Search

In the United States, the prevailing high school mathematics course sequence begins with a year of Algebra I, followed by a year of geometry and a year of Algebra II. Educators and others have raised concerns about the extent to which this sequence, which prioritizes the mastery of algebra, is appropriate for the longer-term education and career goals of students who do not intend to pursue STEM degrees in college. These concerns have impelled educators and policymakers to reexamine the prominence of algebra in high school mathematics curricula and to consider new approaches that provide students with more mathematics course options better aligned with their academic and career goals. In this paper, we explore existing approaches to high school mathematics curricula as well as new developments in the field. To start, we discuss a range of high school mathematics course sequences that are currently offered across the country and look at some of the systemic challenges embedded within the traditional paradigm. Then we explore federal and state changes to the provision of high school mathematics in the early 21st century, which we follow with a look at the influence of postsecondary institutions on high school math curricula. We then introduce short case studies of innovative high school math reforms that are occurring in five states. We conclude the paper by considering the Charles A. Dana Center's new initiative, Launch Years, and how this project works to reimagine high school mathematics and its relationship to postsecondary education and careers.

College students who are parents or caregivers of dependent children make up more than one in five U.S. undergraduates. Colleges need basic information about the experiences and outcomes of the student parents they serve, since these students face distinct challenges, including high rates of economic insecurity and significant time and caregiving demands that can affect their educational outcomes (Institute for Women's Policy Research and Ascend at the Aspen Institute 2019). This briefing paper discusses why data on student parents are critical to increasing equity in college outcomes, and reviews existing and potential new data sources on undergraduate college students with children. It also provides recommendations for improving data collection efforts around parent status, including examples of how these data can be collected by institutions of higher education.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the federal law-enforcement agency with primary responsibility for enforcing immigration laws within the U.S. However, for over a decade, ICE has formed partnerships that also allow local police to enforce immigration law (i.e., identifying and arresting undocumented residents). Prior studies, using survey data with selfreported immigrant and citizenship status, provide mixed evidence on the demographic impact of these controversial partnerships. This study presents new evidence based on the public-school enrollment of Hispanic students. We find that local ICE partnerships reduce the number of Hispanic students by nearly 10 percent within 2 years. We estimate that the local ICE partnerships enacted before 2012 displaced over 300,000 Hispanic students. These effects appear to be concentrated among elementary-school students. We find no corresponding effects on the enrollment of non-Hispanic students. We also find no evidence that ICE partnerships reduced pupil-teacher ratios or the percent of students eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). [This research was also supported by the Stanford Immigration Policy Lab.]

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is a national, nongovernmental membership organization of degree-granting colleges and universities, the only organization with the sole purpose of providing national coordination of accreditation of higher education institutions and programs. CHEA serves as an advocate, national authority and thought leader on U.S. accreditation and quality. CHEA plays a significant nongovernmental role in oversight of accreditation as the only source of quality review of accrediting organizations outside the federal government. In these roles, CHEA works with Congress and the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) on accreditation issues. Appropriate accountability for accreditation through federal oversight has become a prominent topic of discussion. The purpose of this CHEA "Position Paper" is to offer proposals for changes in federal oversight as this applies to accreditation, whether in law, regulation or sub-regulatory guidance. The suggestions are not intended nor should result in reduced accountability for accreditation, but can provide a more effective and efficient regulatory framework for this important work.

This annual survey--developed and reported by EdChoice and interviews conducted by our partner, Braun Research, Inc.--measures public opinion and awareness on a range of K-12 education topics, including parents' schooling preferences, educational choice policies, the federal government's role in education and more. We report response levels, differences ("margins") and intensities for the country and a range of demographic groups. And this year, our survey researchers oversampled parents of school-aged children and Americans living in small towns and rural areas to obtain more reliable results for those two subgroups. [For "2016 Schooling in America Survey: Public Opinion on K-12 Education and School Choice. Polling Paper #28," see ED570217.]

In April 2021, New America's Open Technology Institute (OTI) and the Philanthropication thru Privatization Project (PtP) released a joint proposal that the federal government should invest a substantial portion of the windfall proceeds from future auctions of public airwaves (spectrum) to seed a new Digital Equity Foundation dedicated to addressing equity gaps in broadband adoption and affordability, education, telehealth, access to government services, and other critical areas. The next step in realizing this vision is now in the hands of Congress and other federal policymakers, as allocation of spectrum auction proceeds to support the creation of a Digital Equity Foundation requires legislation. Policymakers will also play a critical role in establishing the guidelines for the creation of an initial foundation board and mission. This paper serves to help flesh out the options for how that could be accomplished, drawing on a review of existing foundations created with public and nonprofit assets to identify best practices for how to start a foundation with public, quasi-public, or nonprofit funds. This paper is structured in five parts. Part I provides a brief overview of the proposed Digital Equity Foundation; Part II, examines some key examples of existing U.S. foundations that illustrate the use of public or quasi-public funds to support priority public needs; Part III, explores ways the proposed Digital Equity Foundation might be structured and organized to achieve its programmatic goals to advance digital equity and inclusion, while operating with appropriate transparency and public accountability; Part IV, considers additional legal considerations that surfaced in a review of foundations previously established under federal legislation; and Part V, provides a summary of concrete recommendations for the proposed foundation. [This report is a joint product of the Open Technology Institute at New America and the Philanthropication thru Privation Project.]

