Search

A growing number of U.S. companies across a range of industries are designing apprenticeship programs to give workers access to on-the-job learning opportunities that allow them to transition into in-demand jobs and careers. This discussion paper provides a snapshot of the current state of apprenticeship in the United States based on interviews with national experts and key stakeholders engaged in apprenticeship implementation, including employers, community colleges, unions, and intermediaries. It explores what is needed to build successful programs and highlights current federal and state policy efforts to encourage registered apprenticeship expansion, noting barriers and lessons learned. Four recommendations for how to grow registered apprenticeship opportunities in the United States are: (1) Provide standardized models; (2) Reduce complexity; (3) Measure Value; and (4) Learn from Innovative Models. A sidebar presents examples of state incentives and supports for apprenticeship programs in Colorado, Maryland, and South Carolina. [This paper was produced with funding from the Nestlé USA corporation.]

This paper explores the range of ways in which school districts are using Title I funds for early education through kindergarten and examines how the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has impacted those investments. It also makes recommendations for local education agencies (LEAs) interested in creating Title I-funded early education programs or thinking about how to sustain such investments in the face of policy and funding challenges. The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) spent more than two years examining strategies to encourage and sustain Title I investments in high-quality early education programs in local communities. Building on research and analysis in "Missed Opportunities? The Possibilities and Challenges of Funding High-Quality Preschool through Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act", the Center conducted Web-based research to identify promising models, review local policies and documents, and find local policymakers to interview. Staff also used ongoing conversations with early education administrators to identify more than 100 schools and districts with some history of using Title I for early education programs. CLASP conducted interviews with more than 30 states and districts, including districts with increasing Title I allocations and others with decreasing allocations, and districts in states with a history of investments in pre-kindergarten and others in states without such a history, using a survey protocol developed to understand how schools and districts are using Title I for early education, the history of these investments, and the barriers and flexibility in the law. CLASP interviewed state and local Title I directors, early childhood directors, and district superintendents and, where possible, collected financial information on Title I early education investments. This paper discusses: (1) Federal and state funding for early education; (2) Opportunity of Title I funding for early education; (3) Story behind Title I investments in early education, through illustrations of a range of models from school districts; (4) How NCLB is impacting Title I investments in early education; and (5) Recommendations for LEAs. The report concludes that using Title I funds for early education is not a new idea: many schools and districts have been using these funds to invest in young children for decades. Although accountability requirements of NCLB have created new challenges to sustaining or expanding those investments, NCLB also offers an opportunity and an incentive to support the nation's youngest students. Many LEAs are committed to supporting early education, and several openings and strategies exist that may enable LEAs to take advantage of the flexibility of Title I funds to use them to support early education and to support broad educational goals. There is, however, emerging evidence that the requirements of NCLB and the limited funding available are putting district policymakers in the difficult position of defunding successful early childhood programs. In addition to actions that LEAs can take, the report advocates that there are also ways in which NCLB could be improved to support high-quality early education. CLASP has issued a set of federal recommendations for reauthorization of NCLB. They include: (1) Improved data collection; (2) Enhanced language on transitions between community-based early childhood programs and local schools; (3) Sustaining and supporting local flexibility in use of funds for discretionary purposes; (4) Ensuring that joint professional development opportunities are available to build knowledge of child development and appropriate practices with English language learners (ELLs); (5) Encouraging state education agencies (SEAs) to use set-aside funds to promote and support early childhood programs at the local level; and (6) Increased funding. A long-term strategy to successfully create and sustain sound investments in young children will take efforts and strong leadership at all levels. (Contains 88 endnotes.) [For "Missed Opportunities? The Possibilities and Challenges of Funding High-Quality Preschool through Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act", see ED484650.]

