Search

This First Look report introduces new data for national and state-level public elementary and secondary revenues and expenditures for fiscal year (FY) 2022. Specifically, this report includes the following school finance data: (1) revenue and expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) expenditures by function, subfunction, and object; (4) current expenditures; (5) revenues and current expenditures per pupil; (6) expenditures from Title I funds; and (7) revenues and expenditures from COVID-19 Federal Assistance Funds. The expenditure functions include instruction, support services, food services, and enterprise operations. The support services function is further broken down into seven subfunctions: instructional staff support services, pupil support services, general administration, school administration, operations and maintenance, student transportation, other support services (such as business services).1 Objects reported within a function or subfunction include salaries and wages, employee benefits, purchased services, supplies, and equipment. The finance data used in this report are from the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS), a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is one of NCES's primary survey programs on public elementary and secondary education in the United States. State education agencies (SEAs) in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five other jurisdictions of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands report these data annually to NCES. The NPEFS instructions ask SEAs to report revenues and expenditures covering prekindergarten through high school public education in regular, special, and vocational schools; charter schools; and state-run education programs (such as special education schools or education programs for incarcerated youth).

Politically charged education issues roiled the 2022 races for seats on state boards of education, yet none of the boards flipped partisan control. However, majority parties expanded their representation on boards in Colorado, Kansas, and Utah so far. Of the 63 seats on the ballot for 12 state boards, 35 incumbent candidates were reelected. This policy update discusses elected state boards, the impact of governors' elections, elected state chiefs, ballot measures, and what is next.

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act) is the primary federal law aimed at developing and supporting career and technical education (CTE) programs for secondary and postsecondary students. In the 109th Congress, the Perkins Act was reauthorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (Perkins IV; P.L. 109-270). The Perkins Act was most recently amended in the 115th Congress by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V; P.L. 115-224). Perkins V was signed into law by President Trump in July 2018 and went into effect on July 1, 2019. The purpose of the act is to develop more fully the academic knowledge and technical and employability skills of secondary and postsecondary students who elect to enroll in CTE programs. This report provides an overview of Perkins V, including its design, implementation, and funding as described in statute. After a brief introduction to CTE, the report is divided into sections that focus on a detailed description of the Basic State Grants (BSG), discuss National Activities and other programs under Title I, and summarize additional provisions under Title II. A final section summarizes Perkins V authorizations and appropriations. The appendices provide a brief history of federal involvement in CTE as well as formulas and allocations for the BSG.

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.

The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is the nation's first nutrition education program and remains at the forefront of educational efforts to reduce nutrition insecurity of low-income families and youth today. Funded by the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), EFNEP supports program participants' efforts toward self-sufficiency and nutritional health and well-being. EFNEP also combines hands-on learning, applied science, and program data to improve its effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. Collectively, 76 land-grant institutions deliver EFNEP through Cooperative Extension. Other federal programs and public and private efforts have joined with EFNEP to improve this nation's nutritional health and well-being. EFNEP's uniqueness lies in its deep community roots, university connections, and in hiring and training peer educators to teach low-income families to develop healthier behaviors. Each year, EFNEP produces measurable evidence that shows how low-income families succeed when they have access to NIFA programs. Annual data consistently shows that more than 90 percent of adult EFNEP participants report improved behaviors following program involvement. This report provides statistical information on the following topics: (1) Reaching Low Income Families; (2) Reaching Diverse Populations; (3) Saving Money/Improving Diets; and (4) Changing Adult Behavior/Influencing Youth. [For the 2017 report, see ED594865.]

A college degree is increasingly vital for career mobility and economic success as more employers are requiring greater levels of education and credentials. For more than 150 years, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have played a leading role in graduating black students and have made significant contributions to the workforce and economic vitality of the nation. A historically black college and university is defined as "… any historically black college or university that was established before 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of African Americans." There are 101 accredited public and private HBCUs located in 19 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. While these institutions only represent 3 percent of the nation's colleges and universities, they are economic engines in both their regional communities and the nation, generating substantial economic returns annually. gional economies and how much graduates benefit in terms of increased earnings over a working lifetime. The study noted that every dollar spent on, and by, an HBCU and its students has a positive chain reaction in terms of heightened economic activity, increased job creation, and greater earning potential for graduates. At the national level, the study's key findings revealed that: (1) HBCUs annually generate 134,090 jobs and $14.8 billion in total economic impact for their local and regional economies; and (2) HBCU graduates from 2014 can expect total earnings of $130 billion over their lifetimes--56 percent more than they could expect to earn without their college degrees.

