Search

In order to participate in Title IV programs, institutions must submit annual audits, performed by an independent auditor, to Federal Student Aid (FSA). Proprietary institutions' auditors are required to perform the compliance audit and financial statement audit in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards, Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, and the audit guide developed by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General (OIG). Ensuring related audit reports meet applicable reporting requirements and are appropriately identified by FSA's contractor for follow-up is important because FSA uses the institution's annual audits to help carry out its oversight responsibility of Title IV programs, including identifying areas of concern and taking necessary actions towards the institution. The significance of processes to help ensure the quality of related audit reports is further demonstrated by the level of funding involved. In the award year 2022-2023, proprietary institutions received almost $15 billion in Title IV aid. OIG performed this audit to determine whether FSA's oversight of its contractor's acceptability review process ensured that annual proprietary institutions audits meet applicable audit reporting requirements.

This guidance is intended to clarify that the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) in 45 C.F.R. Part 1302 Subpart C--Education and Child Development Program Services are required for preschool programs supported with funds under Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA); and provide information to preschool providers on select required provisions of the HSPPS. ESEA section 1112(c)(7) requires that early education services provided prior to kindergarten entry and funded using Title I funds must comply with the Head Start educational standards. Thus, all standards in Part 1302 Subpart C of the HSPPS are required of schools or local educational agencies (LEAs) that use Title I funds for preschool. This document builds on previous guidance from "Serving Preschool Children Through Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended: Non Regulatory Guidance" and summarizes select provisions to assist Title I preschools in understanding the HSPPS at Part 1302 Subpart C. The first section covers providing education and child development preschool services under HSPPS--45 C.F.R. Part 1302 Subpart C and the second section covers serving specific student groups. The educational standards in full are provided in the Appendix for reference.

Students succeed in school environments that support them in demonstrating prosocial and positive behavior. Student behaviors that disrupt or distract from classroom instruction can result in fewer learning opportunities for students and decreased likelihood of academic success. Behavioral interventions can help students engage in positive behaviors, contributing both to their individual education success and to the success of their peers in the classroom. The purpose of the practice guide, developed by the What Works Clearinghouse™ (WWC) in conjunction with an expert panel, is to provide guidance on implementing teacher-delivered, low-intensity behavioral interventions in grades K-5 classrooms. The overarching aim of the recommendations is to help teachers support students in demonstrating positive behaviors in the classroom so that students and their classmates can engage in learning. The recommended strategies are intended to complement existing schoolwide behavioral programs and apply to both general education classrooms and separate classrooms. The recommendations also support the teaching of positive behaviors that students can generalize to other settings and relationships. This summary introduces the seven recommendations and supporting evidence described in the full practice guide.

To strengthen teacher preparation in the Republic of Palau, Public Law 10-32 (enacted in 2018) requires all teachers in the country to hold an associate's degree in education or in the subject area they will teach by the end of 2023. This policy change required many current teachers and those interested in the teaching profession to enroll in an associate's degree program at Palau Community College (PCC), the country's only postsecondary institution. To support policymakers' understanding of how long it takes teachers and teacher candidates to meet the requirements of Public Law 10-32, this study examined the graduation patterns of teacher education students enrolled in associate's degree programs at PCC. The aim of this study is to support PCC and the Palau Ministry of Education's efforts to successfully train, retain, and recruit qualified teachers.

This is the Palauan translation of the publication, "Teacher Certification, Retention, and Recruitment in Palau: Understanding Graduation Patterns of Teacher Education Students at Palau Community College. Infographic. REL 2025-008." To strengthen teacher preparation in the Republic of Palau, Public Law 10-32 (enacted in 2018) requires all teachers in the country to hold an associate's degree in education or in the subject area they will teach by the end of 2023. This policy change required many current teachers and those interested in the teaching profession to enroll in an associate's degree program at Palau Community College (PCC), the country's only postsecondary institution. To support policymakers' understanding of how long it takes teachers and teacher candidates to meet the requirements of Public Law 10-32, this study examined the graduation patterns of teacher education students enrolled in associate's degree programs at PCC. The aim of this study is to support PCC and the Palau Ministry of Education's efforts to successfully train, retain, and recruit qualified teachers.