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) addresses issues pertaining to prevention of placement in the child welfare system, as well as family reunification, the specific provisions of ASFA that relate to the termination of parental rights and adoption are perhaps most central to the law's overarching purpose. This paper analyzes adoptions from foster care using data from Chapin Hall's Multistate Foster Care Data Archive to understand what effect, if any, the federal law has had on the proportion of children admitted to foster care that were later adopted and on the time needed to complete those adoption. Using a cohort sequential design, we studied 13 successive entry cohorts of children admitted to foster care in seven states from 1990 to 2002. The results indicate that there was an increase in the period-specific probability of adoption that coincides with the passage of ASFA in 1998. However, we also found that the pace of adoption had remained stable in the early 1990s and started to accelerate in the mid-1990s, before ASFA was passed. This finding clarifies our understanding of ASFA in two ways. First, there was no slowdown in the average time required to complete adoptions that ASFA was originally designed to address. Second, the existence of a pre-ASFA effect suggests that ASFA may have only added to the efforts already made by the states. (Contains 4 tables and 1 figure.)

Income replacement and reemployment programs in Michigan and its neighboring states were examined in the context of recent changes in federal policy regarding compensation and services for individuals who have lost their jobs or sustained job-related injuries. The analysis focused primarily on the following programs: (1) Unemployment Insurance (UI); (2) Workers' Compensation (WC); and (3) the cluster of reemployment and training programs that, since 1998, have come under the Workforce Investment Act. The analysis established that UI, Michigan Works!, and WC are unique among Michigan's programs because they replace lost earnings and deliver services to workers on a regular basis, whereas other programs intended to improve workers' well-being do so solely through regulation. UI and Michigan Works! are all becoming increasing contentious in the wake of welfare reform and the first recession in a decade. Although WC has been relatively free of controversy during the past decade, it, too, may be under increasing pressure as medical costs resume their rise. Despite the recent arguments regarding the generosity of their benefits and the appropriate extent of training for disadvantaged workers, UI, Michigan Works!, and WC have all gained widespread acceptance as essential to efficient funding of the labor market. (Thirteen figures/tables are included. The bibliography lists 57 references.) (MN)

In 2010, unprecedented levels of resources began to flow through state education agencies (SEAs) to support dramatic change in persistently low-performing schools under the expanded federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. The challenge for states is to leverage the federal investment to drive dramatic and sustainable change efforts in low-performing schools in a coherent manner that does not simultaneously undermine established support networks designed to benefit all schools. Driven by the broader goal of culling lessons related to states playing a substantive role in dramatic school-improvement efforts, this monograph and practice guide examines the early implementation of the revised SIG program in select states (AL, AK, ID, IL, LA, MI, MT, OK, and VA) to identify: (1) how states are integrating the expanded grant program into existing school improvement efforts; and (2) emerging lessons for states interested in fully leveraging their roles to drive turnaround efforts relevant to the future rounds of SIG awards. The monograph examines nine states' initial approaches to supporting dramatic school improvement initiatives by strategically allocating state resources, building district and school capacity to support change, and monitoring districts' turnaround efforts. Three appendices provide supplemental tables and the data collection instrument. A list of references and resources is included.

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

What happens when teams from 57 cities building afterschool systems gather to discuss two key system responsibilities--improving afterschool programs and using data for informed decision-making? Lots of rich discussion. This report covers a national afterschool conference held in February 2013. It details what mayors, program providers, system leaders, researchers and others had to say on matters ranging from how to measure afterschool performance to how to boost program quality. [This conference was organized by: American Youth Policy Forum, The Collaborative for Building After School Systems, The Forum for Youth Investment, the National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education & Families, and the Wallace Foundation.]