For decades, the regulations attached to federal education funds have shaped the forms and functions of state education agencies (SEAs), especially as state funding for these agencies has stagnated or diminished. In fact, the relationship between the SEA and the state's districts and schools has been colored by the strong tint of federal influence. How will states now repurpose their education agencies in this era of devolved control? How will SEAs step back from the grinding demands of daily government activity, stave off the always-blazing fires of education politics, and with ample time and collective intelligence, reshape their organizations and reset their goals and strategies? How will they reconceive their relationships with their districts, schools, and communities? How will these agencies manage their own personnel in different ways as the nature of their work changes? Recognizing that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) would open opportunities for new thinking about the role of the state in education, the Building State Capacity and Productivity (BSCP) Center--one of seven national content centers supported under the U.S. Department of Education's Comprehensive Centers program--developed a strategic performance management (SPM) technical assistance process to assist SEA leadership in redefining their agency's direction, creating an organizational structure to carry out that direction, and putting in place a performance management system to encourage productivity and innovation. The process brings "strategic planning" together with "performance management" to build a cohesive system to engage people in performance-focused work, report on progress, adjust course based on results, and seek better ways to carry out the agency's mission. With a facilitation manual hot off the press, two BSCP Center consultants began working with the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) in September of 2015, just ahead of ESSA's passage. Two consultants from the South Central Comprehensive Center (SCCC) joined the BSCP Center personnel, meeting for two days in Little Rock each month. The first day, the four consultants and ADE Chief of Staff (designated as Chief Performance Officer for this project) nailed down the agenda for the following day's mental calisthenics with the ADE Commissioner and 15-member leadership team. In January 2016, the BSCP Center's consultants launched the same SPM process with the Virgin Islands Department of Education (VIDE), assisted by the Florida & Islands Comprehensive Center (FLICC), meeting with the VIDE team for three days each month. In both Arkansas and the Virgin Islands, the days with the BSCP and regional center consultants were matched by meetings and work between these sessions. Part of that work was the methodical vetting of the emerging strategic direction with internal and external constituencies, getting feedback, and making adjustments. Strategic Performance Management process is presented in this report.

The Virgin Islands Department of Education (VIDE) began an intensive examination of the U.S. Virgin Islands' education future and VIDE's role relative to the two school districts and communities in shaping that future. The Commissioner, Dr. Sharon Ann McCollum, and selected leaders representing VIDE, both districts, and several schools met for three days each month beginning in January 2016 to formulate a strategic direction. The VIDE strategic direction--including a vision statement, mission, values, goals, strategies, and milestones--is the foundation for the agency's bold move into performance management as a way to improve the quality and responsiveness of education for all children and youth throughout the territory. This report presents an overview of the VIDE's performance management system and VIDE's role in the future of education in the U.S. Virgin Island's.

The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) and its 16 member states and territories work collaboratively to expand educational access and excellence for their citizens. By promoting innovation, cooperation, resource sharing, and sound public policy, WICHE strengthens higher education's contributions to social, economic, and civic life. In fiscal 2016, WICHE's four units--Programs and Services; Policy Analysis and Research; Mental Health Program; and WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET)--will strive to assist members' institutions and students, focusing on five areas: (1) Finance: Examining appropriations, tuition, and financial aid policy and practice at the institutional, state, and federal level; (2) Access and Success: Improving students' access to higher education and success in it, especially those students not served well in the past; (3) Workforce and Society: Helping to ensure institutions are meeting workforce and society needs; (4) Technology and Innovation: Developing innovations that improve higher education and lower costs; and (5) Accountability: Working to ensure that students receive the education they've been promised, and that government is receiving a strong return on its investment. This report discusses potential future projects, as well as recently completed projects.