Research shows that teachers of color can benefit all students, particularly students of color, yet only one in five teachers are individuals of color, compared to more than half of K-12 public school students. Increasing the diversity of educators can not only benefit students, but recruiting, preparing, and retaining more teachers of color who are underrepresented in the current teacher workforce can also help to address educator shortages. These are two critical goals many States, districts, and schools across the country are working to address. This non-regulatory guidance highlights actions that State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs, hereafter districts), and institutions of higher education (IHEs) can take to increase educator diversity, as well as Federal funding opportunities available to support these actions. This guidance outlines how financial supports and incentives; strategic investments; positive and supportive learning and teaching conditions for candidates enrolled in educator preparation programs (EPPs) and in-service educators; and the collection, analysis, use, and publication of educator diversity data can develop and sustain a diverse educator workforce. This guidance includes research on how a diverse educator workforce can enhance student success in school and beyond, describes strategies for SEAs and districts to consider as they begin or build on ongoing efforts, and outlines Federal funding sources to support these efforts. In addition, this guidance addresses directives in Title III of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.

These appendixes provide the technical details, methods, and results for the accompanying infographic. The importance of the study, including guiding research questions, is addressed in appendix A, while the study's research approach and detailed results are provided in appendix B.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Public School System requested a systematic review of Tier 2 literacy interventions for students in grades K-3. This review defines a Tier 2 literacy intervention as a supplemental instructional program for students who require support in addition to the Tier 1 core reading program. Of the 267 studies on Tier 2 literacy interventions identified, 20 met What Works Clearinghouse 5.0 standards with or without reservations. Two interventions--Reading Recovery and Literacy First--had strong evidence of positive effects (as defined by the Every Student Succeeds Act) on students' literacy skills. One additional intervention--Achieve3000--had moderate evidence of positive effects. This report includes an evidence and gap map and a supplemental matrix that highlights implementation strategies used in each intervention.

These are the appendixes for the report, "Stabilizing School Performance Indicators in New Jersey to Reduce the Effect of Random Error." This study applied a stabilization model called Bayesian hierarchical modeling to group-­level data (with groups assigned according to demographic designations) within schools in New Jersey with the aim of improving reliability, particularly for small groups of students. The four appendixes in the document include: (1) Theoretical review; (2) Methods; (3) Supporting analysis; and (4) Other analyses: Implications of the use of group-level data arising from relationships among demographic composition, subgroup size, and scores.

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 requires states to use a variety of indicators, including standardized tests and attendance records, to designate schools for support and improvement based on schoolwide performance and the performance of groups of students within schools. Schoolwide and group-level performance indicators are also diagnostically relevant for district-level and school-level decisionmaking outside the formal accountability context. Like all measurements, performance indicators are subject to measurement error, with some having more random error than others. Measurement error can have an outsized effect for smaller groups of students, rendering their measured performance unreliable, which can lead to misidentification of groups with the greatest needs. Many states address the reliability problem by excluding from accountability student groups smaller than an established threshold, but this approach sacrifices equity, which requires counting students in all relevant groups. With the aim of improving reliability, particularly for small groups of students, this study applied a stabilization model called Bayesian hierarchical modeling to group-level data (with groups assigned according to demographic designations) within schools in New Jersey. Stabilization substantially improved the reliability of test -based indicators, including proficiency rates and median student growth percentiles. The stabilization model used in this study was less effective for non test based indictors, such as chronic absenteeism and graduation rate, for several reasons related to their statistical properties. When stabilization is applied to the indicators best suited for it (such as proficiency and growth), it leads to substantial changes in the lists of schools designated for support and improvement. These results indicate that, applied correctly, stabilization can increase the reliability of performance indicators for processes using these indicators, simultaneously improving accuracy and equity.