Forty-four elementary grade teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students were surveyed about how they taught writing and their beliefs about writing. Beliefs about writing included their self-efficacy to teach writing, attitude towards writing, and epistemological beliefs about writing. These teachers from 15 different states in the United States slightly agreed they were efficacious writing teachers and they were slightly positive about their writing. They slightly agreed that learning to write involves effort and process, moderately disagreed that writing development is innate or fixed, slightly disagreed that knowledge about writing is certain, and were equally split about whether writing knowledge comes from authorities and experts. On average, teachers applied the 22 instructional writing practices surveyed at least once a month. They reported their students wrote weekly, and their writing was supported through goal setting, feedback, and prewriting activities. Writing instruction mostly focuses on teaching grammar and how to plan compositions. Teacher self-efficacy uniquely and statistically predicted reported teaching practices after attitude towards writing and epistemological beliefs were first controlled. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are presented. [This paper was published in "Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education" v26 n3 p438-450 2021.]

This is the third paper on the topic of outcomes-based funding written by Dennis Jones for Complete College America. The first paper, "Performance Funding: From Idea to Action" (ED535356), proposed a set of design and implementation principles to help states develop and implement their own outcomes-based funding models. The second paper, "Outcomes-Based Funding: The Wave of Implementation" (2013) described features of models being implemented in states and the extent to which they conformed to the principles presented in the first paper. This third paper documents the continued spread of adoption with an increased focus in the field on whether outcomes are equitable across populations, with states disaggregating results by race, ethnicity, age and income and reporting those publicly. The additional purposes of this paper are threefold: (1) To reinforce the point that outcomes-based funding is but one component of the overall financing model for higher education in a state. The power of outcomes-based funding models is enhanced if the other components are designed so as to strengthen the alignment between funding streams and desired results; (2) To once again revisit the lists of design and implementation principles presented in the earlier document and (slightly) revise them in light of states' actions and experience; and (3) To describe the models that are being employed in implementing states and to assess the extent of conformance with the proffered set of design and implementation principles. This for the purpose of identifying areas of non-conformance to catalog potential weaknesses in models and questioning the applicability of certain of the principles. As with earlier versions of the document, the ultimate objective is to provide clear, straightforward guidance to policymakers who are searching for ways to better align their approaches to resource allocation with the educational outcomes that are of highest priority in their state.

A pretest-training-posttest design assessed whether training to improve spatial skills also improved mathematics performance in elementary-aged children. First grade students (mean age = 7 years, n = 134) and sixth grade students (mean age = 12 years, n = 124) completed training in 1 of 2 spatial skills-spatial visualization or form perception/VSWM--or in a nonspatial control condition that featured language arts training. Spatial training led to better overall mathematics performance in both grades, and the gains were significantly greater than for language arts training. The same effects were found regardless of spatial training type, or the type of mathematics tested. [This paper will be published in "Journal of Educational Psychology."]

Each year, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) publishes the "State Teacher Policy Yearbook," a comprehensive examination of the state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession, measured against a realistic set of reform goals. For five years running, the full "Yearbook" compendium (www.nctq.org/stpy) presents the most detailed, thorough analysis of teacher policy in the United States, covering topics related to teacher preparation, licensure, evaluation, career advancement, tenure, compensation, pensions and dismissal policies. The next full nationwide analysis of state teacher policy will be released in January 2012, presenting the legislative, regulatory and policy developments achieved in 2011. In advance of the next "Yearbook," this paper offers a closer look into what is shaping up to be a very important education policy trend. With unprecedented momentum toward performance-based teacher evaluation across the states, the goals of this paper are to: (1) Present a detailed picture of the teacher evaluation policy landscape across the states; (2) Highlight noteworthy state policies; and (3) Provide early observations on current challenges. Appended are: (1) Links to state legislation/regulations and resources on teacher evaluation systems; and (2) Results of the states examination. (Contains 13 figures and 33 footnotes.)