This report covers fall 2014 enrollments for WUE [Western Undergraduate Exchange], WRGP [Western Regional Graduate Program], and PSEP [Professional Student Exchange Program]. It details the funds that flow between students' home states and the enrolling PSEP institutions that receive them. This newly expanded format gives detailed enrollment for participating WRGP programs and WUE institutions. The "WUE Enrollment Report" will be discontinued as of the 2014-15 academic year, and going forward, it will be replaced by the "Statistical Report".

The research focuses on the prevalence of bullying in certain public junior high schools in Texas and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) with a concentration on the teaching of character education as a means of addressing the issue to decrease incidences of bullying through the changing of attitudes towards physical altercations among 8th grade boys in the USVI. This research was conducted to determine if there was significant association between character education and the decreasing of physical altercations among this population. A post hoc quasi experimental design was utilized to test for incidences of physical altercations between the two school districts.

In 2014, state and national leaders found many aspects of turning around America's low-performing schools even more daunting than in the previous year. These views were revealed in the Center on School Turnaround's (CST's) 2014 February/March survey of school turnaround leaders in State Education Agencies (SEA) and directors of the nation's technical assistance Comprehensive Centers (CCs). The federal government has defined several principles for supporting school turnaround; but several years into implementation, the survey still showed that states needed to increase their supports. This document is an excerpt of an annual CST report by their external evaluator, Education Northwest. To conduct the survey, the CST provided Education Northwest with a list of SEA contacts and CC contacts. Ultimately, the sample included responses from at least one contact in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and at least one contact in each CC, although not all SEA and CC leaders contacted responded. Therefore, 100 percent of states and 100 percent of CC are represented. For items about school turnaround needs, practices, and policies, the analysis was limited to a single representative (i.e. average) response for each SEA and each CC, so that the survey would provide a national view with each state and region represented equally, regardless of the number of participants who responded to the survey. The CST focuses on 14 areas of school turnaround that CST leaders identified through research reviews and practical experience as important to successful implementation. The survey showed that SEAs and CCs believe their states need assistance in almost all of these areas. The highest need related to building capacity at all levels of the turnaround effort. Almost all (80 percent or more) SEAs and CCs reported their states needed assistance in these focus areas. In only one area, promoting cooperative labor-management relations, did less than 50 percent of SEAs and CCs agree their states needed assistance. This finding was similar to findings in 2013.

This report describes the approach that REL Northeast and Islands (REL-NEI) used to guide its eight research alliances toward collaboratively identifying a shared research agenda. A key feature of their approach was a two-workshop series, during which alliance members created a set of research questions on a shared topic of education policy and/or practice. This report explains how REL-NEI conceptualized and organized the workshops, planned the logistics, overcame geographic distance among alliance members, developed and used materials (including modifications for different audiences and for a virtual platform), and created a formal research agenda after the workshops. The report includes links to access the materials used for the workshops, including facilitator and participant guides and slide decks. [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc.]

