Search

This study examined the impact of COVID-19 on academic "redshirting" in kindergarten, the practice of holding a child back for a year and enrolling them in kindergarten at age 6, using student-level data on all Delaware kindergarten students from fall 2014 through fall 2022. The rate of redshirting declined by 40% in fall 2020, then increased by 44% (relative to pre-pandemic baseline) in fall 2021, and more for some subgroups of children traditionally less likely to redshirt. Further, redshirting was not restricted to children with summer birthdays, as in previous years, with growth seen across the age distribution. Redshirting had not returned to pre-pandemic baseline by fall 2022. These findings point to changes in the motivations for redshirting kindergarten students since the pandemic.

Since the peak of the pandemic in 2020, enrollment in virtual schools has steadily increased, with virtual schools now accounting for approximately 1.4% of the nation's public school students. While the effects of the pandemic on student achievement and mental health have been extensively studied, research has yet to thoroughly examine the impact of the pandemic on state policies and local organizational practices related to virtual schooling. Although some believed the onset of the pandemic would fundamentally reshape virtual schooling options in K-12 education, others were more skeptical, believing expanded virtual learning options were merely a temporary fix. This study examines whether the pandemic shaped virtual schooling at both the local and state levels, and if the changes made are likely to last and/or improve equity. The authors interviewed state and local education leaders and advocates, analyzed policy documents, websites, and media, observed legislative proceedings, and examined organizational practices in a sample of schools between 2019 and 2022 in Oregon. This state had an extensive history of virtual schooling before the pandemic, and enrollment continues to grow. The findings offer important lessons for policymakers and leaders to consider as the availability of virtual schools remains widespread across the country.

This brief continues ongoing research by NWEA® examining the degree to which the COVID-19 pandemic, and its associated school closures, influenced student learning. Prior research focused on math and reading and found that the pandemic's negative impact steadily accumulated during the 2020-2021 school year, with significant disparities in achievement and growth compared to prepandemic trends (Lewis, Kuhfeld, Ruzek, & McEachin, 2021). Although there were modest rebounds in reading and math during the 2021-2022 school year, progress toward pandemic recovery largely stalled in 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, with achievement and growth trends still trailing behind prepandemic levels (Kuhfeld & Lewis, 2022; Lewis & Kuhfeld, 2023; Lewis & Kuhfeld, 2024). Building on previous research series focused on math and reading achievement, this brief explores how the pandemic influenced student achievement in science. It examines science test scores across seven school years to understand how COVID-19 influenced science achievement.

The purpose of this technical appendix is to share detailed results and more fully describe the sample and methods used to produce the research brief, "COVID's Impact on Science Achievement: Trends from 2019 through 2024. We investigated three main research questions in this brief: 1) How did science achievement in 2021 and 2024 compare to achievement in 2019, before the pandemic? 2) How much additional schooling was required in spring 2021 and spring 2024 to return to spring 2019 levels? 3) How do these patterns differ by race/ethnicity?

While the United States leads the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) innovation, the schools lag behind in preparing teachers and students for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The extraordinary pace of technological change, and the potential for both opportunity and risk, may be unprecedented. What leaders in education and education policy do next matters. To help accelerate action in U.S. public education and develop a short-term roadmap for districts and other education leaders, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) brought together over 60 state and federal policymakers, edtech innovators, school system leaders, and advocates in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in April 2024 to participate in the Think Forward: Learning with AI forum. This report reflects key learnings and conversations that emerged from CRPE's Think Forward convening, including: (1) how AI can enable needed changes in our schools; (2) how current conditions in the edtech market act as barriers to closing equity gaps; and (3) how policy and practice must adapt for lasting system change. It concludes with a short-term action plan developed by forum participants that provides an immediate path forward and outlines the roles wide-ranging stakeholders must play to address our shared challenges and opportunities.

