Search

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

The purpose of the "District Self-Assessment Tool" is to provide school district and community stakeholders with an approach for assessing district capacity to support a college readiness indicator system and track progress over time. The tool draws on lessons from the collective implementation experiences of the four College Readiness Indicator Systems (CRIS) network sites (Dallas Independent School District, New Visions for Public Schools in New York City, Pittsburgh Public Schools, and San Jose Unified School District) that are reported in "Essential Elements in Implementation." In particular the following capabilities that are critical to developing a college readiness indicator system are: (1) Engaging leadership commitment to a college readiness indicator system; (2) Building data infrastructure; (3) Strengthening adult capacity around data use and college readiness; (4) Connecting indicators with supports to promote college readiness; and (5) Developing partnerships with community institutions and institutions of higher education.

This study seeks to extend the literature on higher education enrollment patterns during times of recession by examining patterns of enrollment and successful course completion in one of the world's largest higher education systems--the California Community College system. The data are drawn from publicly available data sources on the web. CCC system budget data can be found on the Chancellor's Office website (CCCCO 2010). The CCCCO Data Mart was used to collect term-level data on head counts, enrollments in transfer courses and course success patterns. Economic data and unemployment statistics came from the California Employment. The authors begin by examining enrollment patterns during times of economic recession over the last 20 years. Figure 1 provides a snapshot of annual changes in CCC head count from 1992 to the fall 2010 term. To be more specific, the graph charts fall to fall, spring to spring, and summer to summer changes in the unduplicated term head count, so each academic year has three enrolment bars. In many of the terms, one can witness growth from year to year that tracks with California's growing adult population, and the state's budget fortunes--allowing for growth funding in the system budget. The downturns in enrollment track reasonably well with the three California recessions identified by state economists (June 1990 to May 1993, March 2001 to July 2003, and July 2007 to December 2009). The two largest drops in CCC enrollment occurred in the fall term of 2003 (-187,973) and the summer term of 2010 (-266,713), and both of those terms came immediately after the declared end of the two recessions. Community College veterans of the prior recessionary period (2003) can readily recall the massive number of course section reductions that occurred at that time and the loss in both head count and FTES. The CCC system office (CCCCO 2005, 11) reported at that time that a nearly 10% decline in unduplicated head count occurred in the 2003-04 academic year,an a decline of 4.3% in FTES enrollment. Beyond the reduced budget dollars flowing from the state, the 2003-04 period featured increased enrollment fees for students, with prices per unit of enrollment rising from $11 in spring 2003 to $18 the following year, and $26 beginning in fall 2004 (CCCCO 2005, 8). (Contains 1 figure, 4 tables and 2 footnotes.)

The California Department of Education (CDE) released statewide chronic absence data in December 2017 via DataQuest, an interactive data portal. To better understand chronic absence at the school level, Attendance Works collaborated with the Center for Regional Change at UC Davis and Children Now to analyze the data available from DataQuest and other CDE datasets. The analysis looks at how chronic absence varies across different types of schools, and how it is distributed geographically. It also examines the connection between school-level chronic absence and educational outcomes for schools. The report closes with action recommendations for key stakeholders. While this report is focused on California, it is relevant for other states because it demonstrates how publicly-available chronic absence data can be used to inform the allocation of resources and to alert key stakeholders when collective action is needed to address barriers to attendance.

The purpose of this topical review is to present Educational Policy Reform Research Institute's (EPRRI's) state-level qualitative findings collected during in depth interviews in the four core study states of California, Maryland, New York, and Texas. The data presented reflect the perspectives of state-level personnel who were involved with the creation and implementation of their state accountability systems at the time that the No Child Left Behind Act was written and signed into law. This paper presents a variety of voices, from division directors to parent representatives, and attempts to reveal the strengths and stresses of including students with disabilities in educational accountability reform.