Search

Since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in the United States in March 2020, districts across the nation have faced the difficult task of reopening schools safely and keeping them open. It is useful to learn from the successes of districts that have used multilayered mitigation strategies to reduce the risk of in-school transmission. This brief describes reopening efforts in San Diego County, CA, where 98% of districts had reopened for in-person learning as of May 2021. The San Diego County Office of Education has mobilized technical assistance, leveraged partnerships, and gathered data to support districts as they have navigated initial school closure, distance learning, and planning for reopening. The brief also describes how the county supported the reopening of child care programs and highlights the reopening strategies adopted by Cajon Valley Union School District, the largest district in the county to resume in-person learning in fall 2020. It is part of a series of reopening profiles produced by the Learning Policy Institute to disseminate key public health research and reopening strategies to educators and policymakers.

Last spring, the Covid-19 pandemic upended routines for over 56 million students and challenged more than 3.7 million teachers in over 130,000 schools nationwide to continue educating kids in an online format. This transition to "virtual learning" was understandably trying for all educators, schools, and districts, but some managed to do far better than others. Authored by Gregg Vanourek, this report summarizes key actions taken by leading charter school networks that were able to transition quickly and effectively to remote learning: (1) Achievement First; (2) Denver Schools of Science and Technology; (3) IDEA Public Schools; (4) KIPP DC; (5) Noble Network of Charter Schools; (6) Rocketship Public Schools; (7) Success Academy; and (8) Uncommon Schools. How did they manage the transition from in-person instruction to remote learning? What enabled them to respond as they did? What worked well, and what didn't? Drawing on interviews with school leaders, educators, and parents, this report distills major lessons learned and offers concrete recommendations for how to significantly improve the remote learning experience for all students, teachers, and families in the critical months and year ahead. Among them: (1) Create and enforce a typical school day for students, with a mix of live and recorded lessons and independent student work; (2) Prioritize student health and wellbeing and reach out to individual students and families on a regular basis; and (3) Lean into a team approach to teaching and instruction, centered around a common curriculum. As we enter a new school year, other charter, private, and traditional public school leaders and educators could and should follow the lead of these charter networks in the critical months ahead. We have no choice but to get better, faster, and fairer at remote learning for the sake of the "Covid Generation." [Foreword by Michael J. Petrilli.]

There is documented need for California to produce more bachelor's degree holders. Broad agreement exists that increasing community college transfer is an essential strategy for achieving this critical goal, while at the same time closing equity gaps and promoting mobility for residents of a state plagued with the nation's highest cost of living. What do students say they need to make it through the transfer gate? The RP Group's "Through the Gate" transfer study reveals a lost opportunity for California: Students who are close to transfer, yet struggling to make it to university. In the study's second phase, surveys and interviews with over 800 students across 31 California Community Colleges reveal that transfer students need colleges and universities to provide a more holistic and integrated approach to ensure they reach their goals: a bachelor's degree and economic mobility for themselves and their families. These students--high-leverage learners whose course-taking indicates they are close to transfer--offer rich and useful perspectives about factors impacting the entire transfer journey. Their input can inform both campus- and system-level efforts to achieve the California Community Colleges' Vision for Success goals, and ensure any student who sets a baccalaureate goal has the funds, knowledge, skills, and confidence to transfer. [For "Through the Gate Transfer Study: Phase 2 Technical Report," see ED608940.]

The primary goal of the California State University's (CSU) Graduation Initiative 2025 (GI 2025) is to reduce time to degree. The results of a survey and focus groups involving students at three CSU campuses, undertaken by the Education Insights Center (EdInsights) on behalf of the CSU Student Success Network, indicate that this goal is consistent with students' aspirations. Most students enroll in the CSU intending to graduate in a traditional timeframe--four years for students enrolling as freshmen and two years for those transferring from a community college. According to survey results, 85 percent of those who enrolled as first-time freshmen intended to graduate "on time"--within four years. Among transfer students, 70 percent enrolled in the CSU planning to graduate in two years. Nearly all students enter the California State University system intending to graduate "on time," and graduation rates are increasing systemwide. Currently, less than a quarter of incoming freshmen graduate within four years and a third of community college transfer students graduate in two years. This study investigates the personal and institutional obstacles that students experience as they navigate through college on the pathway to timely graduation.