This report presents selected findings from the 2020/22 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:20/22), a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education. The findings in this report are based on data about a nationally representative sample of all first-time beginning students (FTBs) who entered postsecondary education for the first time during the 2019-20 academic year. BPS:20/22 is the first follow-up of a cohort of FTBs originally identified during the 2019-20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20) and covers 3 years of students' experiences, from their first year of postsecondary education in the 2019-20 academic year through the 2021-22 academic year. The BPS:20/22 sample consisted of approximately 37,330 total students, representing the approximately 3.3 million undergraduates who were first-time postsecondary students enrolled in the 2019-20 academic year. Data from BPS can address questions about students' postsecondary enrollment patterns, continued enrollment in college, highest postsecondary credential earned, social and academic experiences and activities, and employment history. To facilitate analyses of student choices and postsecondary enrollment and credential attainment, the BPS:20/22 survey collected information on teacher effectiveness, as well as frequency and types of communication and interactions with family and friends, faculty members, and other students, which were also included in the NPSAS:20 survey. Additionally, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several survey questions asked respondents to report on employment and education disruptions and personal experiences "as a result of the coronavirus pandemic" in spring 2020 and in the 2020-21 academic year. Respondents indicated their perception of whether an experience was the result of the coronavirus pandemic. The report provides information on first-time postsecondary students' attainment and persistence rates at any institution 3 years after they began postsecondary education, along with their education and personal experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this report, attainment represents the students' highest postsecondary credential earned, whereas persistence describes enrollment during the 2021-22 academic year for students who had not earned a postsecondary credential. As a result, students who earned a postsecondary credential and enrolled for additional postsecondary education are accounted for in attainment rates. It is important to note that BPS:20/22 data reflect first-time postsecondary students' experiences over 3 academic years, when many students are still working toward a postsecondary credential. The 2022/25 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, which is designed to follow up with students 6 years after they began postsecondary education, will provide more comprehensive data about postsecondary attainment. This First Look shows some of the ways that BPS:20/22 data can be used. Selected findings are not intended to emphasize any particular issue, and the report does not discuss all the information presented in the tables. Readers should not infer causality from the data in this report. Although many of the factors discussed are related to each other, this report does not explore these relationships. The student- and institution-level factors in this report are just a few of the several hundred that will be available in the BPS:20/22 data.

Outstanding federal student loan debt exceeds $1.6 trillion and is owed by about 45 million borrowers. Since taking office, the Biden Administration has taken various actions to address student loan debt. These actions have ranged in scope (both in terms of borrower populations affected and associated modification costs), rationales, and the avenues through which they were taken (e.g., formal rulemaking procedures, issuance of guidance). A primary criticism of many of the actions the Biden Administration has taken relate to these actions' costs to the federal government. In contrast, supporters contend that these actions help address borrower difficulty in managing and repaying student loan debt. This report compiles executive actions taken during the Biden Administration that have affected the costs of outstanding federal student loans. It begins by briefly describing relevant federal student loan programs. It then explains the methodology CRS used to compile the list of executive actions. Next, the report discusses accounting for the costs of federal student loan programs, including discussion of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) because CRS's methodology relies on how the U.S. Department of Education (ED) accounts for the costs of the student loan programs under this act. Finally, the report lists and describes executive actions taken in FY2021-FY2023 that ED recognized as affecting the cost of outstanding federal student loans and provides ED's cost estimate for each action. Table 1 summarizes each of these actions and their modification costs. Table 2 presents net modification costs for the relevant federal student loan programs for FY2021-FY2023.

Leaders in higher education face increasing pressure to ensure their institutions are well-positioned to adapt to our changing world. As part of responding to these demands, a growing number of institutions have established dedicated teams of in-house experts to support this work and the culture change around it, broadly termed academic change or academic innovation. This report details methods and findings of a comprehensive survey of academic innovation department leaders in colleges and universities across the United States. The survey received responses from 138 academic innovation leaders who shared details on the scope of their work, the structures and institutional resources supporting it, their impact, and their perspectives on contemporary challenges including the COVID-19 pandemic and its influence on postsecondary learning. Ten years after the first such survey, findings included evidence of increasing staffing and budgets, evolving priorities, shifting reporting structures, and technological advancement. Implications include expanding research and professional communities for this relatively new functional area within US higher education, recommendations for institutional leaders, and a focus on supporting continued growth. As a result, the report serves as a census of academic innovation units in an array of US colleges and universities, with details relevant for benchmarking and further research. The following are appended: (1) Data tables for all survey items; (2) Participating institution list; and (3) Survey instrument. [This report was produced by the University of Michigan, Center for Academic Innovation and Quantum Thinking. Additional sponsors for this report include: Class Technologies, Acadeum, Intelliboard, Auburn University, Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning Leading Academic Change, EdPlus at Arizona State University, Bentley University, University System of Maryland, William E. Kirwan Center for Academic Innovation, POD Network in Higher education (POD), and SAB Creative & Consulting.]

