Search

Sixty-seven school finance reforms (SFRs) in 26 states have taken place since 1990; however, there is little empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of SFR effects. We provide a comprehensive description of how individual reforms affected resource allocation to low- and high-income districts within states, including both financial and non-financial outcomes. After summarizing the heterogeneity of individual SFR impacts, we then examine its correlates, identifying both policy and legislative/political factors. Taken together, this research aims to provide a rich description of variation in states' responses to SFRs, as well as explanation of this heterogeneity as it relates to contextual factors.

The purpose of this paper is to take a closer look at the states that have designed strong history standards and note what has made them exceptional so other states might do the same. They include Alabama, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, and South Carolina. The report draws on interviews with individuals from each state who sat on advisory boards and panels, who shared details on their review process, and identified individuals consulted to design their standards, timetables and outcomes. Members of the state design committees included chairmen of high school history or social studies departments, elementary and middle school teachers, college history professors, members of historical societies and parents. The report also includes seven core recommendations related to process; non-partisanship; the importance of detail and clarity in standards; the need to focus on academic content; the value of civics-based content; encouraging the reading of history in each grade; and finally to promote historical writing in each grade. In all, the paper shows that states can create robust K-12 standards that are clear enough for teachers to employ effectively and that enrich students' understanding of U.S. history. [Preface by Daniel Walker Howe.]

Industries in every state are struggling to find qualified applicants for jobs, while job seekers too often find they lack the skills needed to enter or move along a career pathway to a good job. Preparing a workforce that is poised to meet the needs of businesses and ultimately to make the state more economically competitive is a top priority for many governors. "State Strategies to Scale Quality Work-Based Learning" highlights strategies governors can implement to increase opportunities for high-quality, demand-driven work-based learning and prepare their citizens for the modern workforce.

Of the nearly 100 different types of high school diplomas that are awarded across all fifty states and the District of Columbia, less than half prepare students for success in college and career. And while the national high school graduation rate is at an all-time high, the rate at which students earn these college- and career-ready (CCR) diplomas is substantially lower, especially among students from low-income families, students of color, and other traditionally underserved students. "Paper Thin? Why All High School Diplomas Are Not Created Equal" provides a state-by-state analysis of the different types of diplomas that states awarded to the Class of 2014 and the impact on traditionally underserved students. [Robyn Harper, Francisco Jaimes, Liz Spurgeon, and Sean Bradley contributed to this report.]

A governor's State of the State address is an opportunity to outline policy priorities, highlight past accomplishments and reflect on the condition of the state and country. In 2018, 17 governors are serving their last year in office, having reached the end of their term or deciding not to seek re-election. Many of them used their State of the State addresses to emphasize the importance of collegiality among policymakers. When governing bodies function well, the state and its citizens reap the benefits--a principal benefit being an education that prepares citizens for well-paying jobs. Each year, Education Commission of the States tracks, analyzes and identifies trends in education policy proposals featured in governors' State of the State addresses. To date, 44 governors have delivered their 2018 addresses. The top six education priorities across states are discussed in this report: (1) School Finance; (2) Workforce Development; (3) Postsecondary Affordability; (4) Career and Technical Education; (5) Teacher Quality; and (6) Early Learning.

In May 2017, the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) College Access and Success community embarked on a project to compile shared challenges and lessons learned as a resource for fellow i3 College Access and Success grantees, the larger community of i3 grantees, and the broader field of college access. Through this project, the authors discovered that many of the key challenges i3 College Access and Success grantees faced were not necessarily specific to their college access work, but related to the work of creating change and innovation and strong partnerships. As such, this paper may be of interest to all i3 grantees--regardless of whether their projects relate to college access and success--as well as to individuals working in the field of college access. Chapter 1 of this report introduces the i3 program and describes the i3 College Access and Success community and the development of this paper. Chapter 2 provides highlights of the key challenges i3 College Access and Success grantees reported, and maps the challenges to the grantee profiles in Chapter 4. Similarly, Chapter 3 shares key lessons learned, mapping the lessons learned to the grantee profiles in Chapter 4. Finally, Chapter 4 contains grantee profiles providing at-a-glance information about each participating grantee, as well as more in-depth discussion of their strategies, challenges, and lessons learned. [Contributing authors include: Karen M. Morris, Lara Dreier, Joel Vargas, Sarah Hooker, Elisabeth Barnett, Sarah Newman, Laureen Avery, Judy Saylor, Meg Grigal, Tom Duenwald, Suzanne Reeve, and Nicole Norfles.]