In this report, the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (Chancellor's Office) presents its findings, evaluations and analysis of the success and efficacy of the face-to-face community college programs that are being offered to incarcerated students inside California state prisons. The report also discusses barriers and challenges that have been encountered, and provides recommendations for sustainable success. In July 2017, the Board of Governors for California Community Colleges adopted the "Vision for Success" for the 115 California community colleges. With this Vision for Success in mind, the Chancellor's Office has worked collaboratively with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to design courses and programs utilizing the Guided Pathways framework to improve incarcerated student success outcomes. The Research and Planning Group (RP Group) evaluated these educational programs on their effectiveness in providing face-to-face education at the state prison level. This evaluation included numerous interviews, an online survey and quantitative data analysis of enrollment and success metrics. The evaluation found several issues and potential barriers to the future success of these programs, including: (1) Sustainable funding; (2) Access to textbooks; (3) Access to technology, particularly with paper college applications; (4) Recruitment of faculty; and (5) Problematic scheduling parameters. Despite many academic and personal challenges faced by incarcerated students, they have proven these programs are not only effective, but also highly successful. The Chancellor's Office is committed to the "Vision for Success" and proud that community colleges lead the nation in reaching these new students.

The Afterschool Alliance, in partnership with Dollar General Literacy Foundation, is proud to present this issue brief examining the vital role afterschool programs play in building students' literacy skills. This issue brief will focus on the year-round support needed to help students with their reading, writing and critical thinking skills. This issue brief will also delve into the variety of ways afterschool and summer learning programs are taking a year-round approach to literacy, helping students catch up and keep up.

Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) is a social emotional model that achieves academic outcomes through combining use of real-time student data with proven relationship-building strategies and intensive teacher collaboration to prevent course failure. BARR is a recipient of US Department of Education "Investing in Innovation (i3)" Development and Validation grants. This paper presents results of the first two years of BARR implementation, including a randomized controlled trial in the first year. Students who experienced BARR earned significantly more credits toward graduation and had a lower core course failure rate than students in the control condition. By the second year, the achievement gap between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students had closed. Implications of combining positive intentional relationships with academic rigor are discussed.

Math in Common® (MiC) is a five-year initiative that supports a formal network of 10 California school districts as they implement the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSS-M) across grades K-8. This research brief explores how best to select or develop and use classroom observation systems in order to document instructional shifts and inform MiC school district improvement efforts. The report is organized into three main sections: (1) An exploration of what the research literature says about existing observation systems and several design considerations for successful observation systems; (2) A detailed discussion of several considerations of these findings for school districts as they implement observation systems in order to better track and understand how teachers are implementing the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics in their classrooms; (3) An annotated bibliography for recent publications on classroom observations that might be of interest to school districts interested in exploring these ideas in more depth. The following are appended: (1) Methods for Annotated Bibliography; and (2) Classroom Observation Analysis Tool. [For Volume 1, "Under Construction: Benchmark Assessments and Common Core Math Implementation in Grades K-8. Formative Evaluation Cycle Report for the Math in Common Initiative, Volume 1," see ED559581.]

Over the last several years, public education in the U.S. has experienced a remarkable growth in the number of schools that have expanded their schedules beyond the conventional calendar of 180 6.5-hour days. Spurred by significant policy activity at the federal, state, and local levels, more and more educators have capitalized on opportunities to increase their school days and years to put in place a host of whole-school strategies that aim to improve educational quality and outcomes. In its latest count, National Center on Time & Learning (NCTL) identified over 1,500 of these schools, about 900 of which are district (i.e., non-charter) schools. The educators implementing these reforms at schools serving more than half a million students--the vast majority of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds--believe that having more time in productive learning environments, offers the potential for a higher quality education and a stronger future. Today, the many district schools that have undergone a conversion to expanded school time (or that were established with a longer day and/or year) offer the field of education a valuable supply of information about how such expansion can be implemented despite inevitable challenges around financing, programming, and staffing. Indeed, educators and policymakers seeking to generate school improvement through expanded time would do well to learn from those who have engaged in such efforts before them. They also would benefit from understanding the wide variety of ways in which district schools have implemented, paid for, and structured expanded school time, if only to appreciate that there is no single model or set of models that defines the field. This finance study is produced by NCTL, in partnership with the educational consulting group Cross & Joftus. Taking a careful look at five different models of expanded-time district schools, this study unpacks the realities of implementing more school time--the funding sources, challenges, and opportunities--from financial and educational perspectives. The authors examine both these aspects because they are inextricably linked, and one cannot understand financing without describing the programming and staffing that the dollars pay for. Their hope is that these brief case studies, together with the analysis of common themes and key findings, will offer several cost models and provide some preliminary answers to the question of how schools and districts pay for expanded learning time. The five case studies include: (1) Griffith Elementary School (Balsz, Arizona); (2) Dr. Orlando Edreira Academy (Elizabeth, New Jersey); (3) McGlone Elementary School (Denver, Colorado); (4) Elmhurst Community Prep (Oakland, California); and (5) Orchard Gardens K-8 Pilot School (Boston, Massachusetts).