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.

Recent changes in education and training policy in England continue to focus on creating a 'demand-led' system in an environment where public funds are dwindling and where more responsibility is being devolved away from central government. This raises questions about governance of the system, among others, and the roles that key system actors are expected to play. This paper broadly discusses education and training system policies that focus on workforce development in England and the US, especially with regard to the role of further education colleges (community colleges in the US), employer engagement, and local workforce development bodies. The focus is on governance at the post-secondary level, as the main interest is skills development after compulsory education. The US and England share a number of features and problems that affect the education and training system, such as lack of employer involvement, the lower status of sub-baccalaureate education and training providers despite their central role in delivering vocational education and training programmes, and insufficient links between education and training provision and the labour market. The most striking differences between the American and English systems are the governance and authority structures, which are stronger in the US and afford greater scope for strategic planning by states and between states and the federal level. The experiences of community colleges in working with employers to provide workforce training may be worth further investigation as further education colleges further develop this type of provision. The US experience is less instructive with regard to quality assurance or increasing employers' engagement with education.

The purpose of this annual survey developed and reported by the Friedman Foundation and our partner, Braun Research, Inc., is to measure public opinion on, and in some cases awareness or knowledge of, a range of K-12 education topics and reforms. We report response levels, differences ("margins"), and intensities for the country and a range of demographic groups. We also track response changes over time when possible.

Every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a complete accounting of every resident in the United States. While there is no Congressional mandate requiring an accurate enumeration of Americans with disabilities by the Decennial Census, communities and people with disabilities will be affected if the Decennial Census is inaccurate. Census data are used by educators, policymakers, and community leaders and directly affect funding for many programs critical to individuals with disabilities, including programs for health care, transportation, employment training, and housing. Federal, state, and county governments use Census information to guide the annual distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in critical services and supports. While there have been some improvements in the use of a few disability questions and interview methodology in the Decennial Censuses for the past 30 years, those improvements have been small and incremental. At a time when cash strapped states are grappling with major unmet human service needs, and increasing numbers of people who require a range of services and supports from federal-state programs, the ability of our nation's public leadership is at an all time high to provide accurate Decennial Census (and related federal survey data) to states and locales. This paper addresses these issues and provides some recommendations for consideration by the Federal Government which include: (1) The U.S. Congress should legislatively require an official and accurate enumeration of Americans with disabilities through the Decennial Census, through related national Census-like efforts (e.g., American Community Survey); (2) The U.S. Census Bureau should immediately revise Census questions for the Year 2010 Census (and the American Community Survey) to reflect the ADA definition; and (3) The Bureau of Labor Statistics should finish its work with all due haste under the Executive Order 13078.

This background paper is intended to serve as a companion to the Center on Education Policy report, "Get the Federal Government Out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision." That report discusses the historical foundations and current purposes of the federal role in education. This paper goes into more detail about an issue mentioned briefly in the other report--the financial benefits that education incurs from special federal tax provisions for "individual" taxpayers, particularly the deduction for state and local taxes. Although federal "corporate" tax provisions also affect education, they are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper presents a summary of key findings. Following the key findings is a broad overview of all the special tax provisions for individuals that benefit any level of education and the estimated amount of benefits from each provision. The subsequent sections, which comprise the bulk of the paper, analyze the impact of state and local tax deductibility on public K-12 education. Key findings include: (1) Special tax provisions indirectly subsidize all levels of education; (2) Public K-12 education receives benefits worth billions of dollars through the deductibility of state and local taxes; (3) The federal deduction for state and local taxes has a greater impact in some states than in others; and (4) The federal deduction for state and local taxes appears to maximize the ability of states and localities to raise revenues for public K-12 education. (Contains 3 tables and 3 footnotes.) [For the companion report, "Get the Federal Government out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision," see ED518386.]

