Search

Since the early years of the United States, public schools have been expected to fulfill multiple purposes that benefit the whole society as well as individuals. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic has jolted us into a stranger, harsher, and more challenging future than most would have predicted. Mass closures of school buildings have created unprecedented disruption and have left teachers and school leaders struggling to carry out the most basic education functions however they can. The current crisis will transform public education in dramatic and unpredictable ways. Education leaders and teachers will need to adapt and plan. With children at home, many parents are gaining a better appreciation of the expertise and contributions of teachers and school leaders. Families are recognizing the importance of services like school lunch and breakfast programs. This heightened awareness can be useful in marshalling public support to help schools through the challenges that lie ahead. To support this effort, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at the George Washington University has issued this report, which draws on the ideas in one of CEP's most popular publications, "Why We Still Need Public Schools," and reconsiders them in the current context. This new report highlights the multiple purposes filled by public schools in American society and discusses why, in this time of upheaval, it is crucial to maintain a robust public education system. [For the report "Why We Still Need Public Schools," see ED503799. For the companion report, "The History and Evolution of Public Education in the US," see ED606970.]

Throughout the history of public education in the US, public schools have filled multiple roles. These roles are an outgrowth of why public schools came into being and how they have evolved. This publication briefly reviews that history. [For the companion report, "For the Common Good: Recommitting to Public Education in a Time of Crisis," see ED606967.]

This report summarizes the results of a project by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) that explored how education leaders, practitioners, and the research community might work together more effectively to advance the use of evidence in school improvement. In particular, the project focused on how to support states and school districts as they implement the evidence requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Under ESSA, states have more flexibility than under previous federal law to identify which schools are low-performing, and districts have more latitude to decide on strategies to improve these schools. This report, the third in a series, analyzes information across the three main project activities: (1) a meeting of policy experts, researchers, and state and local education leaders hosted in July 2019 by CEP and the National Academy of Education; (2) interviews about the ESSA evidence requirements with leaders in seven states; and (3) interviews about the ESSA evidence requirements with leaders in five school districts. [For "State Leader Interviews: How States Are Responding to ESSA's Evidence Requirements for School Improvement," see ED597203 and "District Leader Interviews: How School Districts Are Responding to ESSA's Evidence Requirements for School Improvement," see ED602938.]

In the spring of 2019, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at the George Washington University conducted interviews with leaders from five school districts that differed in key characteristics. The aim was to learn about districts' efforts to implement the requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) for using evidence-based approaches to improve low-performing schools. Under ESSA, states have more power than under previous iterations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to identify which schools are low-performing, and school districts have greater latitude to decide on strategies to improve these schools. This report summarizes the findings from those district interviews. A companion CEP publication issued in April 2019, State Leader Interviews: How States Are Responding to ESSA's Evidence Requirements for School Improvement, describes findings from interviews with state officials about how states are implementing ESSA's evidence requirements. [For the companion report, see ED597203.]

The spring 2018 teacher strikes or walkouts in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arizona, and North Carolina brought heightened attention to teacher compensation. Similar walk-outs, sick-outs, or strikes occurred early 2019 in Denver, Los Angeles, and Oakland, as well as West Virginia and Kentucky. In all of these actions, teachers were quoted in the media saying that education was being underfunded. Teachers not only pressed for salary increases, but also for more state support for K-12 education. It is difficult to definitively answer the question of whether public school teachers are adequately compensated. In a capitalist economy, so the theory goes, individuals who are "better" at their vocations and possess higher human capital stock are rewarded by the labor market more than others (Becker, 1993). However, public sector workers' salaries are limited by available resources and other restrictions. For example, teacher salaries are often subject to salary schedules that increase pay with more years of service, and those salaries are further limited by available public funds. To provide context for understanding the research on the adequacy of teacher compensation, this policy brief first describes how the public K-12 education system is funded and discusses the impact of the Great Recession. The brief then highlights policy research that examines whether teachers are adequately compensated. The author has focused this issue brief on more recent analyses of teacher compensation since the Great Recession had a large impact on state and local tax revenues, which in turn impacted teacher compensation. Readers should keep in mind that the studies presented here discuss average teacher salaries in each of the 50 states. Within states, the amount of compensation varies greatly from district to district, school to school, and even within schools. [This report was written with assistance from Matthew Braun.]