The teaching profession has long been structured around full-time classroom responsibilities that are defined by the location, timing, and schedule of the school day and a ubiquitous one-teacher-per-classroom model. In most districts, the only option for highly successful teachers to advance in the profession or serve more students is to leave the classroom to serve as an assistant principal, principal, or district administrator. Exceptions to this traditional approach exist in many schools and districts across the country. According to a 2009 national survey, more than half of teachers (56 percent) and nearly half of principals (49 percent) report that at least some teachers in their school combine part-time classroom teaching with other roles or responsibilities in their school or district. But evidence does not suggest these nontraditional roles are particularly innovative, focused on enhancing teacher quality, or designed to extend the reach of the best teachers to more students. Across the country, interest is increasing in alternative approaches to school staffing that provide more flexible work roles and advancement opportunities for highly effective teachers--both as a means to recognize and retain teachers in hard-to-staff schools, and to allow the best teachers to have a positive impact on larger numbers of students. With this growing interest, the field needs to learn what it can from early adopters of role-shifting reforms. This paper profiles two organizations--a small charter management organization based in California and a large school district in Virginia--that have recently pursued staffing innovations designed with these goals in mind. While they have taken very different approaches, both study sites offer examples of the types of roles that other districts, schools, and charter organizations can pursue to open up and professionalize teachers' work, while revealing several critical limitations related to design and implementation that the next generation of innovators should heed. (Contains 4 figures and 25 endnotes.)

Community college leaders are using many strategies to improve their students' ability to complete their studies, particularly their academically underprepared students. In recent years, these strategies have included adaptations of an approach long used in four-year colleges known as "learning communities," in which groups of students enroll together in two or more courses. Learning communities often feature thematically linked courses and offer an integrated curriculum that helps students to see connections between disciplines. Increasingly, colleges use learning communities to help academically underprepared students progress more quickly toward successful completion of their studies by linking a developmental course with a college-level course. Proponents of learning communities believe that linking courses in this way helps students get to know each other better or more quickly, enables them to see connections between disciplines, encourages them to engage more deeply with learning, and fosters stronger relationships with faculty. These experiences are expected to engage students and to ultimately improve their academic outcomes, including passing courses, persisting to the following semester, and earning a degree or certificate. The Learning Communities Demonstration is a large-scale, random assignment evaluation of learning communities programs at six community colleges. During the first year of the demonstration, all six colleges expanded their learning communities programs and, in the process, faced similar challenges in selecting courses to link, recruiting and supporting faculty, filling the learning communities with eligible students, and helping faculty use instructional strategies such as curricular integration to enhance learning. By spring 2009, the colleges operated more than 130 learning communities serving around 3,000 students. This report describes the strategies the colleges used to scale up their programs while working to improve their quality, and the many complex challenges that are likely to be faced by any community college intent on scaling up effective learning communities--including scheduling, faculty engagement with and approach to teaching, and balancing developmental courses with traditional college-level courses. Key findings from the implementation study include: (1) A paid coordinator and committed leaders were essential to managing and scaling up learning communities; (2) As coordinators clarified expectations and offered support, faculty responded by changing their teaching practices; (3) Curricular integration remained difficult to implement widely and deeply; and (4) Student cohorts led to strong relationships among students, creating both personal and academic support networks. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For "Scaling up Learning Communities: The Experience of Six Community Colleges," see ED509307.]

