Search

Intersectionality highlights that different aspects of individuals' identities are not independent of each other. Instead, they interact to create unique identities and experiences, which cannot be understood by analysing each identity dimension separately or in isolation from their social and historical contexts. Intersectional approaches in this way question the common classification of individuals into groups (male vs. female, immigrant vs. native etc.), which raises important implications for the policy-making process. In education, analyses with an intersectional lens have the potential to lead to better tailored and more effective policies and interventions related to participation, learning outcomes, students' attitudes towards the future, identification of needs, and socio-emotional well-being. Consequently, as elaborated in this paper, some countries have adjusted their policies in the areas of governance, resourcing, developing capacity, promoting school-level interventions and monitoring, to account for intersectionality. Gaps and challenges related to intersectional approaches are also highlighted.

Digital technologies can be used to support the inclusion of diverse student groups in education in a number of ways including enhancing accessibility of educational content, increasing personalisation and providing distance learning opportunities, as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, persistent digital inequalities can undermine digital equity and inclusion and equity and inclusion in education generally, particularly for the most disadvantaged students. This paper explores the themes of digital equity and inclusion, and maps some of the policies and practices adopted in OECD countries for the equitable and inclusive use of digital tools in education. It highlights the importance of inclusive design and implementation of digital technologies, as well as the need for education systems to focus on capacity building such as teacher training, as well as adequate resourcing of digital tools. It discusses advantages and disadvantages of different approaches, and concludes by highlighting research and policy gaps.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professional societies (ProS) are uniquely positioned to foster national-level diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) reform. ProS serve broad memberships, define disciplinary norms and culture, and inform accrediting bodies, thus providing "excellent leverage with which to design and promote change" (National Academy of Sciences et al., 2005). ProS could be instrumental in achieving the DEI culture reform necessary to optimize engagement of all STEM talent by leveraging disciplinary excellence resulting from diverse teams. Inclusive STEM culture reform requires that underlying "mental models'' be examined (Kania et al., 2018). The "Inclusive Professional Framework for Societies (IPF:Societies)" can help ProS change leaders (i.e., "boundary spanners'") and organizations identify and address mental models hindering DEI reform. "IPF:Societies" uses four "I's"--Identity awareness and Intercultural mindfulness (i.e., equity mindset) on which Inclusive relationships and Influential DEI actions are scaffolded. We discuss how "IPF:Societies" complements existing DEI tools. We explain how "IPF:Societies" can be applied to existing ProS policy and practice associated with common ProS functions (e.g., leadership, membership, conferences, awards, and professional development). Next steps are to pilot "IPF:Societies" with a cohort of STEM ProS. Ultimately, "IPF:Societies" has potential to promote more efficient, effective, and lasting DEI organizational transformation, and contribute to inclusive STEM disciplinary excellence.

Developed as one of the resources within the context of the OECD /Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI)ERI project entitled "Fostering and assessing students' creative and critical thinking skills in higher education", this paper focuses on ways in which students' creativity and critical thinking can be fostered in higher education by contextualising such efforts within the broader framework of academics' professional learning. Intended for system or institution-level stakeholders, the paper draws on the empirical literature, review articles, and meta-analyses, reports, institutional websites, and input from project participants to: (a) highlight models and best practices of academics' professional learning as well as institutional and individual factors which render professional learning desirable, valued, and effective, and (b) elaborate key elements in professional learning which institutions can introduce and/or strengthen to promote instruction that fosters cognitive, social and emotional processes associated with students' creativity and critical thinking.

Students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or somewhere else on the gender/sexuality spectrum (LGBTQI+) are among the diverse student groups in need of extra support and protection in order to succeed in education and reach their full potential. Because they belong to a minority that is often excluded by heteronormative/cisgender people, they are often the targets of physical and psychological harassment. Such discrimination can place them at risk for isolation, reduced academic achievement, and physical and mental harm. This paper provides a brief history of how the LGBTQI+ population has often been misunderstood and labelled in order to understand challenges faced by students who identify as a part of this population. It continues by considering supportive educational policies and programmes implemented from national to local levels across OECD countries. Finally, the paper considers policy gaps and discusses policy implications to strengthen equity and inclusion for LGBTQI+ students.