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) gives states more power than they had under previous federal law to determine which schools are low-performing and gives school districts greater latitude to decide on strategies to improve these schools. This report describes findings from the first phase of a project by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) designed to learn more about state and local implementation of ESSA's evidence requirements and the roles of education leaders and researchers in advancing evidence use in school improvement. The findings reported are from interviews conducted by CEP staff with state officials who oversee school improvement in seven states. The interviews focused on state experiences with initial implementation of the ESSA evidence requirements, including state efforts to identify evidence-based interventions and assist districts with their school improvement efforts.

In September and October of 2017, the Center on Education Policy conducted a survey of state deputy superintendents of education or their designees to learn about states' early efforts in implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Most of those survey findings are described in the CEP publication "Planning for Progress: States Reflect on Year One Implementation of ESSA," available at www. cep-dc.org. This special report highlights state responses to questions in the 2017 CEP survey about policies for providing state test data to teachers, principals, and parents and other test-related issues, which were not covered in the original survey report.

Based on a fall 2017 survey of officials from 45 state education agencies, this report highlights early state efforts to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The report highlights states' views on ESSA's shift in control from the federal government to states and school districts regarding accountability and school improvement activities; stakeholder involvement in state plan development; state capacity to implement ESSA requirements; and the U.S. Department of Education's assistance in implementing ESSA. The report also addresses the impact of the proposed elimination of Title II-A funding, and support among states for a federal private school voucher program using ESSA funds.

This report draws on information from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) to better understand the value of deeper learning competencies in the labor market. O*NET uses surveys of employees and occupational experts to determine the important characteristics and requirements of more than 900 occupations. The Center on Education Policy (CEP) researchers and other experts "linked" the knowledge, skills, abilities and work styles required for a diverse sample of 300-plus O*NET occupations to the deeper learning competencies as defined by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The report finds that students will be better prepared for fast-growing jobs if they develop academic mindsets, learn how to communicate effectively, and take an analytical approach to solving problems.

In the spring of 2015, many states began administering new state assessments designed to measure students' mastery of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in mathematics and English language arts (ELA). This was the first wide-scale assessment of student mastery of the Common Core. For some states, it was also the first time that state math and ELA tests were administered on computers. Several states gave Common Core tests developed by one of the two state testing consortia, Smarter Balanced and the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), while other states administered their own state-specific exam. To learn more about districts' experiences in preparing for, administering, and using data from the spring 2015 Common Core-aligned assessments, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) administered a survey from January to April of 2016 to a nationally representative sample of 418 superintendents or their designees in states that were implementing the CCSS. The survey also included questions about testing in general and other aspects of Common Core implementation, such as stakeholder support for the standards. A total of 276 district leaders responded to our request. Responses were weighted to be representative of districts in CCSS states. More information about methodology and sampling procedures can be found in the online appendix to this report at www.cep-dc.org. This report describes the findings of the survey of district leaders and includes tables with the response data. In the discussion of the data in the tables, highlighted are those differences that are statistically significant or noteworthy for other reasons. Many respondents took advantage of opportunities in the survey to explain "other" responses to particular questions or respond to an open-ended final question inviting additional comments on their experiences with the Common Core standards and assessments. Selected quotations from their written comments are interspersed throughout the report. All percentages, standard errors, and confidence intervals for the data in this report, along with a complete list of responses to open-ended questions, can be found in the online appendix.

This report serves as a legacy document for the Ford Foundation's More and Better Learning Time (MBLT) initiative. It summarizes the approaches to and outcomes and challenges of successful MBLT strategies around the country. The report includes data from a survey for Ford Foundation MBLT grantees across the country and from case studies in Denver, Colorado; Los Angeles, California; and Rochester, New York. The report is divided into seven sections that represent the major themes of both the survey and case studies and a concluding section on lessons learned: (1) Policies and programs; (2) Planning; (3) Leadership; (4) Stakeholder support; (5) Equity; (6) Outcomes; (7) Challenges; and (8) Lessons learned. Not all of the questions in the survey or all of the information collected in the case studies are represented in these themes. The appendix contains the complete survey responses for all of the questions, including the open-ended responses, and can be found at www.cep-dc.org.

