Search

The study compared the relationship of the contract plan of student evaluation and a traditional type of evaluation, for changes in knowledge and attitudes during a college course in ecological relationships. The Syracuse Environmental Awareness Test was used to measure both cognitive and affective changes. In the experimental group the contract plan of evaluation was utilized. Subjects were evaluated on the number of course objectives which were completed satisfactorily. In the control group, a traditional type of student evaluation was used. The students were evaluated on the scores they received on three examinations. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when compared, there were several factors which gave credence to the hypothesis that the traditional method was superior to the contract method. First, there was a significant increase in cognitive knowledge for the control group between the pretest and the posttest, while in the experimental group there was no significant increase. Second, the experimental group had a larger percentage of Health Science majors than did the control group. If it is valid to assume that Health Science majors would be more highly motivated to do well in a course in their major field of study; then the experimental group should have demonstrated greater increases in cognitive and affective behavior. (RC)

These are the appendixes for the report, "District Changes in Student Achievement and Local Practice under Georgia's District and School Flexibility Policy." Five appendixes are included in the document: (1) About the study; (2) Data and methods; (3) Supporting analysis; (4) Survey instrument; and (5) Interview protocol. [For the full report, see ED609818; for the study snapshot, see ED609824.]

In 2007 Georgia instituted a flexibility policy through which school districts enter into performance contracts with the state, receiving waivers from state rules, provisions, and guidelines in exchange for agreeing to meet annual accountability targets. The performance contracts are intended to incentivize innovations that increase achievement among all students. Between 2008/09 and 2016/17, 178 of Georgia's 180 districts entered into a performance contract. The Georgia Department of Education requested an analysis of how student achievement changed after districts adopted a performance contract and what factors were related to those changes. The department also requested information on how districts used their performance contract to prioritize innovations in local practice. Overall, the study found little evidence that changes in student achievement coincided with adopting a performance contract but found significant variation in changes in achievement across districts, once other factors were adjusted for. Changes in achievement were largely unrelated to district characteristics, including urbanicity, timing of performance contract adoption, and district type, or features of the performance contract. District leaders reported prioritizing innovations related to college and career readiness, teacher certification requirements, instructional spending, and funding for school improvement after adopting a performance contract. Leaders perceived broad benefits from the priority innovations they identified, especially for staff and school climate, but also indicated that waivers were not required to implement many of the innovations. Despite the perceived benefits, changes in achievement were largely unrelated to the academic, human resources, and financial innovations that district leaders reported prioritizing after adopting a performance contract. [For the appendixes, see ED609822; for the study snapshot, see ED609824.]

This is the third paper on the topic of outcomes-based funding written by Dennis Jones for Complete College America. The first paper, "Performance Funding: From Idea to Action" (ED535356), proposed a set of design and implementation principles to help states develop and implement their own outcomes-based funding models. The second paper, "Outcomes-Based Funding: The Wave of Implementation" (2013) described features of models being implemented in states and the extent to which they conformed to the principles presented in the first paper. This third paper documents the continued spread of adoption with an increased focus in the field on whether outcomes are equitable across populations, with states disaggregating results by race, ethnicity, age and income and reporting those publicly. The additional purposes of this paper are threefold: (1) To reinforce the point that outcomes-based funding is but one component of the overall financing model for higher education in a state. The power of outcomes-based funding models is enhanced if the other components are designed so as to strengthen the alignment between funding streams and desired results; (2) To once again revisit the lists of design and implementation principles presented in the earlier document and (slightly) revise them in light of states' actions and experience; and (3) To describe the models that are being employed in implementing states and to assess the extent of conformance with the proffered set of design and implementation principles. This for the purpose of identifying areas of non-conformance to catalog potential weaknesses in models and questioning the applicability of certain of the principles. As with earlier versions of the document, the ultimate objective is to provide clear, straightforward guidance to policymakers who are searching for ways to better align their approaches to resource allocation with the educational outcomes that are of highest priority in their state.

