Search

With the 2022 midterm elections behind us and 2023 state legislative sessions ahead, policymakers must shift their time and attention from winning reelection to addressing the perfect storm brewing in education. Three significant challenges paint a grim picture for students and public schools unless policymakers step in to help: catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic impacts on learning, declining enrollment, and looming fiscal cliffs. This brief offers ideas for state leaders as they address the interrelated educational challenges facing schools right now. The brief highlights Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona. These states, ranging from blue to red to purple, provide lessons that can be instructive for policymakers in almost any state. Each state demands different policy solutions, but all should aim to put family empowerment, not politics, at the center of their legislative agendas.

To counter learning loss and other effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, students deserve access to all available supports, including supplemental options. Unfortunately, access to supplemental options is just as disproportionate as the effects of the pandemic. Too many barriers stand between students and the supports that could help them recover and reengage in learning. Recent polling data shed light on the gap between parents' interest in supplemental options for their children and their access to them. The data highlight barriers that prevent students and families from accessing the full range of supports that can aid their recovery from the effects of the pandemic. Findings include: (1) an unmet demand for extracurricular options; and (2) information and cost are the most cited barriers to extracurricular participation, but other barriers also contribute. This report concludes with policy solutions that could help give more families access to every available resource to support their students, within and beyond the school day.

Parents across the country continue to be concerned about their children's academic and social-emotional well-being. Some parents are sufficiently satisfied with their children's school and are content with a return to a pre-pandemic normal. Other parents are sufficiently dissatisfied and have already made a change, whether between schools, to home-schooling, or with supplemental learning opportunities. In between is a third group of parents -- those who are frustrated and have not yet made a change, but are looking to policymakers and education leaders for solutions. "New Solutions for Frustrated Parents: How Education Leaders Can Help" offers four recommendations for policymakers and education leaders to address the discontent among parents as the 2021-22 school year comes to a close: (1) Work with parents to better understand their needs; (2) Increase the number of educational options available to families; (3) Inform families about educational options that could meet their children's needs; and (4) Reduce barriers to access. By responding to parent needs, policymakers and education leaders can better support families and students in the upcoming school year and beyond.

School districts across the country have long been finding ways to give greater autonomy to schools, theorizing that providing school leaders with authority over the decisions that most directly affect their students will enable them to better meet students' needs and, in turn, improve student outcomes. Charter schools, which are public schools that are operated independently from local school districts and granted freedom from many state and local education laws and regulations, are perhaps the most well-known autonomous school model, but they're not the only one. Many school districts have created their own types of autonomous schools. Massachusetts, an early adopter of charter schools and a leader in the creation of in-district autonomous school models, led the way in the development of a district-charter hybrid model, known as Horace Mann Charter Schools (Horace Mann schools). Designed to be a hybrid between the charter and district sectors, Horace Mann schools are granted many of the same freedoms and flexibilities as independent charter schools but must be approved by their local school districts and remain part of their districts in important ways. Through a review of past research on Horace Mann schools, analysis of publicly available data and documentation, and interviews with stakeholders (including current and former Horace Mann school leaders, Boston Public Schools (BPS) staff, and state officials and staff) this report analyzes the extent to which the Horace Mann school model has been able to realize the seven goals laid out in its founding legislation.

Whether in the western region of the state or the plains of the northeast corner, the ground has continued to shift under the feet of Colorado's rural charter school and district leaders. Efforts to understand the needs of Colorado's school communities early in the COVID-19 pandemic surfaced challenges with providing internet access, digital devices, and personal protective equipment, and meeting the basic needs of low-income families hit hard by the economic impacts of the pandemic. This report shares new data about the needs of students and schools in rural Colorado and the challenges and opportunities for collaboration among rural leaders and philanthropic funders. It also recommends five ways philanthropic funders in Colorado can best support rural students and schools in the months and years ahead: (1) Bring funding, networks, and creative solutions to address urgent staffing needs and shortages; (2) Keep grant application processes and reporting requirements at a minimum; (3) Stay flexible in grantmaking priorities to provide support across the myriad challenges rural communities are facing; (4) Support rural charter schools and districts in navigating the sustainability of their efforts, whether funded by philanthropic or public dollars; and (5) Provide non-monetary support, including opportunities to connect and collaborate with those who are outside the school or district but equally dedicated to supporting the success of rural students. [WEND Collective and Lyra Colorado provided additional financial support for this report.]

