Search

Project Catch-Up is an ESEA Title I reading and math laboratory project for kindergarten through sixth-grade students, operating in Southern California's Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Its philosophy is that students having difficulty in reading and math can catch up with other students. Teachers take responsibility for the achievement gains of 18 low-achieving elementary students, and aides for the gains of 10 low-achieving elementary students. Staff members are free to use whatever techniques they choose and to purchase instructional materials, which they match to clearly defined objectives. Teachers and aides plan a variety of activities for each child focused on two or three specific skills that the child needs to work on. It is recommended that Project Catch-Up should be selected for a particular school district only if it can meet project requirements in the areas of instruction, management, and communication, and organization, and if resources in the following areas are available: (1) personnel, (2) material/equipment, and, (3) facilities. Project Catch-Up is one of six projects which have been selected by the U.S. Office of Education as unusually successful for teaching reading and/or math to underachieving students in low-income areas. (Author/AM)

Use of the term Background knowledge, in conjunction with Reading Comprehension, has become convoluted and vague over the past several decades of research. Showing the abundance of uses of the term in multiple domains and disciplines has relegated it to being an automatic inclusion in key notes and conclusions of research on the topic of improving reading skills. This study aims to redefine Background Knowledge for clarity of thought in future investigations. Also, with data revealing national standard reading scores at an impasse for over forty years now, the redefined concept of Background Knowledge is offered as a starting point for use with new technologies that show great promise in the search for methods to improve reading for all students.

In 2021, approximately five million young people in the United States were not in school or working. This group of young people transitioning to adulthood, roughly ages 16 to 24, are often referred to as "opportunity youth" and sometimes "disconnected youth." Young people from low-income families and from communities of color--such as Native Americans, Blacks, and Latinos--experience higher rates of disconnection, as they face significant obstacles related to poverty and racial inequality. Research shows that disconnection from school and work during these transformative years can have negative, long-term consequences on a range of outcomes--from earnings to incarceration to homeownership to physical and mental well-being--that result in significant costs for these individuals, their communities, and society at large. For most young people, disconnection from school or work is not a steady state. Some people find ways to reconnect as they age, while others remain persistently disconnected over early adulthood. Those who are disconnected for long periods and those who become less connected as they get older are also those who face more barriers to success, including poverty, limited education, and involvement with the criminal legal system. Community-based programs are an important source of support for young people to reconnect to school and work. They may help young people work toward a high school credential, connect to postsecondary education or training, earn an occupational credential, gain employability skills and work experience, and advance in the labor market. But these programs often tend to reach people who are more active in their efforts to reengage in school, training, or employment, whether on their own or with a push from family or friends. Those who are reluctant to seek help--due to past negative experiences in their lives, difficulties in navigating systems, or the hurdles of the program requirements--often fall through the cracks. Dalio Education's Connecticut Opportunity Project (CTOP) partnered with MDRC to conduct an evidence-focused scan of the landscape of programs and practices that are relevant to this specific subset of young people who are furthest from opportunities in their communities: (1) young people who are disconnected from education, training, or employment and are reluctant to actively seek help in reconnecting; and (2) young people reconnecting to education and employment after incarceration and past or current disconnection from education, training, or employment. [This landscape scan was funded by Dalio Education's Connecticut Opportunity Project.]

This snapshot provides updated findings about parents' child care and early education (CCEE) search and decision-making using the 2019 National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE) Household (HH) Survey. We present findings on (1) the prevalence of CCEE searches among household respondents, usually parents, that reported on children under age 6, (2) the reasons for CCEE searches, (3) the rate at which parents changed their care arrangement following a search, and (4) the reasons why parents ultimately did not change their care. We tested differences in CCEE search and decision-making by household income, child age, and, where sample sizes allowed, the race and ethnicity of the selected child. To better examine CCEE decisions within the contexts of current research, we utilize a multi-dimensional definition of CCEE access offered by the Access Guidebook to categorize parents' reasons for looking for CCEE and reasons for not changing their care arrangement. This definition identifies equitable CCEE access as a process that requires only reasonable effort for households to find CCEE that is affordable, supports child development, and meets parents' needs. Importantly, no one dimension is a more preferred or valuable reason for engaging in a CCEE search than any other; comparisons are examined to better understand the reasons why parents seek CCEE and how supports and services might be better tailored to meet their needs.

The Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) 2023 Program Longitudinal Study 2009-2022 evaluates the kindergarten through 12th grade outcomes of participation in pre-k services in Arkansas for ABC participants from 2009 to 2021 compared to low-income students not participating in pre-K. ADE DESE data is analyzed to determine outcomes for these two core groups from 2010 to 2022. Kindergarten meal statuses of direct certification and free lunch are in the core comparison. This study shows that compared to No Known Pre-K, the ABC participants consistently have: (1) Higher ACT Aspire on-time proficiency in ELA Literacy, Math, and Science; (2) More days attended in kindergarten through 12th grade; (3) Lower rates of grade level retention; and (4) Higher rates of graduation (a new measure for this 2023 study). The ABC participants of 2009 could have graduated from high school on-time during the 2022 academic year. This 2023 study allowed for the kindergarten rate of graduation to be calculated. The purpose of the ABC program is to offer high quality early education services to children exhibiting developmental and socio-economic risk factors. This study sets the two core comparison groups on those DESE kindergarten students which best represent the contrast between children who received ABC program services and those children who would have qualified for ABC program services but did not participate in ABC. This study evaluates the outcomes of pre-k participation, not an established DESE measure of accountability. The calculations keep the core comparison groups of ABC and NK unchanged. By establishing this core comparison, the impact of the ABC program can be isolated and studied longitudinally for outcomes of Arkansas K-12 public education through high school graduation.

Only a few innovations ever successfully scale throughout education systems. Previous research highlights two reasons for this scarcity of success stories: either the innovations are badly designed, or the environment is not conducive to accepting and absorbing the education innovations. Even the best innovations with the most strategic scaling plans can underestimate the power held by the broader environment over scaling success. The research that informs this report found that government decisions about scaling education innovations are not primarily about the merits or impact of the specific model being considered. Rather, a series of "factors external to the innovation" influence decisionmaking about whether the innovation should be adopted and whether it can scale. We might call this "the power of the broader environment." For this report, the authors have organized the many factors of the power of the broader environment on decisionmaking into five dimensions: (1) National politics; (2) Donor priorities; (3) Education transfer and contextualization; (4) Education technology; and (5) Absence of meaningful data. This report explores how the identified factors shape decisionmaking and considers what this means for scaling teams hoping to institutionalize their innovations into public education systems or expand the innovations' impacts in new ways. The report concludes with recommendations for scaling teams, donor representatives, government decisionmakers, and others about how to understand and make productive use of these factors and more strategically harness the larger system within which it operates.

The majority of children from birth to age 5 in the United States regularly attend early care and education (ECE) programs. There are many types of ECE in the United States. Some are publicly funded, such as the federal Head Start and Early Head Start programs and state-funded pre-kindergarten. Others are privately funded community-based businesses such as home-based and center-based child care. Given the substantial time that young children spend in ECE, it is important that parents and policymakers understand how ECE supports children's development and learning. In this brief, the authors summarize the research evidence on how high-quality ECE benefits all young children, as well as key subgroups, such as children who are dual language learners and children with disabilities. The authors also explain the specific features of high-quality ECE that research finds are most important for children's development. Finally, details about the research evidence summarized in this brief are provided. [This brief was produced through the Child Care and Early Education Research and Policy Analysis (CCEEPRA) project.]

