Search

Higher levels of civic and community engagement in higher education are positively associated with students' academic performance and they also build upon citizenship skills such as informed voting. Yet, while these are worthy and important outcomes of higher education, students from disadvantaged backgrounds can have more difficulty navigating civic engagement. Focusing on students at thirteen major public universities in the United States, and utilizing survey data generated by the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Consortium, this study suggest social perspective-taking has a significant positive effect on all students' probability of voting and participating in community service. Students who were asked to identify challenge/solutions to social problems and reflect/act on community issues in the classroom were also more likely to participate in community service. Additionally, Hispanic students and students from lower-income households are significantly less likely to vote and perform community service--findings corroborated by previous research. Females are more likely to vote and participate in community service--findings also corroborated by prior research. Hispanic students and students from low-income backgrounds were more likely to participate in voting and community service if they had increased rates of social perspective-taking. These results suggest that increased opportunities to connect with classmates in the classroom and develop perspective-taking skills (e.g. appreciating the world from someone else's perspective, acknowledging personal differences, interacting with someone with views that are different from your own, and discussing and navigating controversial issues) are potentially quite powerful ways to foster civic engagement among students who traditionally have the lowest civic engagement rates compared to their peers.

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.

Early awareness strategies, from outreach campaigns to cohort-based learning groups to scholarships, are a group of efforts that help middle school students stay on the path to college and understand how to fund their education. These strategies become part of early awareness programs, which seek to put students on a college-going path by recruiting them in fifth through eighth grades. Such programs introduce many low-income and first-generation students to college and career opportunities they might not otherwise know are available. These programs provide much-needed aid and assistance to many low-income and first-generation students. They communicate with students and inform them that despite their socioeconomic status, they have the option to reach just as high, or even beyond, their higher-income peers. This brief outlines strategies that best promote early awareness in financial aid for middle-grade students, highlights a few examples of successful programs, and provides an overview of recommendations for implementation. This paper is divided into sections outlining four early awareness strategies: (1) children's savings account programs; (2) place-based Promise programs; (3) early commitment scholarships; and (4) informational campaigns. The National College Access Network (NCAN) does not recommend any one strategy over another, but instead discusses the most equitable way to implement each one. [Lisa King Consulting, LLC contributed to the writing of 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.

This "Equity by Design" brief highlights equity issues that arise in the process of reopening schools during a global pandemic. The authors examine state plans and guidance for reopening schools across states in the Midwest & Plains Equity Assistance Center (MAP EAC) region which includes the 13 states of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The purpose of this paper is to provide explicit consideration of equity issues in the context of reopening schools and generate discussion about the topics addressed. The following topics are covered: (1) time spent in face-to-face instruction vs. virtual or hybrid learning environments and any calendar changes; (2) screening and reporting of COVID-19 symptoms and exposure; (3) social distancing, face masks and classroom set up; (4) ensuring more equitable learning for students with dis/abilities and multilingual learners; (5) access to technology; (6) opportunities and challenges in online learning, (7) communication with parent/caregivers; (8) addressing learning loss; (9) guidance on Social Emotional Learning (SEL); and (10) guidance on field trips and co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. Throughout this brief, the authors highlight equity issues that inevitably arise in the context of schooling where conditions of access are likely exacerbated by the pandemic and how one might approach and consider these issues in planning and policy. As school and district leaders review and revise policy implementation, the guidance outlined in this paper can inform the way that policy is implemented and can help highlight issues around equity that district and school personnel may not have considered in planning for reopening.

The United States leads the world in the number of incarcerated persons per 100,000. In today's global economy, these numbers represent huge wastes in human capital, especially when you consider the inequitable nature of the American criminal justice system, as witnessed by the disproportionate racial and ethnic composition, types of crimes, and length of prison sentences represented within this population. Regardless of the pathway to prison, most incarcerated people will eventually return to the communities from which they came, so one of the important questions may be, how does society want them to show up? Broken or made whole? Angry or hopeful? Employable or unemployable? Role model or counterexample? The essence of this paper is linked to a favored quote by the late Nelson Mandela, who said, "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." These words are as profound today as they were in 1990 when he addressed an audience of Boston high school students. Furthermore, education in America remains one of the best investments individuals and governments can make, which should include investment in prison-based education programs. These types of efforts are cost-effective, reduce recidivism, improve employment prospects, increase civic engagement, and can disrupt generational poverty. Despite Second Chance Pell programs and other evidence supporting the multilayered value of postsecondary (coursework beyond high school) education for incarcerated populations, barriers and challenges persist. Fortunately, leaders of state agencies and systems of higher education are increasingly exploring the feasibility of these programs for their states. This paper presents preliminary findings from a survey SHEEO administered to its members in 2018. It advocates for postsecondary education for incarcerated persons as a relevant policy issue at federal and state levels in current political environments. Key findings and recommendations were informed by responses from 38 percent of SHEEO's membership. States responding to the survey were Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. Non-member organizations included Truckee Meadows Community College (NV); University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Bismarck State College (ND); and the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges. The paper is organized around three main categories: access, program delivery, and reentry of program participants into society, with the following key performance indicators.

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 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.

This paper explores what happens to similar groups of children educated in different school districts. In this case, the "twins" in the study are groups of students who live in the same state in similar geographies and who share certain demographic characteristics. For this report, "twin districts" have very similar sizes and they have the following in common: (1) The proportion of students who are from low-income families; (2) The proportion of students who have limited English proficiency or are English language learners; and (3) The proportion of students who receive instruction through individualized educational programs. The study's twin districts, however, differ in terms of per-pupil spending and revenues. The goal of this paper was to study twin districts and use the data culled to provide recommendations for how districts can best leverage their school funding investments--in other words, achieve a bigger bang for their educational buck. Using data available from the U.S. Department of Education, the authors compiled a dataset with over 7,000 K-12 districts from over 15,000 local education agencies across the county. All data on spending and achievement was from the 2009-10 school year. In this analysis, they identified 424 pairs of districts to analyze from this larger dataset. Given that tests and proficiency definitions differ across states, only twin districts within the same state are identified and compared. Additionally, the authors also completed interviews with 20 district superintendents from across the United States to discuss what control they have over their districts' spending and what spending constraints they face from outside governing bodies--the state, the federal government, and school boards. Based on their in-depth look at twin districts and their subsequent analysis of the data, the authors offer the following findings: (1) When it comes to education, spending does not always equal results; (2) There are significant funding inequities between demographically similar districts; and (3) Districts have limited control over their own expenditures. A table showing descriptive statistics for 424 sets of twins from the 2009-10 school year is appended. [For the accompanying report, "Return on Educational Investment: 2014. A District-by-District Evaluation of U.S. Educational Productivity" (2014), see ED561093.]

State policymakers recognize the economic imperative to ensure that education and training are connected to good jobs. Employers are seeking -- and are often struggling -- to hire appropriately skilled workers. For job seekers, the path to a good job with education beyond a high school diploma is certainly clearer than one without postsecondary education or training; however, with continually advancing technologies and employer expectations, individuals also need periodic access to additional training to upskill and reskill throughout their careers. As a result, there is both need and demand for on- and off-ramps to postsecondary education and training. This more fluid interplay requires a cultural shift so that leaders think differently about the design of education and training programs and craft policies that support more seamless transitions for individuals moving through and between education and work. To support state policymakers on this issue, Education Commission of the States, with the support of Strada Education Network, engaged education and workforce leaders in 2019 and again in 2021 to develop and refine four principles of policy design for connecting education to work. This paper details each and shares current examples from states.

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.