This paper argues for a radical restructuring of education for grades 11-14--by erasing the arbitrary dividing line between high school and college--to open opportunities for the learners the current systems leave behind. The authors make the case for an entirely new type of institution--neither high school nor college--designed specifically to better meet the needs of young people after 10th grade and help prepare them to succeed in the world of work. The authors take a hard look at the obstacles that impede more than half of the nation's young people from making successful transitions from high school to postsecondary education to the labor market despite the best of intentions of the many who support them. They identify the four key areas that need transformation: (1) incentives (in accountability and finance); (2) alignment; (3) governance; and (4) staffing. For each, the authors provide examples of innovation--existing policies, programs, and networks--that have made strides toward smoothing transitions. Last, the authors recommend an action agenda of next steps to start pushing closer to the ideal. [For the executive summary, see ED614770.]

The Early Fractions Test is a paper-pencil test designed to measure mathematics achievement of third- and fourth-grade students in the domain of fractions. The purpose, or intended use, of the Early Fractions Test is to serve as a student pretest covariate and a test of baseline equivalence in the larger study. In this report, we discuss our exploration of options for scoring and data modeling and make recommendations for optimal scoring and data modeling procedures. We also report on the results of data modeling, including analyses of dimensionality, scale reliability estimates, the intraclass correlation coefficient for the 66 schools represented in the sample, and the percentage of the variance in student achievement as measured by the end-of-year mathematics test that is explained by their scores on this beginning-of-year test.

This paper identifies approaches, challenges, and best practices related to planning and designing today's academic library learning spaces. As part of the Project Information Literacy (PIL) Practitioner Series, qualitative data is presented from 49 interviews conducted with a sample of academic librarians, architects, and library consultants. These participants were at the forefront of the same 22 recent library learning space projects on college and university campuses in the US and Canada between 2011 and 2016. Most library projects had allocated space for supporting at least one of these four types of academic learning activities: collaborative, individual study, tutoring by campus learning partners, or occasional classes taught by campus instructors. Successful collaboration between the architect and the librarian was fostered by their shared commitment to meeting users' needs, though few stakeholders systematically collected input from users beyond standard usage statistics and gate counts. Most interviewees reported facing some common challenges during their project planning and implementations. One challenge was translating design goals into tangible designs while trying to resolve issues of noise mitigation, shared space allocations, and providing enough electrical power for IT devices. Another challenge was ensuring effective communication practices with planning teams as well as campus-wide constituents throughout projects. Additional challenges included building consensus, compensating for project interruption and inadequate knowledge about both architecture and library IT issues, and having too few a priori evaluation metrics for linking learning outcomes to goals of the library space projects. Taken together, the success of library learning space projects depends upon shared knowledge and understanding of the sweeping learning, pedagogical, and research changes facing the academy. Librarians and architects need to work together to apply that knowledge and understanding to the unique environment and learning and teaching needs of their specific institution. Contains a list of further readings. [Funding from a Strategic Research Grant from the University of Washington Information School helped to make this report possible.]

Accessing affordable facilities has long been identified as one of the most significant challenges facing charter schools. In response to this challenge, an array of policy and market-based approaches has emerged over the years. Examples of these approaches include: public and private credit enhancement, tax-exempt bond financing, community development lending, commercial facilities development, state per pupil facilities aid, constitutional mandates for fair treatment, state facilities grant programs, federal tax credits, co-location with other public schools, and charter schools accessing vacant district facilities. In January of 2014, New York City Mayor, Bill DeBlasio, put forward a proposal to no longer allow charter schools to use district-owned facilities at no cost. Instead, he proposed to charge charter schools rent for the use of these facilities. The resulting debate has brought national attention to this topic and highlighted the need for more data and a common framework for understanding the nature of transactions between charter schools and districts for the use of district-owned facilities. Against this backdrop, the National Charter School Resource Center has developed this paper to provide policy-makers and sector stakeholders with a more data-driven and nuanced exploration of the issue. This white paper is organized as follows: (1) Section I provides information about our primary data source: the Charter School Facilities Initiative (CSFI) survey and dataset; (2) Section II describes the landscape of charter schools in district-owned facilities using data from the CSFI dataset; (3) Section III provides a framework for financial transactions between charter schools and districts for the use of district-owned facilities and shares data on these transactions; (4) Section IV highlights trends in the use of district-owned facilities by charter schools over time and explores possible reasons for the growth of this phenomenon; and (5) Section V concludes the paper by noting key considerations for policymakers and charter sector stakeholders.