Search

This paper is the first to investigate the costs of institution-wide reforms at community colleges. Drawing on data from 12 community colleges implementing comprehensive guided pathways reforms, I use the ingredients method to analyze the resources required to implement such reforms and examine their feasibility and affordability, as well as their value for students. For a typical college with 4,000 full-time equivalent students (FTEs) that implements guided pathways over four years, the total implementation cost beyond business-as-usual operations is estimated at $450 per student each year, or $7.1 million in total, which amounts to 12% of the college's annual budget, or approximately 3% per year. Around one third of this cost is for enhanced student advisement. Extra investments in information technology are also significant. Ongoing operating costs, primarily for student advisement and student success courses, are around $350 per FTE each year. Cost estimates vary depending on how colleges implement guided pathways, but the results are robust to alternative input prices and college characteristics. There is also some evidence of economies of scale. To finance guided pathways, colleges relied mainly on resource reallocation and efficiency gains, extra public funding, and external grants and funds. Increases in tuition/fees were modest, temporary, or delayed until after implementation; increases of just under 1% per year would suffice to support guided pathways reforms. From the student perspective, guided pathways increases the affordability and value for money of community college. With enhanced advising, students take fewer unnecessary courses. Program mapping leads students to take the right courses both at the community college and at any transfer college. Improved advising help students access grants and in-kind services; they also assist with financial plans to pay for college. Overall, the savings these reforms allow for are likely to exceed the modest increase in tuition/fees from guided pathways. [For the companion paper "Funding Guided Pathways: A Guide for Community College Leaders. Report," see ED609234.]

This topic paper details how dual and concurrent enrollment programs can help states overcome workforce readiness and postsecondary access and completion challenges and how governors can strengthen these programs by using their bully pulpit, agenda setting authority and budgetary authority to do so. It concludes with a number of examples of how governors are acting to strengthen equity and access to these programs. It also includes a number of resources for interested policy makers.

Recently, studies have adopted fixed effects modeling to identify the returns to college. This method has the advantage over ordinary least squares estimates in that unobservable, individual-level characteristics that may bias the estimated returns are differenced out. But the method requires extensive longitudinal data and involves complex specifications, raising the possibility that results are sensitive either to sample restrictions or to alternative specifications. Also, the extra requirements might not be justified if results from fixed effects models are broadly similar to those from conventional ordinary least squares models. In this paper we review results from fixed effects models of the earnings gains from completing an associate degree relative to non-completion for community college students. We examine both sampling restrictions and specification issues. We find results to be sensitive to assumptions about missing earnings data and to how time trend specifications are modeled. However, we find no substantively meaningful differences between estimates using fixed effects models and ordinary least squares methods. A main benefit of fixed effects models--controlling for unobservable student characteristics--should be weighed against the difficulty in interpreting coefficients and more intensive data requirements. On the other hand, a distinct advantage of fixed effects models is that they allow for analysis of earning profiles over the period from before to after college. Given the large fluctuations in earnings over this period, this advantage may be significant in yielding evidence on the full returns to college. The following two tables are appended: (1) Robustness Checks on Returns to Associate Degrees; and (2) Percentage Decline in Earnings From Two Quarters Prior to College Entry to Quarter of College Entry (Kentucky, Ohio).

This paper reviews recent evidence on the labor market returns to credit accumulation, certificates, and associate degrees from community colleges. Evidence is collated from estimates of earnings gaps across college students using large-scale, statewide administrative datasets from eight states. Six of these states were partners of the Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment (CAPSEE), a research center funded by the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. CAPSEE researchers conducted extensive analyses of education and earnings in these states. Findings from these studies affirm a "CAPSEE consensus" with three main results and two key features. For associate degrees, this review affirms that completing an associate degree yields strongly positive, persistent, and consistent earnings gains: studies show that completing an associate degree yields on average approximately $4,640-$7,160 per annum in extra earnings compared to entering college but not completing an award. For certificates, the evidence shows positive but modest returns and that these returns may fade out within a few years post-college. For non-completers, there is evidence that earning more credits is associated with higher earnings. Generally, the results establish two main features. First, increments of college lead to higher earnings, but with returns that are heterogeneous by field of study. Second, the evidence is strongly suggestive that returns to college are robust to macroeconomic trends. Additional Figures and Tables are appended. [For the related Research Brief, "Does It Pay to Complete Community College--and How Much? Research Brief," see ED574807.]