In spite of advances in recognising that girls and boys, and women and men, do not have to be bounded by traditional roles, gender stereotypes persist in education and beyond. Children and youth are affected by gender stereotypes from the early ages, with parental, school, teacher and peer factors influencing the way students internalise their gender identities. As such, not only is intervening in pre-primary education necessary, but also measures at the primary and secondary levels are key to eradicate gender stereotypes and promote gender equality. Based on the analytical framework developed by the OECD Strength through Diversity project, this paper provides an overview of gender stereotyping in education, with some illustrations of policies and practices in place across OECD countries, with a focus on curriculum arrangements, capacity-building strategies and school-level interventions in primary and secondary education.

Classrooms have become increasingly diverse places where students from various backgrounds share their learning experiences. To promote inclusive school settings for all, building teacher capacity for inclusive teaching represents a key policy area. Education systems need to ensure that teachers are adequately prepared for inclusive teaching and supported throughout their career. Mechanisms to attract and retain a more diverse teaching body as well as to monitor and evaluate teacher preparation and work with respect to diversity and inclusion should also be developed. While teacher policies have increasingly addressed some of these areas, most education systems lack comprehensive capacity-building frameworks for inclusive teaching. This paper maps policies and practices to build teacher capacity for inclusive teaching across OECD countries. It then presents core elements and competences to design and implement inclusive teaching strategies. Finally, the paper reviews some of the evidence available on teacher diversity and interventions for inclusive teaching.

In many countries, schools and classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse along a variety of dimensions, including migration; ethnic groups, national minorities and Indigenous peoples; gender; gender identity and sexual orientation; special education needs; and giftedness. To navigate this diversity, adopting a multidimensional and intersectional lens could help education systems promote equity and inclusion in education and foster the well-being and learning of all students. Such an approach could also support education systems in preparing all individuals so that they can engage with others in increasingly complex and diverse societies. To build equitable and inclusive education systems, analysing policy issues regarding governance arrangements, resourcing schemes, capacity building, school-level interventions, and monitoring and evaluation is key. The "Strength through Diversity: Education for Inclusive Societies" project seeks to help governments and education systems address diversity to achieve more equitable and inclusive education systems. This paper presents the project's theoretical and analytical framework.

Like Berkeley, the UC system as a whole is quickly running out of space to accommodate the next generation of Californians who will be reaching college age by mid-century. Even with the added capacity at UC Merced, the UC system will run out of space on existing campuses in the next decade. In the normal course of events, this would trigger planning for another new general campus. Yet at a time when the university is still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession, the wisdom of an expensive new general campus is questionable. The need now is to rebuild and reinvest in existing campuses, not build a new one. These considerations suggest a different strategy for long-term enrollment growth than the UC system has followed in the past: Growing off-campus capacity at mature campuses. This paper describes a range of potential options for off-campus expansion, such as a branch campus at Berkeley. Such a strategy could accommodate the moderate level of enrollment growth projected for UC between now and mid-century and would be far less expensive than a new general campus. Expanding off-campus capacity at mature campuses like Berkeley could also channel new resources where the financial damage to academic programs and infrastructure has been greatest.

The role of the public school principal has expanded dramatically in recent decades. The expanded role means they are now significant multipliers of effective teaching and have a real opportunity to affect student achievement. Most states have spent recent years working to improve teacher effectiveness, recognizing its importance in improving student outcomes. States have focused considerably less on principals as levers for school improvement, however, research on the importance of school principals in advancing student learning is compelling. Governors have authority over principal preparation programs in their state and are uniquely positioned to address gaps in the systems that influence aspiring and current school leaders at the state and local school district levels. "Promising Practices in Boosting School Leadership Capacity: Principal Academies" explores principal academies--a tool that governors can add to their policy toolkit to augment preparation and training for aspiring and sitting public school principals.