The State University System of Florida has developed three tools that aid in guiding the System's future: (1) The Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan is driven by goals and associated metrics that stake out where the System is headed; (2) The Board's Annual Accountability Report provides yearly tracking for how the System is progressing toward its goals; (3) Institutional Work Plans connect the two and create an opportunity for greater dialogue relative to how each institution contributes to the System's overall vision. These three documents assist the Board with strategic planning and with setting short-, mid- and long-term goals. The Board will use these documents to help advocate for all System institutions and foster even greater coordination with the institutions and their Boards of Trustees. Once a Work Plan is approved by each institution's respective Board of Trustees, the Board of Governors will review and consider the plan for potential acceptance. Longer-term components will inform future agendas of the Board's Strategic Planning Committee. The Board's acceptance of a Work Plan does not constitute approval of any particular component, nor does it supersede any necessary approval processes that may be required for each component. The following work plan information is provided in this summary: (1) Performance Based Funding Metrics; (2) Preeminent Research Metrics; (3) System Strategic Plan Key Performance Indicators; (4) Enrollment Planning; (5) Planned Academic Programs; (6) Gift Aid and Net Tuition by Family Income; and (7) Student Debt. [For the 2014-15 Summary, see ED565441]

In January 2012, a system-wide task force came together for a nearly year-long process of revising the community and technical college system's performance-based funding (PBF) system, the Student Achievement Initiative. This review was consistent with national experts' recommendations for continuous evaluation of PBF systems to ensure overall goals and principles are being met. Recommendations for adjustments to the achievement metrics and funding model were made to the president's commission (WACTC) in November 2012 and approved by the State Board in December 2012. Recommendations for change reflected a shift in both student success policy and fiscal policy to recognize both the growing national emphasis on the completion agenda, as well as the constrained resource environment caused by the Great Recession. The goal of this paper is to evaluate whether there appears to be positive movement in student achievement toward the policy goals which were the basis of the 2012 revision of the metrics and funding model. The following sections begin with a brief overview of the theory behind PBF and a background on the revision, followed by a system-level analysis of each of the key milestone areas addressed within the revision. The connection between increased performance and increased funding for colleges is also discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion and implications of an incentive-based allocation system with thoughts on future study. Appended are data tables showing: (1) Basic Skills Transition Rates by College; (2) Precollege English Progression and College Completion by College; (3) Precollege Math Progression and College Completion by College; (4) Completions by College; and (5) Funding Distributions 2009-10 to 2014-15.

The "Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006" ("Perkins IV" or "Act") authorizes federal funding for career and technical education (CTE) and specifies a formula for distributing those funds. Allocations at the secondary level are based on the number of youths ages 5-17 who reside within a local educational agency's (LEAs) boundaries and who live in poverty. Funds for institutions of higher education (IHEs) are distributed proportionate to the number of students who receive Pell grants or aid from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. To offset the higher cost of providing technical instruction, some states choose to allocate categorical funding for CTE programs. To assess the operation of state CTE resource distribution formulas, in August 2013 the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc) surveyed CTE directors responsible for administering their state's federal "Perkins IV" grants. The survey asked CTE directors to report whether their states provided categorical funds for CTE during academic year (AY) 2011-12 and, if so, how they were distributed to LEAs and IHEs. Directors also were asked about their states' uses and perceptions of performance-based funding (PBF)--a competitive resource distribution strategy that rewards local programs for achieving state-identified performance outcomes. This study draws on data collected from the NASDCTEc survey and a review of state educational agency websites and statutory language to identify whether, and if so, how states distribute categorical funds for CTE programs. It also documents states' PBF strategies and their interest in integrating competitive funding into their state education resource distribution formulas. The report details the methods that states used to fund CTE in academic year 2011-12. It also reviews performance-based funding (PBF) strategies for those states using PBF to incentivize local performance, and documents states' interest in integrating PBF into their existing funding systems. Descriptions of state approaches draw on data gathered from a survey of state CTE directors conducted by the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc) in August 2013. The following are appended: (1) Survey Documents; (2) Examples of State Competitive Grant Programs; and (3) Categorical Grants: Secondary Education Level.