The immediate impacts of COVID-19 on K12 schooling are well known. Over nearly 18 months, students' academic performance and mental health deteriorated dramatically. This study aims to identify if and how the pandemic led to longer-term changes in core aspects of schooling. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 31 teachers and administrators across 12 districts in two states, we find that schools today look quite different in several areas including the availability and use of instructional technology, instructional practice, parent-teacher communication, and the balance between academics and social-emotional well-being. We interpret these findings through the lens of institutional theory, and discuss implications of the changes for practitioners and policymakers.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, educators and policymakers have scrambled to assess the impact on student learning. Popular metrics that have gained traction are the notions of "years of learning lost" or "months behind," which attempt to quantify the educational setbacks caused by the pandemic. The allure of these time-based metrics is understandable; they provide a seemingly straightforward way to communicate the magnitude of learning loss to non-technical audiences. But beneath their simplicity lies a complex web of assumptions, statistical manipulations, and, ultimately, misleading conclusions that may do more harm than good. This paper delves into the flaws of time-based metrics and argues for a more meaningful approach to measuring student progress. It challenges the assumption that more time automatically equates to more learning and advocates for assessments that provide richer, content-based insights into student abilities and needs. By critically examining the current narrative, the paper seeks to inspire educators and policymakers to reconsider how we measure and respond to educational challenges in a post-pandemic world. [Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (Philadelphia, PA, 2024).]

This paper reports findings from a nationally representative survey of K-12 teachers in May 2023 that examines the potential long-term impacts of COVID-19 on public schooling. The findings suggest fundamental ways in which school operations, instructional practice and parent-teacher interaction have changed since the pandemic. Some changes seem promising; others suggest caution. While policymakers may not be able to directly influence some of the reported changes in the short run, monitoring the evolution of school practices (and their consequences for children) will position educational leaders to help teachers and students address the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic going forward.

This report explores the dramatic increase in Head Start teacher turnover during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from the Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) from 2010 to 2022, the study investigates trends in teacher turnover across all Head Start program types and examines the reasons behind teacher departures. The report finds that teacher turnover surged significantly in both 2020-21 and 2021-22, with the 2021-22 year experiencing a particularly sharp increase exceeding 28% of teachers. Turnover rates varied by program type, with Early Head Start programs exhibiting higher turnover than traditional Head Start programs, and American Indian Alaska Native (AIAN) Early Head Start programs seeing the highest rate at 37.1%. The study reveals that compensation remains the most common reason cited for teachers' departures, both before and during the pandemic. However, COVID-19 related factors also emerged as prominent reasons for departure. This research underscores the urgent need to address the challenges of teacher turnover in the Head Start sector, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. The report advocates for policy initiatives aimed at improving teacher retention through enhanced compensation.

Utilizing course grade data from 22 four-year higher education institutions, this study highlights the trends in first-year grade point average (FYGPA) between the 2017-2018 and 2021-2022 academic years, the period immediately before and after the pandemic disrupted both K12 and higher education. Results showed that while FYGPAs generally increased at institutions with more selective admission standards, especially private, more selective institutions, FYGPAs remained relatively unchanged at the less selective institutions. Over these five years, high school grade point average (HSGPA) generally increased among incoming students at nearly every institution while SAT® scores generally decreased. The results of institution-level logistic regression analyses indicated that students with the same pre-college academic achievement levels as measured by SAT scores and HSGPA were more likely to earn a FYGPA of 3.0 or higher in later cohort years than were students in the 2017 cohort. Faculty survey results, based on more than 3,000 respondents from over 1,200 higher education institutions, complement the administrative data analyses in this study. The survey findings suggest college faculty believe that the characteristics of incoming students as well as their academic performance in college are weaker now than in the past. Implications for future higher education research and facilitating nuanced K12 and higher education conversations on more effectively preparing students for college are discussed.