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps people with low incomes avoid hunger and afford food. It stimulates the economy, improves individuals' success at school and work, and promotes better health. At the federal level, SNAP is operated by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. SNAP's Employment and Training (E&T) program is designed to assist participants in gaining skills, training, or work experience that help them obtain regular employment. States operate these programs and have flexibility in the services they provide, who receives them, and the entities that deliver these services. However, SNAP E&T has onerous restrictions and entrenched biases that most hurt communities of color. Several policies are rooted in racism and classism. By perpetuating systems of oppression, SNAP E&T pushes critical nutrition aid out of reach. These obstacles keep the program from serving as a supportive pathway to opportunity. In the full report "Strategies to Improve the Effectiveness of SNAP's Employment and Training Program," the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) analyzes these challenges. This executive summary provides key findings from the report, along with federal recommendations, state recommendations, and suggestions as to how leaders can make SNAP E&T more effective by ending racist harms.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps people with low incomes avoid hunger and afford food. It stimulates the economy, improves individuals' success at school and work, and promotes better health. SNAP's Employment and Training (E&T) program is designed to assist participants in gaining skills, training, or work experience that helps them obtain regular employment. States operate these programs and have flexibility in the services they provide, who receives them, and the entities that deliver these services. However, SNAP E&T has onerous restrictions and entrenched biases that most hurt communities of color. Several policies are rooted in racism and classism. By perpetuating systems of oppression, SNAP E&T pushes critical nutrition aid out of reach. These obstacles keep the program from serving as a supportive pathway to opportunity. In this report, we analyze these challenges and offer recommendations to advance racial equity within SNAP E&T and make it function more effectively.

Targeted instruction is one of the most effective educational interventions in low- and middle-income countries, yet reported impacts vary by an order of magnitude. We study this variation by aggregating evidence from prior randomized trials across five contexts, and use the results to inform a new randomized trial. We find two factors explain most of the heterogeneity in effects across contexts: the degree of implementation (intention-to-treat or treatment-on-the-treated) and program delivery model (teachers or volunteers). Accounting for these implementation factors yields high generalizability, with similar effect sizes across studies. Thus, reporting treatment-on-the-treated effects, a practice which remains limited, can enhance external validity. We also introduce a new Bayesian framework to formally incorporate implementation metrics into evidence aggregation. Results show targeted instruction delivers average learning gains of 0.42 SD when taken up and 0.85 SD when implemented with high fidelity. To investigate how implementation can be improved in future settings, we run a new randomized trial of a targeted instruction program in Botswana. Results demonstrate that implementation can be improved in the context of a scaling program with large causal effects on learning. While research on implementation has been limited to date, our findings and framework reveal its importance for impact evaluation and generalizability. [Funding for this report was provided by the Center of Excellence for Development Impact and Learning (CEDIL).]

There is overwhelming evidence that pursuing a college education provides substantial economic and non-economic benefits to students. But how much a degree is worth depends heavily on the institution a student attends. Unfortunately, value also is still influenced by a student's race, income, and gender, due to inequities in our higher education and workforce systems. Institutional leaders, federal and state policymakers, and other stakeholders all have a role to play in delivering equitable value: the economic and non-economic benefits that accrue to students, their families, their communities, and society. This report assesses economic value for students by using publicly available data to estimate the number of colleges that provide a minimum economic return for students and explores policy interventions that would increase equitable value. This analysis builds on the work of the Postsecondary Value Commission, which sought to define postsecondary value, measure postsecondary value, and develop an action agenda to expand and improve value, all while centering equity in postsecondary policymaking. The Commission focused on equitable value for Black, Latinx and/or Hispanic, Indigenous, underrepresented Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) students, students from low-income backgrounds, and women--as well as the intersectional identities within and across these groups (e.g., low-income White students and men of color). Evidence shows that the postsecondary education system currently fails to ensure that these students receive returns on their investments through equitable access, completion, affordability, and workforce outcomes. As part of its work, the Commission developed a framework that conceptualizes the economic and non-economic benefits that postsecondary education can provide to students, their families, our workforce, and society. That framework includes six economic value thresholds that measure individual outcomes and return on investment. This paper focuses on students' minimum economic return as measured by the lowest threshold.