Performance-based funding is a system based on allocating a portion of a state's higher education budget according to specific performance measures such as course completion, credit attainment, and degree completion, instead of allocating funding based entirely on enrollment. It is a model that provides a fuller picture of how successfully institutions have used their state appropriations to support students throughout their college careers and to promote course and degree completion. Furthermore, this funding structure incorporates both enrollment and performance metrics as incentives for colleges to continue to make progress on these important objectives. This brief summarizes the history of performance-based funding in higher education at the state level, outlines in further detail a subset of state experiences, and recommends that states continue to explore performance-based funding options in their higher education systems. (Contains 24 endnotes.)

Performance funding--the linking of allocation of resources to accomplishment of certain desired outcomes--is an idea that is once again finding favor with policymakers. It has intuitive appeal; what's not to like about paying for results? While it is a notion that makes common sense to most decisionmakers, it is an idea with a very checkered past--it has been tried, found wanting, and with few exceptions abandoned. A review of past experiments suggests that it's not the idea that failed, but the design and implementation of the strategies that derived from the idea. This brief paper presents a set of first principles for putting in place an approach to performance funding that will help policymakers avoid many of the pitfalls that plagued prior efforts in this arena. The principles presented fall into two categories--those dealing with design of the system, and a separate set dealing with implementation. [This report was prepared for Complete College America.]

Although a growing number of individuals are enrolling in college in response to the increasing payoff to higher education, more than a third of them never finish. College completion rates are especially disappointing for low-income students, in many cases because they tend to enter college underprepared academically but also because they have more difficulty covering the costs of attendance. This report presents early results from a program at the University of New Mexico (UNM) that increases the financial support available to low-income entering students who enroll for a minimum number of credits and maintain a minimum grade point average. The program, called VISTA (Vision Inspired Scholarship Through Academic Achievement), is one of nine scholarship programs being tested across the country as part of the national Performance-Based Scholarship Demonstration. The demonstration is testing several types of performance-based scholarships in order to identify promising strategies to increase college persistence and completion among low-income students. Early findings, through one year, indicate that although VISTA had no effects on credits or grades during the first semester, effects did emerge after that point: (1) VISTA encouraged students to attempt and earn more credits; (2) VISTA led to a net increase in financial aid dollars and allowed some students to reduce their reliance on loans; and (3) Although VISTA did not affect overall enrollment rates for the third semester, it did result in students registering for more credits. A final report on VISTA will be published in 2014. Selected characteristics of sample members at Baseline, by Research Group are appended. (Contains 9 tables, 1 box and 28 footnotes.)

2010 was a pioneering year for Massachusetts public schools. State leaders recognized that while the Commonwealth leads the nation in student achievement on national measures such as NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), more needed to be done to close the persistent achievement gaps between our wealthy and poor students. Combining a strong plan, a new reform law, and broad consensus, Massachusetts won a federal Race to the Top grant and set out to implement bold strategies to accelerate improvements. Innovative approaches to improving our schools are nothing new for Massachusetts. In 2005, inspired by the effective use of expanded time at many high-performing charter schools and a handful of district schools around the country, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) and non-profit Massachusetts 2020 launched a first-in-the-nation initiative for district schools to expand learning time for all of their students. That first year, ten schools in five districts stepped forward to participate. Their school leaders, teachers, parents and community partners understood that as the world changes, schools must evolve to prepare students for the opportunities and complexities of the 21st century, and that the traditional 6.5-hour school day is woefully insufficient. Five years later, the Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time (ELT) Initiative has grown to include over 10,500 students in 19 schools in nine districts, 78% of whom are low-income and all of whom benefit from an additional 300 hours of learning time across the school year. In 2010-11 ELT continues to thrive due to the persistence of participating schools and districts. It is managed through a unique public-private partnership between ESE and Massachusetts 2020, which share responsibility for oversight and support of the ELT Initiative. In this 2011 update, Massachusetts 2020 seeks to provide a brief snapshot of promising results and lessons learned. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For previous edition, "More Time for Learning: Promising Practices and Lessons Learned. Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time Initiative 2010 Progress Report," see ED534907.]