This white paper examines the business case for environmental and sustainability (E&S) employee education and engagement. The "business case" is defined as both quantifiable measures of the business value for the sustainability program (e.g. money saved, energy use reduction, etc.) as well as less easily measurable assets such as reputation enhancement. Information in the white paper is primarily based on qualitative, anecdotal data and interviews, a review of company reports and Web sites as well as media articles, books and recent reports from Green Impact, ICF International (ICF) and MIT Sloan Management Review. The examples outlined in this white paper build on cases documented in "The Engaged Organization" report from Cisco, Clean Clothes, Hewlett-Packard (HP), Stonyfield and Walmart. Additional company case study examples from Baxter, Citigroup, Darden, eBay, IKEA, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Kimberly-Clark and Sodexo are also presented. Company Profiles is appended. (Contains 2 footnotes and 14 resources.) [Funding for this paper was provided by Kimberly-Clark.]

This paper examines a burgeoning network of organizations that is inventing new forms of community renewal and citizenship education. Their names vary--some call themselves public policy institutes, others centers for civic life--yet they share a common methodology, one aimed at tackling tough public issues, strengthening communities, and nurturing people's capacities to participate and make common cause. Today, there are more than 50 of these centers operating in almost every state in the union, most of them affiliated with institutions of higher learning. Except for a handful that are freestanding, the centers combine the best of what colleges and universities provide--civics courses, leadership development, service-learning programs, community-based research--with the kinds of hands-on, collaborative problem solving traditionally done by nongovernmental organizations. Because they operate at the intersection of the campus and the community, their impact extends to both: they nurture and sustain public life while at the same time enriching higher education. This paper surveys the state of the network today, how it has evolved over the years, and what it has achieved. It also looks at how the centers carry out their activities, the varying orientations and essential practices that define their work, and some of the challenges they face in coming years as they continue to deepen and expand their efforts.

Most educators, parents, and policymakers think of "online learning" as a subset of distance learning (where the students and teacher are geographically separate), in which content delivery and communication are achieved primarily through the use of computers connected by the Internet. However, online learning can be either distance learning or blended learning, with both supported by a new, robust instructional approach that takes advantage of the best elements of both settings. The advent of learning that combines online and face-to-face delivery is not merely a theory--it is already being developed and implemented by schools throughout the country and the world, and in some cases has been underway for several years. While some schools call this method of teaching "blended," others call it "hybrid," and others don't bother naming it--they're just implementing an approach that they believe is helping their students. This paper discusses definitions of blended learning and explores ways in which blended learning is being developed by numerous schools in an effort to answer these and other questions: (1) How does blended learning fit into current conceptions of online learning?; (2) How does blended learning help engage students and support their academic success?; (3) How are online learning and face-to-face instruction being combined effectively?; (4) Is blended learning meeting unique student needs that neither fully online nor face-to-face models can achieve?; and (5) What digital content and curricula are being used in blended learning? The examples discussed in this paper are not exhaustive. However, they illustrate some of the outstanding uses of blended learning in these early stages of its development and suggest opportunities for expanding its use and effectiveness. (Contains 9 footnotes.)

This brief is based on the 61-page report of the same name. This paper, commissioned by the Brookings Institution, studies the emergence of the mixed delivery model, in which pre-kindergarten is delivered in community-based settings and schools. It describes findings of a state survey CLASP conducted to understand the policy choices, opportunities, and challenges of including community-based child care providers in pre-kindergarten programs. At the conclusion of the study period for this paper (November 2004), at least 29 states that are currently operating at least one pre-kindergarten program using a mixed delivery approach were found. Those states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Other states, for example Florida, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, are considering or expanding pre-kindergarten policies but were not yet established enough to be included in our study. This policy brief describes principal approaches to state implementation of the mixed delivery model but does not provide examples of state policies. (Contains 1 figure.)

