Search

School leaders, specifically principals, play a pivotal role in shaping student learning outcomes. The benefits of strong leaders extend beyond academic achievement, such as reductions in absenteeism and exclusionary discipline. While quality principals are critical for creating and sustaining quality schools, the staffing pipeline is facing significant challenges. In the context of these challenges, and recognizing the critical influence of effective leadership on student success, many states have recently enacted policies to better recruit, support and retain principals and other school leaders. This Policy Snapshot reviews trends in recent state legislation from 2022 to 2024 and highlights examples of both proposed and enacted laws in four key areas: (1) Certification and preparation; (2) Professional development; (3) Evaluation; and (4) Financial incentives and compensation.

Targeted school funding is a potentially valuable policy lever to increase educational equality by race, ethnicity, and income, but it remains unclear how to target funds most effectively. We use a regression discontinuity approach to compare districts that narrowly passed or failed a school funding election. We use close tax elections in 9 states to identify effects of operating funds and close bond elections in 8 states to identify effects of capital funds. Results indicate positive achievement returns to spending, especially for math achievement and for operating funds. We find similar returns to spending by race, ethnicity, and income (not statistically different), but we find significantly larger returns for students in low-resource districts than in high-resource districts, including larger returns for Black, Latinx, and low-income students. Mediation analyses suggest spending on teacher salaries and counselors may be particularly effective mechanisms to increase achievement among Black and low-income students. [Additional funding for this report was provided by the Gilead Foundation Creating Possible Fund and the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University.]

The academic and economic benefits of school spending are well-established, but focusing on these outcomes may underestimate the full social benefits of school spending. Recent increases in U.S. child mortality are driven by injuries and raise questions about what types of social investments could reduce child deaths. We use close school district tax elections and negative binomial regression models to estimate effects of a quasi-random increase in school spending on county child mortality. We find consistent evidence that increased school spending from passing a tax election reduces child mortality. Districts that narrowly passed a proposed tax increase spent an additional $243 per pupil, mostly on instruction and salaries, and had 4% lower child mortality after spending increased (6-10 years after the election). This increased spending also reduced child deaths of despair (due to drugs, alcohol, or suicide) by 5% and child deaths due to accidents or motor vehicle accidents by 7%. Estimates predicting potential mechanisms suggest that lower child mortality could partly reflect increases in the number of teachers and counselors, higher teacher salaries, and improved student engagement. [Funding for this report was provided by the Gilead Foundation Creating Possible Fund and the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University.]

In order to assist higher education institutions and their students during the pandemic, the federal government established the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Fund, which directed over $75 billion to institutions of higher education--including nearly $25 billion to community colleges--over a three-year period. The U.S. Department of Education worked on a rapid timeline to distribute these funds to institutions, which they could use to provide direct aid to students facing financial challenges and cover institutional costs related to the pandemic. Drawing on a survey of community colleges in six states--California, Michigan, New York (State University of New York [SUNY] colleges), Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas--this report provides insight into the specific pandemic recovery activities colleges implemented, colleges' perceptions of how successful HEER funds were in addressing student and institutional needs during the pandemic, and colleges' views of unmet needs. The institutional survey was completed by 170 out of a total of 265 community colleges in the six states. Key findings from the report: (1) Colleges spent nearly all the HEER funds they received. Given the large amount of HEER funding and the fact that colleges did not need to submit a proposal and budget for how they would use the funds, it should not be assumed that colleges would have spent all the money they received. Yet colleges spent nearly all the funds they received by the time the HEER program ended in June 2023; (2) HEER funds met a variety of student and institutional needs during the pandemic. Colleges had relatively few problems using the funds and felt that the aid was successful in mitigating student and institutional hardships; (3) Colleges focused on retaining existing students; they employed a variety of methods to support students in need. Colleges used HEER funds to support and retain existing (pre-pandemic) students rather than to recruit new students. They focused on supporting students with financial exigencies, including those experiencing food and housing insecurity. They used institutional aid to forgive debt owed to the college and to provide food, housing, and childcare assistance; (4) Spending patterns suggest that colleges experienced similar challenges during the pandemic and often prioritized the same objectives. Despite differences in state contexts and institutional settings, colleges tended to allocate funds in similar ways. For example, most colleges used aid for campus safety and technology hardware. Expenditure patterns also shifted over time in similar ways, indicating that colleges were responsive to evolving needs; (5) Expenditures related to campus safety and technology remained strong but decreased in frequency over time; expenditures to support students' mental health increased in frequency. Mental health services was the only expenditure category that increased in frequency in each of the three years of funding, likely reflecting the toll the pandemic took on students' mental health; (6) Comparing pre- and post-pandemic spending, HEER funds had the most impact on increasing support for technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance. Colleges used HEER funds both to fund existing services and to begin offering new ones. Fewer than a third of colleges had services in place to provide technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance before the pandemic; many more did so afterward; (7) Concerns about the end of HEER funding and priorities for future funding expose a need for continued flexible resources to address students' financial needs. Colleges' main concern about the end of HEER funding was that it would limit their ability to support students during an emergency. Their top priority for using future funding was additional student aid; and (8) Rural and vocational/technical colleges (as defined by the Carnegie Classification) may have had fewer resources prior to the pandemic and may be in greater need of additional support. Colleges in towns and rural areas and colleges focused on technical training were less likely to offer a number of supports both pre- and post-pandemic. Rural colleges were also less likely to report having received additional funding for pandemic recovery from sources other than HEER funds. Overall, while the survey findings suggest that HEER largely met the goals for which it was intended, they also point to the importance of addressing systemic challenges facing community college students and the institutions that serve them. Now that the immediate crisis of the pandemic has passed and HEER funding has ended, there is an opportunity to think strategically about the investments that are needed to promote student success over the long term, particularly for underserved and financially vulnerable students who are the most at risk of stopping out or not enrolling in the first place.

