Search

Pandemic learning pods revealed teachers and other adults are highly interested in playing more varied roles in children's education. And some pod-like staffing arrangements may continue to exist and grow in out-of-school settings, such as after-school programs. But this report examines a different potential development: "is it possible that the experiences staff had in pods could become much more common in the day-to-day operations of U.S. public schools, at scale?" The answer is a qualified "yes." Even before COVID, moves were afoot to create a range of new staffing arrangements within public schools that hit many of the same themes as pods, which are described in more detail in this report. Some of these arrangements had already begun to show positive impacts on student learning and educator satisfaction, as well as the ability to spread in different school contexts.

What supports were needed to enable the small learning communities, or pods, that emerged in 2020 and 2021? While learning pods may have emerged as a temporary response to a crisis, some persisted in fall 2021, either because of continued uncertainty over the pandemic's trajectory or because of their potential value as part of new structure for public education. This working paper maps the ecosystem of organizations needed to support a small subset of these learning communities, and offers conclusions to help leaders make the most of this opportunity: (1) Start with the "organizer"; (2) Focus on ecosystem gaps; (3) Attend to funding; (4) Move (with caution!) toward accountability; and (5) Pursue equity.

In the wake of COVID-19, the U.S. pre-K-12 education system needs more than a refresh. Based on the success and popularity of the Opportunity Culture model, in this brief Public Impact recommends the means to bring critical, effective instructional and emotional supports to millions of teachers and their students--for a price tag the country can not only afford, but sustain long-term. In dozens of districts, with thousands of educators, Opportunity Culture highlights important lessons that show how U.S. education can think anew. As teachers push through their exhaustion to the end of this school year, they will confront the calls for post-pandemic change, and many will eye such calls warily. Educators and students need proven solutions that can bring them hope, joy, and educational success. These recommendations, with the combination of instructional, social-emotional, and financial support, provide that.

Across the United States, a movement to create a new kind of public school--"autonomous district schools"--is giving districts the freedoms charter schools receive. Like charter schools, autonomous district schools are freed from innovation-inhibiting state and district policies, allowing talented educators to make academic and operational changes that better serve students. But rather than operating under a charter that is completely independent from the district, these autonomous schools remain part of the district. Thus, autonomous district schools let districts try to do what charters have done in cities such as New Orleans and Indianapolis: grow high-quality, innovative schools and diversify public school options at scale. Given the increasing interest in and proliferation of autonomous district school initiatives, this report provides a framework, language, and specific examples to describe different approaches for implementing district autonomous schools; and highlights design decisions that affect the effectiveness and sustainability of autonomous district schools.

How could far more children ages 0-5 who are in early childhood education and care settings have consistent access to excellent teaching? In these critical developmental years, young children--especially those who have fewer educational and developmental advantages outside of formal settings--need "excellent teaching every year" to fulfill their potential. And what if their teachers and caregivers had highly supportive, on-the-job development and sustainably funded career paths? Opportunity Culture models, including "Multi-Classroom Leadership" and "educator residencies," can also be applied to early childhood settings. Public Impact's new "vision brief" explains how, and shows the potential benefits for students, educators, and the country. [This brief was written with Sharon Kebschull Barrett, Stephanie Dean, Daniela Doyle, and Juli Kim. It was produced as part of Opportunity Culture, an initiative of Public Impact.]

This report documents how education "quarterbacks" (formerly known as harbormasters) have supported governance reform in three cities, and why and how they were effective. This exploration of why districts need governance reform and how to catalyze and implement it focuses on the following questions: (1) Why did the education quarterbacks in these cities take the steps they did? (2) How did those actions ultimately lead to and support a new governance structure? (3) What lessons can other city-based education organizations take from their pioneering experiences? The report identifies eight actions consistently observed among the three profiled quarterbacks: The Mind Trust (Indianapolis), Empower Schools (Springfield), and New Schools for New Orleans. Although the conditions, people, and steps are specific to each city, all three education quarterbacks performed most, if not all, of these actions to catalyze governance reform and support successful implementation.

State and district leaders have a chance under ESSA (the 2016 Every Student Succeeds Act) to use their new funding flexibility to take a new approach that focuses on excellence for teachers, and students. This brief explains four opportunities to go beyond the requirements of ESSA to achieve a culture of excellence, one that attracts even more talented educators, keeps them for long careers, and helps them excel.

