more balanced distribution of effective teachers are where the most can be learned about the policies and practices that help give all students access to great teaching.

Race to the Top (RTT) is a first-of-its kind $4.35 billion competitive grant program designed to spur state-level education innovation to boost student achievement, close achievement gaps, and prepare students for college and careers. Originally authorized in 2009 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, RTT encourages states to develop and implement key reform strategies around four core components: (1) Adopting rigorous college- and career-ready standards and assessments; (2) Recruiting, evaluating, and retaining highly effective teachers and principals; (3) Building data systems that measure student success and inform teaching and learning; and (4) Turning around low-performing schools. In total, 45 states and the District of Columbia applied for funding in three phases. The U.S. Department of Education announced the Phase 1 winners--Delaware and Tennessee--in March 2010. A few months later, the Phase 2 winners--District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island--were announced. Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were awarded Phase 3 grants in December 2011. March 2014 marks four years since the first grants were announced, and in a little over a year, the RTT funding to these initial set of states will end. An examination of the U.S. Department of Education's latest Annual Performance Report, or APR, data around the four core RTT components demonstrates the states' progress. When necessary, the APRs are supplemented with extant data from other sources, such as the Government Accountability Office. Three overarching findings emerged in the review of the data: (1) Many of the lowest-performing schools in RTT states have achieved impressive results in a short period of time; (2) Four RTT states are at or near full implementation of their educator evaluation systems, and all other states are in the process of implementing their systems. Implementing new, more rigorous educator evaluation systems is technical and arduous work; and (3) All RTT states have adopted college- and career-ready standards and are making progress toward implementation of assessments aligned with those standards.

Over the past few years, there has been an ever-growing chorus of those who grumble that teachers are unhappy with their lack of control and freedom and have grown to deeply dislike their jobs. This article asks if teachers really lack autonomy and freedom, and wonders if as a nation, whether or not we have reached the right balance of accountability and autonomy that is necessary for workplace innovation, career satisfaction and over results. To gain a better handle on this issue, the authors examined a number of relevant data sets. First an analysis of the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey, or SASS, a nationally representative survey of teachers and principals administered regularly by the National Center for Education Statistics was conducted. Second they looked at various state surveys, including 2013 data from Kentucky and Tennessee, as well as other recent national polling data on teacher attitudes. The data suggest something much different than the conventional wisdom. In fact, teachers are far more autonomous--and far more satisfied--than most people believe. This article suggests that in many ways, the problem is in the perception of the way we think about educator autonomy and suggests some changes to what could be an outdated mindset on the issue. The authors make an argument that while teachers should be given a great deal of leeway over how they teach, the country also needs to do a far better job of defining what teachers need to teach. The authors conclude by saying in the end, the teaching profession will be all the better for it. Six data tables looking at teacher control are appended.

Since Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, the federal government has emphasized states' shared responsibility for improving student achievement. When Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act, it called upon states to provide technical support to schools. Specifically, Congress asked states' education agencies to organize "school support teams" to work closely with school and district staff on school improvement. In theory, the task of support teams is straightforward: Improve the performance of districts and schools. But there is nothing simple about what support teams do. This issue brief explores one part of states' work for school improvement--specifically, how state support teams have improved school performance. This brief also considers what issues school leaders face and how these support teams have attempted to help schools meet these challenges. The brief includes some examples of support teams that have changed the ways district and school leaders do their work, but their impact to date on student achievement has been limited. It also explores three themes that emerged in this examination of support teams: (1) State support-team effectiveness varies widely; (2) State support teams in their current form may have done little to improve student achievement; and (3) State support teams, if they are to become a more effective reform strategy, may require some redesign.

What does it take to improve a school? What kinds of programs, systems, and people need to be in place for educational outcomes to improve overall? These and other questions continue to vex policymakers who--along with researchers, reformers, and advocates--pour over data and case studies looking for tools to transform schools into places where all students achieve. There are features and structures of schools that have shown improvement that can help educational leaders see a path forward. One way to consider how to design plans for school improvement is to start with the success stories--focusing on how educators brought about positive change. This report intends to do just that by considering the performance of districts and schools of an entire state--in this case, North Carolina--focusing on some of those that improved and then teasing out the approaches that leaders in these districts used to foster success. The report features three effective school districts in North Carolina. The districts vary in terms of the types of students they serve, where they are located, and the number of schools they oversee. The districts include: (1) Catawba County, a rural district serving a student population of more than 17,000 students, around half of which were income eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches in the 2011-12 school year; (2) Montgomery County, also rural but with a smaller student population than Catawba (around 4,000 students), and where more than 70 percent of its students were eligible for subsidized lunches in the 2011-12 school year; and (3) Winston-Salem/Forsyth County, an urban district, with one of the largest student populations in the state (around 50,000 students), and where about half of the students were eligible for subsidized lunches in the 2011-12 school year. A list of the educators interviewed for the featured districts is appended.