As schools across the country closed in March 2020 at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not clear how long in-person education would be disrupted. The abrupt transition to remote learning was particularly challenging for districts in rural communities, many of which have long lacked reliable access to high-speed internet and technological resources for students. The unique circumstances of the pandemic required innovative solutions to address a deepening array of acute challenges faced by rural schools. In Colorado, the philanthropic community met the moment by supporting rural school systems in fundamentally new ways, upending traditional grantmaking processes to better address communities' needs through two key initiatives: the Planning and Design Support (PDS) initiative and the Education Innovation Fund. RESCHOOL Colorado's Learning Dollar initiative, a program connected to the Education Innovation Fund, also played a pivotal role by distributing money directly to families for education-related expenses. The deep collaboration among funders that occurred during these initiatives wasn't the only silver lining that emerged in the chaos and uncertainty of 2020. Schools and districts, especially those in rural areas, also set aside considerable time and resources, when both were scarce, to secure needed funding for their students and communities. In this paper, the authors describe the origins of these initiatives and their basic design before outlining a set of recommendations for how philanthropy in the state and elsewhere can build on these promising practices to improve future grantmaking. [WEND Collective and Lyra Colorado provided additional financial support for this report.]

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the way that families and policymakers view K-12 education. Learning loss is having an outsized impact on students who were furthest from opportunity before the pandemic. And families are increasingly looking for new educational options for their children. For decades, access to educational options meant "school choice" -- now it's time to think broadly about an ecosystem of flexible "learning options." Beyond traditional options, such as school choice through open enrollment, charter schools, and private school choice, policymakers are increasingly providing families with access to more flexible learning opportunities through Education Savings Accounts and "learn anywhere" policies. This report examines some of the most important trends in the realm of option-expanding state policies, along with recommendations to ensure that all families have equitable access to these educational opportunities.

In this report, the author explains the small-schools environment in New York City. Prior to the pandemic, the Big Apple had a small but growing microschool and learning pod community. New York City's frequent school closures throughout 2020 and 2021 caused many families to look more closely at these education options. New York State's stifling regulatory environment shows why more microschools and learning pods did not emerge during the pandemic--and might not emerge in the years ahead. One key lesson from this study--and others in this series--is that a state's policy disposition toward school choice, private schools, and homeschooling can thwart education innovation in many ways. For microschooling and learning pods to expand in NYC and elsewhere, state policymakers must assess and reform a host of statutes and regulations, even if such rules were created with student welfare in mind and have been on the books for generations. [For the main report, "Microschooling and Policy," see ED618730.]

Families continue to struggle navigating a fluid K-12 education space since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergence of the Delta variant. Over the last 18 months, the parents of 10.8 million did not get what they wanted from their child's school -- representing nearly one in five U.S. schoolchildren. Many families' early concerns over access to in-person, virtual, and hybrid forms of instruction persist with the start of the 2021-22 school year. These families are not a monolith. They live in a diverse range of communities found across America, come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds, and span the socioeconomic spectrum. While some were more economically equipped to react, all have felt disruptions of the pandemic in their daily lives. "The Overlooked" analyzes the fundamental shift playing out among families across the country who are dealing with unresponsive systems and limited school choices this fall. The report examines public opinion polling trends and patterns, breaking Overlooked families into three distinct categories: (1) the Movers, or families who had motivation and means to change their child's school, resulting in a shift away from traditional public and private schools; (2) the Missed parents who did not enroll their child in the prior 2020-21 school year at all; and (3) the Muted families who have not yet moved from their public school systems but will not have access to their preferred remote learning options in the 2021-22 school year. The net effect of all three groups of Overlooked families carries profound implications for K-12 school systems and policymakers alike. As entire ecosystems of instructional and operational support emerge to better meet parent demand, it is not enough for district leaders, school boards, and elected officials to see The Overlooked, they must listen to their growing calls for different options.