The Learning Communities Demonstration is a large-scale, random assignment evaluation of learning community programs at six community colleges. During the first year of the demonstration, all six colleges expanded their learning community programs and, in the process, faced similar challenges in selecting courses to link, recruiting and supporting faculty, filling the learning communities with eligible students, and helping faculty use instructional strategies such as curricular integration to enhance learning. By spring 2009, the colleges operated more than 130 learning communities serving around 3,000 students. This report describes the strategies the colleges used to scale up their programs while working to improve their quality, and the many complex challenges that are likely to be faced by any community college intent on scaling up effective learning communities--including scheduling, faculty engagement with and approach to teaching, and balancing developmental courses with traditional college-level courses. Key findings from the implementation study include: (1) A paid coordinator and committed leaders were essential to managing and scaling up learning communities; (2) As coordinators clarified expectations and offered support, faculty responded by changing their teaching practices; (3) Curricular integration remained difficult to implement widely and deeply; and (4) Student cohorts led to strong relationships among students, creating both personal and academic support networks. Appendices include: (1) Supplementary Tables; (2) Research Methods and Data Sources; and (3) Learning Communities Faculty Survey. (Contains 77 footnotes, 6 tables, 7 figures, and 1 box.)

One question frequently arises in the work of the Regional Comprehensive Centers: "What are states, districts, and schools doing about RTI?" This document addresses that question, with particular focus on instruction and the implementation of effective practices. It uses a frequently asked questions (FAQs) format, with answers based on the collective experience, to date, of five (three elementary and two middle) public U.S. schools that are implementing elements of Response to Intervention (RTI), including evidence-based instruction, progress monitoring, structures for regulating the intensity of intervention, and professional development. Information was gathered by phone interviews and site visits during Spring 2007 with the five participating sites. Questions were submitted by Regional Comprehensive Centers and answers developed by the Center on Instruction (COI) in collaboration with key individuals from the visited sites. Before addressing the questions, this document provides a broad overview of Response to Intervention. The primary audiences for the material presented here are the Regional Comprehensive Centers and their client state departments of education. The information may also be of interest to persons working in schools and school districts that are considering RTI or working on its implementation. Appended are: (1) Response to Intervention; (2) Selecting RTI Implementation Sites; (3) RTI Glossary; (4) Site Demographics; and (5) Brief Site Descriptions. (Contains 2 tables and 7 footnotes.)

Part of the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) research series titled "Time Matters: Teacher Collaboration for Learning and Leading," the cross-case study and this accompanying research brief were gathered as part of a larger study of four public schools across the United States that organized teacher time and work in innovative ways. The study examined four U.S. schools that organize and structure teacher time and work so that teachers are encouraged to collaborate with one another in their efforts to enrich teaching and learning: (1) Hillsdale High School in San Mateo, California; (2) International High School at LaGuardia Community College in Queens, New York; (3) Pagosa Springs Elementary School (K-4th grade) in Pagosa Springs, Colorado; and (4) Santa Monica Alternative Schoolhouse (SMASH) (K-8th grade) in Santa Monica, California. The study is designed to help both practitioners and policymakers understand the teaching and learning implications of structuring time differently in schools and provides detailed accounts of how time is organized within budget and schedule constraints. In addition, the study illustrates how these uses of time relate to a range of educational outcomes, from building more successful curriculum to supporting teacher learning and development to facilitating deeper, more meaningful learning opportunities for students. This research brief discusses the findings from the cross-case study. [For the full report, see ED591145.]

After-school or out-of-school programs offer additional social, academic, and extracurricular activities and experiences to supplement the regular school day. College preparation programs offer activities that are designed to enable youth to prepare for a variety of college-related tasks, with services including test preparation, academic tutoring, admissions essay writing, and assistance with college and financial aid applications. This paper provides a sense of what kinds of temporal sequencing within college preparation programs are most likely to be beneficial. The authors offer a brief definition of after-school programs, and then move on to a closer consideration of the timing of college preparation programs. [This report was published by the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.]