This background paper from the Center on Education Policy (CEP) examines the origins, history, and evolution of federal land grants for public schools, as well as their significance as an early example of the federal role in education. It is intended to serve as a more detailed companion to another CEP paper, "Get the Federal Government Out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision" (CEP, 2011), which mentions land grants as part of a broader look at the historical federal role in education. Several key points can be drawn from this paper: (1) Federal support for public schools is not a modern concept; (2) The nation's founders saw these land grants as a way to encourage public education and incorporate the principles of democracy throughout the vast western territory; (3) The policy of land grants for education continued to be endorsed in federal laws spanning from the Jefferson Administration through the Eisenhower Administration; (4) Land grants were an early example of the federal government using a carrot-and-stick approach with states; and (5) Federal land grants continue to generate revenues for education. A table showing basic information about which states received federal land grants, which lands were granted to these states for use of the public schools, and which federal act granted these lands is appended. (Contains 2 tables and 5 footnotes.) [For the companion report, "Get the Federal Government out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision," see ED518386.]

This White Paper project was undertaken to address the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) concerns regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 statutory and regulatory requirements for the identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD), and the subsequent U. S. Department of Education Final Regulations and Commentary regarding implementation of IDEIA (34 CFR Parts 300 and 301; Federal Register, 2006). The purpose of the White Paper is to provide additional information for and guidance to the federal government, professional organizations, practitioners, and the public. The LDA is hopeful that this document will facilitate legal, regulatory, policy, and training decisions, and ultimately, service delivery to children with SLD. This White Paper presents the expert professional opinions and empirical evidence regarding the identification of children with SLD and best practices in SLD service delivery. The preliminary findings of the LDA Expert Panel Survey and this White Paper represent the opinions and empirical evidence presented by 56 university professors and researchers, special education administrators, and special education lawyers with expertise in and public recognition for their work in SLD identification and intervention. (Contains 117 endnotes.)

Even the most cursory look at the current administration's approach to performance pay reveals a noteworthy story. Unlike all of his Democratic predecessors--and some of his Republican ones--President Obama not only appreciates the value of differentiating the compensation of teachers based on a effectiveness, he has put energy and money behind the cause. Digging a little deeper, one can find a second story worth telling. Both during his upstart presidential campaign and since his inauguration, Obama and his team have attempted to delicately navigate the channel between two important Democratic constituencies: establishment organizations--particularly teachers unions--opposed to performance pay and the increasingly prominent education reform crowd that generally supports it. The results to date demonstrate the difficulty of bridging this divide. But below these layers is something far more fascinating and important. The administration's position on performance pay is wrapped up in two much larger issues--first, how the administration envisions the federal government driving change in states and districts, and second, how the administration sees differentiated compensation fitting into broader efforts to reform the teaching profession. These three stories are told through an analysis of speeches made by Senator and President Obama and his education secretary Arne Duncan and the administration's handling of two prominent federal programs, the Teacher Incentive Fund and the Race to the Top. This paper ultimately reaches two major conclusions. First, though the administration's tentativeness on performance pay can be partially explained by its deference to organized labor, a larger factor is its interest in creating a new and comprehensive framework for teacher quality. Second, the administration's strategy for generating change through a combination of incentives, collaboration, and optional reforms did not initially bear much fruit for performance pay, but it lay still have important long-term benefits--for this issue and beyond. (Contains 5 figures and 16 endnotes.)

Family literacy programs are a unique component of the adult education system. They work by bringing parents with low literacy skills together with their children to learn and receive instruction, reaching a cohort of people who might not be served by other adult education programs. As parents see their children's learning increase, they are often motivated to improve their own. Over the past 20 years, the federal government and many of the states have put policies in place that include family literacy as an important part of the adult education system with the intent of increasing the availability of family literacy services. The examples given in this paper show how family literacy is being incorporated into adult education programming and make evident the importance of maintaining a strong family literacy commitment. This commitment is essential to ensure that local communities have the resources they need to reach more parents and their children. Without significant improvement in the skill level of both low literate adults and their children, the cycle of low educational achievement and poverty is not likely to be broken. (Contains 17 endnotes.) [This special perspectives paper on family literacy was developed by Tony Peyton of the National Center for Family Literacy for the August 20th meeting of the National Commission on Adult Literacy.]