In a 2012 paper for the Center for American Progress, "The State of Evaluation Reform," Patrick McGuinn (Drew University) identified the opportunities and challenges facing education agencies in Race to the Top (RTTT) grant-winning states as they prepared for the implementation of new teacher evaluation systems. The 2012 study undertook in-depth comparative case studies of six states: Tennessee, Colorado, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. For this paper the individuals interviewed in those states two years ago (or their replacements if necessary) were re-interviewed to understand how and why their efforts differ today. By analyzing state implementation efforts at two different points in time, the new study utilizes a longitudinal qualitative approach that can reveal the extent to which states are learning and adapting in this work over time. Rather than the detailed state case studies of State Education Agency (SEA) implementation work provided in the 2012 paper, this report uses a more thematic approach that will synthesize the lessons that have emerged from the field. This paper serves 2 purposes: (1) To provide a snapshot in time (Jan 2015) of SEA implementation efforts around new teacher evaluation systems; and (2) To contrast more recent implementation efforts with those two years earlier to understand the ways in which SEAs have (and have not) learned and adapted their implementation work over time. More specifically, the paper will address the following questions: What kinds of capacity--financial, personnel, technical--have SEAs added to support the implementation of new teacher evaluation systems? What kind of capacity is still lacking? How rapidly and how effectively are states implementing their new teacher evaluation systems? Why do some states appear to be having more success/smoother implementation than others? How are states approaching this implementation work differently from one another--do some approaches appear to be more or less effective than others? What challenges are emerging and how are states addressing these? What lessons can be learned from these "early adopter" states that can inform teacher evaluation reform in the rest of the country? How are states approaching the training of evaluators and the principals and teachers who are supposed to use the evaluations to improve personnel decisions and classroom instruction? How well are new teacher evaluation systems being aligned with other reforms such as the move to Common Core and new assessments? How are states dealing with the challenge of measuring student achievement in non-tested subjects? The following is appended: Interviews Conducted As Part of Research.

Over the period 2007-2013, a series of undertakings were made to introduce fundamental elements of decentralized education finance to Egypt. In 2009, 8.4M Egyptian pounds (EGP) of the Government of Egypt's (GOE) budget was decentralized to every primary school in three pilot governorates. By 2013, EGP 1.2B of the GOE's money had been decentralized nationwide. This paper describes what these undertakings strived to achieve, what specifically was done to achieve these objectives, the degree to which these objectives were achieved, the reasons why they were achieved to the degree they were with particular attention paid to the institutional and political context within which these undertakings unfolded. The account of the technical work that was undertaken to decentralize these funds is important, but more important is the account of the interplay between the technical work, the fact that this work supported a GOE-led initiative, and the volatile political environment--pre-revolution, revolution, and post-revolution Egypt--in which the work was done for it is here where important lessons about reform emerge.

The Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) employs six technical assistance (TA) practices that support an initial transformation process while simultaneously building system capacity to sustain and scale up equity-based inclusion in additional schools and districts over time. This paper explains these individual practices and how SWIFT weave them together for improved student outcomes. The practices are referred to as: (1) Visioning; (2) Data Snapshots; (3) Priority and Practice Planning; (4) Resource Mapping and Matching; (5) Transformation Teaming; and (6) Coaching and Facilitation.

This research paper has the objective of providing a comprehensive overview of Dutch education policy approaches to the integration of children with a migration background, with a particular focus on those who have recently arrived in the country. After mapping the current population characteristics of children with a migration background and their educational performance and socio-emotional well-being, the research paper summarises the Dutch education system and the opportunities it provides for newcomer children. The remainder of the paper focuses on three key policy issues that are crucial for promoting the academic and social resilience of children with a migration background: promoting social cohesion and multiculturalism in schools, capacity building in the education system and language acquisition for newcomers. The paper concludes with pointers for the short and long-term policy debates to enhance the successful integration of students with a migration background in the education system as well as the wider society.