As governments try to navigate education system reform amid an increasingly uncertain future, it has become urgent to articulate how they can better maximize the co-benefits of efforts to build climate resilience, advance environmental sustainability and achieve quality education for all. This paper proposes a seven-dimension framework to leverage potential entry points and address gaps within national education systems to strengthen the resilience and relevance of education to climate change and environmental degradation. [For the background paper, "Quality Education with the Planet in Mind: Towards a Climate-Responsive and Nature-Positive Framework for the Education System of Lower-Income Countries," see ED631325.]

Advocates for Children of New Jersey's latest report, "Still No Room for Babies: Child Care Staffing Crisis Impacts Supply of Infant-Toddler Child Care," reveals a widespread shortage of infant and toddler child care. A statewide survey of child care centers serving infants and toddlers found that licensed centers have the capacity to serve approximately 68,000 infants and toddlers, however are typically serving closer to 55,000 children. This potentially leaves more than 150,000 very young children in New Jersey without the option of center-based care. The primary reason centers reported serving fewer children than they have the capacity to serve is that they cannot find enough staff to work in the infant and toddler room. Read the report to learn of the challenges leading to infant-toddler child care deserts across the state.

By the time children in low- and middle-income countries start primary school, large socioeconomic disparities are evident in children's learning and development. Both pre-primary and home environments can play important roles in influencing school readiness and can contribute to disparities in early childhood development, but there is limited evidence on their relative roles in low- and middle-income countries. This paper examines how pre-primary quality, stimulation at home, and early childhood development vary by socioeconomic status for pre-primary students in the Arab Republic of Egypt. The results demonstrate substantial socioeconomic inequality in stimulation at home, more so than in pre-primary quality and inputs, although there is variation in the degree of inequality across different dimensions of pre-primary quality. "Double inequality" is observed, where students with less stimulating home environments experience slightly lower quality pre-primary inputs. There are particularly large pre-primary inequities in structural quality (physical environment) and less inequity in process quality (pedagogy). These results suggest that targeted investments in pre-primary education in Egypt are necessary to reduce inequality in school readiness but are likely insufficient to close the socioeconomic status gap in children's development. Investing in interventions to improve vulnerable children's home learning environments, as well as investing in quality pre-primary, is critical to address disparities in children's development. [This paper is a product of the World Bank's Education Global Practice. The study is the result of a collaboration between the World Bank and the Ministry of Education and Technical Education of Egypt (MOETE). It was funded by the UK Strategic Partnership for Egypt's Inclusive Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank.]

Increasing concerns from educators and policymakers about the barriers to educational success experienced by students in foster care have led to a number of changes in federal laws, policies, and administrative rules. These laws, policies, and rules focus on educational stability as a core component and work together to establish stronger protections that support improved student outcomes. This resource provides a brief overview of key provisions related to students in foster care in Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Those provisions support the rights of children and families, promote success through educational stability, and facilitate cross-system collaboration and information sharing.

This paper examines the impact of Teach For America (TFA) on following-year student test and non-test outcomes in Miami-Dade County Public Schools. This paper measures the extent to which exposure to TFA is followed by improved student outcomes in the future. In particular, this paper measures days missed due to absences or suspensions, course grades in each core subject, and progression in math courses. We find that students taught by TFA math teachers go on to have higher grades in math courses in the following year and are less likely to miss school due to being absent or suspended. However, while students in TFA classrooms score higher on math and ELA assessments in a given year, these test score gains fade out by the following year.