2010 marks the 50th anniversary of California's famed Master Plan for Higher Education, arguably the single most influential effort to plan the future of a system of higher education in the annals of American higher education. This essay builds on the analysis offered in a previous CSHE research paper ("From Chaos to Order and Back") by discussing the major challenges facing California's higher education system, and offering a possible pathway to reforms and institution-building essential for bolstering socioeconomic mobility and greater economic competitiveness. Most critics and observers of California's system remain focused on incremental and largely marginal improvements, transfixed by the state's persistent financial problems and inability to engage in long-range planning for a population that is projected to grow from approximately 37 million to some 60 million by 2050. President Obama has set a national goal for the US to once again have among the highest educational attainment rates in the world. This would require the nation to produce over 8 million additional degrees; California's "fair share" would be approximately 1 million additional degrees. A number of studies indicate that California's higher education system will not keep pace with labor needs in the state, let alone affording opportunities for socioeconomic mobility that once characterized California. California needs to re-imagine its once vibrant higher education system. The objective is to offer a vision of a more mature system of higher education that could emerge over the next twenty years; in essence, a logical next stage in a system that has hardly changed in the last five decades. Informed by the history of the tripartite system, its strengths and weaknesses over time, and the reform efforts of economic competitors throughout the world who are making significant investments in their own tertiary institutions, I offer a "re-imagined" network of colleges and universities and a plan for "Smart Growth." I paint a picture that builds on California's existing institutions, predicated on a more diverse array of institutional types, and rooted in the historical idea of mission differentiation. This includes setting educational attainment goals for the state; shifting more students to 4-year institutions including UC and CSU; reorganizing the California Community Colleges to include a set of 4-year institutions, another set of "Transfer Focused" campuses, and having these colleges develop a "gap" year program for students out of high school to better prepare for higher education. It also encompasses creating a new Polytechnic University sector, a new California Open University that is primarily focused on adult learners; and developing a new funding model that recognizes the critical role of tuition, and the market for international students that can generate income for higher education and attract top talent to California. There is also a need to recognize that for the US to increase degree attainment rates, the federal government will need to become a more engaged partner with the states. For the near and possibly long-term, most state governments are in a fiscally weakened position that makes any large-scale investment in expanding access improbable. Because of the size of its population alone, California is the canary in the coal mine. If the US is to make major strides toward President Obama's goal, it cannot do it without California. (Contains 5 figures and 20 endnotes.)

In the midst of the global recession, how have national governments viewed the role of higher education in their evolving strategies for economic recovery? Demand for higher education generally goes up during economic downturns. Which nations have proactively protected funding for their universities and colleges to help maintain access, to help retrain workers, and to mitigate unemployment rates? And which nations have simply made large funding cuts for higher education in light of the severe downturn in tax revenues? This essay provides a moment-in-time review of the fate of higher education among a number of OECD nations and other countries, with a particular focus on the United States, and on California--the largest state in terms of population "and" in the size of its economy. Preliminary indicators show that most nations have not thus far resorted to uncoordinated cutting of funding for higher education that we generally see in US state systems. Their political leaders see higher education as a key to short-term economic recovery, long-term competitiveness, and often their own political viability--particularly in nations with upcoming elections. Further, although this is speculative, it appears that many nations are using the economic downturn to actually accelerate reform policies, some intended to promote efficiencies, but most focused on improving the quality of their university sector and promoting innovation in their economies. One might postulate that the decisions made today and in reaction to the "Great Recession" by nations will likely speed up global shifts in the race to develop human capital, with the US probably losing some ground. The Obama administration's first stimulus package helped mitigate large state budget cuts to public services in 2009-10 and to support expanded enrollments largely at the community college level. But it was not enough to avoid having universities and colleges lay off faculty and staff, reduce salaries and benefits, often eliminating course offerings that slow student progress towards a degree, or making sizable reductions in access in states such as California. States have very limited ability to borrow funds for operating costs, making the federal government the last resort. "In short, how state budgets go, so goes US higher education; whereas most national systems of higher education financing is tied to national budgets with an ability to borrow." Without the current stimulus funding, the impact on access and maintaining the health of America's universities would have been even more devastating. But that money will be largely spent by the 2011 fiscal year (Oct 2010-Sept 2011), unless Congress and the White House renew funding support on a similar scale for states that are coping with projected large budget gaps. That now seems unlikely. The Obama administration announced its proposed 2011 budget in February, including $25 billion in state aid targeted for Medicaid. This is a modest contribution to states that face projected cumulative budget deficits of $142 billion in 2011, and there is uncertainty regarding the final federal budget. This is because Obama's proposal will be debated and voted on in a Congress increasingly focused on stemming the tide of rising federal budget deficits. Without substantially more federal aid to state governments, many public colleges and universities will face another major round of budget cuts. There is the prospect that higher education degree production rates in the US will dip in the near term, particularly in states like California that have substantially reduced access to higher education even as enrollment demand has gone up. (Contains 49 footnotes and 4 figures.) [A version of this paper was presented at the Beijing Forum, University of Peking, November 7, 2009.]

The returns to college are substantial, including increased earnings and public benefits, such as better health and increased involvement in public service and giving. As a result, since the introduction of the Guaranteed Student Loan program in 1965 and the Pell Grant in 1972, the federal government has experimented with using financial aid to increase college access, choice, and affordability. Although years of research support the notion that financial aid can influence students' postsecondary decisions, questions remain about the best ways to design such programs and the relative effectiveness of different types of aid. Due to the fact that an overwhelming proportion of the research on financial aid focuses on grants, little is known about how a recent shift to loans has affected student access to higher education and their choice of institutions. Because loans are a much more complicated form of financial aid than grants, there is reason to suspect that their effectiveness differs from other aid. This paper attempts to provide additional information on the impact of loans on college decisions by focusing on the period during which college loans were made available to all families, regardless of financial need. The major shift in aid policy occurred due to the 1992 Higher Education Reauthorization Act (HEA92). By exploiting this 1992 policy change as a natural experiment, this paper examines the impact of introducing a student loan program on college enrollment and choice. The analysis uses the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) to detail how the number of students in college (e.g., the access question) and the amount of money spent on higher education and related expenses (e.g., the choice question or "how much" education was bought) changed after the policy change. (Contains 14 footnotes, 2 figures, and 8 tables.)