Purpose: In this paper we describe the Internal Coherence (IC) model of assessment and professional development, a set of clinical tools and practices designed to help practitioners foster the organizational conditions required for whole-school instructional improvement. Proposed Conceptual Argument: We argue that the data captured by the IC assessment protocol (ICAP) and the attendant supports for schools and systems help bridge the gap between performance indicators provided by external accountability systems and guidance on concrete steps for improving teaching and learning in individual schools. The IC framework interweaves previously disparate lines of research, including leadership, organizational learning, and social cognitive theory, into a developmental framework for understanding how schools improve. Implications: We posit that bringing these conceptual foundations together allows us to construct a pathway for school and district leaders that can guide them in the creation of structures and conditions for continuous adult learning and build educators' collective confidence in their pursuit of improvements to the instructional core. Internal Coherence Survey Domains and Factors is appended.

The Nebraska Early Childhood Coach (ECC) training was a 3 day (8 hours) professional development event sponsored by the Nebraska Department of Education, Office of Child Development in 2009-2010. Sixty-five early childhood teachers and related service providers participated for the purpose of learning the basic principles and behaviors associated with current or proposed job responsibilities as a "coach" to parents, care providers or preschool teachers. The purpose of this training was to advance/enhance the early childhood professionals' ability to support individuals they may be coaching, mentoring, and/or supervising. Held in Omaha, Nebraska in the eastern part of the state, the ECC training participants included practitioners from across the state representing both rural and urban communities. Participants represented different agencies serving young children under age 5 and their families. An independent evaluation of the ECC training outcomes was completed and a final report addressing the major evaluation questions was submitted to Nebraska Department of Education in October 2011. The Early Childhood Coach training evaluation focused on the fidelity with which coach participants implemented the coaching model on which they received training and evaluated the coach training efforts. Furthermore, the evaluation included information on the current state of coaching in Nebraska, as described by subsets of coach participants who attended the ECC coach training. This Technical Report provides a more detailed description of those findings and summarizes additional analyses of data collected from survey, interview and direct observations of participants. The Technical Report is divided into two parts. Volume 1 summarizes the findings related to survey data from 35 participants. Volume 2 summarizes the data from videotaped observations of 21 coaches' interactions with coachees on the job. [For Volume 2, see ED565482.]

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education's (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation's (GEF) "Developing Futures"™ in Education program in Stamford Public Schools (SPS). The purpose was to closely analyze district capacity to support system-wide instructional improvement. Specifically, this phase focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has the district central office adopted and institutionalized the core principles of "Developing Futures"™? To answer this question, this evaluation assesses the Stamford Public School District's progress in scaling up and institutionalizing seven core elements of "Developing Futures"™: (1) Internal constituency engagement: The district engages stakeholders at all levels of the system, and establishes common vision and buy-in for improvement efforts; (2) External constituency engagement: The district engages partner organizations and institutions, parents and the community; and effectively communicates about reform efforts; (3) Curriculum and instruction: The district communicates and supports a system­-wide vision for instructional improvement; (4) Professional development for instruction: The district delivers high-­quality professional development on curriculum, instruction, standards, and assessment; (5) Professional development for leadership: The district delivers high-quality professional development on leadership or management; (6) Management capacity: The district collects and uses data, attracts and develops talent, and evaluates staff performance; and (7) Evaluation: The district monitors and evaluates reform efforts. These seven reform elements were identified through a review of GEF program materials and documentation, and through a close analyses of each districts' reform trajectory over the life of the grant. Based on a thorough review of the research and evaluation literature, a set of indicators was constructed to allow the research team to determine the extent to which there was evidence of effective practice in each of these seven areas. Each area was decomposed into a set of more specific, observable characteristics. Research instruments were designed to elicit evidence of these characteristics in descriptions of central office processes, functions, or overall capacity. Ratings were then assigned to each characteristic based on the prevalence of available evidence using a three-point scale. This report provides ratings for SPS for each indicator and its component characteristics, along with qualitative and survey evidence illustrating and supporting the ratings. Overall, SPS implemented strategies to address each of the indicators discussed in this report: Internal Constituency Engagement, External Constituency Engagement, Curriculum & Instruction, Professional Development-Instructional, Professional Development-Leadership, Management Capacity, and Evaluation. Progress in each of these indicators varied, with the district meeting with greater success in some areas than in others.