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

According to Section 2141(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), local education agencies (LEAs) that fail to meet annual measurable objectives and make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for three consecutive years must enter into an agreement with the state education agency (SEA) to determine the most effective use of Title II, Part A funds. As part of this agreement, the SEA will "develop, in conjunction with the local educational agency, teachers, and principals, professional development strategies and activities, based on scientifically based research, that the local educational agency will use to meet the annual measurable objectives...and require such agency to utilize such strategies and activities" [NCLB, Section 2141(C)(1)]. This brief reviews the provisions of Section 2141 of ESEA and lays out the steps that SEAs should consider for meeting its requirements. Included are examples of steps states have taken in meeting the Section 2141 requirements. The brief also presents some points to consider when developing Section 2141(c) agreements with LEAs.

During the spring of 2004, the State of Colorado enacted legislation that fundamentally changed the mechanisms through which it financed its public higher education system, beginning with the 2005-06 academic year. Rather than appropriating funds directly to institutions, the legislation created the College Opportunity Fund (COF), the principal feature of which established a stipend available to all lawfully present Colorado residents to use to offset their in-state tuition costs at the public or eligible private higher education institution of their choice. In addition to funding the stipend, the legislation also included two other prominent features. Fee-for-service contracts would pay institutions to fulfill a set of specific state needs not covered by the stipend. And performance contracts negotiated between each institution and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (DHE) would ensure accountability while allowing for greater institutional autonomy and deregulation. The legislation marked a significant departure from past practice in Colorado; it also represented the first and, to date, only attempt in the United States to experiment with a voucher-based system for financing higher education statewide. Recognizing the novelty of the approach, the Colorado legislature inserted a requirement that the COF policy be formally evaluated within five years of passage. The Colorado Department of Higher Education (DHE), with support from the Donnell-Kay Foundation, contracted with the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) to do this evaluation. This report is the result of that evaluation project and will address each of the four components of that project in turn. The first section will address the background conditions in Colorado that contributed to the development of the COF policy and the original intent of the legislation. Next, the report will describe the findings from a quantitative analysis of participation both before and after implementation of the COF policy. This section addresses how COF influenced the demand for higher education. The third section will address the degree to which COF impacted institutional behaviors, including how closely aligned the implementation of the COF policy was to its intent. Finally, the report will present conclusions and offer policy options that Colorado might wish to pursue in light of the findings of this study. Three appendices are included: (1) Detailed Methodology; (2) List of Interviewees and Focus Groups; and (3) Press Release Announcing COF Evaluation Project. (Contains 20 figures, 1 table, and 27 endnotes.) [This report was prepared for the Colorado Department of Higher Education and was made possible in part with support from the Donnell-Kay Foundation.]

In communities nationwide, public charter schools are meeting the growing demand for high-quality education opportunities. This is especially true in communities with underperforming public district schools that are not meeting the academic needs of students, including poor and minority students. Forty states and the District of Columbia have laws allowing for fiscally independent, tuition-free charter schools that operate under a performance contract. Today more than 1.2 million students attend the more than 4,300 charter schools established since the first state charter law was enacted in 1991. Yet many students and their families are denied access to quality charter school options because of limits placed on the development of new charter schools or expansion of existing high-performing charter schools. While not every charter school is successful, the charter movement has produced several outstanding schools that consistently demonstrate high levels of academic growth and success for all their students, regardless of race or family income. Given these exemplary models and the increased demand for high-performing charter schools, many state policymakers want to accelerate the replication of such schools. Achieving excellence at scale requires states to pursue strategies that promote growth (i.e., expansion or replication) among charters with a track record of success. Governors and policymakers seeking to increase the number of high-performing charter schools can: (1) Define charter school quality to guide charter school expansion; (2) Streamline reporting, renewal, and governance requirements for high-performing charter schools; (3) Create at least one statewide authorizing body to facilitate outstanding charter school expansion; (4) Ensure greater parity of funding between charter schools and district public schools; and (5) Support charter schools' access to adequate facilities. A section titled Charter School Expansion Basics is appended. (Contains 41 endnotes.)