This paper traces the historical development of the American research and technology enterprise from its origins in the post-Civil War period to its current international dominance in the discovery and dissemination of scientific knowledge. U.S. research universities have become the vital center of this enterprise over the past 60 years. But competitors in Europe and Asia, many of them looking to the American research university as a model, are beginning to challenge U.S. leadership in science and technology. The paper analyzes the nature of this challenge and the problems research universities must address to continue their remarkable record of success.

Despite the growing ideological divisions, there has been a surprising political convergence on some issues related to urban policy, social services, and housing. From the spread of charter schools and school choice to the expansion of home ownership through financial deregulation, it is apparent that liberals and conservatives agree. Yet these points of agreement hide or exacerbate racial and economic segregation, and geographically concentrate its deleterious consequences. The Obama Administration's embrace of urban charter schools and school choice is emblematic of this convergence, yet in fact, charter schools are even more segregated than regular public schools. Despite lack of evidence of their efficacy, and strong empirical support for benefits of school integration, Administration officials fail to describe the achievement gap as a reflection of metropolitan segregation. Establishing racially homogenous charter schools in urban neighborhoods, even where charter schools are successful, is but the latest example of what George Romney's allies dismissed as "gilding the ghetto." George Romney had a better approach. He understood that the suburbs themselves must be desegregated so that disadvantaged children could attend predominantly middle class schools in their own neighborhoods. He was defeated in his efforts, and partly because of this defeat, the achievement gap between black and white children has not narrowed nearly as much as it might have done in the last half century. It is unlikely to narrow much further without revisiting the imperative of residential integration in the metropolitan areas. (Contains 126 endnotes.)

One major report after another shows that the United States needs a large, innovative, and effective adult education and workforce skills system. It is essential to the national security, economic stability, and democratic way of life. To address this need fully a leadership agency focused on a singular national goal is required, one with a legislative mandate to perform strategic planning and other coordination functions between and among federal agencies and public and private sector groups. Such an agency can accomplish its mission only if it is supported by a strong governance structure. The Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy (CAAL) proposes that the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) be reauthorized with a new and broader mission, mode of operation, and governance structure, and that these transformational elements be clearly set forth in the reauthorizing legislation. This will effectively create a new agency (with a new name, National Institute for Adult Learning, NIFAL) in place of the current National Institute for Literacy. NIFL, as chartered by the 1991 and 1998 Acts, might have been an important agency in the adult education field, but it was handicapped from the outset. Redeveloped as discussed in this paper, NIFAL will be able to take on the essential and far larger task of building an adult education and workforce skills system to meet the nation's 21st Century needs. About the Authors and NIFAL Working Group are appended. (Contains 7 notes.)

Not since the launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite spurred the federal government to begin investing in science and mathematics education through the National Defense Education Act have these two areas of the school curriculum been so high on state and federal policy agendas. Policy makers, business leaders, educators, and the media again worry that future United States expertise in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is in jeopardy. Improving public education, particularly in science and mathematics, continues to be viewed as an important national economic and social issue. These concerns have led to the formulation of many local, state, and national education policies that include elements such as targeted scholarships, increased course-taking requirements for graduation, end-of-course exams in high school, investments in labs and equipment, and in some cases, higher pay to attract teachers to these fields. These efforts are worthy. But, they are not enough. They are scattered and incoherent--even "within" states and school districts--and neglecting this lack of coherence will limit what can be accomplished. Cross-state initiatives, with federal assistance, are needed to increase coherence and build the capacity of schools and districts across the country to provide high quality science and mathematics instruction. Reforms of the scale needed will likely take decades to come to full fruition and will require both patience and unrelenting effort and focus. But the fundamental tasks that must be taken on are clear. They include rethinking the curriculum and standards, and providing a small set of coherent teaching options that meet the needs of different state constituencies. The nation must begin now to formulate a path and take initial steps toward a coherent system of educational opportunities in science and mathematics for all students. This paper offers the following recommendations: (1) The federal government should strengthen the pre-kindergarten through 8th grade science and mathematics curriculum by supporting the National Science Foundation to fund the development of several curricula that focus on core concepts and skills, thereby preparing all students to succeed in high school. The materials should include related curriculum support materials, professional development tools, and assessments; (2) High school course sequences and curricula in science and mathematics should be rethought and redesigned; (3) The federal, state, and district officials responsible for assessment should ensure that assessments in science and mathematics measure higher levels of thinking and reasoning as well as students' content knowledge and skills; (4) Improve the preparation, professional development, and work conditions (including remuneration) of science and mathematics teachers in order to attract and retain individuals who are competent in teaching these challenging subject matters; (5) In funding curriculum development in science and mathematics, federal agencies should ensure that these efforts include comprehensive technology-based instructional and assessment resources; and (6) Federal and state policy makers should establish a research and development cycle to sustain and improve science and mathematics education nationally. (Contains 53 notes.)