Congress provided $5.5 billion for the Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS) program. The purpose of the EANS programs, authorized under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA) and American Rescue Plan (ARP), is to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 emergency. The audit objectives were to determine whether the Tennessee Department of Education (Tennessee) designed and implemented (1) application processes that adequately assessed nonpublic schools' eligibility for EANS-funded services or assistance and complied with other applicable requirements and (2) oversight processes to ensure that EANS-funded services or assistance were used for allowable purposes. Tennessee designed and implemented application processes that adequately assessed nonpublic schools' eligibility for EANS-funded services or assistance and complied with other applicable requirements despite not having written procedures. The Office of Inspector General's (OIG) research identified several weaknesses in Tennessee's oversight of its EANS programs that could be improved. OIG made four recommendations to address the weaknesses identified in Tennessee's oversight of its EANS programs.

This guidance document provides information on the Title I, Part A provisions under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that address the unique needs of students in foster care, emphasizing educational stability, collaboration between educational and child welfare agencies, and ensuring uninterrupted access to education. This guidance supersedes the 2016 non-regulatory guidance "Non-Regulatory Guidance: Ensuring Educational Stability for Children in Foster Care." Other than statutory and regulatory requirements included in the document, the contents of this guidance do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have determined that this guidance is significant guidance under the Office of Management and Budget's Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007). This document is intended to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

This statutory report presents the activities and accomplishments of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General (OIG) from April 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. The audits, investigations, and related work highlighted in the report are products of OIG's mission to identify and stop fraud, waste, and abuse; and promote accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness through OIG's oversight of the Department's programs and operations. Sections include: (1) Pandemic Relief Aid Oversight; (2) Disaster Recovery Oversight; (3) Federal Student Aid Programs and Operations; (4) Elementary and Secondary Education and Rehabilitation Services Programs; (5) Department Management and Operations; (6) Other OIG Efforts; and (7) Required Reporting.

The U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) provides this resource to assist school communities with ensuring that artificial intelligence (AI) is used in a nondiscriminatory manner in the nation's elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education consistent with federal civil rights laws. Within this resource, AI means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. AI technologies have the potential to enhance opportunities and increase educational equity for all students. At the same time, the growing use of AI in schools, including for instructional and school safety purposes, and AI's ability to operate on a mass scale can create or contribute to discrimination. The contents of this guidance do not have the force and effect of law and do not bind the public or create new legal standards. This document is designed to provide clarity to the public regarding existing legal requirements under the civil rights laws that OCR enforces.

This appendix volume supplements report NCEE 2025-005r, describing the effects of two experimental Pell Grant expansions: the first allowed income-eligible students with a bachelor's degree to obtain this form of federal financial aid for short-term occupational training programs and the second allowed income-eligible students to obtain this aid for very short-term programs lasting as little as eight weeks. The report updated earlier results from a rigorous evaluation of the experiments conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's (ED's) Institute of Education Sciences, adding new information about the experiments' effects on employment and earnings outcomes. This appendix volume similarly updates the evaluation's previous published appendix to detail the steps taken to assess these effects. The volume first describes the Pell Grant experiments as overseen by ED's Office of Federal Student Aid, including information about the schools offering the experimental Pell Grants. The next sections document how the study was conducted, including the research questions asked and the approach used to answer the research questions, additional details supporting the key findings of the study, and additional analyses to assess the sensitivity of the key findings.

Pell Grants are the cornerstone of federal financial aid for students with low income who are enrolled in postsecondary education. Currently, these grants are available only to those who seek an initial undergraduate degree or credential requiring at least a typical semester of instruction. Because these rules may restrict access to programs providing skills needed for new or better jobs, in 2011 the U.S. Department of Education (ED) began pilots of two experimental expansions to Pell Grant eligibility. The first experiment allowed income-eligible students with a bachelor's degree to obtain Pell Grants for short-term occupational training programs. The second experiment allowed income-eligible students to obtain Pell Grants for very short-term programs lasting as little as eight weeks. This report updates earlier results from a rigorous evaluation of the experiments conducted by ED's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), adding new information about the experiments' impacts on labor market success. This fuller picture could help Congress as it considers legislation to make Pell Grants for short-term occupational training permanent policy.