Education policymakers and leaders often say that the opinions and observations of teachers are among the most important information to help explain and understand what is happening in schools. Teachers' voices can inject a sense of classroom and school-level realism into those discussions and add clarity and credibility to issues that are often clouded by competing interests. The Center on Education Policy (CEP), in an effort to gather and amplify teachers' voices about current education issues and their own profession, conducted a national survey of public school K-12 teachers in the winter of 2015-16. The survey focused on a strategic set of issues for policymakers, educators, business leaders, and the public, including teachers' views on their profession, standards, testing, and evaluations. The nationally representative sample surveyed for this report included elementary, middle, and high school teachers of a range of subjects in a variety of communities across the nation. The survey responses presented in the report tell a great deal about how teachers are managing the many changes currently taking place in public schools. The responses portray a profession that is increasingly complex and under pressure: nearly all states have new, more rigorous academic standards in place along with school accountability systems that revolve around student assessment results. Many states also evaluate teachers using student test scores. For many teachers, this recent political and pedagogical upheaval in public education has made the profession more challenging and less rewarding. The survey aimed to learn more about teachers' views on these and other issues. Following Summary and a Commentary, the report is organized into the following sections: (1) The Teaching Profession; (2) Standards and Assessments: Teachers of Math and ELA; (3) Standards and Assessments: Teachers of Other Subjects; (4) Testing Time; and (5) Teacher Evaluation. Key findings appear at the beginning of each part of the report.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in mathematics and English language arts (ELA) outline the knowledge and skills that students are expected to learn throughout their K-12 education in order to be prepared for college and careers when they graduate. As of October 2014, 42 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards in both subjects, and one state has adopted the ELA standards only. Districts and schools in CCSS-adopting states have a limited window of time in which to develop or adopt curricular materials, prepare teachers to teach to the CCSS, and prepare principals to provide leadership on CCSS implementation. This school year, many CCSS-adopting states will begin administering new assessments that measure students' progress in learning the content of the new standards. Eventually, many states will use the results of these assessments to meet federal accountability requirements and determine which schools are lowest-performing and must undergo interventions. Teachers and principals will also be directly affected; many states are developing educator evaluation systems that hold these professionals accountable for their students' mastery of the CCSS. The standards will have an impact on students as well. Not only will they be expected to learn and pass tests on more rigorous content, but some states may eventually use student performance on CCSS-aligned assessments as a factor in decisions about college course placement or granting of a high school diploma. To learn more about districts' strategies, policies, and challenges in implementing the CCSS, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at The George Washington University conducted a comprehensive survey of a nationally representative sample of school districts in states that had adopted the Common Core at the time of the survey in the spring of 2014. CEP previously surveyed school districts about the Common Core in 2011 and surveyed state education officials several times about state implementation of the CCSS, most recently in 2013. This report, one of three based on the 2014 survey, discusses districts' efforts to develop and put in place CCSS-aligned curricular materials and to provide professional development to teachers and principals to prepare them for the standards.

Later this school year, states that have adopted the voluntary Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are scheduled to begin testing students' progress in learning the content of the standards in mathematics and English language arts (ELA). Many of these states belong to one of two consortia--the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)--that are developing online assessments aligned to the CCSS. Since the consortia assessments will be ready to administer in school year 2014-15, states, districts, and schools have just months to ensure that their teachers and students are fully prepared to teach and learn the content in the CCSS, and that systems are in place to facilitate the online administration of the consortia- developed assessments. The federal No Child Left Behind Act requires states to measure student mastery of state academic standards and use those test results, along with other information, to make school accountability decisions. Therefore, CCSSadopting states that administer the consortia-developed assessments will use the results on those tests for important accountability decisions in the coming year. In addition, some states may eventually use these assessments results as a factor in decisions about college course placement or granting of a high school diploma. What steps have districts taken to prepare for the new assessments, and what challenges do districts face in implementing them? This report addresses these and other questions using data from a comprehensive survey of school districts conducted by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at the George Washington University. The survey was administered in the spring of 2014 to school superintendents or their designees in a nationally representative sample of districts in states that had adopted the CCSS at the time of the survey. Key findings included: (1) Impact of new assessments; (2) Impact on other local assessments; (3) Technology challenges; and (4) Plans for student remediation and support. The data in this report come from a subset of districts participating in the broader survey. The subset consists of districts that a) were located in CCSS-adopting states that belonged to either the Smarter Balanced or PARCC consortium at the time the survey was conducted; and b) reported that they intended to administer assessments developed by one of these consortia.

This report, based on a survey of a nationally representative sample of school districts in Common Core-adopting states, examines school districts' efforts to implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The report addresses district leaders' views on the rigor of the CCSS and their impact on learning and instruction, progress on and challenges in implementing the standards, outreach efforts to inform various stakeholders about the CCSS, district collaboration with other entities on various implementation activities, and the types and helpfulness of CCSS-related assistance from the state education agency.