Standards-based education reform has a more than 20-year history. A standards-based vision was enacted in federal law under the Clinton administration with the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and carried forward under the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. In a recent survey of policy makers, standards were acknowledged as the central framework guiding state education policy. Yet, despite this apparent unanimity about the intuitively appealing idea of standards, there is great confusion about its "operational" meaning: exactly what should the standards be, how should they be set and by whom, and how should they be applied to ensure rigorous and high-quality education for American students are the central questions that challenge policy makers and educators. For example, "content" standards (subject-matter descriptions of what students should know and be able to do) are often confused with "performance" standards (which are more like passing scores on a test), and very different theories of action are used to explain how standards-based reforms are expected to work. Ambitious rhetoric has called for systemic reform and profound changes in curriculum and assessments to enable higher levels of learning. In reality, however, implementation of standards has frequently resulted in a much more familiar policy of test-based accountability, whereby test items often become crude proxies for the standards. This disconnect between rhetoric and reality is one of the reasons for the failure of prior reforms. Standards-based education is still the core idea guiding education policy and education reform. But the foregoing issues need to be addressed if the promises of standards-based education are to be kept. As yet, neither state content standards nor state tests reflect the ambitions of standards-based reform rhetoric, and the link between high expectations for all students and capacity building has been almost forgotten. The intentions of standards-based education--to focus greater attention on student learning, to ensure the participation and success of all students, and to provide guidance for educational improvement--are in the best interest of the country. This paper offers the following recommendations: (1) The federal government should encourage the redesign and clear connection of content and performance standards--and the curricula, teacher training, and high-quality assessments to go with them--with the goal of developing clearly articulated statements of the expected progression of learning. Efforts to develop these components may involve partnerships among states, universities, groups of teachers, scholars, and the private sector; (2) The federal government should support research on accountability system indicators to reflect both the status and growth of students. Performance standards should set ambitious but realistic targets for teaching and learning, and they should communicate to the public, parents, educators, and students themselves what is to be learned. Assessment results should be reported in ways that recognize progress all along the achievement continuum; (3) The federal government should support the redesign and ongoing evaluation of accountability systems to ensure that they contribute to school improvement. Less than satisfactory school performance should trigger closer investigation of school operations before remedies or sanctions are applied, and stellar performances should also be verified. Different investigative approaches, including audit assessments, data-driven analyses, or expert constituted inspectorates, should be considered; and (4) The federal government should support an intensive program of research and development to create the next generation of performance assessments explicitly linked to well-designed content standards and curricula. (Contains 77 notes.)

The four papers in this series were commissioned for the first meeting of the National Commission on Adult Literacy, which met in Nashville on November 14, 2006. The first paper, "Adult Education and Literacy Legislation and Its Effects on the Field," provides the basic provisions of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA, 1998): its purpose, eligible participants and providers, the indicators of performance, and other critical foundations in the legislation. It reviews critical elements of the transition from regulatory to continuous improvement modes and looks to what is on the horizon at the federal level. The second paper, "Adult Education & Literacy in the United States: Need for Services, What the Current Delivery System Looks Like," examines the adult education and family literacy system in the United States and suggests that the nation has a long-term adult education and literacy need. The third paper, "Introduction to Main Strands of Federal Adult Literacy Programming," provides basic summary information on recent initiatives and projects funded by the Division of Adult Education (DAEL) of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), and the U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL) and Health and Human Services (HHS). The fourth and final paper, "Federal Role in Adult Literacy, FY05-06," is divided into three sections: Section I deals with a single piece of legislation that contributes the major share of federal support for adult education in this country. Section II is comprised of federal programs of varying size--some operated out of the Department of Education and others operated out of other federal departments or agencies--in which basic skills or English as a second language for out-of-school youth and adults is an authorized activity, but funding is either limited to serving a particular subset of that population or available for any number of activities of which basic skills or English language instruction is just one option. Some of the latter programs may have very large appropriations, but funding for adult education activities may comprise a very small portion of those appropriations. Section III contains research and demonstration programs. Nine appendices are included: (1) Percentage of adults "Nonliterate in English," "Below Basic," and "Basic" in Prose literacy: 2003; (2) Sample document task: receipt for certified mail; (3) State-Administered Adult Education Program Fiscal Year 2003 Expenditures (July 1, 2003 - September 30, 2005); (4) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Personnel; (5) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Enrollment; (6) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Enrollment of Participants by Age; (7) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Enrollment of Participants by Race/Ethnicity; (8) State-Administered Adult Education Program, Program Year 2004-2005 Enrollment of Participants by Gender; and (9) Workforce Investment Act, Title I (Department of Labor) and Title II (Department of Education and the National Institute for Literacy). (Contains 16 footnotes.)