For decades, college tuition costs have been skyrocketing, yet state financial aid has failed to meet the increasing economic needs of college students -- leaving many young people with the choice of bridging the financial gap by taking out student loans or not attending college at all. This pressing issue of rising college tuition is not just a matter of economic inconvenience; it is a harbinger of deepening racial and socioeconomic inequalities. The lack of financial aid disproportionately deters Black and Latino students and students from low-income backgrounds from pursuing higher education and earning a college degree. In this report, we explore state financial aid funding and associated program requirements in 10 distinct states: California, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. In it, we shed light on the 12 key eligibility requirements that often serve as barriers for students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, undocumented students, and justice-impacted students to afford college: (1) Program type (Need, Merit, or Need and Merit); (2) FAFSA completion required; (3) Alternative to FAFSA; (4) Low-income requirement; (5) Available without standardized test score; (6) Available without mandated GPA; (7) Marginalized student populations included; (8) FAFSA as a state high-school graduation requirement; (9) Institution types eligible; (10) Average undergraduate cost of attendance (COA) for in-state students (2022-23 academic year); (11) Annual award amount description; and (12) Enrollment intensity. This analysis is designed to help educators, policymakers, and advocates better understand the barriers, strengths, limitations, and influences that state financial aid programs can have on the ability of students of color and students from low-income backgrounds to access and afford college.

This is the technical appendix for the report "From Insights to Impact: Fostering Innovation through Texas" which examines the current national landscape of higher education research and development to help gauge Texas' current position and identify opportunities to drive further innovations into the future. This appendix includes the following sections: (1) Maintaining Texas' Edge; (2) From Roadmap to Reality; (3) Texas' Competitive Position; (4) Technology Transfer Landscape; and (5) Amplifying the Impact. [This report was produced with TIP Strategies, Inc. and Research Bridge Partners.]

In 2023, charter school advocates continued to make legislative gains in statehouses across the country. These gains were made in red, blue, and purple states, oftentimes in ways that showed bipartisan support for charter schools remains firmly in place. In looking at the results of this year's legislative sessions across the country, four developments in particular stand out. First, in perhaps the biggest win this year, Montana became the 46th state to enact a charter school law. Second, charter school advocates notched an unusually large number of major wins on funding and facilities legislation, with especially significant progress in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Wyoming. Third, charter school supporters opened the door to new types of authorizers in several states, including in Montana (new state authorizer), Nevada (cities and counties), North Carolina (new state authorizer), Oklahoma (new state authorizer, more types of universities, and accredited private institutions of higher learning), Utah (private institutions of higher education), and Wyoming (new state authorizer). Fourth, charter school supporters successfully played successful defense on anti-charter school efforts in several states, with three of the most notable defensive victories in blue states. In New Mexico, the Senate Education Committee voted down a charter school moratorium bill that was proposed by the Senate President Pro Tempore by a 7-1 margin. The bill would not have allowed any more charter schools in school districts where 20% of the students already attend a charter school. In California, Governor Newsom vetoed a bill that would have made harmful changes to the Charter School Facility Grant program and unnecessarily raise facilities cost for charter schools that want to establish or expand in low-income communities across the state. In Michigan, the legislature reversed a 20% cut to the funding of virtual charter schools proposed by the governor and instead level funded these schools. This report provides highlights from this year's state legislative activity across the country, organized into the following categories: funding and facilities, authorizing and accountability, other issues, no law states, and harmful legislation.