Federal education funding has often been overlooked by districts in search of sources of support for prevention. This guide is intended to help school districts take advantage of those funds by identifying K-12 grant programs in the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that could be used to implement prevention efforts in elementary and secondary schools. The Center for Health and Health Care in Schools and the Center on Education Policy, both at the George Washington University, analyzed dozens of federally funded programs administered by ED. This research found 15 specific funded programs that contain either explicit or implicit authority for prevention-related activities. The main sections of this guide describe each of these programs, including their purpose, recent funding levels, entities eligible for funding, and specific provisions in the authorizing legislation, regulations, or program guidance that explicitly or implicitly permit funds to be used for prevention. The majority of these programs are part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which was most recently amended in 2002 by the No Child Left Behind Act. Although ESEA is overdue for reauthorization, Congress continues to appropriate funds for these programs. This guide contains recommendations to be used while exploring the options related to funding opportunities, as well as suggestions for successful approaches to the application process.

This report looks specifically at the information and data needs of policymakers related to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the types of research that could provide this information. The ideas in this report were informed by a series of meetings and discussions about a possible research agenda for the Common Core, sponsored by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at The George Washington University, and attended by representatives of education policy organizations, researchers, and other key stakeholder groups. The conversations at the meetings yielded four areas of policy-related research that were determined to be needed in the next year: (1) case studies of successful implementation of the CCSS; (2) studies of state and local CCSS outreach strategies; (3) studies of state education agency capacity to lead the CCSS implementation; and (4) analyses of the impact of federal education requirements on CCSS implementation. This paper examines each area in detail. [This report was written with the assistance of Nancy Kober.]

With the voluntary Common Core State Standards (CCSS), states have sought to establish clear, high expectations that are consistent across participating states and that signal what K-12 students should learn in mathematics and English language arts (ELA) to be prepared for college and careers. As of July 2013, the CCSS have been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia in both subjects and by one additional state in ELA only. To learn more about states' policies, progress, and challenges in assessing students' mastery of the CCSS and preparing to implement assessments aligned to these standards, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at The George Washington University included several specific questions about assessment within a broader state survey on Common Core implementation. The survey was administered to state deputy superintendents of education or their designees from February through May of 2013. Forty states responded, including 39 that had adopted the CCSS in both ELA and math and 1 that had adopted the standards in ELA only. Thus, the survey findings represent the views of a majority of the adopting states at the time of the survey. The responses of specific states have been kept confidential to encourage frank answers. This report describes states' responses to questions from the survey about assessments aligned to the Common Core. A section on study methods is appended. [This report was written with the assistance of Nancy Kober.]

States are in a crucial phase of implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which outline the knowledge and skills that students in grades kindergarten through 12 are expected to learn in mathematics and English language arts (ELA) to be prepared for college and careers. As of July 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted these voluntary, state-developed standards in both subjects, and an additional state, Minnesota, has adopted the CCSS in ELA only. To learn more about states' strategies, policies, and challenges in this third year of implementing the CCSS, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at The George Washington University conducted a comprehensive survey of deputy superintendents of education or their designees in February through May of 2013. Forty states responded, including 39 that had adopted the CCSS in both math and ELA and 1 that had adopted the standards in ELA only. Thus, the survey findings represent the views of a majority of the adopting states at the time of the survey. The responses of specific states have been kept confidential to encourage frank answers. This report, the second in a series of CEP reports based on the 2013 survey, provides an overview of state efforts to implement the Common Core. This report discusses state views of the rigor of the CCSS, their impact on learning, and necessary changes in curriculum and instruction; state timelines for teaching curricula aligned to the CCSS; state activities to implement the CCSS, including collaborative efforts with other states and the impact of state funding cuts; implementation challenges; and the capacity of state education agencies (SEAs) to carry out CCSS-related activities. A section on study methods is appended. [This report was written with the assistance of Nancy Kober.]

Timely, ongoing, and effective professional development for teachers and principals will be critical to the successful implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). These voluntary state-developed standards in mathematics and English language arts (ELA) outline the knowledge and skills that students in grades kindergarten through 12 are expected to learn to be prepared for college and careers. As of July 2013, the CCSS have been adopted in math and ELA by 45 states and the District of Columbia and by one additional state in ELA only. If teachers and principals are going to be prepared to help their students master the Common Core and pass the aligned assessments that will be ready in school year 2014-15, they will need professional development on various issues related to the standards. To date, little is known about important aspects of professional development related to the CCSS, including which entities are responsible for providing it, what kinds of professional development are being offered, how many teachers and principals have received training to date, and what challenges states are confronting as they try to meet this need. To help answer these questions, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at The George Washington University included several questions specifically related to professional development within a broader survey about CCSS implementation. The survey was administered to state deputy superintendents or their designees from February through May of 2013. Forty states responded to this survey, including 39 that had adopted the CCSS in both ELA and math and 1 that had adopted the standards in ELA only. Thus, the survey findings represent the views of a majority of the states that had adopted the standards at the time of the survey. The responses of specific states have been kept confidential to encourage frank answers. This report, the third in a series of CEP reports based on the 2013 survey, describes states' responses to the questions about professional development. A section on study methods is appended.