This brief is a continuation of NWEA's research series examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on student achievement and progress toward academic recovery. Initiated in the early phase of the pandemic, this series has leveraged NWEA's large national sample of longitudinal MAP® Growth™ data to track student performance and compare it to historical trends. The authors have tracked two critical aspects of student performance in the wake of the pandemic: achievement and growth. Achievement data reveals the extent of unfinished learning. The authors refer to the distance between current test scores and prepandemic trends as "achievement gaps." Growth data estimate how much test scores increase over time. They use these data to indicate whether students are making gains that keep pace with prepandemic trends. Understanding and tracking both achievement and growth is important. Achievement gaps quantify how much unfinished learning remains, while growth patterns help gauge the rate at which gaps will close. The system needs accelerated or above-average growth for students to catch up. The data provide insights into how effectively this is happening. The cumulative research shows that the harmful effects of the pandemic on student achievement steadily accumulated over the course of the 2020-21 school year (Lewis, Kuhfeld, Ruzek, & McEachin, 2021). Growth generally returned to, or slightly exceeded, prepandemic trends in the 2021-22 school year (Kuhfeld & Lewis, 2022). Progress stalled in 2022-23 when growth in nearly all grades fell short of prepandemic trends (Lewis & Kuhfeld, 2023). In this analysis, the authors use 2023-24 school year data to examine the current progress toward recovery. They examine test scores from approximately 7.7 million students currently in grades 3-8 in 22,400 public schools who have taken MAP Growth reading and math assessments since the onset of the pandemic. The "COVID sample" consists of six separate cohorts of students followed longitudinally across the last three school years. For instance, current fifth-graders are part of the grade 3-5 cohort; they measure this cohort's achievement across third grade in 2021-22, fourth grade in 2022-23, and fifth grade in 2023-24. The authors compared this COVID sample to a comparable group of 10 million students who tested in grades 3-8 in the pre-COVID school years of 2016-17 through 2018-19.

Using data from the Quarterly Workforce Indicators, this brief explores changes in the Los Angeles County labor market and in the working-age population as a plausible explanation for some of the enrollment decline at the county's community college campuses.

In this brief, the authors examine changes in enrollments at the Los Angeles Community College District between fall 2017 and summer 2023 to document the extent of pandemic-era enrollment declines overall and across student populations.

We study changes to teacher working conditions from 2016-17 to 2022-23, covering school years before, during, and after the COVID pandemic. We show working conditions were improving leading into the pandemic but declined when the pandemic arrived. Perhaps more surprisingly, the pandemic was not a low point: teacher working conditions have continued to decline during the post-pandemic period. Teachers report worsening working conditions along many dimensions including the level of classroom disruptions, student responsibility, and safety, among others. They also report declines in trust between themselves and principals, parents, and other teachers. Trends in working conditions since the pandemic are similar in schools serving more and less socioeconomically advantaged students. However, schools in districts where online learning was the predominant mode of instruction during the 2020-21 school year have experienced larger declines than other schools.

In the face of financial, political, and capacity constraints, leaders within the Baltimore City Public School System and Chicago Public Schools are making progress toward closing post-pandemic gaps in student learning. The executive leadership teams serving Baltimore City Public School System and Chicago Public Schools are using several strategies to help their systems build back after the pandemic including: (1) standardizing key elements of instructional cores and adding instructional staff across their systems, while maintaining some school-level flexibility; (2) supporting existing staff to become teachers and "building the bench" of new principals, while also promoting school leaders and administrators from within; (3) spending federal pandemic-relief money Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) and other supplements, while hoping to avoid cutting into funding for instruction; (4) insulating schools as much as possible by taking the political hits themselves and making concessions to demanding stakeholders; and (5) confronting continued enrollment declines, limited central office capacity, constrained teacher labor markets, changes in school boards, shifting local interests, and uncertain state-level financial support. The strong leadership modeled in both districts remains at the heart of moving forward, despite the fact they are straining against their capacities. While there may be nuanced differences, all leaders in maxed-out districts will have to search for new options and forge alliances with new partners within school boards, unions, and state-level governments. This project is part of the American School District Panel (ASDP), a research partnership between the RAND Corporation and the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at Arizona State University's Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College.