As highlighted by the National Math Panel Report (2008), consistent results from laboratory studies have demonstrated that interleaving worked examples with problems to solve improves learning for novices. The purpose of this work is to create materials and tests that can be used flexibly in classrooms and which employ worked examples interleaved with practice problems for students to solve. A total of 42 assignments addressing some pre-Algebra and 8 major Algebra topics have been developed through an iterative process. The effects of AlgebraByExample on learning has also been explored with particular attention to the role of individual differences. The eight participating districts are all members of the Minority Student Achievement Network (MSAN) which is a self-formed alliance dedicated to addressing the achievement gap: Ann Arbor (MI), Arlington (VA), Chapel Hill--Carrboro City (NC), Evanston Township (IL), Evanston/Skokie 65 (IL), Green Bay (WI), Shaker Heights (OH), and Madison Metropolitan School District (WI). Although this paper does not cover all of the individual studies, the body of work as a whole has been conducted in 300 classrooms with over 6000 7th-10th graders, with the majority of 8th or 9th graders enrolled in "regular" Algebra. Approximately half of the students in each participating class were randomly assigned to the example-based group, in which they received the example-based assignments designed for the study. The other half was randomly assigned to the control group, in which they received an alternate version of the assignments that contained the same types of problems, but no examples or self-explanation prompts. Results demonstrate that students in high-minority populations benefit more from example-based assignments than do those in lower-minority groups in terms of an increase in their procedural performance. Results also indicate that conceptual learning occurs more readily for students in low-minority classrooms -- students in higher-minority classrooms do not tend to learn as much. However, for students in high-minority classrooms, being in the example-based condition leads to greater learning than the control condition. One table and two figures are appended.

Charter schools have moved from being widely viewed as a marginal force in public education reform to taking on a central role in our national, state, and local debates around improving education. And a growing number of policymakers--including superintendents, mayors, governors, and even U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan--are using chartering as a critical tool to drive school improvement and meet the needs of underserved children. These developments create new demands on authorizers to strategically manage their portfolios by effectively monitoring the quality of the schools they have chartered, closing low-performing schools, and fostering the replication and growth to scale of high performers. Charter school authorizers are under increasing pressure--from policymakers, funders, and the media--to assume a variety of responsibilities, including spurring struggling and mediocre schools to higher levels of achievement, attracting high-quality operators, and fostering the replication of successful schools--in addition to their more established roles of approving charter applications, monitoring school performance, and closing low-performers. Key questions for authorizers--and the charter school movement more generally--are which of these roles are really appropriate for authorizers to take on, which they can reasonably be expected to do well, and which would be better addressed by other entities, including those that do not yet exist. This paper, created as part of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers' (NACSA's) federally funded Performance Management, Replication, and Closure (PMRC) project to improve the policies and practices of authorizers in these key areas, looks at how a set of seven leading authorizers (herein called "model authorizers")--all of whom oversee substantial numbers of schools, have been authorizers for some time, and are nationally regarded as leaders in the field--are responding to new challenges and demands in the three areas where expectations for authorizer performance are undergoing the greatest evolution: performance management, replication, and closure. The author finds that even the most forward-looking authorizers are struggling to develop effective policies and practices in these areas, and no one authorizer has "all the answers." At the same time, the author finds that authorizers are highly cognizant of the complex implications of the new roles that charter schools are being asked to play in public education reform, and are creating new practices, processes, and tools to address some of those implications. Every one of the seven authorizers is currently taking steps to refine, improve, or create new practices in these three key areas. These examples show that the most effective authorizers are learning from experience and data, and steadily working to improve the quality of their practices, processes, and policies. (Contains 2 figures.)

In December 2010, the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) staff surveyed public universities in other states to learn how they have dealt with cuts in state funding. All of the institutions CPEC surveyed have increased tuition and or fees at least once in the last two fiscal years, and many project additional increases. All have made cost-saving measures or efficiencies over the budget year. Many have reduced general administrative spending, cut academic programs and class offerings, and reduced faculty and staff with voluntary or involuntary retirement or termination. While none of these institutions have managed to completely protect academics, a few have managed to increase need-based financial aid. This paper presents their findings.