This report, based on a winter/spring 2013 survey of 40 Common Core State Standards-adopting states, examines state education agency (SEA) officials' views on the federal role in implementing the standards. The report finds that, although a direct federal role in implementing the Common Core State Standards has been controversial, a majority of states in the survey support legislative and/or regulatory changes to the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act to help them with their implementation efforts. The report also addresses the issue of within-state opposition to standards and finds that the vast majority of survey states do not anticipate their state's decision to adopt the standards will be reversed, limited or changed in 2013-14. A section on study methods is appended. [This report was written with the assistance of Nancy Kober.]

To blunt the effects of the economic downturn that began in 2008, President Obama called for, and on February 13, 2009 the Congress passed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This federal economic stimulus package had three primary goals: to save and create jobs, to cultivate economic activity and long-term growth, and to increase accountability and transparency in government spending. Federal appropriations for the ARRA eventually totaled approximately $840 billion and were directed toward tax cuts, funding for entitlement programs, and investments in infrastructure, health, energy, education, and other programs. In the area of education, the Act provided economic stimulus funds to states for both K-12 public schools (the focus of this report) and postsecondary education institutions. ARRA also included additional fiscal year (FY) 2009 funding for the Title I program for disadvantaged children and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 2010, states and school districts received an additional $10 billion to save or create educators' jobs through the Education Jobs Fund legislation. The Center on Education Policy (CEP) at the George Washington University has tracked the use of ARRA and Education Jobs funds and the implementation of ARRA-related reforms since these laws were enacted. Between December 2009 and February 2012, CEP released six reports looking at the effects of the ARRA on K-12 education across the United States, all available at www.cep-dc.org. These six reports were based on survey responses of state and local officials charged with implementing the ARRA and Education Jobs programs. In particular, CEP surveyed state education agency (SEA) officials and governors' staff and conducted nationally representative surveys of school district officials, including superintendents, chief financial officers, and program directors. Responses to all of the surveys were kept anonymous to encourage frank answers. This summary report synthesizes findings across all six reports and distills themes and conclusions based on a retrospective look at the effects of ARRA on K-12 education. Several main conclusions can be drawn from CEP's surveys of officials on the front lines of implementing ARRA. First, ARRA funding helped to blunt the effects of the budget cuts in K-12 education faced by most school districts and many states. Second, the ARRA largely met its primary purpose of saving or creating K-12 teaching jobs and other education-related jobs. Third, in addition to saving jobs, ARRA has encouraged states to pursue a common reform agenda centered on the four assurances tied to the receipt of ARRA funds--namely, adopting rigorous standards and assessments, implementing statewide student data systems, enhancing teacher effectiveness, and improving low-performing schools. States and districts have used stimulus funding to implement these priorities and have made progress in carrying out many aspects of these four reforms. Even so, key activities related to the reforms have not yet been implemented, and in some cases budget cuts have led states and districts to slow or postpone action on the reforms. Fourth, the funding benefits of ARRA appear, to a large extent, to have bypassed state education agencies, which play a crucial role in implementing the ARRA and state reform agendas. Many SEAs report having experienced funding cuts and staffing reductions over the past few years, which have affected their capacity to improve K-12 education. The remainder of this report provides background on the ARRA and Education Jobs programs and highlights findings and themes about the impact of these programs.