Congress passed three coronavirus relief acts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus, including $189.5 billion for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds intended to provide vital support to States, local educational agencies, and schools. This review was performed to determine whether the Yukon-Koyukuk School District expended ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) selected and reviewed 8 non-personnel American Rescue Plan (ARP) ESSER expenditures and found that all eight reviewed were used for allowable purposes. However, it was found that Yukon-Koyukuk did not comply with key competitive procurement process or documentation requirements at 2 C.F.R. sections 200.318-320 when procuring the goods and services associated with three of the eight non-personnel expenditures. Recommendations were made to address the procurement issues OIG identified to ensure ESSER funds are used, documented, and managed in accordance with applicable requirements. The comments from the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development's and OIG's response are provided at the end of the report.

It is important for educators to collect accurate information on the academic performance of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who may be assessed with an Alternate Assessment Aligned with Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAAS) to inform decisions about resources, programs, instruction, and individualized supports and services. With the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, a State may not assess more than 1.0 percent of students with an AA-AAAS in the grades assessed. This memorandum describes the Department's expectations for 1.0 percent cap waiver requests and waiver extension requests for School Year (SY) 2024-2025 including guidance for: (1) States Applying for a New Waiver in SY 2024-2025; (2) States Applying to Extend a Waiver Granted or Extended in SY 2024-2025; (3) States Denied a Waiver in SY 2023-2024; (4) States Seeking a Combination New Waiver in SY 2024-2025 "and" an Extension of a Waiver Granted in SY 2023-2024; and (5) Resources and Procedures for Completing Waiver/Waiver Extension Requests. Appendix A provides Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Requesting Waivers or Waiver Extensions from the 1.0 Percent Cap on AA-AAAS Participation and Appendix B gives the Suggested Format for Organizing the Assessment Participation Data Tables in a 1.0 Percent Cap Waiver Request.

The U.S. Department of Education is committed to supporting innovative advances in educational technology to improve teaching and learning across the nation's education systems and to support educators as they incorporate emerging technology into their learning communities. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education is a complex and rapidly expanding topic because individuals have different knowledge, opinions, and perspectives on using AI, which has implications for all members of school communities. This user-friendly toolkit was developed through engagement with educators, community members and technology leaders and is designed to help educational leaders make critical decisions about incorporating AI applications into student learning and the instructional core. This document connects broad ideas about AI to the establishment of school and district use policies that will guide its effective implementation. This toolkit provides guidance for the effective use and integration of AI in teaching and learning and presents an overview of Federal laws and considerations that are essential to anchoring and ensuring the use of AI in a safe, secure, and non-discriminatory manner across ten key modules--from federal policies to pressing educational issues, including privacy, data security, civil rights, and digital equity. Finally, the toolkit promotes the principles of transparency and awareness in the use of AI in schools, and emphasizes the importance of providing students, teachers, and parents opportunities to opt out of AI-enabled applications in school.

This is the appendices for the full report, "Identifying the Nation's Lowest Performing Schools: Shifts Following the Passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)." This study examines state identification of schools for the most intensive support to see how changes in federal laws and regulations played out nationally and at the state level, by comparing schools identified just before and just after ESSA's implementation. Specifically, it looks at two time points: 2016-17, during which there were two distinct policy contexts, with most states operating under waivers but seven states still operating under the previous No Child Left Behind policies, and 2018-19, when all states were expected to be following ESSA regulations for the first time. Of particular interest is whether the number and characteristics of identified schools--including their average student achievement and demographics--differed when comparing the set of schools identified under ESSA with the set of schools identified just before ESSA. The appendices provide supporting details on the policy being evaluated, the study methods, and supplementary analyses for the findings presented.