Among programs designed to reduce teen pregnancy, few evidence-based interventions specifically aim to reduce repeat pregnancies. Repeat pregnancies among adolescent mothers, however, are both prevalent and consequential. About one-sixth of births to adolescent mothers are repeat births. Compared to adolescent mothers with only one child, those with more than one face increased health risks and greater long-term difficulties related to educational and economic outcomes. Teen Options to Prevent Pregnancy (TOPP) is an 18-month multicomponent program to delay repeat teen pregnancy among adolescent mothers. Developed by staff from the OhioHealth hospital system and Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, TOPP features personalized contraceptive counseling by nurses trained in motivational interviewing (MI), along with access to a contraceptive clinic and transportation and social worker assistance. Beginning in 2011, Mathematica collaborated with staff from OhioHealth and the Nationwide Children's Hospital to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of TOPP with 598 adolescent mothers with low incomes. Based on follow-up surveys conducted 6 and 18 months after study enrollment, as well as state birth records collected for up to 30 months after enrollment, this initial RCT found that TOPP significantly reduced the chances of study participants having a repeat pregnancy or subsequent birth, and increased their chances of using long-acting reversible contraception. This present study builds on these results by examining the longer-term impacts of TOPP on participants' educational outcomes. As mentioned above, repeat births among adolescent mothers are linked to greater difficulties in attending or completing school, which might hinder their ability to achieve economic self-sufficiency later in life. This study examines whether TOPP impacted mothers' enrollment and persistence in postsecondary education over a period of up to eight years after starting the program, using college enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse.

This background paper to the working paper, "Toward Climate-Smart Education Systems: A 7-Dimension Framework for Action" (ED631326), lays out a conceptual framework for a climate-responsive and nature-positive education system for the lower-income countries that the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) and its sectoral partners support. An overall thrust of the conceptual framework is to bring together diverse communities of practice working at the nexus of climate change, environmental conservation and protection, and education to delineate a more systemic and joined-up approach to maximize complementary between currently siloed approaches and initiatives. This paper features noteworthy examples primarily from lower-income countries that GPE supports, both in the main text and in appendix 1. An annotated list of selected tool kits and guidance documents forms appendix 2. [This report was written with David Selby.]

In the summer of 2022, New America managed focus groups with almost 50 borrowers from across the country who reported holding federal student debt and defaulting on their loans before the COVID-19 pandemic. Focus group participants felt hopeless about their student loans, and they had good reason to feel this way. They entered the default system, which damaged their finances and eroded their economic security. Before they defaulted, many did not receive the benefits promised by higher education and were poorly served by a complex student loan repayment system, experiences that contributed to ongoing financial instability. Even though defaulting on a student loan is a worst-case scenario for borrowers, there is much we do not know about outcomes for those who default, and even less is known about borrowers' experiences in and perceptions of default. This report seeks to fill some of these knowledge gaps by providing a narrative about why borrowers defaulted, the barriers they faced while in default, and how they attempted to bring their loans back into good standing. Current and historic failures in the default system continue to damage vulnerable families' finances, and this analysis also underscores the need for additional relief for those who have been trapped in default.

Education is crucial for the cultivation of successful individuals, healthy communities, robust societies, strong economies, and a healing planet. Yet, while most available education measures show impressive improvement in access in low- and middle-income countries over recent decades, there remains a heartbreaking gap in educational outcomes between and within countries. While there are many attempts to address low learning outcomes around the world, many efforts abide by a short-term project mindset, limited funding, and a focus on proof-of-concept pilots. However, small-scale efforts cannot solve the challenges within education systems today. Addressing contemporary educational challenges requires coordinated action among stakeholders, ongoing evidence of impact, and an emphasis on expanding and deepening the impact of any single intervention so it reaches more learners and changes whole systems. In a word, it requires "scaling." The term "scaling" represents a range of approaches--from deliberate replication to organic diffusion to integration into national systems--that expand and deepen impact, leading to lasting improvements in people's lives. This report examines the scaling journeys of 14 regional and global education initiatives that are attempting to scale within 30 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The report presents empirical reflections and offers relevant guidance. [This project is supported by the Global Partnership for Education Knowledge and Innovation Exchange (KIX), a joint partnership between the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).]