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education's (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation's (GEF) "Developing Futures"™ in Education program in Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS). As described in the CPRE proposal and research design, the purpose was to closely analyze district capacity to support system-­wide instructional improvement. Specifically, this phase focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has the district central office adopted and institutionalized the core principles of "Developing Futures"™? To answer this question, this evaluation assesses the Jefferson County Public School District's progress in scaling up and institutionalizing seven core elements of "Developing Futures"™. They are: (1) Internal constituency engagement; (2) External constituency engagement; (3) Curriculum and instruction; (4) Professional development for instruction; (5) Professional development for leadership; (6) Management capacity; (7) Evaluation. Based on a thorough review of the research and evaluation literature, a set of indicators was constructed to allow the research team to determine the extent to which there was evidence of effective practice in each of these seven areas. Results indicate that JCPS has made significant progress in curriculum standardization instructional vision setting and formative assessment.

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education's (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation's (GEF) "Developing Futures" ™ in Education program in Erie Public Schools (EPS). As described in the CPRE proposal and research design, the purpose was to closely analyze district capacity to support system-wide instructional improvement. Specifically, this phase focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has the district central office adopted and institutionalized the core principles of "Developing Futures"™? To answer this question, this evaluation assesses the Erie Public School District's progress in scaling up and institutionalizing seven core elements of "Developing Futures" ™. They include: (1) Internal constituency engagement. The district engages stakeholders at all levels of the system, and establishes common vision and buy-­in for improvement efforts. (2) External constituency engagement. The district engages partner organizations and institutions, parents and the community; and effectively communicates about reform efforts. (3) Curriculum and instruction. The district communicates and supports a system-­wide vision for instructional improvement. (4) Professional development for instruction. The district delivers high-quality professional development on curriculum, instruction, standards or assessment. (5) Professional development for leadership. The district delivers high-­quality professional development on leadership or management. (6) Management capacity. The district collects and uses data, attracts and develops talent, and evaluates staff performance. (7) Evaluation. The district monitors and evaluates reform efforts. These seven reform elements were identified through a review of GEF program materials and documentation, and through a close analyses of each districts' reform trajectory over the life of the grant. Based on a thorough review of the research and evaluation literature, a set of indicators was constructed to allow the research team to determine the extent to which there was evidence of effective practice in each of these seven areas.

This report summarizes findings from one component of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education's (CPRE) evaluation of the General Electric Foundation's (GEF) "Developing Futures"™ in Education program in Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS). The purpose was to closely analyze district capacity to support system-wide instructional improvement. Specifically, this phase focused on a single, overarching question: to what extent has the district central office adopted and institutionalized the core principles of "Developing Futures"™? To answer this question, this evaluation assesses the Cincinnati Public School District's progress in scaling up and institutionalizing seven core elements of "Developing Futures"™: (1) Internal constituency engagement; (2) External constituency engagement; (3) Curriculum and instruction; (4) Professional development for instruction; (5) Professional development for leadership; (6) Management capacity; and (7) Evaluation. These seven reform elements were identified through a review of GEF program materials and documentation, and through a close analyses of each districts' reform trajectory over the life of the grant. Based on a thorough review of the research and evaluation literature, a set of indicators was constructed to allow the research team to determine the extent to which there was evidence of effective practice in each of these seven areas. Each area was decomposed into a set of more specific, observable characteristics. Research instruments were designed to elicit evidence of these characteristics in descriptions of central office processes, functions, or overall capacity. Ratings were then assigned to each characteristic based on the prevalence of available evidence using a three-point scale: (1) Strong implementation; (2) Moderate implementation; and (3) Weak implementation. This report provides ratings for CPS for each indicator and its component characteristics, along with qualitative and survey evidence illustrating and supporting the ratings. Overall, CPS has made significant progress in building system-­wide capacity for instructional improvement by facilitating collaboration, involving all stakeholders in planning and decision-­making, clarifying instructional expectations, and building a robust professional development system. The evidence suggests that instructional practice remains inconsistent in some cases, and that shifting standards and summative assessments pose a challenge for alignment and coherence.