Cuts in state funding for elementary and secondary education in recent years have taken a toll in many vital areas, including teaching jobs and student services. State budget cuts have also affected a less visible target--state education agencies (SEAs), which are responsible for supervising elementary and secondary education in each state and which play a crucial role in advancing education reform. Many SEAs are being asked to do more with less. While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided much-needed economic stimulus money to save or create teaching jobs and continue momentum on education reform, it also placed new demands on SEAs at a time when their own operating budgets were often shrinking. Now that the stimulus funds are coming to an end, SEAs must still follow through on a series of education reform-related assurances in their ARRA applications. What is the status of SEAs' operating budgets, staffing, and expertise in the wake of ARRA? And do SEAs have the capacity to support key education reforms? This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) seeks to answer these questions with data from a survey of state deputy superintendents of education or their designees conducted in October through December of 2011. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia, which is counted as a state in the tallies in this report, responded. The 2011 survey was the second CEP survey on these topics, including state capacity. Findings from the first survey, conducted in fall 2010, are described in the 2011 report, "More to Do But Less Capacity to Do It: States' Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act Education Reforms" (CEP, 2011a). In general, that report concluded that as a result of shrinking or stagnant operating budgets for SEAs, states could have insufficient capacity in 2011 to fully and effectively implement a range of activities critical to the ARRA reform agenda. This current report focuses specifically on state funding for SEA "operations," as opposed to general state funding for public elementary and secondary education, which is discussed in a companion CEP report (2012b). In addition, this report deals only with SEA operational funding from "state" sources. This analysis of state funding for SEA operations revealed several key findings: (1) Although the state funding outlook for SEA operations appears slightly better in school year 2012-13 than in school year 2011-12, very few states expect increases in their SEA funding for 2012-13; (2) Many states are looking at two consecutive years of decreases in state funds for SEA operations; (3) State cuts in SEA operating budgets projected for school year 2012-13 tend to be somewhat smaller than those made in school year 2011-12; (4) Most of the 26 survey states that cut their SEA operating budgets for school year 2011-12 are compensating by reducing SEA staffing costs in various ways; fewer states are cutting services to school districts; (5) States appear to be making an effort to maintain, and in some cases increase, SEA staff assigned to carry out key education reforms; and (6) More states reported having adequate SEA expertise to carry out key reforms than had adequate staffing levels or fiscal resources for these activities. Study methods for reports based on CEP's Fall 2011 State Survey are appended. (Contains 1 figure and 6 tables.) [For related report, "More to Do, But Less Capacity to Do It: States' Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act Education Reforms," see ED516577.]

As of January 2012, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics developed through the leadership of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Released in June 2010, these voluntary standards outline the knowledge and skills in English language arts and math that students in grades kindergarten through 12 are expected to learn to be prepared for college and careers. For the past two years, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) has tracked states' progress in implementing the Common Core State Standards by conducting surveys of deputy state superintendents of education or their designees. The authors' first survey on this topic took place in fall 2010, just months after the standards were released. As described in the 2011 CEP report on that survey, "States' Progress and Challenges in Implementing Common Core State Standards," the adopting states had taken initial steps to implement the CSSS but many did not expect to fully implement some of the more complex standards-related changes until 2013 or later. In October through December of 2011, the authors conducted a second survey of deputy superintendents or their designees to gather more recent information about states' strategies, policies, and challenges during the second year of implementing the CCSS. This report describes findings about the CCSS from their 2011 survey. The survey also addressed other topics--including states' fiscal condition and capacity, progress in implementing the assurances required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and waivers of Elementary and Secondary Education Act requirements--that have been or will be covered in other CEP reports. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia, which is counted as a state in the tallies in this report, responded to the 2011 survey. Thirty-five of these 38 respondents (including D.C.) had adopted the CCSS in both English language arts and math at the time of the survey, while one respondent had adopted the standards in English language arts but not math, and two had not adopted the standards in either subject. These latter three states are not counted in the totals of adopting states in this report. Thus, the authors' survey findings represent the views of a majority of the 46 states (including D.C.) that have adopted the standards in both subjects. The names of participating states have been kept confidential to encourage frank answers. Findings reveal that states view the Common Core State Standards as more rigorous than their previous standards, according to their survey, and are making progress in transitioning to the new standards. But states face challenges in fully implementing the standards, particularly in finding adequate funding. The majority of the CCSS-adopting states in the authors' survey do not expect to fully implement the new standards until school year 2014-15 or later. (Contains 3 figures and 3 tables.

In the fall of 2011, the Center on Education Policy conducted a survey of state education officials to learn more about the fiscal condition of the states, their efforts to meet the assurances under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the progress of states that have adopted the Common Core State Standards in transitioning to the new standards. Included in this survey were a few questions about U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan's new flexibility in the form of waivers that was announced in late September 2011. A total of 36 states and the District of Columbia participated in the survey. This paper presents the results from the questions about these waivers.