This is the fourteenth report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) that analyzes public reporting practices for assessment data for students with disabilities in K-12 schools in the United States. This report includes information about both the 50 regular states and the 11 unique states (American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Education, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Department of Defense Education Activities, District of Columbia, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau, Puerto Rico, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) require states to disaggregate performance data at the state and district level. For the 2010-11 school year, 53 of the 61 states reported participation and performance data for students with disabilities for all general assessments within the ESEA accountability system. Fifty-one states reported participation and performance data for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) that were within the ESEA system. Information about state assessments outside of ESEA is also presented. Reporting for English Language Learners (ELLs) with disabilities also was examined in this report. Only four states reported both participation and performance for the general assessment for this group. More states (n = 20) reported both participation and performance data for ELLs with disabilities on the AA-AAS. Most states reported participation and performance data by individual grade and test for students with disabilities, though a few only reported data that merged grades or tests. Forty-seven of the regular states reported student performance by achievement level, and 39 reported the percent proficient. Many states reported data on accommodations use. This report also presents the results of an analysis of the ease of finding publicly reported data for students with disabilities on states' websites. This involved counting the number of mouse clicks that it took to arrive at public reports for the general and AA-AAS assessments on state department of education websites. For 33 of the regular states it took 1-2 clicks to find the general assessment information; 5 or more clicks were required in 11 states. The following appendices are included: (1) Example letter to Assessment Director and Special Education Director; (2) Example Verification Tables Sent to States; (3) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners with Disabilities on Regular State Tests in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2010-2011; (4) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities and ELLs with Disabilities on State Alternates Based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS) in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2010-2011; (5) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities and ELLs with Disabilities on State Alternates Based on Modified Achievement Standards (AAMAS) in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2010-2011; (6) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities and ELLs with Disabilities on English Language Proficiency Assessments for Fifty States and Unique States for 2010-2011; (7) Ways States Disaggregated Participation Data for Students with Disabilities for Regular Assessments; (8) How Participation was Reported in States Using Any Reporting Method on Regular Assessments in the Fifty States, 2010-2011; (9) Participation "Reported by Grade and Test" for Students with Disabilities on Regular Assessments, 2010-2011; (10) Participation Reported "by Grade and Test" for Students with Disabilities on Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS), 2010-2011; (11) Summary of How States Reported Participation Rates on the Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS), 2010-2011; (12) Key for State and Unique State Abbreviations; (13) Ways States Disaggregated Performance Data for Students with Disabilities for Regular Assessments, 2010-11; (14) How Performance was Reported in States Using Any Reporting Method on Regular Assessments in the Fifty States, 2010-2011; (15) How Performance Was Reported "by Grade and Test" for Students with Disabilities on Regular Assessments in the Fifty States and Unique States, 2010-2011; (16) How Performance Was Reported "by Grade and Test" for Students with Disabilities on the Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS) in the Fifty States and Unique States, 2010-2011; (17) Number of States Reporting Different Accommodation Status Categories for Any Population, 2010-2011; (18) Number of States Reporting Participation and Performance by Accommodated Condition for Any Student Population; and (19) How States Reported Accommodations Data by Test and Grade for Participation and Performance, 2010-2011.

Section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act), requires the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to conduct annual reviews and periodic on-site monitoring of programs authorized under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act to determine whether a state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency is complying substantially with the provisions of its State Plan under section 101 of the Rehabilitation Act and with the evaluation standards and performance indicators established under Section 106. In addition, the commissioner must assess the degree to which VR agencies are complying with the assurances made in the State Plan Supplement for Supported Employment (SE) Services under Title VI, part B, of the Rehabilitation Act. Through its monitoring of the VR and SE programs administered by the Virgin Islands Division of Disability and Rehabilitation Services (VIDDRS) in federal fiscal year (FY) 2013, RSA: (1) reviewed the VR agency's progress toward implementing recommendations and resolving findings identified during the prior monitoring cycle (FY 2007 through FY 2010); (2) reviewed the VR agency's performance in assisting eligible individuals with disabilities to achieve high-quality employment outcomes; (3) recommended strategies to improve performance and required corrective actions in response to compliance findings related to three focus areas, including: (a) organizational structure requirements of the designated state agency (DSA) and the designated state unit (DSU); (b) transition services and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities; and (c) the fiscal integrity of the VR program; (4) discussed emerging practices related to the three focus areas and other aspects of the VR agency's operations; and (5) provided technical assistance to the VR agency to enable it to enhance its performance and to resolve findings of noncompliance. The nature and scope of this review and the process by which RSA carried out its monitoring activities, including the conduct of concentrated review activities the week of November 26 through 30, 2012, is described in detail in the FY 2013 Monitoring and Technical Assistance Guide for the Vocational Rehabilitation Program (ED610129).