Within OECD countries, Sweden has historically welcomed large numbers of migrants, in particular migrants seeking humanitarian protection. Since 2015, this large influx of new arrivals with multiple disadvantages has put a well-developed integration system under great pressure and highlighted a number of challenges for education policy given current institutional frameworks. PISA 2015 shows that immigrant students fare considerably worse than native students in terms of academic and well-being outcomes also after accounting for differences in social-economic background. The OECD has identified four priority areas for Sweden for closing the gap between immigrant and native students: (1) Facilitating the access of immigrants to school choice, (2) Building teaching capacity, (3) Providing language training and (4) Strengthening the management of diversity. The findings in this Spotlight Report are based on existing OECD work in the area of immigrant integration in education, OECD and national data, a questionnaire on the range of policies and practices in Sweden and good practice examples for the integration in the education system in peer-learner countries and regions [Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and North America (Canada and the United States)], which were identified of particular relevance for Sweden. The report also includes policy pointers on what policies and practices Sweden could adopt to respond to the current integration challenges in the four priority areas.

In recent years, "continuous improvement" has become a popular catchphrase in the field of education. However, while continuous improvement has become commonplace and well-documented in other industries, such as healthcare and manufacturing, little is known about how this work has manifested itself in education. This white paper attempts to map the landscape of this terrain by identifying and describing organizations engaged in continuous improvement, and by highlighting commonalities and differences among them. The findings classify three types of organizations engaged in continuous improvement: those focused on instructional improvement at the classroom level; those concentrating on system-wide improvement; and those addressing collective impact. Each type is described in turn and illustrated by an organizational case study. Through the analysis, six common themes that characterize all three types of organizations (e.g., leadership and strategy, communication and engagement, organizational infrastructure, methodology, data collection and analysis, and building capacity) are enumerated. This white paper makes four concluding observations. First, the three case studies provide evidence of organizations conducting continuous improvement work in the field of education, albeit at different levels and in different ways. Second, entry points to continuous improvement work are not mutually exclusive, but are nested and, hence, mutually informative and comparative. Third, continuous improvement is not synonymous with improving all organizational processes simultaneously; rather, research and learning cycles are iterative and gradual in nature. Fourth, despite being both iterative and gradual, it is imperative that improvement work is planned and undertaken in a rigorous, thoughtful, and transparent fashion. The following are appended: (1) Selected Continuous Improvement Methodologies; (2) Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence Framework; (3) Examples of Improvement Artifacts from the School District of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin; (4) Examples of Improvement Artifacts from Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland; and (5) Examples of Improvement Artifacts from Strive Partnership Cincinnati.

Decades of research find that effective school leadership and access to high-quality early education are two of the most important determinants of educational outcomes. School principals affect both teacher and student performance and play an important role in turning around troubled schools. High-quality education, from prekindergarten (pre-K) through third grade builds foundational knowledge and skills that prepare students for long-term success. Although governors have acted in recent years to address these two issues separately, efforts to harness the potential of school leaders to promote high-quality education for young children have been more limited. Most states' principal preparation systems could be improved to better equip elementary school principals to evaluate pre-K through third-grade (P-3) teachers, support improvements in teaching and learning, and guide teachers in using curricula and assessments in the earliest grades. This issue brief makes the case for why governors should consider building elementary school principals' capacity as P-3 leaders and outlines specific state policy strategies for accomplishing this goal. To illuminate how this works in practice, a case study from Illinois highlights how this state is including early learning content in the principal preparation process.

The Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes' (CEELO) mission is to strengthen the capacity of State Education Agencies and state Early Learning Agencies to lead sustained improvements in early learning opportunities and outcomes. These agencies have authority to establish and implement policies, administer funding and provide oversight for programs serving young children, depending on the state agency structure. Regardless of governance structure, strong leaders, highly capable staff, and effective and efficient functions within state agencies are critical to achieving the goal of enhanced early learning outcomes. There are generally three models of governance in early childhood: (1) coordinated governance across multiple state agencies; (2) consolidated functions within in one agency and a designated Office of Early Learning (OEL); and (3) creation of a new state agency focused on early childhood services. The goal of these offices is to create greater policy coherence and more efficient delivery of services. The intention of this paper is to describe a vision for an effective OEL, regardless of the "governance" structure. The authors reviewed the literature on leadership and organizational effectiveness, interviewed early childhood state and national leaders, and drew on their more than 30 years of experience in the field. This paper is a first step toward a deeper understanding of what it takes to be a highly effective office of early learning in state government that improves outcomes for children.

Providing accurate and useful information on student achievement is a rising challenge for state educational agencies. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, such challenges have become more pressing. A centerpiece of the educational accountability movement, NCLB has prompted states to improve their reporting on student outcomes. Although not mandated by the law, in recent years states have actively moved to revamp their student data systems (SDS) to better address both federal mandates and inform local stakeholders. Many states now utilize unique statewide student identifiers and seek to collect longitudinal data on students' progress throughout their K-12 educational system and beyond. To date, however, there remains considerable variation across states in quality and comprehensiveness of student data systems. How then can states successfully develop and establish their statewide longitudinal student data systems? This report provides an overview of longitudinal student data systems (LSDS) across the 50 states before focusing on cases of the creation, implementation and expansion of SDS in three states. "Emergent State" has just begun assigning unique student identifiers to state assessment data. "Accelerated State" has rapidly developed and implemented a longitudinal student data system and is moving towards including data warehousing capabilities. "Established State" has a comprehensive K-20 longitudinal student data system that includes a data warehouse. These cases illuminate the challenges and successes that state educational agencies have encountered in their efforts to develop, implement and expand LSDS. The report finds that the state education agencies faced similar challenges in the following areas: (1) building state agency capacity; (2) developing reciprocal and efficient relationships with districts and schools; (3) clarifying governance of the data system and ownership of data; and (4) garnering and sustaining state legislative support. The authors identify the variety of strategies that state education agencies employed to meet these challenges, highlighting those strategies that hold the most promise for the development of comprehensive LSDS. The authors conclude with recommendations for state education agency leaders interested in creating and expanding their states' LSDS. Appended are: (1) What do we know about the Evolution of Longitudinal Student Data Systems?; and (2) State LSDS Rankings. (Contains 3 tables and 2 footnotes. This work was supported in part by funds from the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. )

Realising the potential of work-based learning schemes as a driver of productivity requires careful design and support. The length of work-based learning schemes should be adapted to the profile of productivity gains. A scheme that is too long for a given skill set might be unattractive for learners and waste public resources, but a scheme that is too short will fail to attract employer interest. Ensuring that the design of work-based learning schemes balances the interests of both employer and trainee is key to successful implementation. Carefully organising what trainees do while in the workplace and integrating learning into productive work can yield higher benefits for firms, while maintaining the quality of learning. Strengthening capacity within firms to effectively manage work-based learning can help achieve this. Enhancing that capacity, for example through training for trainee supervisors can help employers reap more benefits from work-based learning schemes while meeting quality requirements. Two tables are appended.