This First Look report presents data on public elementary and secondary education revenues and expenditures at the local education agency (LEA) or school district level for fiscal year (FY) 2022. Specifically, this report includes the following types of school district finance data: (1) revenue, current expenditure, and capital outlay expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) current expenditures by function and object; (4) revenues and current expenditures per pupil; and (5) revenues and expenditures from COVID-19 Federal Assistance Funds. This First Look report focuses on education revenues and expenditures at the school district level. The finance data used in this report are from the School District Finance Survey (F-33), 2F 3 a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is a group of annual public elementary/secondary data collections administered by NCES. The F-33 survey consists of LEA-level finance data submitted annually to the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. SEAs report financial data covering services that provide or support prekindergarten through high school for public education for a variety of types of LEAs. These LEAs include regular school districts, independent charter school districts, as well as a substantial number of administrative and operating LEAs that are unlike typical school districts (e.g., education service agencies that provide specialized education services for school districts, such as vocational and other specialized education services for school districts). The purpose of this First Look report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information. The selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using F-33 data files and are not intended to emphasize any particular issue(s).

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented numerous challenges to students across the United States, particularly those who are parents enrolled in community colleges. California's community college system serves a diverse student population, including a significant number of non-traditional, working adults who are also parents. These students have faced unprecedented challenges due to the pandemic, including the difficulties of balancing childcare responsibilities with academic and professional obligations. This paper summarizes the preliminary findings of a study that intends to contribute to the crucial conversation around childcare needs among community college students. The focus of this study was understanding the experiences of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) mothers with young children and the impact of COVID-19 on their educational experiences in community colleges across the state of California.

The purpose of the addendum is to document the findings from the Year 2 student achievement analyses of a teacher-level randomized experiment, which was designed to examine the implementation and impact of a scalable version of the 2-year MyTeachingPartner Secondary (MTP-S) program as part of a federally-funded Education Innovation and Research (EIR) project. Due to COVID-caused delays, we were unable to include findings about the impact of MTP-S on Year 2 student achievement in the final report produced at the end of the EIR project (Wayne et al., 2023). With the support of a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation, we were able to complete the collection and analyses of Year 2 student achievement data presented in this addendum. Similar to the Year 1 student achievement findings presented in our EIR final project report, the Year 2 student achievement findings did not reveal any significant program impact on students' math or English language arts achievement at the end of the 2-year program. Findings from this study need to be interpreted with caution given study limitations resulting largely from the influence of the pandemic.

In order to assist higher education institutions and their students during the pandemic, the federal government established the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Fund, which directed over $75 billion to institutions of higher education--including nearly $25 billion to community colleges--over a three-year period. The U.S. Department of Education worked on a rapid timeline to distribute these funds to institutions, which they could use to provide direct aid to students facing financial challenges and cover institutional costs related to the pandemic. Drawing on a survey of community colleges in six states--California, Michigan, New York (State University of New York [SUNY] colleges), Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas--this report provides insight into the specific pandemic recovery activities colleges implemented, colleges' perceptions of how successful HEER funds were in addressing student and institutional needs during the pandemic, and colleges' views of unmet needs. The institutional survey was completed by 170 out of a total of 265 community colleges in the six states. Key findings from the report: (1) Colleges spent nearly all the HEER funds they received. Given the large amount of HEER funding and the fact that colleges did not need to submit a proposal and budget for how they would use the funds, it should not be assumed that colleges would have spent all the money they received. Yet colleges spent nearly all the funds they received by the time the HEER program ended in June 2023; (2) HEER funds met a variety of student and institutional needs during the pandemic. Colleges had relatively few problems using the funds and felt that the aid was successful in mitigating student and institutional hardships; (3) Colleges focused on retaining existing students; they employed a variety of methods to support students in need. Colleges used HEER funds to support and retain existing (pre-pandemic) students rather than to recruit new students. They focused on supporting students with financial exigencies, including those experiencing food and housing insecurity. They used institutional aid to forgive debt owed to the college and to provide food, housing, and childcare assistance; (4) Spending patterns suggest that colleges experienced similar challenges during the pandemic and often prioritized the same objectives. Despite differences in state contexts and institutional settings, colleges tended to allocate funds in similar ways. For example, most colleges used aid for campus safety and technology hardware. Expenditure patterns also shifted over time in similar ways, indicating that colleges were responsive to evolving needs; (5) Expenditures related to campus safety and technology remained strong but decreased in frequency over time; expenditures to support students' mental health increased in frequency. Mental health services was the only expenditure category that increased in frequency in each of the three years of funding, likely reflecting the toll the pandemic took on students' mental health; (6) Comparing pre- and post-pandemic spending, HEER funds had the most impact on increasing support for technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance. Colleges used HEER funds both to fund existing services and to begin offering new ones. Fewer than a third of colleges had services in place to provide technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance before the pandemic; many more did so afterward; (7) Concerns about the end of HEER funding and priorities for future funding expose a need for continued flexible resources to address students' financial needs. Colleges' main concern about the end of HEER funding was that it would limit their ability to support students during an emergency. Their top priority for using future funding was additional student aid; and (8) Rural and vocational/technical colleges (as defined by the Carnegie Classification) may have had fewer resources prior to the pandemic and may be in greater need of additional support. Colleges in towns and rural areas and colleges focused on technical training were less likely to offer a number of supports both pre- and post-pandemic. Rural colleges were also less likely to report having received additional funding for pandemic recovery from sources other than HEER funds. Overall, while the survey findings suggest that HEER largely met the goals for which it was intended, they also point to the importance of addressing systemic challenges facing community college students and the institutions that serve them. Now that the immediate crisis of the pandemic has passed and HEER funding has ended, there is an opportunity to think strategically about the investments that are needed to promote student success over the long term, particularly for underserved and financially vulnerable students who are the most at risk of stopping out or not enrolling in the first place.