Community colleges and broad-access universities (those with minimally selective admissions policies) provide an opportunity for students across the United States to attain postsecondary degrees and economic mobility. However, graduation rates from such colleges are often low and there are many obstacles that can be difficult to overcome, especially for students who must balance work or family responsibilities, older students, students from low-income backgrounds, and students of color who face additional systemic barriers. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented challenges for college students, making the pursuit of higher education even more difficult. Since about 2000, researchers have been collecting evidence on what forms of support are effective in helping students earn their degrees. Evidence shows that interventions that include multiple program components that support students over several years are associated with larger impacts on student outcomes. Building on the existing body of research, MDRC designed and is evaluating the Scaling Up College Completion Efforts for Student Success (SUCCESS) program, a multifaceted student support program designed to effectively promote student success and be financially sustainable. SUCCESS combines evidence-based components, including coaches engaged in active outreach to students, monthly financial incentives for students who meet program requirements, strategies to encourage students to enroll full time, and a data-driven program management system. Starting in 2019, 13 colleges across five states (California, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Ohio), along with their state higher education agencies, have worked with MDRC to customize and launch SUCCESS. Eleven of the 13 colleges are participating in the randomized controlled trial. A previous brief presenting early findings from the first study cohort illustrated that the SUCCESS program in the 2020-2021 academic year, as adapted for the context of the pandemic, had no discernible effect on students' academic progress. This report provides updated insight into the SUCCESS program after one year of participation for the first three evaluation student cohorts, covering fall 2020 through summer 2022. The main implementation finding from that time period is that the program implementation varied by college and term, and did not fully align with the SUCCESS model, largely due to the adaptations implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, students who were offered SUCCESS had a different college experience from students in the control group--they were more likely to be told about the importance of full-time enrollment and, on average, they had substantially more contact with their advisors or coaches. [The following organizations supported the SUCCESS demonstration: the Minnesota State System Office and the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services.]

To provide a landscape of mathematics activities children experience in U.S. preschool and kindergarten classrooms, we observed time children spent in mathematics activities (and -- as a contrast -- literacy) in 101 geographically diverse early childhood classrooms in seven U.S. states. We also observed what mathematics content, grouping strategies, and management formats teachers engaged during classroom mathematics activities. Each observation lasted approximately 2 hours; collectively these observations focused on 930 children observed one to three times during the 2018/2019 or 2019/2020 school year. Averaging across individuals' data within classrooms, we found that mathematics and literacy activities comprised 5% and 45% of time observed in preschool classrooms, respectively; and 26% and 42% of time observed in kindergarten classrooms, respectively. At both grades, when mathematics activities occurred, they were proportionally more often teacher-led rather than child-led. These findings raise concerns about the paucity of mathematics and over-reliance on developmentally inappropriate teacher-managed mathematics instruction in early childhood classrooms, especially preschools. Amount of time in math did not vary by preschool auspice, but time in literacy and the proportion of math time devoted to specific math content did: In Head Start classrooms we observed lowest percentage of time in literacy (and the highest percentage of time in non-instruction) compared to all other auspices. Across auspices, numeracy was the predominant math content area overall, but especially in Head Start classrooms. Thus, some aspects of early mathematics may differ with program auspice, suggesting that recommendations to increase and improve early mathematics activities may need to consider auspice characteristics. [This paper was published in "Early Childhood Research Quarterly" v69 p25-37 2024.]

The Working Group on Social Emotional Learning (SEL) and Learning Differences was launched in 2021 as an initiative of the Global Cities Education Network (GCEN). Fourteen school districts each worked to implement a unique action plan designed to strengthen SEL supports in their district, including for students with learning differences. Districts drew on expertise and resources shared in the working group and adapted the strategies to meet their needs. The learning centered on deep dives into two international school systems: a virtual site visit to Surrey Schools (British Columbia, Canada) and an in-person convening in Melbourne (Victoria, Australia). This report features four case studies and shares lessons learned and strategies implemented by the districts.