As a follow-up to the release of its "Guide to Financing EnergySmart Schools", the U.S. Department of Energy's EnergySmart Schools program hosted the National Financing Roundtable on February 5, 2009. This event was held prior to the seventh Annual High Performance Schools Symposium, hosted by the Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI) on February 6-7, 2009 in Tampa, Florida. The purpose of the National Financing Roundtable was to bring together individuals with diverse knowledge of school building projects to discuss financing issues and options that build upon those described in the "Guide to Financing EnergySmart Schools." This document summarizes the discussion that took place during the roundtable. It provides an overview of the financing opportunities, challenges, and activities involved in achieving high-performance schools, as identified by the participants. The discussion has been organized into five key outcomes: (1) Identify creative funding mechanisms and low-cost or no-cost projects to help achieve energy efficiency in schools. Energy efficiency can be reached through small efforts when funding is limited as well as through large investments when funding is available; (2) Recognize that energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) are solutions that require a strong partnership with an energy service company (ESCO), a clear understanding of the cost avoidance (savings) guarantee language, and annual measurement and verification (M&V); (3) Become better-educated and more aware decision makers in relation to energy-efficiency projects by discussing all financial and technical issues with stakeholders. Learn to reorganize the current district-level budgetary system to better recognize and account for savings from energy-efficiency measures; (4) Encourage and gain community, teacher, and student involvement in and support about energy-efficiency projects. This will increase awareness about these issues, pressure legislators to provide funding, and start a culture of social responsibility; and (5) Create clear policies at federal and state levels to provide quick incentives to districts investing in energy-efficiency projects.

In state needs assessment meetings held in late June 2008, the leadership of two Central Region state departments of education, South Dakota and Missouri, asked Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Central to determine how the states in the region evaluate their supplemental educational service (SES) providers. Specifically, these SEA staff requested more information about Central Region states' data collection processes, examples of instruments in use, and information on state SES contacts' perceptions of their evaluation processes, including issues that have emerged and/or problems that have been solved. In response to this regional request, REL Central reviewed the federal guidance provided to states on monitoring SES providers and developed the following research questions: (1) What criteria do states have for provider performance; how do they assess provider performance; and what policies do they have for terminating a provider? (2) What systems do Central Region states use to gather information with which to evaluate their providers? and (3) What do state contacts report about their experience with the state's evaluation of providers? States are required to develop standards for monitoring and evaluating providers. Only one state, South Dakota, has standards in place. The others rely on criteria that are found in the provider application, which defines the role and expectations of the provider. Typically, adherence to the provider contract becomes a substitute for criteria in evaluating provider performance. South Dakota is the only state with a provider termination policy. The study found that the seven Central Region states include varying numbers of approved providers, eligible schools, and eligible students, which influences the scope and scale of their provider evaluations. State contacts were primarily concerned that their states did not have sufficient staffing to adequately monitor and evaluate the providers, but suggested specific aspects of evaluation and monitoring that they believed worked well in their states. Six of the states (all but Nebraska, which has an evaluation process in place but did not identify any schools qualified to receive SES in 2007) have made or are making changes to better evaluate the performance and impact of their SES providers. Two appendixes present: (1) Protocol for State Contact Interviews; and (2) Summary of Data Collected in Central Region States during the 2007-2008 School Year. (Contains 8 footnotes and 4 tables.)