This paper analyzes the roots and implications of conflict between the conduct of science and government predilections in the United States, including the security state and neoconservative control of Washington. Three major conflicts are discussed: the emergence of new security and secrecy regimes that seek control of science; religiously derived moral viewpoints that seek to limit scientific research; and the purposeful shaping and censoring of scientific findings for political gain. All three policy issues, argues the author, have their roots in a growing public mistrust of science and its purposes, but also the actions of the current presidential administration. What is needed, he states, is a set of rules rooted in several common understandings or rules. First, policies resting on scientific or technological issues, like all public policies, are decided in the end not just by experts but by a variety of people and interests. Second, objective scientific results, tested by repeated efforts at confirmation, are necessary (though not sufficient) elements in such policy decisions. Third, if the scientists responsible for those findings are controlled or silenced by particular policy interests, or committed in advance to any particular category of policy outcome, the resulting decisions are likely to be wrong. If adopted in advance of the installation of the next administration, or at the outset, such a set of rules could be seen a forward-looking improvement in governance, rather than as yet another criticism of what has been going on in this one.

Since the National Defense Education Act of 1958, a primary objective of federal higher education policy has been to increase access to higher education for those who would not otherwise attend, especially those from low income backgrounds. Increasing attention is now being paid to enhancing student retention and graduation, making sure that students not only get in the door of higher education but also are successful in staying there through the completion of a degree. This paper provides a broad survey of what is known about why students leave college before completing their program of study. It also presents strategies that are successful in promoting retention and graduation and offers suggestions for federal policy directions to improve retention. The information and recommendations contained in this paper are aimed at informing the discussions surrounding the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. (Contains 6 footnotes.)

The Decennial Census is the most important data collection activity undertaken by the U.S. federal statistical system. Because census data are used to apportion Congress and draw redistricting lines for thousands of state and local single-member districts to meet the one-person/one-vote guidelines, the census is at the heart of the political system. Also, census data are used to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds each year, and they are widely used by other government statistical agencies to calculate rates or design surveys. Children are the age group most often missed in the Decennial Census--the reasons range from their living in hard-to-count neighborhoods to the fact that the census form only has space for complete demographic information on six household members. The fact that children are the age group missed most often in the Decennial Census comes as a surprise to many people, even those who have closely followed census issues. Despite the long-standing problem of children being missed in the Decennial Census, little has been done to examine this issue. Missed children might be referred to as the "overlooked undercount" because the undercount of children has been a persistent problem that has been given relatively little attention over time. The high undercount of children challenges the image that the undercount is made up mostly of young adults and people who dodge the census-takers for nefarious reasons. Unlike adults, who may bear some responsibility for making sure they are counted in the census, children are dependent on others to make sure they are included. Yet in 1980, 1990, and 2000, Census Bureau data show children, particularly young children, are one of the groups most likely to be missed in the census. This publication provides some background and information on the undercount of children, describes some theories about why children are missed in the census, and outlines a few ideas for reaching the parents of young children with a message about the importance of being counted in the census. (Contains 2 figures, 1 box, 10 tables and 37 endnotes.)

The federal government's student loan programs for higher education convey substantial financial benefits to borrowers because of their broad availability and favorable terms. Of the various provisions included in a federal student loan contract, the option to consolidate individual loans contributes greatly to a borrower's benefits and the cost of the program to the government and taxpayers. The changes scheduled to take effect in July 2006 fundamentally change the terms of the student loan program, fixing the interest rate on original and consolidated loans at 6.8 percent and 6.875 percent, respectively. This will greatly reduce the cost of these loans to the government. The analysis in this paper illustrates the financial costs to the government that would result from policy alternatives that have existed or been considered in the past. It also applies to options that might be considered by the Congress for use in other credit programs. The following are appended: (1) Assumptions Underlying the Cost Estimates in This Analysis; and (2) The Economics of the Consolidation Option. (Contains 1 table, 1 figure, and 26 footnotes.)