Innovation in education is vital for responding to emerging challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and for building progress on longstanding challenges in schools. The infusion of substantial, highly flexible pots of federal relief dollars created an opportunity to pilot new programs and initiatives. Many states and districts opted to invest resources in traditional K-12 expenses, such as increasing staff capacity or updating facilities. However, states are also using the funds to spark new initiatives that otherwise may not have been possible and can be replicated across the country. This Policy Guide presents six strategies along with state examples to assist in planning, designing, implementing, and sustaining innovative services and programs. In addition to these strategies, other researchers have developed models for change that put forward other unique approaches, such as allowing for locally driven variation, providing human capital support for ongoing technical assistance and tolerating small-scale risk. The end goal of using these approaches is to design innovative policies that endure and improve long-term student outcomes.

Civics education continues to gain national importance, especially in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election and with recent debates about the teaching of history that addresses the legacy of racism and discrimination in the United States. Despite the increasing interest in strengthening civics education, states continue to differ in their interpretation of what constitutes relevant and high-quality civic engagement among students. This report describes how states are approaching policies to encourage civic engagement. It first provides an overview of state policies and then describes the work in 10 states that are encouraging both the development of civics knowledge and engagement in civic action.

Postsecondary education is associated with achieving economic self-sufficiency and other positive outcomes. Young people in foster care face challenges pursuing postsecondary education, which can lead to them being less likely than their peers to enroll in college and less likely to earn a degree when enrolled. One federal initiative meant to address this issue is the Chafee Education and Training Voucher (ETV) program. The ETV program was created through a 2001 Congressional amendment to the 1999 John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act. This report highlights the experiences of young people who have experienced foster care and received ETVs to help fund their postsecondary education. Eighty-one young people in nine states were interviewed. [This report builds on work originally funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.]

Early childhood researchers from across the U.S. came together to form the Early Learning Network (ELN) in 2016 with the mission to identify policies and practices that narrow opportunity gaps and help children maintain early learning success. Early Learning Network teams are excited to share what they have learned--and what it means for early childhood education practice and policy--in a series of research briefs. The briefs summarize impact areas that have potential to positively contribute to young children's learning and development, including key takeaways and action steps for practice, policy and research. They were developed using the teams' collective findings, along with critical input and insights shared by U.S. stakeholders during the Early Learning Network Forum. Four impact areas emerged, each with their own key takeaway: (1) Pre-K Participation; (2) Classroom Experiences and Learning Opportunities; (3) Relationships; and (4) Sustained High-Quality Experiences. Information regarding Optimizing Learning Opportunities for Students (OLOS), a classroom assessment tool developed by the ELN assessment team and field-tested by network members, is included.

Despite the relative increase in early care and education (ECE) investment over recent decades, access to infant and toddler care continues to be a hurdle for countless families across the nation. While access is a multifaceted issue, main contributors include a lack of available slots and the high cost of providing care to infants and toddlers. Federal programs intended to increase access to high-quality care (e.g., Child Care and Development Fund [CCDF] subsidy) have strict eligibility requirements and only reach a fraction of eligible families. As a result, families of infants and toddlers may be forced to choose from a limited array of ECE options or leave the workforce to care for their child. Simultaneously, insufficient compensation, demanding conditions, and minimal supports contribute to challenges with ECE workforce recruitment and retention. These factors suggest a need for effective policies and practices to help families find and use affordable care that meets the needs of their infants and toddlers. This document highlights various strategies that states have used to strengthen the infant and toddler workforce and system of care. While each strategy is described individually, some are combined with other strategies in practice. Strategies described in this resource address the following topic areas: (1) Supply of infant toddler care; (2) Workforce standards and professional support; and (3) Compensation.

Community colleges are mission-driven institutions committed to access and community needs. They serve a diverse population: The majority of students are employed, so they have to balance work with school; about one-third are first-generation, so they are navigating an unfamiliar system for the first time in their families; and 15% are single parents, juggling child care along with course load. With this understanding that students are people with complex needs and responsibilities, community colleges are innovating in the ways they are delivering wraparound supports -- sometimes referred to as basic needs supports -- that address nonacademic barriers to college success. (Common examples of wraparound supports are mental health supports and services, emergency funds and stipends, and housing and food assistance.) Enhanced wraparound supports can lead to higher rates of retention and completion for students. This Policy Brief explores supports offered by individual institutions, as well as broader and coordinated approaches that encompass states or entire systems. It cites examples from current state legislation and programs that support these efforts.