As charter school authorizers and states have increased performance expectations and grown less hesitant to close failing schools, "authorizer shopping" has emerged as a growing threat to overall charter school quality. Authorizer shopping happens when a charter school chooses or changes its authorizer specifically to avoid accountability. A low-performing school may shop for a new authorizer to avoid closure, or reopen under a new authorizer after closure. This report considers five examples of authorizer shopping in action and provides specific guidance to authorizers, policymakers, and advocates to address authorizer shopping. The following are appended: (1) Example 1: "Recycling--When Is a New School Really New?"; (2) Example 2: "Shopping or Finding the Best Fit?"; (3) Example 3: "Authorizer Shopping in a Virtual World"; (4) Example 4: "Unintended Consequences of Increased Accountability"; (5) Example 5: "Many Authorizers, Little Consistency"; and (6) Appendix Endnotes.

In the past quarter-century, charter schools have grown from a ragtag insurgency into a serious force in American K-12 education, serving as the public education provider for nearly three million children across the country. But this nationwide growth has spread unevenly across U.S. cities. In most places, urban districts have successfully contained the charter insurgents, keeping them marginal and maintaining district preeminence--if not hegemony. In a small but growing number of cities, however, the charter sector has thrived and become a more serious contender for market share and educational power, too large for the prevailing power to ignore. "Engagement" of some kind has become necessary. But what form does that engagement take? To find out, this report examines district-charter engagement in five cities--Boston, Cleveland, Denver, Houston, and Washington, D.C.--in pursuit of three questions: (1) How are districts engaging charters? (2) Why do districts choose to engage charters? and (3) Is engagement resulting in improvement? [Foreword by Amber N. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli.]

Drawing on deep expertise and diverse experiences in the sector, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) and the Charter School Growth Fund (CSGF) have collaborated to identify a set of key policies and practices that could dramatically accelerate the replication and growth of high-performing charter schools and charter networks. The work has generated a set of detailed recommendations that legislators, authorizers, and state education agencies (SEAs) can use to build a policy environment that will substantially increase the prevalence and impact of high-quality charter schools. The policy recommendations in this report provide a roadmap for systematically improving the quality of the charter sector. By differentiating among charter operators based on performance levels, building system capacity to cultivate and support high-performing schools and networks, reducing barriers and adding support to facilitate quality replication, and accelerating the closure of low-performing schools, the charter sector can create excellent educational opportunities for a dramatically greater number of children.

Research continues to confirm that without consistently excellent teaching, most students who start behind stay behind, and too few middling and advanced students leap ahead. Even hardworking, solid teachers who achieve one year of learning progress leave achievement gaps intact. When schools create an opportunity culture for teachers and students, they allow excellent teachers to extend their reach for more pay, within budget, and create new roles and in-school time for all teachers to learn on the job from the best, contribute to excellence immediately, improve their teaching skills, and pursue career advancement. Once policymakers commit to reaching every student with excellent teaching consistently, they can focus on the policies needed to enable an opportunity culture statewide. This brief details the policies that states and districts need to implement to achieve these goals. (Additional support in the writing of this brief was provided by Sharon Kebschull Barrett and Christen Holly.) [For "Seizing Opportunity at the Top II: State Policies to Reach Every Student with Excellent Teaching. Policymakers' Checklist," see ED560188.]

This brief estimates the impact of a statewide implementation of Opportunity Culture models, using North Carolina as an example. Impacts estimated include student learning outcomes, gross state product, teacher pay, and other career characteristics, and state income tax revenue. Estimates indicate the potential for a statewide transition to Opportunity Culture models to provide a brighter future for students, teachers, and the state's economy.

Authors and co-directors of "Public Impact," Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel state that, looking back over the decades, no one is really getting what they want. Teachers are no closer to achieving the societal respect and substantial, sustainable rewards for their contributions that they deserve, and student achievement has barely budged, depriving students of an equal shot at the American dream. Some teachers rightly fear that today's reform climate risks demeaning the profession. They see policymakers focusing their energy on removing bad teachers, ending tenure, and eliminating or reducing the extra pay teachers now earn for advanced degrees and experience. Teachers see much less effort to give them more opportunities to advance their careers and develop on the job, and to earn more for it. It is no wonder many teachers are skeptical, if not outright hostile, to the changes afoot. These authors write that they do see a way out, if all can accept that traditional policies have effectively picked most teachers' pockets during their careers, and that reforms need to focus on building an outstanding profession. This report provides a vision that draws on the hopes of millions of teachers, the passion of educators already implementing sustainable models of reach, and the work of diverse stakeholders--reformers, unions, child advocates, parents, and others--who want a better profession for teachers and better outcomes for students. [For "An Opportunity Culture for All: Making Teaching a Highly Paid, High-Impact Profession. Summary," see ED560180; for the introduction, see ED560181.]