Our nation's educational system has scored many extraordinary successes in raising the level of reading and writing skills in younger children. Yet the pace of literacy improvement in our schools has not kept up with the accelerating demands of the global knowledge economy. In state after state, the testing data mandated by No Child Left Behind reveals a marked decline in the reading and writing skills of adolescent learners. School systems are now grappling with the fact that promising early performance and gains in reading achievement often dissipate as students move through the middle grades. As a result, many young people drop out of high school or perform at minimal level and end up graduating without the basic skills that they need to do college-level work, get a well-paying job or act as informed citizens. The truth is that good early literacy instruction does not inoculate students against struggle or failure later on. Beyond grade 3, adolescent learners in our schools must decipher more complex passages, synthesize information at a higher level, and learn to form independent conclusions based on evidence. They must also develop special skills and strategies for reading text in each of the differing content areas (such as English, science, mathematics and history)-- meaning that a student who "naturally" does well in one area may struggle in another. To reach the goal of providing quality literacy instruction for all our nation's adolescents, we must systematically link instruction to the growing knowledge base on literacy and inform it with up-to-date data relating to outcomes and best practices. We must also find and support good teachers and provide them with the right professional development opportunities. Schools, districts, states, and federal policymakers all have vital roles to play in the process of re-engineering the nation's schools to support adolescent learning. Accordingly: (1) The Vision: Literacy for All draws on up-to-date research showing that adolescents need a higher level of literacy than ever before, both for college-readiness and employment in the new global knowledge economy, and goes on to describe how our current state of knowledge already equips us to re-engineer schools to support quality adolescent learning; (2) The Challenge: What It Will Take to Get Our Adolescents College and Career Ready details the specific literacy needs of adolescent learners and shows how these needs can best be met in our nation's schools; (3) The Keys: Underpinnings for Successful Reform shows how professional development for teachers and the effective use of data are the keys to improving adolescent literacy and realizing the ambitious goal of "literacy for all"; (4) The Agenda: Re-Engineering for Change At All Levels sets out a national agenda for fully supporting adolescent learners, using case-studies to show exactly how schools, districts, and states can help to re-engineer the experience of adolescent learning; and (5) A Call To Action: Where To Begin summarizes the main points of this report by setting out specific action steps for school leaders, district leaders, state leaders, and federal policymakers. Our common goal must be to ensure that all students receive the support they need for active citizenship, college and career readiness, gainful employment in the global knowledge economy, and lifelong learning. "The time to act is now." Appended are: (1) Bibliography, Carnegie Corporation of New York's Advancing Literacy Initiative, Works and Commissioned Papers; and (2) Essential Elements of Literacy for Adolescent Learners. (Contains 3 tables, 4 figures and 2 endnotes.) [For related reports, see "Adolescent Literacy Programs: Costs of Implementation. Final Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York's Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy" (ED535296); "Measure for Measure: A Critical Consumers' Guide to Reading Comprehension Assessments for Adolescents. Final Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York's Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy" (ED535299); "Adolescent Literacy and Textbooks: An Annotated Bibliography. Final Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York's Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy" (ED535323); "Reading in the Disciplines: The Challenges of Adolescent Literacy. Final Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York's Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy" (ED535297); and "Adolescent Literacy Development in Out-of-School Time: A Practitioner's Guide. Final Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York's Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy" (ED535304).

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC or the agency) is a regional institutional accreditor that accredits (or preaccredits) over 1,000 degree granting institutions in 19 states, tribal institutions and including those programs offered via distance education within these institutions. Most of the institutions accredited by HLC use the Secretary's recognition of the agency to establish eligibility to participate in the Title IV, HEA student financial assistance programs. This paper presents the recommendations of the staff of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) concerning HLC's petition for continued recognition.