Open-access colleges are an important pathway to economic mobility for millions of Americans. But graduation rates at these colleges are low--for example, only 36 percent of first-time, full-time freshmen at community colleges graduate within three years. Over the last two decades, MDRC and others have conducted research to build the evidence base about what works to help students stay in college and earn credentials. Using lessons from the existing body of research, MDRC designed and is evaluating the Scaling Up College Completion Efforts for Student Success (SUCCESS) program, a multifaceted student support program designed for financial sustainability. This brief highlights the components of the original SUCCESS program model and how colleges adapted them in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, and describes the study design and how the pandemic has affected it too. It also presents some early implementation findings and preliminary impact findings for the first study cohort's first semester, which occurred during the peak of the pandemic. [Contributors to the report include: Erick Alonzo, Osvaldo Avila, Katie Beal, Parker Cellura, Ben Cohen, Stanley Dai, Hannah Dalporto, Colin Hill, Vivianna Plancarte, Austin Slaughter, Andrea Vasquez, Sienna Walker, Michelle Ware, Melissa Wavelet, and Michael Weiss.]

Since 2017, over 300 presidentially-declared major disasters have occurred across all 50 states and all U.S. territories. Many of these disasters have had devastating effects on K-12 schools, including those in socially vulnerable communities for whom disaster recovery is more challenging. The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 included provisions for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit issues related to certain recent disasters. This report reviews: (1) the extent to which school districts that received key federal disaster recovery grants served students from selected socially vulnerable groups; (2) the recovery experiences of selected K-12 school districts in socially vulnerable communities; and (3) the extent to which Education's Restart program supports school disaster recovery. GAO analyzed disaster-related data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Education including data on Restart grants and program documentation, and reviewed relevant federal laws and agency guidance. GAO also collected information from five school districts in three states, selected for demographic diversity, elevated rates of social vulnerability in their community, and receipt of Restart grants. In addition, GAO interviewed officials from FEMA and Education.

When schools closed their doors in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a scramble to adjust to remote learning. Over the summer and into the fall, the debate over reopening took center stage, as school leaders struggled to answer how and when it would be safe to return to the classroom. The Center for American Progress (CAP) has been tracking key trends during remote learning and school reopening efforts across the United States. CAP has also applied a racial equity lens to understand how different communities, educators, and students have been affected by these trends. As districts and schools plan for the upcoming school year and life after the pandemic, these trends can help inform best practices to apply and pitfalls to avoid. It is important to note that because most decisions around responding to the pandemic and reopening schools were left to districts and schools, national, and even state-level, data are limited. As such, looking at trends and individual examples is one of the most effective ways to understand what has been happening in education during the past year.

Monitoring Advising Analytics to Promote Success (MAAPS)is a multi-institutional project of the University Innovation Alliance (UIA) initially funded and supported by a US Department of Education First in the World Grant to Georgia State, the lead UIA member on this project. MAAPS is a large-scale randomized-controlled trial designed to validate the effectiveness of intensive, proactive, technology-enhanced advisement in increasing achievement, persistence, and completion of historically-underserved students. The study includes more than 10,000 low-income and first-generation students enrolled at the eleven large public universities that constitute the UIA: Arizona State University, Georgia State University, Iowa State University, Michigan State University, The Ohio State University, Oregon State University, Purdue University, University of California Riverside, University of Central Florida, University of Kansas, and University of Texas at Austin. Ithaka S+R serves as the independent evaluator of the study. This report presents: (1) a brief overview of the MAAPS intervention and its key activities; (2) an update on the final study and analytic samples; (3) findings from the impact analyses on the outcome measures after six academic years for the full sample and institutional subsamples; (4) implementation study findings; and (5) a discussion of the results and avenues for future research. [For "MAAPS Advising Experiment: Evaluation Findings after Four Years. Research Report," see ED625754.]

One year after the COVID-19 pandemic forced state and school leaders across the nation and around the world to immediately close school buildings, the lasting impact on students is increasingly evident: Months of online learning and limited in-person interaction with educators, coaches and mentors have led to gaps in learning, and unknown emotional impacts on millions of K12 students and educators. Experiences of the past year have brought deeper understanding and greater clarity on how best to organize schooling and deliver instruction in a way that minimizes health risks and maximizes learning and engagement. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association (NGA) analyzed emerging state efforts to accelerate student learning this summer and during the 2021-22 school year. They reviewed available state plans, websites, media reports and gubernatorial State of the State addresses for most states. Because each state is at different stages in their planning, in many cases, the documents reviewed were initial drafts, plan outlines (with specifics still being developed) or the first in a series of resources being developed. This memo provides an overview of notable strategies and trends that were identified through this analysis, and is organized around four major steps, which serve as the framing for this memo. Along with describing the activities states are taking as part of each step, this memo includes a range of state examples and links to related resources. As state approaches continue to evolve and plans are finalized, states are encouraged to share their detailed strategies with CCSSO, NGA and the field. The four major steps states are taking include: (1) Getting organized and understanding what needs to happen; (2) Using summer 2021 to accelerate learning; (3) Supporting more students to be successful learners; and (4) Tackling other challenges: Future considerations.