One of the greatest promises of the charter school movement has been the potential to create diverse school models to meet the varied needs of children, families, and communities. As policy makers and charter leaders have recognized the need to hold charters accountable for strong performance, however, there has been a move towards more standardized ways of evaluating the potential and performance of schools. More consistent standards have elevated quality in the sector, but also created potential obstacles for nontraditional schools, including dual language, inquiry-based, and competency-based models. And now, COVID-19 has upended how charter schools across the country are operating and how authorizers hold schools accountable for outcomes. Since authorizers and school leaders are still responsible for ensuring that students and families have access to high-quality school options, they must work together to uphold each end of the charter bargain. This report sheds light on what authorizing looks like in practice when fostering a diversity of school models and holding them accountable for quality. The authors describe how some authorizers are navigating the tension between maintaining consistent standards and fostering diverse models. The report offers recommendations for how authorizers and other stakeholders can work to find the optimal balance. Four charter authorizers are profiled in this work: Colorado Charter Schools Institute, DC Public Charter School Board, State Charter Schools Commission of Georgia, and State University of New York Charter Schools Institute. [For the accompanying toolkits, see ED610383, ED610384, and ED610385.]

Over the last 25 years, the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) has invested nearly $5.3 billion into the charter school sector, directing funds to schools in 43 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Approximately 60% of students in CSP grantee schools are from low-income backgrounds and 64% are Black or Hispanic. The CSP has played a critical role in helping the charter sector grow to its current size, serving 3.3 million students in 7,500 schools nationwide. "Clearing the Air: An Analysis of the Federal Charter Schools Program" offers an in-depth analysis of the CSP and how it has evolved to better meet the needs of charter schools and the families and communities they serve. For example, while Congress and secretaries of education have consistently maintained the CSP's focus on high-need students, resources have focused on different subgroups of students over time, including low-income students, rural students, Native American students, and students at risk of not graduating from high school. In addition to looking back at how the CSP has evolved over time, this new report provides recommendations for federal lawmakers to strengthen the program and ensure it continues to meet the needs of families and communities: (1) Continue to support charter schools' access to facilities, with an emphasis on incentivizing per-pupil or other facilities allocations at the state level; (2) Continue to support charter school models that serve high-need student populations; (3) Find new ways to address barriers to equitable access, including enrollment processes and transportation; (4) Assert and protect innovation as a central goal of the CSP; and (5) Better measure, capture, and communicate the CSP's impact.

Business leaders have long been engaged in all levels of education reform, but the economic crisis of the 1980s spurred a renewed sense of urgency and activity. Business leaders saw education as key to addressing many of the country's economic problems, including high unemployment, foreign competition, and declining productivity. As the economy recovered and the standards and accountability movement gained traction in the 1990s, business organizations refocused their efforts on strengthening their states' education standards as part of a broader effort to prepare students for jobs in technology and other expanding industries. Business leaders have a critical role in ensuring that the education systems enable young people to gain the skills, knowledge, and experiences they need to be successfully employed in the current and future economy. Their voices can be powerful tools to help shape policy, champion programs, and advocate for greater coordination and alignment between the K-12, higher education, and workforce systems. This paper profiles three business advocacy organizations that have recently supported successful education legislation, with the goal of surfacing lessons that are broadly applicable to other business advocacy organizations interested in pursuing education advocacy work on behalf of students' long-term economic success.

Fourteen percent of the nation's population lives in rural communities, and one in five K-12 students attends a rural school. This is a substantial portion of the population, but it's far too often overlooked by education analysts, advocates, and policymakers. Rural communities tend to face some persistent challenges, including higher rates of poverty, lower median household incomes, and lower rates of educational attainment compared to urban areas. The schools serving these rural communities often struggle with declining enrollment, high rates of child poverty, low economies of scale, and a lack of human capital and adequate transportation. Education policy and practice in rural communities must take into account broader community factors, such as limited economic opportunity, poor access to healthcare, and social challenges, like drug addiction. Moreover, rural communities are incredibly diverse, both economically and racially. Some of the country's most impoverished areas are communities with significant minority populations in the rural South, along the U.S.-Mexico border, and on Native American reservations throughout the West. Those focused on improving outcomes for low-income and minority students simply cannot continue to overlook rural America. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the state of rural communities and schools. It aims to equip advocates, decision-makers, and other stakeholders with a shared understanding of rural education to generate a more accurate and nuanced policy response.