For more than two decades, federal law has required states to identify schools failing to provide students with a high-quality education and has led to substantial debate about how best to do so. Appropriately identifying the lowest performing schools matters because it allows state and local education agencies to target limited resources for school improvement to where they are needed most. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 sought to address perceived problems with school accountability systems under prior federal law. ESSA provided states with increased flexibility in how they design their "annual evaluation of school performance." It also introduced new requirements for states' subsequent "identification of schools for the most intensive support," now designated as those needing Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI), in part to allow states to focus on a smaller set of the lowest performing schools. This report examines if ESSA played out as policymakers expected or if there were any other, perhaps less expected, consequences for the number, types, and composition of schools that states identified. The report examines this issue by comparing schools identified for the most intensive supports just before and just after ESSA's implementation.

This First Look report introduces new National Household Education Survey data that provides estimates for children in the United States from birth through the age of 5 who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten by 2023 on early childhood care and education arrangements. The report also presents data on parents' ratings of factors that affected their choice of child care arrangements, degree of difficulty finding care, reported reasons for difficulty finding the desired care arrangement, and on their participation in various learning activities at home with their children.

This volume serves as a companion to the "Lessons from the First Statewide Family Engagement Centers: Alignment with Federal Priorities and Factors Influencing Implementation" report. The report focuses on the Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program and provides insights into its implementation and alignment with federal priorities on family engagement. This appendix provides additional information to supplement the main report, with its content referenced throughout the report. Appendix A presents the study design and analysis. Appendix B includes supporting and supplemental tables that provide additional information about the SFEC program and its implementation.

This report describes the implementation efforts of the first grantees under the Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) and how they aligned with program priorities. Begun in 2018, SFEC is one of the key U.S. Department of Education programs designed to address disparities in family engagement in schools. The program provides grants to selected partnerships of education organizations and their states to deliver services and disseminate technical assistance resources to further family-school engagement. The study was designed to provide early lessons about the program, including the extent to which implementation reflected the 2018 federal emphasis on providing services directly to families and schools, using specific approaches, topics, and ways of collaborating among partners, and serving mostly disadvantaged families and districts with high concentrations of students from such families. The study also examined the factors that influenced grantee implementation, including challenges in carrying out their program efforts that coincided with the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and immediately after.

Congress passed three coronavirus relief acts within a 1-year period that provided more than $275 billion for an Education Stabilization Fund to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus, which the President declared as a national emergency in March 2020. This included $189.5 billion for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds intended to provide vital support to States, local educational agencies, and schools to address the impact of the coronavirus. Support, in part, includes activities designed to help students and educators safely return to and sustain in-person instruction, and that address the educational inequities exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic and students' social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs. Ensuring that ESSER funds are used for allowable purposes is critical to help address the needs of students and educators. The Linn-Mar Community School District (Linn-Mar) was allocated approximately $7.2 million in ESSER funds. This was performed review to determine whether Linn-Mar expended ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements.

Congress passed three coronavirus relief acts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus, including $189.5 billion for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds intended to provide vital support to States, local educational agencies, and schools. This review was performed to determine whether Lower Kuskokwim expended ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) selected and reviewed 16 non-personnel and 4 personnel American Rescue Plan (ARP) ESSER expenditures and found that all twenty reviewed were used for allowable purposes. It was also found that Lower Kuskokwim complied with key Federal procurement requirements, including those covering the procurement methods to be followed and contract cost, price, and provisions, when procuring the goods or services associated with each ESSER expenditure. Because OIG identified no exceptions, the report does not include recommendations and neither the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development nor Lower Kuskokwim had comments on the report.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), Congress passed three relief acts within a 1-year period that provided more than $276 billion for an Education Stabilization Fund to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19, including $5.5 billion for the Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS) program. The purpose of the EANS programs, authorized under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA) and American Rescue Plan (ARP), is to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 emergency. Effective application and oversight processes help ensure that EANS funds are appropriately allocated and used for allowable purposes in order to help eligible nonpublic schools address the needs of students, families, and educators. Florida was awarded about $434 million in EANS funds. The objectives of the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) audit were to determine whether the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) designed and implemented (1) application processes that adequately assessed nonpublic schools' eligibility for EANS-funded services or assistance and complied with other applicable requirements and (2) oversight processes to ensure that EANS-funded services or assistance were used for allowable purposes.