Educational inequality due to family socioeconomic status (SES) has been the focus of both public dialogue and education research in the United States for many years. The current study aims to understand how educational inequality due to family SES has changed in the United States. Specifically, the study focuses on the changes in achievement gaps between high and low SES students between 2003 and 2017 and the changes in the performance of low-SES students over time. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) grade 8 mathematics assessment were used for the analyses. Results show that the SES achievement gap at the national level has remained the same over time. State-level results suggest that 34 of the 50 states' SES achievement gaps experienced no significant change between 2003 and 2017, 14 gaps widened, and only two SES gaps narrowed. In addition, at the national level, more low-SES students achieved at the NAEP Basic and at the NAEP Proficient levels over time with a majority of states improving their low-SES students' performance. In conclusion, the study contributes to the existing literature not only by reflecting on U.S. national trends using an effective SES index, but also by providing state-level results. It also collects trend data on states' macro-level indicators, including economic growth, social inequality, and educational expenditures, allowing state-specific findings to be presented in the context of changes in macro-level context. Initial explorations of relationships between state SES achievement gap trends and macroeconomic factors are presented to motivate future research. The trends in SES achievement gaps and the specific policy contexts are presented in greater detail for 13 states/jurisdictions.

Developed by the National Writing Project (NWP), the College, Career, and Community Writers Program (C3WP) seeks to improve students' argument writing by building teachers' understanding of and skill in teaching source-based argument writing. The program features intensive professional development, skill-based instructional resources, and formative assessment tools designed to help teachers bring C3WP into their classrooms. After two prior studies of C3WP showed positive and statistically significant effects on grade 7-10 students' source-based argument writing, NWP received a 2016 Investing in Innovation (i3) Scale-up grant from the US Department of Education. With this grant, NWP aimed to: (1) develop greater capacity to implement and sustain C3WP through scaling activities and (2) implement C3WP in grades 7-10 in 2018-19 and 2019-20 and grades 4-5 in 2019-20. SRI received funds through this grant to serve as external evaluator. This technical report provides SRI's independent evaluation findings in line with i3 reporting requirements. SRI employed a district-level cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of C3WP on students' source-based argument-writing achievement. In spring 2018, SRI randomized 48 rural districts in 16 states to receive either C3WP or a business-as-usual comparison condition. One treatment district attrited shortly after randomization. SRI used various data sources, including administrative program data and teacher surveys, to examine scaling and program implementation. SRI administered a source-based argument writing performance task as a baseline measure in fall 2018 and outcome measure in spring 2019, after one year of program implementation in grades 7-9. SRI deidentified the writing and NWP scored it using the four attributes measured by the Analytic Writing Continuum for Source-based Writing (AWC-SBA): content, structure, stance, and conventions. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the second year of C3WP implementation in grades 7-10 and the only year of implementation in grades 4-5. Ultimately, SRI found that NWP's implementation of C3WP met all measured thresholds of implementation fidelity and scaling other than those impacted by the pandemic (number of hours of professional development in 2019-20 and regional conferences, intended to be held in 2020). SRI found that one year of C3WP had positive and statistically significant impacts on all four attributes of grade 7-9 students' writing measured by the AWC-SBA.

This Policy Snapshot provides examples of legislation in 13 states that have proposed or enacted legislation addressing the following principles of K-12 funding models: attendance and enrollment, revenue, and equity-based initiatives. All 50 states allocate K-12 funding in different ways. Refer to this two-page reference guide, which defines and illustrates common models and terms, and this 50-State Comparison, which captures how all states approach funding generally and for specific student populations.