American children deserve the one ingredient we know creates stellar learning results: excellent teachers. These teachers produce "well over" today's typical year of learning growth. Without them, even with solid teachers who produce a full year of progress, children who start behind stay behind, and few students get ahead of their beginnings--the antithesis of the American Dream. In contrast, if our nation consistently provides students with excellent teachers, we could close most of our stubborn achievement gaps in just five years, and help many children leap ahead of today's standards. This report explains why every child needs excellent teachers year after year, how the nation can now meet that need at unprecedented scale by reaching more children with excellent teachers, and what changes policymakers must support to make this possible. First, policymakers can speedily "improve the identification" of excellent teachers; the authors explain how. Second, policymakers can "clear the policy barriers" that keep excellent teachers from reaching more students for more pay. The authors outline new policies that would clear these barriers. Third, and of paramount importance, policymakers can "catalyze the will" for schools and districts to put excellent teachers in charge of every student's learning. The authors propose bold solutions to create this will, and they invite others to add to these ideas. Without will-enhancing actions, other policies and education changes will continue to fall short of their potential effects. Excellence for all students must become the new goal, and it is entirely within reach if our nation's schools offer new opportunities for excellent teachers to lead the way. (Contains 7 figures and 38 endnotes.) [Contributions by Sharon Kebschull Barrett. For related reports, see "Seizing Opportunity at the Top: How the U.S. Can Reach Every Student with an Excellent Teacher. Building an Opportunity Culture for America's Teachers. Policy Brief" (ED540000) and "Seizing Opportunity at the Top: Reaching Every Student with Excellent Teachers--Policymakers' Checklist" (ED539996).]

American children deserve the one ingredient we know creates stellar learning results: excellent teachers. These teachers produce "well over" today's typical year of learning growth. Without them, even with good teachers who produce a full year of progress, children who start behind stay behind, and few students get ahead of their beginnings--the antithesis of the American Dream. In contrast, if our nation consistently provides students with excellent teachers, we could close most of our stubborn achievement gaps in just five years. Policymakers can lead the way. This brief explains why every child needs excellent teachers year after year, how the nation can now meet that need at unprecedented scale, and what changes policymakers must support to make this possible. First, policymakers can speedily "improve the identification" of excellent teachers; the authors explain how. Second, policymakers can "clear the policy barriers" that keep excellent teachers from reaching more students for more pay. The authors outline new policies that would clear these barriers. Third, and of paramount importance, policymakers can "catalyze the will" for schools and districts to put excellent teachers in charge of every student's learning. The authors propose bold solutions to create this will, and they invite others to add to these ideas. Without will-enhancing actions, other policies and education changes will continue to fall short of their potential effects. (Contains 1 figure and 23 notes.) [Contributions by Sharon Kebschull Barrett. For related reports, see "Seizing Opportunity at the Top: How the U.S. Can Reach Every Student with an Excellent Teacher. Building an Opportunity Culture for America's Teachers. Working Paper" (ED540001) and "Seizing Opportunity at the Top: Reaching Every Student with Excellent Teachers--Policymakers' Checklist" (ED539996).]

In 2005, the Task Force on Charter School Quality and Accountability issued "Renewing the Compact," a position statement for the charter school sector that presented recommendations for achieving the goals of growth and quality. This report evaluates the sector's progress on those goals and recommends bold actions to capitalize on its successes while confronting persistent challenges. By taking these bold actions now, critical stakeholders can build a breakthrough sector and create a results-driven culture, which will improve the impact of charter schools on student outcomes and the education system. Appended are: (1) Seven Principles of Quality Chartering, from Original "Renewing the Compact" Position Statement; (2) Reflections and Recommendations from Original "Renewing the Compact" Position Statement; (3) Research Framework; (4) List of Key Resources; (5) List of Interviewees; and (6) How the Charter Sector Can Transform Public Education. (Contains 26 endnotes.) [This report was prepared for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools by Public Impact.]

This issue brief is part of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers' (NACSA's) "Cyber Series," which addresses issues in policy and practice that relate to authorizing online and blended charter schools. This brief aims to improve authorizer understanding and oversight of blended charter schools, which combine digital learning with instruction in brick-and-mortar locations. It begins with an explanation of the variety of blended charter school models, followed by a brief discussion of key issues for authorizer awareness and consideration in the blended charter school context, with attention to both initial approval and ongoing oversight. The brief then provides more specific guidance on evaluating proposals for blended charter schools. Finally, it provides general recommendations for overseeing and evaluating blended charter schools. (Contains 1 table and 22 endnotes.)