With the financial support of several large foundations and the federal government, creating small schools has become a prominent high school reform strategy in many large American cities. While some research supports this strategy, little research assesses the relative costs of these smaller schools. Data on over 200 New York City high schools, from 1996 through 2003, is used to estimate school cost functions relating per pupil expenditures to school size, controlling for school output and quality, student characteristics, and school organization. The authors find that the structure of costs differs across schools depending upon mission--comprehensive or themed. At their current levels of outputs, themed schools minimize per pupil costs at smaller enrollments than comprehensive schools, but these optimally-sized themed schools also cost more per pupil than optimally-sized comprehensive schools. The authors also find that both themed and comprehensive high schools at actual sizes are smaller than their optimal sizes. (Contains 5 tables and 2 figures.)

It has been nearly forty years since Clark Kerr was asked to create and lead the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education under the auspices of the Carnegie Corporation. The Commission was to be a national effort, unprecedented both in scope and in the freedom of its director, Kerr, to guide its research and productivity. Carnegie President Alan Pifer promised substantial funding for five years or more. Working with Pifer, and with Alden Dunham, David Robinson, and others, Kerr initiated a great array of studies and provided recommendations on the most vital issues facing American higher education in the latter part of the twentieth century. This essay reviews the origins of the Commission, its successor organization, the Carnegie Council, and the influence of a number of major reports. The essay also notes the need to revisit the work of the commission and council as a source of ideas relevant today, and suggests that there is a need for a greater national approach to supporting US higher education.

As part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the U.S. government began subsidizing Internet and telecommunications access in classrooms and libraries through a tax on long-distance services (the E-Rate Program). This paper analyzes the impact of this program on public schools' technology adoption during 1996-2000, examining data on technology owned in each year by every school in California and administrative data on every E-Rate funding application these same schools filed. The study uses demographic data for each school and district from the National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data and 1990 U.S. Census. It examines whether schools with higher subsidy rates make greater investments in technology than they would have without the program and whether increases in Internet access impact student outcomes. Despite the strong pre-1998 income gradient of Internet access, E-Rate funding went disproportionately to low-Internet schools. The subsidy produced significant increases in Internet investment. By 2000, 66 percent more classrooms had Internet connections than they would have had without the subsidy. Urban schools and predominantly black and Hispanic schools disproportionately responded to the subsidy. The increase in Internet connections has had no measurable impact on student achievement. (Contains 19 references.) (SM)

The federal government provides student loans for college and graduate school in two ways: by guaranteeing bank loans, and by lending directly to students. In the guaranteed loan program, banks lend students money and profit from the interest payments while the government guarantees the loans against default and makes subsidy payments to the banks. In the direct loan system, the government provides low-interest loans directly to students, using borrower interest payments to help cover the costs of the program. There have been numerous audits and investigations of both the direct and guaranteed student loan programs, and in every case the auditors have agreed: Direct lending is much more cost effective. Switching completely to direct lending would save billions of dollars a year. Congress should move all campuses to direct lending and turn the savings over to colleges and states for programs that ensure that all Americans have access to higher education. (Contains 7 notes.)

Over recent years, there has been an explosion in the collection of state and local level child and youth indicator data by federal statistical agencies and in the dissemination of those data through agency Web sites. This paper reviews these resources and provides information needed to access the data. Data sources are presented in five topical areas: economics and demographics (e.g., decennial Census and Census 2000 Supplementary Survey); health (vital statistics, disease surveillance systems, and health surveys); education (e.g., Common Core of Data and Schools and Staffing Survey); crime and juvenile justice (e.g., Easy Access System and Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook); and child welfare (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System and Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System). Each section begins with an overview of what is available, including descriptions of data portholes that agencies have developed to facilitate access to data, and descriptions of individual data resources, including surveys, administrative data sets, and publications available on agency Web sites. Internet addresses to those resources are provided. Selected nonfederal sources are also briefly covered. An appendix presents a summary listing of federal Web sites containing indicator data on children and youth. (SM)

This paper examines trends in federal spending on children, assessing changes in spending between 1960-97 and classifying federal programs within eight budget categories: tax credits and exemptions (including the Earned Income Tax Credit and dependent exemption); income security (including Aid to Families with Dependent Children); nutrition (including Food Stamps); health (including Medicaid); education; housing; social services; and training. Federal spending on children grew 246 percent, from $48.6 billion to $168.5 billion, while the number of children grew just 9.7 percent. In terms of gross domestic product, this growth in spending is just 11 percent. Federal spending on poor children increased 23-fold. Until recently, programs that put money into parents' pockets lost ground to targeted, in-kind spending. The dependent exemption declined from 65 percent of all federal spending on children to 16 percent. Three new programs account for half of the increase in total spending on children (Earned Income Credit, Medicaid, and Food Stamps). Nutrition and health programs rank third and fourth among categories of spending on children. Federal education funds shifted from targeting children of military or government personnel toward targeting disadvantaged children. Spending on children increasingly shifted from broad-based middle class relief to programs designed for the poor. (SM)