As of August 2011, 44 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the voluntary common core state standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics released in June 2010 by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The product of a state-led initiative, the standards are intended to set clear expectations for learning for grades K-12 that are consistent from state to state. The standards also aim to ensure that high school graduates possess the knowledge and skills needed for college and a globally competitive workforce. States are undertaking a variety of activities to implement the CCSS, but if these standards are to guide education reform in the ways envisioned by the adopting states, much work will also need to be done at the school district level. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that students master the knowledge and skills in the standards rests with districts and schools, and their administrators and teachers. This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent nonprofit organization, describes school districts' perceptions about the impact of the common core state standards, their progress in implementing these standards, and the challenges they face in doing so. The information is based on a survey of a nationally representative sample of school districts conducted in the winter and spring of 2011. The survey covered a range of topics, including district budgets, federal stimulus money, education reform, and the CCSS. The information in this report is based on responses to questions specifically about the CCSS from districts that correctly reported their state was one of the 43 states and D.C. that had adopted the standards at the time the survey was analyzed. Other topics addressed in the district survey are covered in a June 2011 CEP report (2011a). The findings in this report provide a snapshot of what districts had done or were planning to do to implement the CCSS standards when the survey was administered in early 2011. Since then, it is likely that states and districts have moved ahead with additional implementation activities. Six key findings about the CCSS emerged from the district survey: (1) Almost three-fifths of the districts in states that have adopted the CCSS viewed these standards as more rigorous than the ones they are replacing and expected the CCSS to improve student learning; (2) Two-thirds of the districts in CCSS-adopting states have begun to develop a comprehensive plan and timeline for implementing the standards or intend to do so in school year 2011-12. Sixty-one percent of the districts are developing and/or purchasing curriculum materials; (3) Adequate funding is a major challenge; (4) About two-thirds of the districts in adopting states cited inadequate or unclear state guidance on the CCSS as a major challenge; (5) Districts appear to face relatively little resistance to implementing the CCSS from parents, community members, or educators; and (6) District or school-level staff participated in various state, regional, or district activities in school year 2010-11 to become informed about the common score state standards. (Contains 4 figures, 4 tables and 1 footnote.)

Over the next three years, states will dedicate an unprecedented amount of federal funding to school improvement efforts at approximately 5,000 of the nation's lowest achieving schools. The $100 billion for education appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the stimulus package, included an additional $3 billion for school improvement grants (SIGs) to help reform low-performing schools. Following passage of ARRA, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) issued new guidance that changed the requirements for using school improvement grants under section 1003(g), including the ARRA SIG funds (ED, 2010a; 2010b). The guidance targets these grants on the most persistently low-achieving schools--a smaller and somewhat different pool of schools than those identified for improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It also requires grantees to use one of four school improvement models: (1) transformation, which entails replacing the school principal and undertaking three other specific reforms; (2) turnaround, which involves replacing many of the school staff; (3) restart, which means becoming a charter or privately managed school; and (4) school closure. To learn more about states' early experiences in using this infusion of ARRA SIG funding and implementing the new SIG requirements, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) conducted two surveys. The first, which consisted of questions on a broad range of ARRA implementation issues including SIGs, was administered to state deputy superintendents of education in October and November of 2010. Responses were received from 42 states and the District of Columbia, which is counted as a state in all tallies in this report. The second, which focused on how the ARRA has shaped state implementation of school improvement grants, was administered to state Title I directors from November 2010 through early January 2011. A total of 46 states (including D.C.) responded. Three key findings about ARRA SIGs emerged from the survey of state deputy superintendents of education: (1) Despite tight turnaround times, most states (28 of those responding) had awarded all of their ARRA SIG funding to districts by the time of our survey in fall 2010; (2) Many states (20) reported that at least three-quarters of the eligible schools in their states applied for ARRA SIG funds; and (3) The transformation model is the most popular of the ED-endorsed intervention models. Four key findings about the impact of ARRA on SIG implementation emerged from the survey of state Title I directors: (1) The majority of the states surveyed are serving increased proportions of high schools with ARRA SIG funds compared to the proportions served previously with Title I school improvement grants; (2) States plan to provide various types of assistance to districts receiving ARRA SIG funds; (3) The majority of Title I directors surveyed viewed federal ARRA SIG guidance as helpful and federal SIG funding as adequate; and (4) Title I directors had mixed responses about the extent to which the new SIG requirements are targeting the schools most in need of assistance in their state. Survey Development and Data Collection is appended. (Contains 2 figures, 3 tables, 3 boxes and 4 footnotes.)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the economic stimulus bill, channeled an unprecedented $100 billion into the nation's public education system. These funds were intended not only to avert teacher layoffs and stabilize state and local education budgets in the short term, but also to encourage reforms that will improve student achievement and thus strengthen the nation's economy in the long term. This report describes findings from the survey sections that deal with the condition of state education funding in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the status of state implementation of ARRA-related reforms, the influence of ARRA's Race to the Top (RttT) program on reform agendas in states that did and did not receive these competitive grants, and the capacity of state education agencies to carry out ARRA reforms. The authors' analysis led to four broad conclusions that cut across the more detailed findings in specific sections of the survey. These four conclusions are: (1) The ambitious agenda of education reform attached to ARRA may hit a wall in 2012; (2) The capacity of many states to implement ARRA reforms could be constrained by cuts in state education agencies' operating budgets and limited staffing levels; (3) States are responding sooner and more actively in some ARRA reform areas than in others; and (4) ARRA has helped to create a common reform agenda for states based on broad federal goals. Timelines for Fully Implementing Key ARRA-Related Reform Strategies are appended. (Contains 10 tables and 3 footnotes.)