As digital tools proliferate and improve, solid instruction in the basics will eventually become "flat"--available anywhere globally--and the elements of excellent teaching that are most difficult for technology to replace will increasingly differentiate student outcomes. As a result, teacher effectiveness may matter even more than it does today, as the selectivity and prevalence of the teachers-in-charge who will leverage technology--and be leveraged by it--will be the distinguisher of learning outcomes among schools and nations. But in order to allow for such a drastic reshaping of the education system in the U.S., myriad policies affecting teachers--from professional development to compensation--will need to be revamped. This paper outlines how. (Contains 46 endnotes.)

Though controversy rages about the overall contribution of charter schools to U.S. education reform, few doubt that a subset of charter schools has achieved extraordinary results with disadvantaged students. Relative to the enormous need for quality education, the number of children served by the best charter schools is far too low. Numerous growth barriers confront even the best charter institutions. The charter sector's best must aim for high exponential growth similar to that of the best growth organizations in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Millions more children would be reached with excellence every year if the charter sector's best pursued sustained, rapid growth. To develop fresh insights to spur growth of the charter sector's best, the authors researched the distinguishing characteristics of organizations in other sectors that have grown at sustained, high-exponential rates. This paper summarizes the lessons that emerged from that research and the authors' initial recommendations for the charter sector. (Contains 2 figures and 133 endnotes.)

Despite the growing role of nontraditional providers and school operators, many school districts remain reticent, if not resolutely opposed, to turning over schools or even school functions like human resources to outside providers. Limiting the use of nontraditional providers, especially those with demonstrated effectiveness, hampers a district's ability to supplement or substitute existing school services and bars schools from reaping the potential gains in faculty productivity, student outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Given today's tight budgets and shrinking staffs, this is a problematic state of affairs. It is especially so when it comes to school turnarounds, when many districts are struggling to deliver performance on their own but are also hesitant to farm matters out to an external provider--especially to those who may have limited skin in the game or those who may have thin records of success. In this report, the authors point out that uncertain results, political dangers, and unmapped responsibilities make the risk of partnering with new providers simply too great for many districts to take on. To address these challenges, they suggest a variety of performance guarantees such as warranties, bonds, and contracts that can be adapted for the case of nontraditional education providers. These tools can help spread risk and thereby facilitate partnerships as they have done in other sectors. (Contains 1 table, 2 figures and 18 endnotes.)

Autonomy is a key component of the charter school concept. By allowing charter schools to have autonomy over decisions concerning finance, personnel, scheduling, curriculum and instruction, states have enabled many of these schools to produce stellar results for their students. This issue brief explores autonomy at five excellent charter schools across the country. When interviewed, all five school leaders identified ways autonomy has enhanced their ability, and the ability of their teachers, to achieve high levels of student performance.

Our nation is squandering one of its most important resources--our best teachers--and children are paying the price. Current policy initiatives overlook the most obvious, immediate source of improved teaching effectiveness: The great teachers we already have. The top 25 percent of U.S. teachers--more than 800,000 of them--already achieve results that would enable all of our children to meet and exceed standards. In the full version of this report, the authors projected the pay-off of different strategies for giving more children access to great teachers. Those strategies include our current, boldest policy goals: (1) "recruitment" of high-potential teachers, increasing the proportion of great teachers we attract each year from about 25 percent to 40 percent; (2) "dismissal" of ineffective teachers, tripling the percentage of teachers dismissed for low performance each year, from 2.1 percent to 6.3 percent; (3) "retention" of proven top-quartile teachers, cutting the annual loss of great teachers in half; and (4) "extension of top-teacher instruction" to more children, doubling the average number of children reached by each great teacher. If we add to these existing strategies two more aimed at "the great teachers we already have"--high-performer retention and reach extension--we could reach 87 percent of classes with gap-closing, bar-raising teachers. This outcome is within our reach--but only if we vastly expand the opportunities for top teachers to achieve success, impact, and rewards--by building an "opportunity culture" in education. (Contains 3 figures and 16 notes.) [For related reports, see "Opportunity at the Top: How America's Best Teachers Could Close the Gaps, Raise the Bar, and Keep Our Nation Great. Building an Opportunity Culture for America's Teachers" (ED539995) and "Opportunity at the Top: How America's Best Teachers Could Close the Gaps, Raise the Bar, and Keep Our Nation Great. Summary" (ED539988).]