In 2012, five foundations launched the Credit When Its Due (CWID) initiative that was "designed to encourage partnerships of community colleges and universities to significantly expand programs that award associate degrees to transfer students when the student completes the requirements for the associate degree while pursuing a bachelor's degree" (Lumina Foundation, 2012, n.p.), also known as "reverse transfer." Initially, 12 states (Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon) were funded to develop and implement these reverse transfer programs and policies, and the Office of Community College Research and Leadership (OCCRL) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was chosen as the research partner. In late 2013, three states (Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas) were added to bring the total number of states to 15. At least six additional states have legislation, pending legislation, or statewide initiatives related to reverse transfer. This thought paper describes changes that are occurring at the state, system, and institution levels with implementation of reverse transfer in the 12 original states. Using qualitative and quantitative data collected from the CWID Implementation Study, the authors describe efforts related to the optimization of reverse transfer in these 12 states. The authors define optimization as policy and program change at any level--state, system, or institution--that yields the largest number of students who are eligible for and able to benefit from reverse transfer. The initial results suggest that some states are piloting reverse transfer with a limited set of public community college and university partnerships, and others are striving for system-level reforms that eventually may impact all forms of transfer. Understanding what optimization means and how it works is possible because of this variation in implementation approaches among states, and this thought paper explores how states are implementing and optimizing reverse transfer.

This brief tells the story of Lumina Foundation's and states' efforts to promote an equity agenda for higher education, featuring the 2015 Equity Policy Academy-- which focused on improving educational equity for students from historically underserved groups--as a turning point. Based primarily on interviews with Lumina staff and key state leaders from the five states that participated in the Academy--Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Vermont, and Virginia--this story is designed to highlight the unique path each state took to prioritize equity in postsecondary attainment, and inspire ideas for leaders in other states.

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 1980 a survey was conducted of 600 hospital libraries within the Kentucky-Ohio-Michigan Regional Medical Library (KOMRML) Network (Region V of the National Library of Medicine's RML Program) in order to gather managerial information on library users; facilities; holdings; procedures; services; administration; personnel; budget; expenditures; and the type, size, and educational programs of the hospital served. A total of 360 questionnaires were returned, achieving a return rate of 60%. This preliminary report describes the need for managerial information in hospital libraries, the objectives of the survey, and the methodology used. It is noted that major results and conclusions are not included and that they will be the subject of forthcoming data analyses. Extensive appendices present a sample questionnaire, a compilation of numerical and percentage responses to each question on the survey, and a series of tables containing preliminary descriptive statistics. The tables present correlation scores among selected survey questions; data on salary distributions, the educational level of the person responsible for the library, and the hospital training programs offered; and ranked listings by state for selected criteria related to 174 hospital libraries (48% of respondents). (ESR)

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.]

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

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.

In August, the Manhattan Institute (MI) contracted with Rasmussen Reports to survey public opinion in five states about school choice policies generally, as well as charter schools specifically. Working with MI, Rasmussen crafted nine questions that were added to the organization's regular polling of likely voters for presidential and senatorial races in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This paper will discuss five key questions from those surveys and place the results in the context of what the authors know about charter schools and choice in these states and nationwide.

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.]

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.)

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is working to respond to increased interest in the use of growth models for school accountability. Growth models are based on tracking change in individual student achievement scores over multiple years. While growth models have been used for decades in academic research and program evaluation, a wide cross section of policymakers at local, state, and national levels are now using different types of growth models. A total of 12 states are utilizing growth models that provide estimates of whether student achievement will meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) state proficiency targets within three years. These models were designed to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. In addition, 13 states have developed and implemented growth models as required by state policy; these models use different formulas to measure growth for students and schools. Finally, five states are reporting on growth under both NCLB and state policies. This paper is an overview and description of current state activities with growth models. Policymakers and educational leaders are also seeking more information on basic differences between various types of growth models and the assessments, data, and reporting systems necessary to implement them. CCSSO has developed an annual report and webpage focused on state accountability systems, and this paper provides a current snapshot of differences and similarities in growth models used by state education agencies. The present paper is one of CCSSO's recent efforts to provide information on this topic. (Contains 2 tables.)

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.)