In the summer of 2009, school districts began receiving the first wave of federal economic stimulus money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Totaling about $100 billion over two years--more than double the fiscal year 2009 budget for the U.S. Department of Education (ED)--the education portion of the stimulus package is intended to stave off teacher layoffs, stabilize declining state and local education budgets, and blunt other negative effects of the economic downturn for schools. This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent nonprofit organization, describes the uses of ARRA education funding at the school district level and the progress of districts in implementing the main education components of ARRA. The data were drawn from responses to a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of school districts in the spring of 2010. This is the second CEP report on ARRA implementation; the first, which focused on state-level implementation, was released in December 2009 (CEP, 2009). The authors reached three main conclusions based on their district survey data. Taken together, these conclusions suggest that the broad purposes of the ARRA education funds--saving or creating jobs, stabilizing declining state and local education budgets, and promoting education reform--are being met at the district level. Their conclusions also suggest that districts are likely to face significant challenges in maintaining quality programs. (Contains 9 figures, 2 tables and 8 footnotes.)

This study examines how the federal government and states prepare to implement the No Child Left Behind Act. Researchers reviewed states' consolidated applications for federal grants; conducted telephone interviews with officials in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and 8 school districts; and reviewed relevant research. The study addresses assessment and accountability; public school choice and supplemental education services requirements; teacher and paraprofessional quality; and use of scientifically based research to improve education. Overall, states are committed to the Act's goals of raising achievement for all subgroups and enhancing teacher quality and working to implement the law, though its deadlines for making massive changes are short and final regulations on some key issues were late in coming from the Department of Education. The main challenge states face are creating plans for determining whether schools are making adequate yearly progress in raising achievement. States and districts are slow in acting on requirements to offer public school choice and supplemental services. They are not very far along in using scientifically based research to inform classroom practice. Three appendices include protocol for review of state plans, an interview guide, and a policy summary of the No Child Left Behind Act. (Chapters contain references.) (SM)

There have been major improvements in public education since the early 1980s, when the nation started focusing seriously on school reform, and informed citizens need to be aware of these positive trends. This booklet highlights important improvements in public education over the past 15-20 years, along with positive data about the state of public education. The report updates and expands on the monthly one-page briefs issued by the Center on Education Policy in 1998 and 1999. The only findings included are those supported by objective national data banks, such as the National Center for Education Statistics. By publishing these facts, the report hopes to dispel some widely held misconceptions about public schools and give citizens solid evidence to inform their opinions, policy decisions, and future actions. Due to lack of space, the publication does not include many positive aspects, yet their absence does not indicate they are negative. However, other areas, such as reading achievement, have not been included because the trends are mixed or vary by age groups. A brief discussion of "The Work Ahead" notes some of the various actions that states, school districts, and citizens can take to build on the progress already made. (DFR)

Public schools are one of the main institutions that create cohesion among diverse groups of individuals. Schools are places where children can learn social and citizenship skills that help them live harmoniously and become contributing members of society. Research shows that parents recognize that getting along with others is a necessary skill. Though many of today's public schools are racially and economically isolated, these shortcomings do not diminish the importance of teaching children to be tolerant of differences and to understand and respect other cultures and other people's views. It is important for children to learn tolerance and respect because: the United States is becoming more diverse; the workforce is becoming more diverse and the economy more international; and national cohesion and social harmony depend on people overcoming divisions and understanding each other. Public schools are good places for children to learn respect and tolerance of others because: they better reflect the diversity of American society than private schools; they are a place where children learn social skills naturally; and throughout U.S. history, they have helped to promote social harmony. (SM)