The National Math + Science Initiative (NMSI) is a nonprofit organization committed to improving educational outcomes that traces its roots back to the early 1990s. NMSI's College Readiness Program (CRP) is a long-standing program with the goal of promoting STEM education in high schools to improve students' preparation for college. The three-year program provides teacher, student, and school supports to promote high school students' success in English, mathematics, and science Advanced Placement (AP) courses, with a focus on students who are traditionally underrepresented in the targeted AP courses. Through a scale-up grant awarded to NMSI by the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, the CRP was implemented in 27 schools in the 2016-2017 school year (Treatment Schools) and in 21 schools in the 2017-2018 school year (Delayed Treatment Schools), collectively identified as Program Schools. CRESST conducted an independent evaluation of the impact of the CRP on students' AP outcomes using a randomized cluster trial with 48 CRP schools and 48 Comparison Schools in 10 states. The evaluation of the CRP consisted of three parts: (1) measuring the program's impact on selected student AP exam outcomes; (2) determining the impact of the program on school perspectives and culture; and (3) assessing of the fidelity of implementation of the CRP at the school level. AP exam data from 48 Treatment Schools, with a total of 8,778 exams in 2018 and 9,378 in 2019, and 48 matched control schools, with 7,505 exams in 2018 and 2019 in Year 3, were analyzed for this study. Program impact was evaluated using a 2-level hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) with students nested within schools. The analyses revealed that in 2018 the probability of a student taking an AP exam in the Program Schools was, on average, 7% higher than the paired Comparison Schools, and the difference was statistically significant. And in 2019 the effect was even greater with the probability of taking an AP exam being significantly higher in Program Schools (18%) than in Comparison Schools (3%). When looking at the probability of an exam yielding a qualifying score, in 2018, the HGLM analyses found no significant difference between the two groups. In 2019, however, exams taken at the Program Schools had a significantly higher overall probability (2%) of receiving a qualifying score than the Comparison Schools (0%). These analyses compared results to the total school population. In the next analyses, we looked only at those students who took AP exams. In 2018, overall, the fitted probability of achieving a qualifying score among the exams taken was 8% in the Program Schools, compared to 22% in the Comparison Schools. In 2019, however, the difference between the Program Schools (7%) and the Comparison Schools (9%) was not statistically significant. Fidelity of implementation was evaluated using a fidelity matrix approach (required as part of the evaluation of the i3 program), which showed that not all elements of the program were implemented with high fidelity. In 2018, results indicated that 43 out of 48 schools (90%) achieved 80% or better implementation fidelity, for an average fidelity score of 89%. Four schools achieved a perfect 100% fidelity score. In 2019, 88% of schools achieved 80% or better implementation fidelity. Ten schools achieved a perfect 100% fidelity score. In 2018 in more than 75% of schools, not all teachers fulfilled their requirements for attending the required teacher training sessions, and so this component was not implemented with fidelity. In 2019, this picture improved a little with 15 schools (31%) meeting the 80% threshold. Teacher stipends, administrator bonuses, and student qualifying score awards were paid as expected. Teacher survey data indicated that teachers found the training and professional development activities provided by the CRP to be the most beneficial program supports. Mentoring was chosen, across all years, as the least effective program component. When prompted for the second most effective CRP component, the same number of teachers selected the funding of classroom and lab supplies as did teacher training. [For "2016-2017 Implementation Evaluation of the National Math and Science Initiative's College Readiness Program," see ED615910.]

The Latino population in the United States is large and growing. As a whole, however, it has been challenged with inequitable educational attainment rates compared to other groups, meriting the attention of public agencies, postsecondary institutions, and advocates. Latino economic and career success -- and the success of our overall economy -- depend on alleviating current educational inequalities. The most effective way to do that is by directing resources to effective, data-driven strategies. In 2018, 15 postsecondary institutions joined in the three-year Latino Adult Student Success (LASS) Academy to develop and implement targeted strategies that support Latino adult students (and adult learners generally) in their pursuit of postsecondary credentials. The LASS Academy was the inaugural cohort under the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL)'s Adult Learner Academy model, an approach that combines data analysis, technical assistance, and peer-to-peer learning to support new action plans and strategies for improving services and programs for important target populations. The data used in the initiative included enrollment, course completion, persistence, and graduation metrics along with surveys of the institutions' staff and current adult students through CAEL's Adult Learner 360™ process. The experience offered several important lessons that underscored the advantages of the Academy model. The institutions benefited from the opportunity to connect with each other and share strategies, and they valued the emphasis on the use of both quantitative data from their own student records and the analysis of new qualitative survey results. The initiative further showed the creative resilience of the institutions to quickly change course during the pandemic and adjust their implementation plans in the course of its shifting circumstances. As their new approaches to supporting Latino adults continue beyond the project, the participating LASS institutions expect to see even greater benefits to their Latino adult postsecondary enrollment and success.

Political scientists have largely overlooked the democratic challenges inherent in the governance of U.S. public education--despite profound implications for educational delivery and, ultimately, social mobility and economic growth. In this study, we consider whether the interests of adult voters who elect school boards in each community are likely to be aligned with the educational needs of local students. Specifically, we compare voters and students in four states on several policy-relevant dimensions. Using official voter turnout records and rich microtargeting data, we document considerable demographic differences between voters who participate in school board elections and the students attending the schools that boards oversee. These gaps are most pronounced in majority nonwhite jurisdictions and school districts with the largest racial achievement gaps. Our novel analysis provides important context for understanding the political pressures facing school boards and their likely role in perpetuating educational and, ultimately, societal inequality.