For the past several decades, private schools have steadily served about one in ten students in the United States. However, the student population enrolled in private schools has changed. Thousands of Catholic schools, which often serve less affluent urban communities, have closed; meanwhile, tuition increases in independent schools have outpaced inflation and wage growth, making them less accessible to those with limited means. This suggests an emerging gap in affordable options and merits a fresh look at private schools that still seek to serve middle- and low-income families. In this report, the authors sought to understand the landscape of private schools that are working to remain affordable, the approaches they are taking, and how some are revisiting traditional operating models. This document provides an overview of private schools' enrollment, an analysis of the strategies private schools use to be accessible to middle- and low-income families, and an analysis of microschools, in particular. The authors identify and examine a variety of strategies private schools can use to improve affordability: (1) Subsidize cost with public funds; (2) Subsidize cost with private funds; (3) Find alternative revenue streams; and (4) Reduce expense of the model. The report ends by surfacing questions regarding the role of private schools in serving middle- and low-income students, the lessons they might hold for others, and their potential to scale and innovate.

Doing more with less is noble in public education. This is something quality public charter schools do well. It is also something, that cash-strapped rural and high need schools across Idaho know all too well themselves. It is well documented that all of public education in Idaho operates on leaner rations than do schools in most parts of the United States. In a 2016 report, "Building Excellence: How Helping Charters Access Facilities Can Improve Opportunities for Idaho Kids," Bellwether researchers found that limited access to financing was one of the major barriers public charter school leaders face in securing a school facility. As a result, charters spend operational dollars on facilities expenses and too often operate in spaces that make it more challenging to offer the educational programming they envision or believe their students need. Idaho policymakers need to address the facilities challenges facing its public schools, both district and charter, across the state. An analysis of recent district and charter school construction project surfaced three key themes: (1) Charter schools' facilities have similar per-square-foot costs, but lower per-seat costs due to compromises and creative shortcuts; conversely, district costs are higher; (2) Districts can have trouble passing bonds/levies due to the supermajority requirement, which demands more from district leaders to explain their requests to taxpayers and earn their support; and (3) There are lessons and insights that districts and charters can learn from each other, but even with the best local practices, there is a larger role for the state to play in funding public school facilities. This report aims to help policymakers assess the nature of the challenges that charter schools and district schools face in financing school facilities. The report begins with an overview of the current status of public school facilities funding in Idaho. It then compares recent charter and district school facilities construction projects, highlighting key differences in cost and amenities. Next, it provides lessons learned from interviewing charter and district leaders about the facilities-related challenges they face. The report concludes with key recommendations for Idaho's legislators to consider as they work to support schools in accessing high-quality facilities. [Foreword by Terry Ryan and Marc Carignan. For "Building Excellence: How Helping Charters Access Facilities Can Improve Opportunities for Idaho Kids," see ED577705.]

Just as schools receive charters to run independently of districts, this brief proposes that teachers could receive charters to run classrooms independently of schools. In addition to providing teachers with more autonomy, charter teachers would give families the opportunity to select not the school their child attends but the individual who guides their child's learning and development. Charter teacher policies could elevate the teaching profession, help retain talented educators by giving them control and agency over their own classrooms and careers, and attract a new generation of educators previously disenchanted by the idea of working in a large bureaucracy.

Rural schools make up a considerable portion of Oklahoma's public education system. These schools are an integral part of community life for many rural towns. They are also a critical part of Oklahoma's economy, responsible for training the next generation of thinkers, workers, builders, and leaders. Unfortunately, data suggest that many of Oklahoma's rural schools are not providing their students with the academic and non-academic skills necessary for them to be successful in their next steps after high school. This report is an effort to raise the collective voices of rural community members and convey their thoughts and perspectives to policymakers in the state capital. Through a series of twelve focus groups and nine interviews, the authors spoke to more than eighty individuals living in rural communities throughout Oklahoma. The authors asked them about the issues facing the schools in their communities, including topics ranging from course options for students in high school to students' post-college job prospects to their perspectives on policies like charter schools and consolidation. Ten findings fall into three overarching themes: (1) high school alone is not enough; (2) students need more and different guidance navigating their options; and (3) concerns with education policy. Appendices are included.