To make dramatic improvements in all students' preparation for college and careers, states need thoughtful, intentional human capital strategies that get the right teachers in the right places in the right subjects. The need is especially acute in states that have or plan to adopt college- and career-ready academic standards and graduation requirements: they will need highly effective teachers--particularly in upper-level mathematics and science courses--capable of teaching rigorous content to all students. State policymakers are well aware that the quality of teaching is the most critical school-based factor contributing to student learning, especially for low-income and minority students. The Race to the Top criteria accordingly encourage states to adopt policies to measure the effectiveness of individual teachers and leaders use those measures to inform a range of human capital systems and decisions, ensure an equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders, and provide high-quality support for educators and principals. If enacted, all of these policies could help a state advance its college and career readiness agenda, since that agenda will require higher and higher levels of teaching quality in order to succeed. But meeting these criteria presents special challenges in the college and career readiness context, especially when it comes to identifying, developing and deploying effective teachers at the high school level. The challenge is particularly great in high school mathematics and science, where research suggests that subject matter expertise is vital for effective teaching. The two sections presented in this paper focus on those special challenges. The first explores what states need to consider in meeting the Race to the Top's teacher effectiveness criteria at the high school level if they are committed to a college- and career-ready agenda. The second asks how states can go beyond RTTT to provide effective instruction in rigorous content to "all" students, regardless of where they go to school. While the Race to the Top criteria also encourage states to focus on improving leadership, the focus here is on high school teachers because of the specific issues teacher effectiveness poses for the college- and career-ready agenda. (Contains 1 table and 24 endnotes.)

States seeking to prepare all high school graduates for college and careers need a strategy for responding to their lowest-performing high schools, which are responsible for a disproportionate number of students who drop out or graduate unprepared for what's ahead. Continuing to rely upon incremental change strategies will not lead to effective change in these schools. Instead, states need to build capacity to undertake dramatic improvement in these schools via turnarounds and fresh starts. At the same time, many individual students in better performing high schools do not graduate ready for college and careers. As a result, a complete state strategy must identify and segment schools by level of under-performance and mobilize different interventions to match each school's circumstances so that all students--no matter where they go to school--can graduate prepared for success in college and careers. This paper provides guidance for states about putting in place powerful ways of addressing chronically struggling schools as part of any Race to the Top (RTTT) application while also addressing the broader imperative to help all of a state's schools prepare students for college and careers. (Contains 2 tables and 22 endnotes.)

Thirty years ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court forced our state to take stock of its system for funding schools. Our poorest towns had thousands of dollars less per child to spend. Today, our poorest districts spend roughly the same as our richest, but Connecticut's poor children still score far below their wealthy peers. Our school finance system has begun to resemble a closed-door silent auction: legislators clamor for more education funds for their constituents. District costs rise each year, keeping central office administrators and mayors on edge. Formulas are ignored while backroom budget negotiations layer on more funds for districts with the loudest voices. This is not conspiracy theory; it happens every year in Connecticut. The tab for our K-12 school system is Connecticut's largest public investment at more than $7 billion per year. But we have created a tangle of funding that disguises how money flows and does little to produce dramatic gains for children who need them. We have been taught to believe that increased spending will lead to better schools, but our finance system is completely disconnected from what will improve student achievement. We need to connect money with achievement and inputs with outputs. Just as our schools should prioritize student achievement above all else, our finance system should incentivize practices that produce learning and operate with enough transparency that policymakers can determine what works and what doesn't. Creating a better system will require major reform. This report assesses the current state of our school finance system, outlines the principles of a more effective approach, and proposes detailed solutions, including the costs of those solutions and a transition plan for implementation. Three clear, practical recommendations stand out that are ready to begin a journey through the state's policymaking process: (1) Revamp the state's funding formula so that money follows children based on their needs; (2) Shine a bright light on education finance by creating a comprehensive and easily accessible data system on school funding; and (3) Remove fiscal barriers that stand in the way of creating great schools for everyone. Although Connecticut faces daunting educational challenges, these commonsense reforms can make our state a national leader once again. Data Sources and Methodology are appended. (Contains 4 tables, 5 figures and 79 footnotes.) [Foreword by Alex Johnston. Introduction by Tori Truscheit. This paper was published in partnership with Public Impact.