Most selective colleges implemented test-optional admissions during the pandemic, making college entrance exam scores optional for applicants. We draw on descriptive, two-way fixed effects, and event study methods to examine variation in test-optional implementation during the pandemic and how implementation relates to selectivity and enrollment. For "test-optional" colleges during the pandemic, we found substantial variation in policy type (e.g., test optional, test free) and whether the policy extended to all applicants and scholarship consideration. Findings suggest test-optional implementation related to increases in Black student enrollment, mostly at moderately selective colleges and when policies extended to all applicants and scholarships. At highly selective colleges, findings suggest test-optional implementation related to an increase in applications but not consistent gains in enrollment.

The Wallace Foundation commissioned Research for Action and McClanahan Associates to study how out-of-school time intermediaries (OSTIs) responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and the role they could play in supporting communities moving forward. Citywide out-of-school time (OST) systems encompass a wide variety of afterschool and summer programs and associated provider organizations, youth participants, and their families. These systems were stretched during the COVID-19 pandemic and the national racial reckoning to respond to community needs in new and more equitable ways. Also impacted were OSTIs that manage OST systems within individual cities. OSTIs operate through various governance structures and perform a range of coordination functions intended to ensure quality, access, and equity in OST systems so that all youth have access to the unique out-of-school resources and opportunities they need to thrive.

Over the past two decades, researchers have spent countless hours studying the impacts of public charter schools--independently-run, tuition-free schools of choice that serve some 3.7 million U.S. students today. Just prior to the pandemic, studies from Ohio and nationally indicated that charters on average delivered superior academic outcomes compared to traditional districts. And the very finest charters in Ohio and around the nation were driving learning gains that gave disadvantaged students the edge needed to succeed in college and career. The pandemic scrambled most everything about K-12 education. But did it upend what we know about charter school performance? The present study examines the post-pandemic performance of Ohio's brick-and-mortar charter schools, which enrolled 81,000 students--mostly from urban communities--during the 2022-23 school year. The results reveal that, in terms of student achievement growth, Ohio's charter schools remain a better educational option for the average charter student.

This chartbook is the 14th version to be produced for the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB). The Chartbook describes the diversity of the Appalachian Region on a host of demographic and economic measures and provides an important annual view of the area and its people. The data contained in the 2018-2022 Chartbook describe how residents in the Appalachian Region were faring before and during the COVID-19 pandemic that began in March 2020. Nearly half of the years during this time period were pre-pandemic and half were during the pandemic era. Thus, this Chartbook is a blend of these two eras. As future data releases reflect the post-pandemic era, data users will have additional insights on the long-term changes that the pandemic brought to Appalachia's social and economic dynamics. Most of the data shown here come from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey (ACS), a nationwide study collected continuously every year in every county in the United States by the U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS is designed to provide communities with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and housing data each year. To provide as much county-level data as possible, we use ACS 5-year data files which provide reliable estimates for geographic areas with fewer than 20,000 people. Since many counties in the Appalachian Region have fewer than 20,000 residents, these data permit comparable statistics for all 423 counties in the Region. The primary purpose of the ACS is to measure the changing characteristics of the U.S. population in a way that is continually updated. The estimates in this Chartbook, therefore, are data collected over the five-year (or 60-month) period from January 2018 through December 2022. These ACS estimates are not averages of monthly or annual values, but rather an aggregation of data collected continuously over that time period.