To better understand charter leaders' experiences acquiring facilities, the authors conducted a survey of all charter school leaders in the state of Idaho. The leaders of 26 brick-and-mortar charter schools responded, representing 65 percent of all such charter schools in the state. The survey gathered a number of facilities-related data points, including the square footage and seat capacity of schools' current facilities, monthly and annual facilities-related expenditures, and whether charter school facilities have amenities like auditoriums, gyms, and libraries. Charter leaders were also asked about the specific challenges they face as they search for and finance property for their schools. This survey data, coupled with follow-up interviews with six school leaders and an analysis of publicly available data and reports, surfaced four key findings: (1) Limited access to financing is a major barrier to securing an adequate facility; (2) Charter leaders struggle to find suitable properties and often make significant tradeoffs; (3) Inadequate facilities funding makes it more challenging for charter schools to provide the educational programming they envision; and (4) Charter schools are able to construct and renovate facilities at a fraction of what districts spend. Based on these findings, the authors make the following three recommendations to the Idaho legislature to ensure charter public schools have more equitable access to facilities: (1) Give charter schools the right of first refusal or free or low-cost access to vacant, taxpayer-funded properties; (2) Allow charter schools to be included in local district bonds and levies; and (3) Increase funding for existing programs.

Tens of thousands of individuals across the United States volunteer their time, energy, and expertise as members of charter school boards. Yet as the charter sector has grown, remarkably little has been learned about these individuals who make key operational decisions about their schools and have legal and moral responsibilities for the education of children in their communities. This report is one of the first attempts to use quantitative survey data to explore the relationship between charter boards and school quality. Authors Juliet Squire and Allison Crean Davis of Bellwether Education Partners queried charter school board members in Washington, D.C.--a city with one of the highest percentage of public charter school students in the nation--to determine (1) who serves on District charter boards; and (2) which board practices are associated with school quality. Key findings include: (1) Charter school board members in D.C. tend to be affluent, highly educated individuals with liberal or moderate political leanings; (2) Board members of high-quality charters are more knowledgeable about their schools; (3) Board members of high-quality schools are more likely to participate in training, engage in strategic planning, and meet monthly; (4) Board members of high-quality schools are significantly more likely to evaluate their school leaders and use staff satisfaction as a factor in such evaluations; and (5) Regardless of school quality, charter school board members have much in common, including beliefs about the importance of academic achievement, similar school finance practices, and understanding their role and responsibilities. While focused on charter board members in Washington D.C., the report nonetheless offers valuable insights for charter advocates in other cities. By recruiting informed and dedicated volunteers to lend their time to these boards--and nudging them to implement sound practices--they may be able to replicate some of the successes of one of America's most robust charter sectors. [Foreword by Amber M. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli.]

In 1997, the Buckeye State embraced a new approach to public-education delivery, launching a pilot program of community (charter) schools. Since then, the state's community schools sector has grown tremendously. During the 2013-14 school year, 390 schools served approximately 124,000 students--seven percent of students statewide. Despite its remarkable growth, Ohio's community school sector continues to struggle with performance. A 2013 analysis by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) found that Ohio's community schools, on average, provided the equivalent of fourteen fewer days of learning in reading and forty-three fewer days of learning in math compared to district-operated schools. Ohio's community school statute is a big part of the problem. Since 1997, nineteen different laws have altered the charter program. The statute and the sector it governs are now so complex that many provisions work at cross-purposes with others, have misaligned incentives, have unintended consequences, or leave room for troublesome loopholes. Past changes to Ohio's community school law haven't been able to rein in low-performing sponsors and schools, grow high-performing schools, rehabilitate the sector's reputation, or provide enough disadvantaged students with the high-quality schools they deserve. In order to preserve the promise of high-quality public school choice, Ohio policymakers must reexamine the community school law. This report provides analyses and recommendations regarding the following ten policy issues that deserve immediate attention from Ohio policymakers and sector leaders: (1) Screening New Sponsors; (2) Accountability for Existing Sponsors; (3) Neutral Funding for Sponsors; (4) Management Company Accountability; (5) Governing Authority Independence; (6) Charter Termination and Nonrenewal; (7) Community School Accountability and Automatic Closure; (8) Community School Funding; (9) Transportation; and (10) Facilities.