State and local report cards help ensure local educational agencies (LEAs), parents, families, educators, and communities have critical data and a common framework for gauging educational progress and success. Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) requires States to annually share this important information. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) conducted targeted monitoring of the ESEA's public reporting requirements--specifically, the requirements for States to: (1) prepare and widely share report cards that provide information on State, LEA, and school performance and progress in an understandable, uniform format; and (2) publicly report the State's progress in ensuring that low-income and minority children in Title I schools are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers. This letter shares what the Department learned from this effort and offers recommendations for State leaders working to strengthen their implementation of ESEA requirements.

This report presents selected findings from the 2020/22 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:20/22), a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education. The findings in this report are based on data about a nationally representative sample of all first-time beginning students (FTBs) who entered postsecondary education for the first time during the 2019-20 academic year. BPS:20/22 is the first follow-up of a cohort of FTBs originally identified during the 2019-20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20) and covers 3 years of students' experiences, from their first year of postsecondary education in the 2019-20 academic year through the 2021-22 academic year. The BPS:20/22 sample consisted of approximately 37,330 total students, representing the approximately 3.3 million undergraduates who were first-time postsecondary students enrolled in the 2019-20 academic year. Data from BPS can address questions about students' postsecondary enrollment patterns, continued enrollment in college, highest postsecondary credential earned, social and academic experiences and activities, and employment history. To facilitate analyses of student choices and postsecondary enrollment and credential attainment, the BPS:20/22 survey collected information on teacher effectiveness, as well as frequency and types of communication and interactions with family and friends, faculty members, and other students, which were also included in the NPSAS:20 survey. Additionally, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several survey questions asked respondents to report on employment and education disruptions and personal experiences "as a result of the coronavirus pandemic" in spring 2020 and in the 2020-21 academic year. Respondents indicated their perception of whether an experience was the result of the coronavirus pandemic. The report provides information on first-time postsecondary students' attainment and persistence rates at any institution 3 years after they began postsecondary education, along with their education and personal experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this report, attainment represents the students' highest postsecondary credential earned, whereas persistence describes enrollment during the 2021-22 academic year for students who had not earned a postsecondary credential. As a result, students who earned a postsecondary credential and enrolled for additional postsecondary education are accounted for in attainment rates. It is important to note that BPS:20/22 data reflect first-time postsecondary students' experiences over 3 academic years, when many students are still working toward a postsecondary credential. The 2022/25 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, which is designed to follow up with students 6 years after they began postsecondary education, will provide more comprehensive data about postsecondary attainment. This First Look shows some of the ways that BPS:20/22 data can be used. Selected findings are not intended to emphasize any particular issue, and the report does not discuss all the information presented in the tables. Readers should not infer causality from the data in this report. Although many of the factors discussed are related to each other, this report does not explore these relationships. The student- and institution-level factors in this report are just a few of the several hundred that will be available in the BPS:20/22 data.

This report provides a summary of the full "First Look" report, which presents data on students in the United States in kindergarten through grade 12 in a physical or virtual school or are homeschooled for equivalent grades. The focus of the report is on parent and family involvement in the students' education during the 2022-2023 school year, as reported by the students' parents or guardians. It includes the percentage of students who participated in selected family activities. Demographic information about students and families is presented, including students' poverty status and parents' education and language spoken at home, as well as school characteristics, such as school size and school type. These data represent circumstances after the termination of most COVID-19 pandemic safety measures limiting in-person group activities. The data for this report come from the Parent and Family Involvement in Education (PFI) Survey, administered as part of the 2023 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES:2023).

These are the appendixes for the report, "Strengthening the Pennsylvania School Climate Survey to Inform School Decisionmaking." This study analyzed Pennsylvania School Climate Survey data from students and staff in the 2021/22 school year to assess the validity and reliability of the elementary school student version of the survey; approaches to scoring the survey in individual schools at all grade levels; and perceptions of school climate across student, staff, and school groups. The three appendixes in the document include: (1) Data and methods; (2) Supplemental findings; and (3) Additional findings.