President Obama and Secretary Duncan have called upon states, districts, and education leaders to change the lives of millions of children by dramatically improving the nation's 5,000 lowest performing schools. These chronically failing schools will require intensive intervention to turn around performance that has fallen short of expectations for many years. States and districts are likely to try a variety of approaches to improve performance, such as contracting with external providers, who often bring in new leadership and staff; closing schools outright and giving students the option to attend nearby, higher performing schools; or bringing in a "turnaround leader" to carry out drastic improvements. This last option is known in other sectors as a "turnaround" effort--a quick, dramatic, and sustained change driven by a highly capable leader. District leaders deploying this strategy in chronically failing schools can learn from the experiences of classic turnarounds that have worked. This brief draws from the cross-sector research base on successful turnarounds to offer seven steps for district leaders to support turnaround principals and maximize their chances of success. (Contains 2 figures.)

Teacher effectiveness has the largest impact of school effects on student learning, and research indicates that top-quintile teachers produce learning gains three times (3X) that of bottom-quintile teachers. However, the supply of these "3X" teachers is limited. Meanwhile, 3X teachers affect only a small portion of children each year, no more than bottom quintile teachers. Instead of just trying to recruit more great teachers, what if schools chose to reach more children with the great teachers they already have? Reach extension can take several forms, such as redesigning jobs to concentrate 3X teacher time on instruction, putting star teachers in charge of more children's learning, and using technology to extend 3X teacher reach and meet their standard. Potential reach-extension methods vary according to the level of "touch," or direct student interaction with 3X teachers, and "reach," or number of children served by each 3X instructor. By eliminating rote and non-instructional duties from 3X teachers' schedules, "many methods would increase touch and reach simultaneously--especially benefiting students who, because of age or learning needs, learn best with high levels of teacher interaction (see page 12 for examples). Even high-touch, low-reach methods of reach extension could significantly increase the number of children learning from top-quintile teachers". Star teachers whose reach is ex-tended would have unprecedented opportunities for achievement and could be paid more from existing per-pupil funding streams. The goal of this working paper is not to provide a complete prescription but to launch further thinking and action to achieve 3X for All. (Contains 19 notes.)

For decades, experts have been thinking and writing about the need to revamp teacher pay. In recent years, the pace of reports, op-eds, expert recommendations, and task force proposals calling for change has accelerated. Yet despite the proliferating chatter, the bulk of teacher pay remains fundamentally unchanged. Each passing year of continued investment in current pay systems encourages the lowest contributors to remain in teaching and discourages the highest potential contributors from entering, performing, and remaining in the profession. The pay design approaches proposed in this report are not novel. Especially in recent years, all have been suggested or discussed by many in education but tried by only a few. Instead of merely prescribing one approach to pay, a guiding principle for taking action--pay for contribution--is recommended. Pay for contribution means investing more in teachers and teaching roles that contribute measurably more to student learning. Pay for contribution is particularly attractive to higher contributors. For this reason, it can help shape not only the performance of current teachers, but also the quality of the future teaching workforce by shifting who enters and stays in the profession. Significant cross-sector research provides insights about the pay policies states can use to enhance teaching effectiveness and, thereby, improve student learning. This analysis should be just the start of many efforts to enact new models of teacher pay, determine what works well and what does not, and adjust pay systems to reflect those findings. Governors can enact these initiatives at the state level or encourage and enable schools and school districts to act. Eliminating state policy barriers to all forms of pay for contribution and providing grants to encourage bold and responsible district experimentation are key enabling activities. (Contains 77 notes.)

At the request of Ohio's top government and education leaders, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, National Association of Charter School Authorizers, and National Alliance for Public Charter Schools have issued a report seeking to strengthen the state's charter school program. Among its 17 recommendations are calls for closing low-performing charter schools and holding sponsors more accountable for oversight of the growing charter movement while also helping more high-performance schools to open and succeed in Ohio. In return for sharply stepped-up accountability, restrictions on the formation of high-quality charters should be removed, and charter schools should receive more equitable funding. This report bases its findings on research and analysis of Ohio school performance data; a review of best practices in other states; input from experts in charter school finance, sponsorship, accountability and policy; and evaluation of dozens of policy options. The report seeks to help Ohio meet four broad goals, under which the 17 specific recommendations are placed: (1) Keep the accountability/autonomy promise by which charter schools are granted greater operational freedom than traditional public schools in exchange for meeting exacting results-based standards; (2) Strengthen Ohio's system of charter school sponsors to ensure that all are held to account for their performance in this vital role; (3) Fund charter schools fairly and address the overwhelming challenge that Ohio charters face in accessing suitable facilities; and (4) With new accountability systems in place, encourage more high-quality schools by removing caps and other restrictions. (Contains 5 tables and 5 figures.)