Never before has more been asked of State Education Agencies (SEAs), commonly known as state departments of education. In recent years, policymakers at the state and federal level have viewed the SEA as the default entity for implementing new and sweeping K-12 initiatives--everything from Race to the Top grants and SEA waivers to teacher evaluation reform and digital learning. But SEAs were designed--and evolved over decades--to address a relatively narrow set of tasks: distributing state and federal dollars, monitoring the use of these funds, and overseeing the implementation of federal and state education programs. They were not created--nor have they developed the core competencies--to drive crucial reforms. This report will provide a brief overview of how the SEA evolved into its current form, enumerate some challenges SEAs have experienced in implementing recent reforms, and explain the constraints that can confound even the most determined and skilled SEA leaders. The second section proposes a number of strategies state and federal policymakers can use to identify the responsibilities best suited to the SEA and delegate those better left to different--and possibly yet-to-be-created--organizations. The final section considers the implications, rewards, and risks of this new approach.

What to do about persistently low-performing schools is a pressing challenge for policymakers and educators across the nation. Schools that fail to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) for five consecutive years under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) must be "restructured." The 3,500 schools in the United States currently in restructuring are pursuing a variety of different strategies, but little research has been done on their implementation or effectiveness. The state of Hawaii has chosen to partner with outside organizations in forty-four of its ninety-two restructuring schools--a much greater level than mainland states--and its unusual procurement and accountability frameworks for managing these partnerships offer unique insights to states considering a similar approach. This Outlook looks at the support mechanisms that Hawaii has put in place to facilitate partnerships with these "diverse providers" and at how restructuring schools may have benefited from those arrangements. (Contains 4 figures and 11 notes.)

What to do about persistently low-performing schools is a pressing challenge for policymakers and educators across the nation. Schools that fail to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) for five consecutive years under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) must be "restructured". The 3,500 schools in the United States currently in restructuring are pursuing a variety of different strategies, but little research has been done on their implementation or effectiveness. The state of Hawaii has chosen to partner with outside organization in forty-four of its ninety-two restructuring schools--a much greater level than mainland states--and its unusual procurement and accountability frameworks for managing these partnerships offer unique insights to states considering a similar approach. This paper looks at the support mechanisms that Hawaii has put into place to facilitate partnerships with these "diverse providers" and at how restructuring schools may have benefited from those arrangements. (Contains 6 figures.)

The tension at the heart of pension politics is the incentive to address today's claimants and focus on the here-and-now at the expense of long-term concerns and more dispersed constituencies. In the private sector, rules and regulations seek to tame corner-cutting and short-sighted behavior. In the public sector, the primary safeguard is the self-discipline of public officials and the hope that they will not be unduly tempted by short-term electoral considerations or influential constituencies. Teacher pensions, in particular, pose two challenges for K-12 schooling. The first challenge is the political incentives that lead to irresponsible fiscal stewardship, as public officials make commitments to employees that outstrip the available funds. The second is that of electoral considerations which hinder modernization, as policymakers dance around existing structures built to serve an industrial-era workforce and ill-suited to attracting talent in the contemporary labor market. The alignment of the political stars has helped states and localities to address the first challenge, but there has been little evidence of a willingness to tackle the second. The authors examine the political control of public pensions, the influence of teacher associations, and the lack of institutional constraints on public officials to explain the severity of these challenges. Those dynamics are illustrated via discussion of fiscal crises in New Jersey, Oregon, and San Diego and the way in which those crises created opportunities for addressing enormous shortfalls in funding. The authors close by suggesting several measures that may encourage public officials to be more responsible fiscal stewards or to revisit anachronistic retirement systems in order to promote teacher quality. (Contains 124 footnotes.)