Part of the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) research series titled "Time Matters: Teacher Collaboration for Learning and Leading," this cross-case study and accompanying research brief were gathered as part of a larger study of four public schools across the United States that organized teacher time and work in innovative ways. This study examined four U.S. schools that organize and structure teacher time and work so that teachers are encouraged to collaborate with one another in their efforts to enrich teaching and learning: (1) Hillsdale High School in San Mateo, California; (2) International High School at LaGuardia Community College in Queens, New York; (3) Pagosa Springs Elementary School (K-4th grade) in Pagosa Springs, Colorado; and (4) Santa Monica Alternative Schoolhouse (SMASH) (K-8th grade) in Santa Monica, California. The study is designed to help both practitioners and policymakers understand the teaching and learning implications of structuring time differently in schools and provides detailed accounts of how time is organized within budget and schedule constraints. In addition, the study illustrates how these uses of time relate to a range of educational outcomes, from building more successful curriculum to supporting teacher learning and development to facilitating deeper, more meaningful learning opportunities for students. The case studies used interviews, observations, and document reviews to examine and describe: (1) How the schools reorganized teacher and student time within the school day; (2) What students and teachers did within the re-organized time; (3) The interaction between the re-organized use of teacher and student time; and (4) The enabling conditions for using the re-organized time well. Despite school context and geographical differences, all four schools shared characteristics and nine relevant themes emerged: (1) prioritized collaboration; (2) focus on student learning and development; (3) coherent, shared philosophy; (4) shared governance; (5) continual learning; (6) professional capacity; (7) multiple roles for teachers; (8) district support; and (9) participation in Networks. [For the research brief, see ED591147.]

Part of the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) research series titled "Teachers' Time: Collaborating for Learning, Teaching, and Leading," this case study looks at the Santa Monica Alternative School House (SMASH), a K-8 public school in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). It is a school of choice, with admission by lottery. SMASH has organized time in a way that differs from the traditional school model. Time at SMASH is crafted around an approach to learning that focuses on growing strong relationships between teachers and students as well as among the teaching staff themselves. This strategy helps create a school culture that supports collabora­tion. Teachers have opportunities to collaborate frequently, to grow relationships, to learn with and from each other, and to plan learning opportunities for students. This case study looks at how time is organized, the opportunities time creates for teacher and student learning, and the enabling conditions that support this kind of model. [For the cross-case study, "Teachers' Time: Collaborating for Learning, Teaching, and Leading. Time Matters: Teacher Collaboration for Learning and Leading," see ED591145. For the Research Brief, see ED591147.]

Part of the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) research series titled "Teachers' Time: Collaborating for Learning, Teaching, and Leading," this case study looks at Hillsdale High School, a large, comprehensive high school located in San Mateo, California, a high-tech enclave of Silicon Valley nestled 23 miles south of San Francisco and 32 miles north of San Jose. The San Francisco Peninsula is famous for high housing costs and serving families with high educational attainment, given its close proximity to Silicon Valley. The students at Hillsdale come from the surrounding neighborhoods of San Mateo and Foster City and reflect the full socioeconomic and cultural diversity of San Mateo County. Hillsdale allocates time in service of very specific and intentional goals: (1) to personalize learning for students; (2) to support collaboration among teachers; and (3) to develop rigorous, cross-disciplinary units of study for stu­dents. Thus, time, at Hillsdale, is used to foster learning and development for both students and teachers. The data for this case study were gathered as part of a larger study of four public schools across the United States that organized teacher time and work in innovative ways. [For the cross-case study, "Teachers' Time: Collaborating for Learning, Teaching, and Leading. Time Matters: Teacher Collaboration for Learning and Leading," see ED591145. For the Research Brief, see ED591147.]

This document presents an evaluation of the year-round operations (YRO) at the University of California and the California State Colleges. A comparison of YRO and YRO alternatives and the success of conversion planning led to four basic conclusions and recommendations: (1) The concept of YRO is sound and can result in significant total cost savings; however, the advantages of conversion to YRO can be great, or nonexistant, on an individual campus. These differences prevent the overall conclusion from being applied to every campus and college. The decision to offer YRO must be a local one, based on the economics of the individual campus. (2) The decision to offer summer quarter at a particular campus or college must be based on a complete investment analysis. This will highlight the cost advantages of YRO at that campus or college. (3) Each college or campus that is to convert to the quarter system, and then initiate YRO, should follow the conversion planning schedule presented in this report. (4) Because the score and breadth of summer quarter course offerings have a profound effect on cost/full-time equivalent students, it is recommended that each college and campus study the effect of reducing the scope and breadth of the summer quarter course. (MJM)