This report has describes how the young Indianapolis charter school initiative can claim a number of successes: (1) Many community leaders have stepped forward to spearhead the creation of charter schools, bringing new energy and resources into public education; (2) Parents have flocked to the new schools, lining up on waiting lists and noting increasing satisfaction with their children's experiences; (3) Students in most charter schools are making steady progress in reading, language, and math, and in many cases outpacing Indiana and national norms for growth; and (4) The mayor has established a comprehensive accountability system for the schools, with high expectations and transparent sharing of data about the schools with the public. As is the case elsewhere, the charter sector in Indianapolis will ultimately be judged by its effects on students, families, neighborhoods, and the city as a whole, and those long-term effects remain to be seen. Though the elementary and middle schools are making good progress, they are still young. The one high school open in 2003-2004 struggled in its first year, and faces significant challenges as it enters its second year. In addition, the initiative's growth in 2004-2005 (doubling from five schools to 10) represents a much faster expansion than in the initiative's first two years, which could tax the mayor's systems. As of the spring of 2004, mayor-sponsored charter schools in Indianapolis represents a small fraction of the city's students--less than 1 percent. But just the schools already chartered will double that fraction by 2005 and triple it by 2008. If all goes as planned, more high-quality applicants will receive charters in the coming years. The result should be a large, vibrant sector of newly formed public schools. If successful, these schools will provide excellent educations for the children who attend them, forge new models that can serve as examples for other schools, demonstrate effective accountability in action, and exert a wide, positive impact on public schooling in Indianapolis. (Contains 6 tables and 22 endnotes.)

Arizona's charter experience over the past decade has clearly shown the power of a relatively open chartering system. Schools have sprung up in all corners of the state; parents and teachers have flocked to them in great numbers. Interesting new approaches have emerged. Quite a few of the schools have been strikingly successful. In many places, charter schools have achieved an impressive market share, and districts have begun to respond more vigorously in Arizona than in most charter school states. The experience has also demonstrated some of the pitfalls of the open approach: (1) a raft of questionable schools; (2) charges and confirmed cases of various kinds of misdeeds; and (3) the resulting calls for a crackdown that could endanger the schools' autonomy and variety. As policymakers in Arizona seek to reset the balance, it is worth repeating that "there's no place on Earth like the Grand Canyon State." Arizona has an opportunity to continue its leadership in this area, forging a new kind of accountability system--one that fulfills basic public responsibilities while still fostering the open charter environment that is the state's hallmark. (Contains 81 endnotes.)

One of the single biggest challenges for a charter school is securing financing for an adequate facility. While a stellar building provides no guarantee that a school will be a success, having adequate facilities that at least meet the needs of an academic program without robbing the budget can go a long way toward creating an environment conducive to learning. Many charter schools, however, have struggled to obtain even adequate facilities at a reasonable cost. Some have failed to open altogether due to facilities challenges. Authorizers are limited in the direct support and resources they can provide for charter schools' capital needs. Nevertheless, they can and do play an important role in the relationship between charter schools and financial institutions that provide facilities financing. This brief will explore the ways in which authorizers can, indirectly and directly, affect a school's ability to obtain the financing necessary for a schoolhouse. Part I examines the indirect impact: how the quality of the authorizer, as perceived by a financial institution, can affect loan decisions. Part II considers the direct, proactive roles that some authorizers have taken to help schools meet their facilities financing needs. (Contains 9 resources.)

This report examines the revenue sources and levels of the Dayton Public School District and ten community schools that were operating in Dayton in the 2001-02 school year. The authors also conduct a "what if" analysis to see how the community schools' funding picture might change if its student population and/or funding level mirrored the district's student population. They conclude that community schools in Dayton receive considerably less operating money per student than schools within the Dayton Public School District. As a consequence, community schools must make do with less day-to-day funding than their district counterparts, to the tune of nearly $1 million per school. The children attending these schools therefore do not receive an equal share of the resources that the taxpayers devote to public education in Ohio. The following are appended: (1) Research Sources; (2) Comparing the Funding Level and Sources of the Dayton Public School District and Community Schools, FY02; and (3) Funding Level and Sources of Individual Dayton Community Schools, FY02. (Contains 2 tables, 4 figures, and 8 footnotes.) [This report was prepared by Public Impact for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.]

