This paper demonstrates that increasing income inequality can contribute to the trends we see in American higher education, particularly in the selective, private nonprofit and public sectors. Given these institutions’ selective admissions and commitment to socioeconomic diversity, the paper demonstrates how increasing income inequality leads to higher tuition, costs, and financial aid. A numerical example is presented that estimates how much lower tuition, spending (costs), and financial aid would have been if household incomes in the United States had grown by the same aggregate amount between 1971 and 2009, but with no increase in income inequality. The policy implications include the government addressing rising income inequality directly or changing the incentives facing higher education and will be of interest to those concerned with the rising cost of higher education and issues of access and affordability.

In the past five years, teacher evaluation has become a preferred policy lever at the federal, state, and local levels. Revisions to teacher evaluation systems have made teachers individually accountable for student achievement to a greater extent than ever before. We describe and analyze the components, processes, and consequences embedded in new teacher evaluation policies in all fifty states, the twenty-five largest school districts, and Washington, DC. We contextualize these policies by basing our analysis in prior research on teacher evaluation, and examining key comparisons between state and district policies, including their treatment of teachers in tested and untested subjects with career and beginning teachers. We find notable differences in how states and the largest districts have structured evaluation policies for all teachers and, in particular, for early career teachers compared with their more veteran counterparts, and for teachers in nontested grades and subjects compared with those in tested grades and subjects.

To address gaps in achievement between more- and less-affluent students, states and districts need to ensure that high-poverty students and schools have equitable access to educational resources. Traditionally, assessments of resource equity have focused on per-pupil expenditures and more proximal inputs, such as teacher credentials and class size, despite the inconsistent and/or weak relationships between these measures and student performance. Given the sizable and direct effects of teachers on student achievement, we argue that (1) teachers’ value-added scores should be incorporated into assessments of resource equity and (2) providing schools with greater flexibility for setting salaries or using strategic staffing initiatives may be necessary to achieve an equitable distribution of effective teachers. To illustrate these assertions we incorporate teacher value added into a case study of resource allocation in the public high schools of Wayne County, North Carolina, which have been the target of a complaint by the North Carolina National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Historically, the early childhood care and education (ECCE) workforce has been characterized as a low-education, low-compensation, low-stability workforce. In recent years, considerable investments have been made to correct this, but we lack evidence about the extent to which these investments were accompanied by changes in the characteristics of the workforce. Using nationally representative data, we find that the historical characterization of the ECCE workforce continues to apply. However, we also find that the average educational attainment, compensation, and stability of ECCE workers increased substantially from 1990 to 2010. Surprisingly, the shift in the composition of the ECCE workforce toward more regulated settings and away from home-based settings is not the primary driver of these changes. Contrary to our expectations, gains within the home-based workforce are the primary drivers, though the education and wages of home-based workers remain substantially lower than among formal-care workers.

Policy makers and researchers are intrigued with but also frequently frustrated by each other. Although these differences are understandable and predictable, it is clear that research on a variety of educational issues has been both influential and valuable in the development of policy and practice. There is much to suggest that researchers and policy makers should be collaborating to improve student outcomes. There are important instances of sustained collaborations between educational researchers and educational policy makers. We summarize some of these efforts but describe in more detail the Education Finance Research Consortium, a long-standing collaboration between university-based researchers and the New York State Education Department. Given the current intense focus on the role of evidence in the development of education policy, some of the lessons from this collaboration may be useful to those seeking to expand the use of evidence in policies intended to improve student learning.

Policy briefs written by academics—the kind typically published in Education Finance and Policy —should be a crucial source of information for policy makers. Yet too frequently these briefs fail to garner the consideration they deserve. Their authors are too focused on the potential objections of their fellow academics, who are concerned with rigor and internal validity, instead of the objections of policy makers, who are concerned with generalizability, understandability, and utility. And researchers too often believe that simply publishing a brief is sufficient to communicate its results. By focusing briefs on topics on the policy agenda, helping policy makers see their constituents in the results, writing clearly, studying implementation and not just outcomes, weighing evidence and drawing conclusions, and reaching out to policy makers beyond publication, researchers have the greatest potential to see their work influence public policy.

Several states and the federal government distribute aid for special education programs based primarily on total district enrollment and a fixed aid amount per student, a method called census funding . In this policy brief, we address three questions to help policy makers, educators, and researchers better understand census-funding models and special education finance policies in general. The first question is, what are the key advantages and disadvantages of census-funding models? The second and third questions relate to aspects of policy implementation, in the event a state legislature should choose to adopt the approach. First, we examine what options are available to mitigate concerns about the equity of funding under a census funding model. Second, we examine what other options exist for helping states and districts to contain special education costs while maintaining a high level of quality.

In the face of school crowding and fears about inequality-inducing summer learning loss, many schools have started to adopt multi-track year-round school calendars, which keep the same number of school days, but spread them more evenly across the calendar year. This change allows schools to support a larger student population by rotating which students are on break at any point in time. While year-round schooling can save money, the impact on academic achievement is uncertain and only recently have large-scale studies become available for policy makers. This brief examines research on the effects of multi-track year-round schooling, focusing on two rigorously executed case studies. This research gives little support for claims that year-round schooling will boost student achievement. Except as a remedy for highly over-crowded schools, year-round schooling seems to have little impact on achievement, and has even been shown to decrease achievement, especially among the most high-risk student populations.