When the nation shut down in March because of the COVID-19 pandemic, states had to figure out what education would look like for the remainder of the academic year. These abrupt changes affected not only students' ability to learn but also their access to the support system that would help prepare them for steps beyond high school. This Policy Brief is part of a series dedicated to various facets of the transition from secondary to postsecondary education, now complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This brief explores challenges that students are facing and actions that states, and sometimes school districts, can take to support students in their postsecondary transition during these far-from-normal times. Those actions include: (1) addressing systemic barriers to college access exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) adapting data driven decision-making to the virtual environment; and (3) leveraging federal funds to support postsecondary transition. The series -- which builds upon "A State Policymaker's Guide to Equitable Transitions in the COVID-19 Era" (ED606369) -- provides actionable steps and examples for state policymakers to consider as they address the transition from high school to college and the workforce.

Lumina Foundation seeks to increase the proportion of Americans who hold a postsecondary credential to 60 percent by 2025, across all racial, ethnic, immigration, and income groups. Recognizing that this goal cannot be achieved through a focus on traditional-age college students alone, Lumina launched the Adult Promise initiative in 2017. Between 2017 and 2019, the foundation made multiyear grants to a total of 15 states to address adult postsecondary attainment through recruitment, supports, and financial commitments. The Adult Promise evaluation tracked progress in 11 states included in the 2017 and 2018 grant waves (California, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Washington), focusing on six domains: (1) state and institutional policy context, (2) outreach and recruitment, (3) supports for adult students, (4) financial assistance, (5) equity considerations, and (6) crisis response, which was especially relevant in 2020. This report presents evidence about the progress these state grantees made in these six domains to support adult learners attain postsecondary education.

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

The coronavirus pandemic has led to the most difficult semester in generations on college campuses across the United States. With that semester now wrapping up, public colleges and universities are facing costs that already dwarf the $7.6 billion in federal stimulus funds that are on their way to these institutions. Absent dramatic new action from Congress, many of the public colleges that support social mobility will confront an existential threat. As dramatic as colleges' losses already are, a much bigger threat is in the offing: the potential for multiple years of severe state budget cuts. Forty-six states and Washington, D.C., have constitutional or statutory requirements to balance their budgets. States are already reporting record deficits in revenue during the pandemic as lost wages, low sales, and people staying home translate into less tax revenue. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that states will face a $765 billion shortfall over the next three years. Therefore, Congress must act now to protect higher education by distributing the necessary additional funds for public colleges and universities. This includes investing at least $46 billion in states for higher education, including funding a strong a maintenance of effort (MOE) provision to ensure that state funding per student remains at levels comparable to before the pandemic, as well as requiring institutional reporting on factors such as enrollment and withdrawals by income and race to not deepen existing societal disparities.

Research generally finds that college students are more likely to complete a program of study if they choose a major that aligns with their interests and goals. Yet many new community college students do not have clear goals. Nearly 40% of community college students report being undecided about their major at the end of their first year (authors' calculations from the 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study), and the actual proportion who are truly undecided may be much higher, as students must declare a program of study to qualify for financial aid. This three-part packet is designed to provide guidance to colleges seeking to redesign their new student onboarding practices to better help students choose and enter a program of study. This first part reviews research on why the conventional community college approach to new student onboarding is often unsuccessful in helping students choose and plan a program, and it describes how colleges are rethinking the process as part of larger guided pathways reforms. Part 2 presents findings from Community College Research Center (CCRC) research on what students at two Florida colleges that were early adopters of guided pathways say about reformed new student onboarding practices at their campuses. Part 3 presents a series of discussion and planning activities for colleges seeking to redesign new student onboarding to increase the chances that new students will choose a program that suits them well and develop and begin to follow a well-conceived program completion plan. [For "Redesigning Community College Student Onboarding through Guided Pathways. Part 2: Student Perspectives on Reformed Practices at Two Florida Colleges," see ED604995. Part 3 is not available in ERIC. For Part 3 visit https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/redesigning-community-college-onboarding-guided-pathways.html.]

As additional states embark on the process of implementing four-year degrees at community colleges, they can learn from others' experience for help navigating the legislative, regulatory, and program approval processes. This brief uses examples from states currently offering bachelor's degrees at their community colleges to provide guidance for policymakers setting up these degree programs.