With the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the new English Language Development (ELD) standards, California has embarked on its third wave of major curriculum reform, continuing a process that began with the initial round of curriculum frameworks in the 1980s and that continued with the adoption of the California State Standards, the Public School Accountability Act, and "No Child Left Behind." Much about California's context has changed since the State adopted the Common Core in 2010. Each of these changes present new challenges and opportunities for districts as they design and implement a plan for implementing CCSS. With Proposition 30, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and the new categorical grant for CCSS implementation, districts are finally emerging from the one of the worst financial crises in the state's history with resources to dedicate to Common Core. The other major change in the context has been an increase in local control over how to design and implement change initiatives like Common Core. This paper discusses the need for a whole systems approach to CCSS implementation, which includes addressing design challenges. To assist districts in meeting the challenges posed by Common Core, Pivot provides comprehensive support for CCSS design and implementation, including but not limited to training and coaching. This paper provides details regarding how Pivot supports districts in this area. Districts will need to act strategically and proactively to design a new model for managing the transition to CCSS, one that enrolls site administrators and teacher leaders to play a more active role in designing and implementing change at the site level.

Scaling up good corporate social investment practices in developing countries is crucial to realizing the "Education for All" and "Millennium Development Goals". Yet very few corporate social investments have the right mix of vision, financing, cross-sector engagement and leadership to come to scale. Globally, 67 million children are not enrolled in primary school, over 200 million are in school but not mastering basic skills such as reading, and many millions more complete post-primary education without the skills needed to participate in society or the local economy. Overcoming these challenges will require swift and bold action by many actors, including governments, multilateral organizations, donors and civil society. Corporations can use their core assets to generate shared value for business and society by helping get children into school, setting a strong learning agenda and scaling up what works in education. This policy paper looks at what works and what is not working in corporate efforts to further education in developing countries. (Contains 54 endnotes.)

To facilitate individuals to adjust their skills to changes in market demands, Sweden has a relatively generous policy to stimulate formal adult education at the compulsory, upper secondary and tertiary levels. This paper provides an overview of what research has reported to assess if and/or how it may be an efficient use of tax payers' money. Some institutional factors are also briefly presented to discuss what is likely to be required for such a policy to exist in a particular country. (Contains 3 tables, 4 figures and 6 footnotes.)

The early childhood period from birth to age 8 is an exciting one for growth, development, and learning. It is when children begin to develop social-emotional competence, and it is also a time when children's emerging skills may result in behaviors adults and peers find challenging. It is important that adults who care for and teach young children be prepared to address challenging behavior in positive and instructive ways. Positive approaches to preventing and addressing challenging behavior go beyond only reacting in the moment and instead aim to address the underlying cause of the behavior and teach the child needed social-emotional or communication skills. In this statement, the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children defines "challenging behavior" and "social-emotional competence," provides a summary of DEC's position on the identification of and intervention with challenging behavior, and offers recommendations to the early childhood special education and early care and education fields about positive approaches to preventing and addressing challenging behavior. In so doing, DEC reaffirms its commitment to the healthy social-emotional development of all children and provides guidance to professionals and families in preventing and addressing challenging behaviors.

This paper examines fragility, capacity development and education and the links between these by analysing relevant research and policy literature. It proposes ways forward for action and reflection at national, regional and international levels. An important element of capacity development in education systems is the establishment of education standards and indicators. This entails the development of countrywide and local indicators of both fragility and recovery, as well as indicators of success. Although the provision of services is likely to be a higher priority in these situations, it is important to collect data and establish indicators as early as possible. Building capacity locally to collect, analyse and report on key indicators is also an important step. Reporting and monitoring should not be used to assign blame, but should be seen as a learning activity that allows innovation and experimentation with new ideas. Regional cooperation can play a significant role in peer learning and stakeholder exchange to improve knowledge management and exchange good practice. For example, in labour migration and refugee situations the accreditation of learning across borders can become an issue for capacity development. Capacity development for local staff might also be needed to enable them to deal more effectively with multiple international and donor organisations. Appended are: (1) Categories of "fragile state"; (2) Main components of the fragile states agenda; and (3) Alignment. A bibliography is included. (Contains 3 tables and 13 footnotes.)