English Learners (ELs) constitute one of the fastest growing demographic groups among school children in the United States, with the number of ELs in K-12 public schools increasing by about 14% over the seven-year period from 2002-03 to 2010-11. This rapid growth in ELs has coincided with the growth in charter schools. Although charter schools enjoy greater autonomy, they are still required to follow federal and state laws and statutes. Against this backdrop, the National Charter School Resource Center developed this white paper to examine the legal parameters that charter schools need to be aware of as they attempt to serve the needs of ELs. In Section I of this paper, the authors outline the broad legal framework governing equal educational access for ELs in charter schools as established by federal law. Section II highlights state laws that have been enacted to clarify, extend or implement federal requirements. Section III discusses issues related to the availability and quality of available data on ELs in charter schools. Finally, informed by analyses and discussion, the authors outline policy implications at the federal and state levels in Section IV.

Emerging as one of the fastest growing demographic groups among school children in the country, English Learners (ELs) constituted 10 percent of public school students in the United States in 2010-11. Research and practice suggest that greater family engagement with schools can be a critical lever for ensuring the academic success of these students. However, involving EL families remains a challenge for schools. Research suggests that EL families' awareness of school options may be constrained by factors such as limited contact with social networks through which information regarding schools and school quality is exchanged, socioeconomic status, language barriers, and families' abilities to transport their children to school. Given the greater autonomy afforded to them, charter schools are well positioned to counterbalance these challenges by developing new strategies and making concerted efforts to engage EL families. Against this backdrop, the National Charter School Resource Center developed this white paper to examine the practices used by charter schools to engage EL families with a view to answering two questions: (1) What strategies can charter schools use to engage EL families? and (2) How can charter schools fund these strategies? This paper highlights several practices used by schools to engage EL families. To develop this report, the authors relied primarily on an extensive survey of literature, supplemented by interviews with leaders of charter schools that have successfully engaged EL families. In Section I of this paper, the authors highlight practices employed by charter operators to reach out to EL families and involve them in the activities of their charter schools. In Section II, they provide an overview of funding strategies utilized by schools to finance their family engagement efforts. Finally, in Section III, the authors discuss the implications of the findings. Additionally, in the bibliography, the authors identify a comprehensive set of resources addressing issues charter schools may face in meeting the needs of ELs.

Among many publicly-funded school choice initiatives that have earned Florida the label "school choice central", none has reached as many children and families as charter schools. Charter schools have flourished in Florida largely because of the state's rapid population growth: many of the districts that are experiencing more than a 10 percent increase in student enrollment have more than 10 percent of their students in charter schools. The charter school movement in Florida enjoys strong and bipartisan political support. Several of the state's institutions of higher education and the Urban League of Greater Miami have also actively supported charter schools, and many legislators send their children to charter schools. Measured by volume, Florida's first decade of charter schooling has seen the number of charter schools grown from five to 334. But the rapid growth has raised its own problems. Most notably, the second half of the charter school autonomy-accountability bargain has been largely unfulfilled. Although 62 Florida charter schools have been closed, the majority have been shut down due to financial and enrollment issues; academic laggards have largely been allowed to remain open. To some, this situation represents the charter school ideal: free market experimentation that gives parents a wide range of choices. But it also gives ammunition to charter school critics, who argue that some charter school operators fail to serve their students and squander state and federal dollars. In response, the state has passed some measures that help weed out unsuccessful operators, particularly by strengthening local application and review standards and enforcing charter revocation provisions. This report examines both the achievements and the shortfalls of Florida's first decade of charter schooling. Principal findings include: (1) Charter schools have strong support; (2) Florida has embraced innovative charter programs; (3) School accountability is spotty; (4) Student achievement is mixed; (5) District authorizing is ineffective; and (6) Florida's charter schools are underfunded. The report provides recommendations to improve the vitality and quality of charter schools: (1) Enhance the quality of charter school authorizing; (2) Strengthen charter school performance; (3) Ensure charter schools' financial viability; (4) Extend charter schools' exemption from the class size amendment; (5) Improve measures of charter school performance; (6) Insulate charter schools from the Florida Supreme Court voucher decision; and (7) Coalesce charter support. (Contains 32 endnotes, 5 figures, and 7 tables.)

Discusses the growth and challenges of charter schools. Asserts that small stand-alone charter schools may not be the basis for a sustainable, large-scale movement for change in education. Education management organizations and other similar service providers may be needed to help charter schools become a serious force for change. (WFA)