The goal of the Center on School Turnaround (CST) is to provide technical assistance on research-based practices and emerging promising practices that will increase the capacity of states to support their districts in turning around the lowest-performing schools. When the CST opened its doors in October 2012, it began its work by asking the question: In what areas of school turnaround do states need assistance? To help CST answer this question, Education Northwest, the CST's external evaluator, administered an online survey to state education agencies (SEAs) in January and February 2013 as part of ongoing formative evaluation of the CST. The survey questions asked about state practices for school turnaround, as well as about state needs for assistance. Survey respondents included SEA staff members with responsibilities for school turnaround efforts. Ultimately, the survey included at least one respondent from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa Department of Education, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; 100 percent of states are represented in the results of this report. This report provides initial frequencies for survey items related to three issues: (1) levels of implementation of various aspects of school turnaround principles; (2) types of state support currently provided; and (3) areas of state need for assistance with turnaround efforts.

This documentation is for the revised file (Version 1b) of the National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) for school year 2008-2009, fiscal year 2009 (FY 09). It contains a brief description of the data collection along with information required to understand and access the data file. The Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau conducts the NPEFS data collection on behalf of NCES. The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, section 151(b) (3), 20 U.S.C. 9541, authorizes NCES to collect these data. NPEFS provides state aggregate finance data for revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary education. NPEFS data are useful to: (1) chief officers of state education agencies; (2) policymakers in the executive and legislative branches of federal and state governments; (3) education policy and public policy researchers; (4) the press; and (5) citizens interested in information about education finance. State education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and four U.S. Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) report state aggregate finance data to the NPEFS program. The data file is organized by state or jurisdiction and contains revenue data by funding source, expenditure data by function and object, and average daily attendance (ADA) data. The file also includes total student membership data from the 2008-2009 CCD State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education 1c file. Appended are: (1) Record Layout and Description of Data Elements; (2) Glossary; (3) State Abbreviations and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) State Codes; (4) Imputations and Edits List; (5) Fiscal Data Plan Questions; (6) Fiscal Data Plan Responses; (7) Value Distribution and Field Frequencies; (8) State Notes; and (9) Survey Form. (Contains 3 tables, 7 exhibits and 11 footnotes.

This revised data file includes corrections that were provided to NCES as a result of a special collection effort designed to address data quality issues found in the 1a release of this file. In May 2012, NCES became aware of data errors for key data items for several schools on the published version of the SY 2009-10 school file; in some cases these errors also affected district level data on the published 1a version of the LEA universe files for SY 2010-11. As a result, NCES conducted an in depth quality review of both the school and LEA universes for both the published SY 2009-10 school and LEA universe files and not yet published SY 2010-11 school and LEA universe files. During this review, NCES developed a revised editing strategy that more accurately identified data items that were likely to have errors. The review focused on school and school district enrollment, grade 12 enrollment, and free and reduced price lunch variables and related ratios such as pupil/teacher ratio, percent of enrollment from grade 12, and percent of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch. In the past data items were only compared to the reported data from the prior year for each school or LEA. The revised methodology used data from multiple years and was applied to both the reported data items and related ratios. Specifically, an average variation over the prior 4 years was computed based on the differences between each year and the other 3 years. Then, the average variation between the target year and the four preceding years was computed based on the differences between target year and each of the 4 prior years. The average variation for the target year was compared to the average variation among the prior years; cases with large differences were flagged as potential errors. Additionally, a requirement was added that in order for an item to be identified as a potential error, both the count and a related ratio must be identified as potential errors. For example, for total student membership to be flagged as a potential error, both total membership and a related ratio, such as pupil/teacher ratio, must be flagged. Appended are: (1) Record Layout for the Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year 2009-10; (2) Value Distribution, Field Frequencies, and Data Tables for the Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year 2009-10; (3) Glossary for the Common Core of Data: School Year 2009-10; and (4) State Notes for the Common Core of Data: School Year 2009-10.

This report presents findings on the numbers of public school students and staff in the United States and other jurisdictions for school year 2010-11, using data from the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education of the Common Core of Data (CCD) survey system. The CCD is an annual collection of data that are reported by state education agencies (SEAs) to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through the U.S. Department of Education's ED"Facts" data collection system. The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information; therefore, the selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using the CCD. The selected findings do not represent a complete review of all observed differences in the data and are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. Appended are: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; and (2) Common Core of Data Glossary. (Contains 4 tables and 4 footnotes.) [For "Public Elementary and Secondary School Student Enrollment and Staff Counts from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2009-10. First Look. NCES 2011-347," see ED519150.]