Now that all 50 states and the District of Columbia are building statewide longitudinal data systems, the next step is to ensure that the information in these systems is used to improve student learning. The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) has identified 10 actions that states can take to ensure that the right data are available and accessible and that users have the knowledge and skills to use the data well (see "10 State Actions To Ensure Effective Data Use," page 2). This paper discusses reports that states can create using longitudinal data. These reports include, but are not limited to: (1) Growth reports looking at changes in the achievement of the same students over time; (2) Diagnostic reports providing academic histories of students' mastery of specific concepts or skills; (3) Early warning reports identifying students who need immediate help based on at-risk indicators; (4) Predictive reports showing the relationship between earlier and later student outcomes--for example, the relationship between 8th grade test scores and students' readiness for college and careers in 12th grade; (5) Cohort graduation reports showing graduation rates of groups of the same students followed since the beginning of 9th grade; and (6) Feedback reports providing information on outcomes for students after they graduate from a school or district. (Contains 3 tables, 10 figures, 16 resources and 20 endnotes.)

This study evaluates how welcoming thirty American cities--the twenty-five largest and five smaller "hotspots"--are to "nontraditional" problem-solvers and solutions. It assumes that the balky bureaucracies meant to improve K-12 education and hold leaders accountable are so calcified by policies, programs, contracts, and culture that only in the most exceptional of circumstances can they be fixed simply by top-down applications of new curricula or pedagogy. To determine the cities with the most reform-friendly ecosystems, analysts examined six domains that shape a jurisdiction's receptivity to education reform: (1) Human Capital; (2) Financial Capital; (3) Charter Environment; (4) Quality Control; (5) District Environment; and (6) Municipal Environment. Drawing on publicly available data, national and local survey data, and interviews with on-the-ground insiders, analysts devised a grading metric that rated each city on its individual and collective accomplishments in each of these areas. What did they discover? Few cities are rolling out the red carpet for education entrepreneurs. No cities were awarded As and just a handful of cities received Bs when measured for their hospitability towards reformers. The majority fell in the C range, half a dozen in the D to F range, and the remainder had too little data to judge (see Table 1, page 8). Low-scoring cities were characterized by lethargic district administration, inert political leadership, arcane staffing policies, and unsupportive (or silent) local business and philanthropic communities. They also found that cities are making greater strides in some areas than others: (1) They do best at drumming up sources of financial capital to advance reform: Nine cities earned As and ten earned Bs; support from outside the district is also strong, with municipal environment seeing nine As and eight Bs; (2) They fare least well when it comes to district environment, where a third got Fs; and (3) Grades were generally mixed with respect to human capital, charter environment, and quality control. Finally, substantial variation exists within states that had more than one city in the study. This suggests that entrepreneurial fate is not sealed by state lines: local officials, educators, and reformers can shape their own destiny. Appendices include: (1) Methodology; (2) Scoring Rubric; and (3) A list of organizations whose members helped to shape the study design and survey instruments. Individual sections contain footnotes and tables. [The foreword for this report was written by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Amber M. Winkler. Funding for this paper was also provided by the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation, Inc.]

The rising number of individuals returning to communities from prison and jail represents one of the defining issues of time. Individuals reentering society face myriad challenges, not the least of which is securing viable employment; in addition, each individual has a unique set of experiences, needs and resources. This project stems from the understanding that to effectively address the unique characteristics of and challenges facing people reentering society, the best and brightest minds from a diverse array of fields must collaborate to develop a spectrum of approaches and solutions. The information, case studies and stories contained in this monograph aim to inspire professionals across entrepreneurship, workforce development and criminal justice fields to recognize and embrace entrepreneurship and self-employment as appropriate and valuable tools for reintegration. Given the size of the population returning home from prison and jail, one cannot afford to ignore their potential as resources for community and economic development; nor can one overlook the opportunity that entrepreneurship represents as a path to financial stability and engaged citizenship. This monograph contains the following parts: (1) Background for a Common Language; (2) Opportunities to Facilitate Successful Reentry with Entrepreneurship; and (3) Tools for Pilot Projects and Initiatives. Conversations on Reentry and Entrepreneurship--Participants are appended. A bibliography is included. [This paper was written with the assistance from Debbie A. Mukamal.]