This study analyzed Pennsylvania School Climate Survey data from students and staff in the 2021/22 school year to assess the validity and reliability of the elementary school student version of the survey; approaches to scoring the survey in individual schools at all grade levels; and perceptions of school climate across student, staff, and school groups. The survey encourages data-informed efforts in participating Pennsylvania schools to foster supportive learning environments that promote social and emotional wellness for students and staff. The study validated the elementary school student survey but found that one domain--safe and respectful school climate--did not meet the reliability threshold and thus suggests that revisions are needed. At all grade levels noninstructional staff had the most positive perceptions of school climate, followed by classroom teachers then students. The study found that different approaches to combining the school climate scores of students, teachers, and noninstructional staff within schools yielded slightly different distributions of school climate summary index scores. It also found that different performance category thresholds resulted in similar distributions of schools across categories. Scores calculated using simple averages were strongly and positively correlated with scores calculated using a more complex approach (Rasch models), suggesting that both approaches deliver similar information. School climate scores varied across student groups (defined by race/ethnicity, gender, and grade level) within schools and across school groups. Larger schools and schools with higher percentages of Black students tended to have lower school climate scores than other schools. The findings can inform the Pennsylvania Department of Education's decisionmaking on revisions to the elementary school student survey, approaches to scoring and reporting survey results, and efforts to increase participation in future survey administrations.

The "Examining Implementation and Outcomes of the Project On-Track High-Dosage Literacy Tutoring Program" study describes the characteristics of students who participated in a full year of Project On-Track, a high-dosage, small-group literacy tutoring program for students in grade 1-3. Its online adaptive program, Amplify Reading, groups students by skill level and generates mini-lessons aligned to the science of reading that are delivered by tutors. Although the content of the tutoring sessions is highly structured, Project On-Track offers schools flexibility in how they implement the program, including when they provide tutoring, who provides tutoring, in which grade levels they offer tutoring, and how they identify students within a grade level for tutoring. This flexibility can make it easier for schools to adopt the program, particularly rural schools, which may face greater challenges in hiring tutors or delivering tutoring outside of school hours. It also examined how schools implemented the program, with a focus on three implementation features: when and how frequently tutoring is offered and who provides it. This document presents the following three appendixes that accompany the study: (1) Methods; (2) Qualitative case studies; and (3) Supporting analyses.

School districts in northeastern Tennessee have had persistently low proficiency rates in grade 3 English language arts, which were exacerbated by disruptions in schooling due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In response, the Niswonger Foundation, a technical assistance provider that supports these districts, developed Project On-Track, a high-dosage, small-group literacy tutoring program for students in grade 1-3. Its online adaptive program, Amplify Reading, groups students by skill level and generates mini-lessons aligned to the science of reading that are delivered by tutors. Although the content of the tutoring sessions is highly structured, Project On-Track offers schools flexibility in how they implement the program, including when they provide tutoring, who provides tutoring, in which grade levels they offer tutoring, and how they identify students within a grade level for tutoring. This flexibility can make it easier for schools to adopt the program, particularly rural schools, which may face greater challenges in hiring tutors or delivering tutoring outside of school hours. However, variation in implementation may also affect program effectiveness. To inform future implementation of the program, this study describes the characteristics of students who participated in a full year of Project On-Track and how schools implemented the program, with a focus on three implementation features: when and how frequently tutoring is offered and who provides it. By reporting on the association between variations in implementation and student literacy scores, the study offers important insights to inform future program implementation. The study found no differences in student literacy scores based on timing or frequency of tutoring. Most schools (66 percent) offered tutoring during school and more than twice a week (64 percent). Rural schools were more likely to offer tutoring during school (92 percent) than were nonrural schools (47 percent). Most tutors were current teachers (55 percent) or retired teachers (12 percent). This study does not provide evidence of differences in student literacy scores based on tutor qualifications. More than half the students who participated in a full year of Project On-Track tutoring started the year with literacy assessment scores identifying them as most at risk for reading difficulties, and 42 percent of them improved to a lower risk category after one year of tutoring. Although this study uses descriptive methods and cannot assess effectiveness, the findings suggest that schools and districts using a highly structured tutoring program like Project On-Track might be able to exercise flexibility in when and how often tutoring is offered and by whom without compromising program quality and benefits to students.