This brief utilizes the most recent and rigorous financial aid research to inform state higher education leaders about innovative and effective financial aid practices. By simplifying aid eligibility requirements, improving the aid application process, and engaging in early awareness efforts, states could improve the effectiveness of existing aid programs. Additionally, by targeting aid in ways that encourage college completion, more students (particularly those who are most constrained by finances) will improve their chances of earning postsecondary degrees. In recent years, several states have adopted goals of greatly increasing educational attainment levels, so we argue that innovative financial aid policy reform is one of the necessary steps toward meeting these goals. This brief can inform ongoing policy negotiations between state commissioners of higher education, state education task forces, and education and workforce legislative committees.

Teacher experience has long been a central pillar of teacher workforce policies in U.S. school systems. The underlying assumption behind many of these policies is that experience promotes effectiveness, but is this really the case? What does existing evidence tell us about how, why, and for whom teacher experience matters? This policy brief distills the research on teacher experience into four general findings: (1) the effect of experience is most evident during the first few years of teaching; (2) the early-career experience effect varies by level of education and subject area; (3) inexperienced teachers are most likely to teach in high-poverty schools; and (4) the impact of experience differs for teachers in high- versus low-poverty schools. The brief concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for several key policy measures including teacher compensation, support and professional development, and the unequal distribution of teachers across schools.

This brief utilizes case study methodology to illustrate the role of governance in educational accountability systems. Most research on the effectiveness of such systems has focused on technical components, such as standards-setting, assessments, rewards and sanctions, and data collection and reporting. This brief seeks to demonstrate that this focus may miss the importance of the institutional set-up. We argue that effective accountability systems are largely dependent on associated government structures, rules, and procedures, and the individuals responsible for implementing them. We use an illustrative case from the state of Oklahoma, where a lack of independent oversight, few checks and balances, and little in-state technical capacity combine to call into question the effectiveness of this state's accountability system. We urge researchers and policy makers to focus more attention on the “messy” governance and politics of educational accountability, and conclude the brief with specific policy proposals to strengthen state education accountability systems.

Using restricted-access data from one of the largest urban public university systems in the United States—where many undocumented students are eligible for in-state tuition—we review the literature on undocumented college students in the United States and provide a comparison of the performance of undocumented students to that of U.S. citizens and other legal migrants. Overall, undocumented students perform well in the short-term, earning higher grades and higher rates of course and associate degree completion than their U.S. citizen counterparts. But undocumented students are less likely to earn their bachelor's degrees within four years. This finding suggests that, despite their earlier college successes and their access to in-state tuition rates, at some point after enrollment, undocumented students experience higher costs to completing their bachelor's degrees than they had anticipated upon enrollment. We offer a number of policy considerations for university officials and policy makers who aim to help undocumented college students succeed in postsecondary institutions.

In this policy brief we argue that there is little debate about the statistical properties of value-added model (VAM) estimates of teacher performance, yet, despite this, there is little consensus about what the evidence about VAMs implies for their practical utility as part of high-stakes performance evaluation systems. A review of the evidence base that underlies the debate over VAM measures, followed by our subjective opinions about the value of using VAMs, illustrates how different policy conclusions can easily arise even given a high-level general agreement about an existing body of evidence. We conclude the brief by offering a few thoughts about the limits of our knowledge and what that means for those who do wish to integrate VAMs into their own teacher-evaluation strategy.

Federal and state governments in the United States make extensive use of student poverty rates in compensatory aid programs like Title I. Unfortunately, the measures of student poverty that drive funding allocations under such programs are biased because they fail to reflect geographic differences in the cost of living. In this study, we construct alternative poverty income thresholds based on regional differences in the wage level for low-skilled workers. We then examine the distribution of Title I revenues after adjusting poverty rates for geographic differences in the cost of living and adjusting Title I revenues for geographic differences in the purchasing power of school districts. Our findings turn conventional wisdom on its head. We find that when we fully adjust for regional differences, Title I funding patterns disproportionately favor rural school districts in low cost-of-living states. We conclude with policy recommendations for revising Title I funding formulas.

Strategic Performance Indicators (SPIs) are summary measures derived from parallel, descriptive analyses conducted across educational agencies. The SPIs are designed to inform agency management and efforts to improve student outcomes. We developed the SPIs to reveal patterns common across partner agencies, to highlight exceptions to those patterns, and to provide tools for educational agencies to understand their own successes and challenges. We present two examples of SPI briefs and highlight specific steps partner agencies have taken in response to such analyses. Our goal is that, with data, the SPIs will catalyze educational agencies to engage in deep investigation. If educational systems must rely on academic researchers to make progress on core management challenges, progress will be slow. The ability to use and analyze administrative data must be integrated into the everyday management of educational systems, much as it has been in many other sectors of the modern economy.