In this commentary, James W. Fraser, a noted historian of education, cites examples from several teacher education programs at more than 30 universities partnering with the Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowships in various ways. Additionally, Fraser reviews decades of challenges to traditional teacher preparation, looks at some current reforms, and calls for a commitment to "reshaping the way that universities prepare great teachers for our schools."

Research by Achieve, ACT, and others suggests that for high school graduates to be prepared for success in a wide range of postsecondary settings, they need to take four years of challenging mathematics--covering Advanced Algebra; Geometry; and data, probability, and statistics content--and four years of rigorous English aligned with college- and career-ready standards (which include the CCSS). While readiness depends on more than knowledge and skills in English and math, these core disciplines undergird other academic and technical courses and are considered essential by employers and colleges alike. For students to truly graduate ready for college and careers, however, they need to complete a rigorous, robust and well-rounded curriculum that exposes them to a wide range of academic and technical knowledge and skills to ensure all doors are left open for them when they leave high school. Today, 19 states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah--and the District of Columbia, have elevated their high school diploma requirements to the college- and career-ready level. This paper offers a comparison table of graduation requirements in these 19 states.

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.

The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) published a series of case studies from 28 states to showcase examples of how ARRA EETT ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Enhancing Education Through Technology") grant funds have impacted teaching and learning. SETDA collected data for the case studies through a variety of mechanisms, including a detailed survey of the participating Local Education Agencies (LEAs), personal interviews with grant managers and teachers, and reviews of state and local program evaluations. The case studies in this paper highlight powerful examples of innovations resulting from the federal state/local partnerships created by the EETT program. They illustrate what can happen when "seed money" in the form of federal grants is leveraged by states, local school districts, and individual schools. Teachers and students across the country continue to benefit from these innovative programs as shown by higher formative and standardized test scores, increased technology literacy and technology integration, improved access to both digital curriculum resources and project-based learning initiatives, and increased student engagement.

Online charter schools are one key subset of the K-12 online education landscape, which also includes state virtual schools, district-level online programs, private providers of both individual courses and entire schools, and others. As of late 2010, online and blended charter schools existed in more than 20 states, serving more than 100,000 students. Growth has been rapid, in the range of 15 percent to 25 percent annually, as parents and students seek new educational options. Despite the presence and growth of online charter schools, little research has been done regarding the practices of online charter school authorizers. Policymakers recognize that online charter schools present unique challenges for authorizers, but few best practices for authorizing online charter schools have emerged. Many online charter schools have been operating for five years or less, and some states are just beginning to open their first few online charter schools. In many cases, authorizing processes have not kept up with the rate at which online charter schools have opened, as most states are still in the early stages of developing authorizing procedures for online schools. To address this gap, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) has begun a multi-phase project to review online-school authorizing practices and make recommendations to authorizers. The purpose of this initial stage of research was to conduct a preliminary environmental scan in order to identify key issues that authorizers of online charter schools experience. NACSA engaged with the Evergreen Education Group and Donnell-Kay Foundation to accomplish the first stage of work, which included in-depth interviews with seven key authorizers from across the country to identify similar key issues they are working to address. The key findings generated from the interviews are outlined and explained in greater detail throughout this paper. They are: (1) Charter school authorizing is still in its early stages of development; (2) Online charter schools present opportunities and challenges for oversight; (3) Accountability for student achievement in online environments can be unique; (4) Governing board expertise may be lacking; (5) Online special education can be a serious challenge; (6) Building process and capacity in authorizing offices is critical; and (7) Appropriate funding levels are still under debate. Online and blended learning have created new opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students across the United States. Online learning, however, is still new enough that practices are outpacing policies and, in many cases, oversight. The sustainable, long-term growth of online and blended schools requires that policy frameworks keep pace with educational practice. "Research Methods" are appended. (Contains 1 figure and 3 notes.)

Virtual learning is not for every student, but it's not science fiction, either. Right now in Michigan, it's being used by thousands of students in hundreds of virtual courses in urban, rural and suburban school districts. In fact, Michigan has been seen as a national leader in virtual learning. This study analyzes the financial costs and academic benefits of virtual learning, and it explores how this innovation could further benefit Michigan public school students. (Contains 105 footnotes.) [This paper was written with assistance from Michael Horn, Beverly Knox-Pipes, Bethany Rayl, Dan Schultz, Heather Staker, Thomas Svitkovich, and Tom Watkins.]

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.