Across the nation, states and school districts face a persistent shortage of educators with expertise in promoting both the English proficiency and academic achievement of English learner (EL) students. To help improve educators' qualifications and classroom instruction for ELs, the National Professional Development (NPD) program has awarded grants for EL-focused educator professional development projects since 2002. This U.S. Department of Education-funded program allows grantees to serve the varied types of educators who work with ELs, including those preparing to join the educator workforce, and encourages grantees to focus on professional development topics and approaches supported by rigorous research evidence. In addition, the NPD program encourages grantees to engage in evaluation activities, including performance measurement and rigorous evaluations of project effectiveness, that may inform project improvement and contribute to evidence building. This study examines the extent to which NPD grantees implemented their projects in ways aligned with these program objectives, drawing primarily on a 2021 survey of all 2016 and 2017 NPD grantees.

The report "How a Federal Grant Program Is Training and Supporting Educators of English Learners" examines the extent to which National Professional Development (NPD) grantees implemented their projects in ways aligned with program objectives, drawing primarily on a survey of all 2016 and 2017 NPD grantees. This document provides background information about the NPD program (Appendix A), the data sources and measures used in this study (Appendix B), supporting statistical details and supplemental findings related to the findings presented in the report (Appendix C), and findings from additional analyses that are not discussed in the report but may help readers better understand the findings (Appendix D).

The purpose of this audit was to determine whether Federal Student Aid (FSA) was effectively implementing the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Simplification Act's provisions pertaining to Federal taxpayer information (FTI) through the Student Aid and Borrower Eligibility Reform (SABER) initiative. The audit covered activities FSA conducted to implement the four FTI systems that FSA utilized, developed, or modified to adhere to the aspects of the FUTURE Act and FAFSA Simplification Act that primarily relate to FSA's ability to use and protect FTI received directly from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The FTI is then used to automatically populate a portion of applicants' FAFSAs. The audit covered December 19, 2019 (when the FUTURE Act was enacted) through May 31, 2023.

This is a recirculation of a 2023 letter written by Adam Schott, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, to remind State educational agencies' (SEAs') of responsibilities to support the unique needs of students in foster care, as required under Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). This letter provides important reminders about the ESEA's educational stability requirements for students in foster care, recommendations for effective implementation of these requirements, and information about upcoming technical assistance opportunities to support SEA implementation efforts. It includes additional information highlighting a November 2023 Information Memorandum issued by HHS's Administration on Children and Families.

This First Look report presents data on public elementary and secondary education revenues and expenditures at the local education agency (LEA) or school district level for fiscal year (FY) 2022. Specifically, this report includes the following types of school district finance data: (1) revenue, current expenditure, and capital outlay expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) current expenditures by function and object; (4) revenues and current expenditures per pupil; and (5) revenues and expenditures from COVID-19 Federal Assistance Funds. This First Look report focuses on education revenues and expenditures at the school district level. The finance data used in this report are from the School District Finance Survey (F-33), 2F 3 a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is a group of annual public elementary/secondary data collections administered by NCES. The F-33 survey consists of LEA-level finance data submitted annually to the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. SEAs report financial data covering services that provide or support prekindergarten through high school for public education for a variety of types of LEAs. These LEAs include regular school districts, independent charter school districts, as well as a substantial number of administrative and operating LEAs that are unlike typical school districts (e.g., education service agencies that provide specialized education services for school districts, such as vocational and other specialized education services for school districts). The purpose of this First Look report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information. The selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using F-33 data files and are not intended to emphasize any particular issue(s).