In an effort to bring more knowledge about "what works" to educational practitioners, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has made significant investments in developing and disseminating focused, rigorous research projects in order to increase the supply of and demand for this research in educational decision making. These efforts built on decades of earlier work by the U.S. Department of Education. Despite this investment, practitioners and policymakers continue to make little use of research findings to drive state, district, school, and classroom decision making. Increasingly, education researchers are voicing concern over the structural division between researchers and practitioners and are looking for new ways to integrate practitioners into the research process. Against this backdrop, IES has developed a new scope of work and awarded contracts in January for its ten Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). The RELs are now required to engage in long-term research alliances with states, districts, and jurisdictions around a coherent research agenda. While there is significant overlap among RELs in the content areas identified as priorities for their alliances, the RELs have adopted a variety of models for research alliances--multi-district, multi-state, single jurisdiction, and cross-level (state and district combined). The proposed panel will discuss the work of three RELs under the new contract. Each REL will provide a short overview of their alliances and the first year of work underway.

In recent years, governors, chief state school officers, business leaders, and college faculty have grown increasingly concerned that American students are not adequately prepared either for college or for the workforce. Governors and chief state school officers understood that the changing economy and persistent achievement gaps required a dramatic shift in academic expectations. Further, they realized their states were no longer well served by a system in which each state had its own standards for what students should know and be able to do. In 2008, to better prepare all students for college and the workforce, governors and chief state school officers embarked on an historic, state-led effort to create a common core of academic standards in English language arts and mathematics for grades kindergarten through 12 (K-12). They insisted that the standards be based on research and evidence, be internationally benchmarked, and be aligned with college and workforce expectations. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) led the effort and, in June 2010, the NGA Center and CCSSO released the newly developed Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in arts and mathematics for K-12. As of September 2011, 44 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, serving more than 80 percent of the nation's K-12 student population, had adopted the new standards in both English language arts and mathematics. The development and widespread adoption by states of the CCSS are an historic milestone in American education. Effectively implementing the CCSS in schools and K-12 classrooms has the potential to transform education in the United States by narrowing achievement gaps and ensuring that every student graduates from high school ready for college and work. Implementing the CCSS will be challenging because it will require significant changes in instruction, assessment, educator preparation and development, curriculum and materials, and accountability measures. Much of the work pertaining to implementation of the CCSS will be done in schools and classrooms by teachers and principals and their districts. Nevertheless, governors and other state policymakers can play a critical leadership role in supporting implementation of the CCSS. Governors' authority over education and the tools with which they can take action vary considerably from state to state, yet all governors should consider taking the following actions to support implementing the CCSS: (1) Communicate a vision for reform; (2) Identify performance goals and measure progress; (3) Engage key leaders from education, business, and philanthropy; (4) Build educator capacity; (5) Lead transitions in state assessments and accountability policy; (6) Support local development and acquisition of new curricula and materials; and (7) Maximize resources and share costs. Appended are: (1) A Sample Tool to Organize State Policy Decisions Pertaining to the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards; and (2) Educator Capacity Worksheet. (Contains 30 notes.)

This report discusses the deliberations of the Northeast and Islands (NEI) Regional Advisory Committee (RAC), one of 10 RACs established by the U.S. Department of Education to solicit information about the educational needs of state and local educators, school officials, business leaders, state education agencies, parents, local communities, and others. Committee deliberations took place in Arlington, Virginia, May 23-24, 2011, and two public meetings by webinar on June 16 and June 23, 2011. This report represents the work of the NEI RAC, which includes Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. NEI RAC members developed an outreach strategy to elicit input from stakeholders via the RAC website, online surveys using Survey Monkey, personal e-mails, and one-on-one discussions. This strategy consisted of drafting personal e-mail invitations to constituent groups to take the Survey Monkey survey and/or visit the RAC website to leave open-ended comments. Each RAC member revised the e-mail invitation to tailor the message for the intended target constituency group. Appended are: (1) Northeast and Islands Regional Profile; (2) Public Comments; and (3) Online Survey Data. A glossary is included. (Contains 4 figures, 28 tables and 2 footnotes.)