The fall 2023 and spring 2024 undergraduate enrollment increases, marking the first growth since the COVID-19 pandemic, show signs of a post-pandemic turnaround for higher education. However, a significant share of current undergraduates will eventually disengage from college before earning a degree or other credential. They will join tens of millions of other adult Americans who are Some College, No Credential (SCNC). The SCNC population has been consistently rising over time. Re-engaging those who stop out remains a persistent challenge and a priority for the forty states that have set ambitious postsecondary attainment goals. This report aims to provide timely insights into the SCNC population, offering state leaders and policymakers accurate data on its current status, along with tracking progress and outcome measures for SCNC students. The first section of this report describes who makes up the SCNC population and how it has changed since the last report. In this section, the authors pay particular attention to Recent Stopouts, who joined the SCNC population after being stopped out between January 2021 and July 2022. In the second section, the authors report on SCNC re-enrollment in the 2022-23 academic year as well as first-year credential earning for re-enrollees. The authors also provide new updates on continued enrollment and second-year credential earning for SCNC re-enrollees in the 2021-22 academic year, whom were first reported on last year.

We use student-level data on elementary special education identification from Washington state to explore student identification rates in the months immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and over 2 subsequent years. Special education identification rates dropped dramatically in March 2020 through the end of the 2019-20 school year and remained below historical norms through 2020-21 before returning to pre-pandemic levels early in 2021-22. The magnitude of these effects implies that over 8,000 fewer elementary students were identified for special education services during the pandemic in Washington than would have been expected based on prior trends.

The general science of infection prevention and control can be applied to and adapted for a variety of settings, including kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12). Strategies can be implemented in the classroom and whole school environment to prevent a wide array of illnesses caused by both bacteria and viruses. This science brief presents findings from a review of research studies focused on school- based strategies to prevent and control respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. The studies reviewed in this brief informed and supported development of the Guidance for Preventing Spread of Infections in K-12 Schools. Previous literature reviews have been published about infection prevention in schools, and most have focused on single intervention strategies such as hand washing, cleaning and disinfection, or contact tracing. Additionally, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has evidence-based guidance, including the respiratory virus guidance that was taken into consideration when developing this brief. This science brief adds to existing literature by describing the current state of science for a comprehensive set of strategies to prevent spread of respiratory and gastrointestinal infections in K-12 settings.

Direct Admissions policies, first pioneered by Idaho in 2015, aim to simplify the path to college for high school students by proactively admitting students to state colleges and universities. Idaho's decision to implement Direct Admissions was motivated by a desire to boost its relatively low college-going rates and ensure that more of its high school graduates pursue higher education, particularly at state institutions. Idaho's Direct Admissions system automatically qualified all 2016 public high school seniors for admission to participating colleges and universities based on their academic performance such as standardized test scores, GPA, and high school course credits, without requiring them to undergo the traditional application process. Using the student's SAT score and GPA, the Idaho Office of the State Board of Education (OSBE) proactively admits high school students to the "Letter of 6" or "Letter of 8." Students receiving the Letter of 8 are admitted to all of Idaho's public higher education institutions, while students receiving the Letter of 6 are admitted to all except Boise State University and the University of Idaho, the two more selective institutions in the state. Once a student is guaranteed a seat at any of the colleges listed in their Direct Admissions letter, students then apply to the institutions of choice to verify their enrollment intentions. Direct Admissions is designed to demystify the college application process, reduce barriers to entry, and encourage a higher rate of postsecondary enrollment. Since its implementation, the policy has garnered attention for its role in increasing postsecondary applications and enrollments. It has also emerged as a potential model for other states considering similar reforms. Previous research on Direct Admissions policies in Idaho has examined the policy's effectiveness on institutional applications and enrollment outcomes. This paper uses data on the receipt of a Letter of 6 and receipt of a Letter of 8 to understand how Direct Admissions policies influence student choice in institutional selectivity.