Search results

Title I programs provide extra funding for disadvantaged students by the federal government under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and reauthorized under the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Title I continues to be the largest funded component of NCLB. I discuss the NCLB stated goal of closing the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged peers. Given the modest level of Title I funding in terms of need, local school districts are only able to provide Title I services to those schools that enroll the highest percentages of disadvantaged students, leaving many disadvantaged students without Title I compensatory services. NCLB calls for funding equity between Title I and non-Title I schools, but this goal is rarely achieved. I also discuss the history of funding under ESEA of 1965 and the 2001 NCLB Act.

This chapter analyzes 2011 survey data from a sample of Texas principals who were asked about their perceptions of their working conditions such as: support and facilities; salary; resources; autonomy to make decisions; testing and accountability pressures; and relationships with supervisors. Respondents were also asked about their intentions to stay or leave their particular school. Researchers and policymakers agree effective and stable school leadership is critical to school improvement efforts, but we know little about how various working conditions impact principal effectiveness and turnover. This work is important because in-depth knowledge of the causes of principal turnover in general and how principal working conditions impact turnover in particular is a pre-requisite to creating policies and support mechanisms to support principals in small and mid-sized districts.

This chapter explores a US state-endorsed tool for reviewing district, school, and classroom inclusive practices. The Best Practices for Inclusive Education (BPIE) assessment tool was developed through a collaborative initiative between state personnel, University faculty, and representatives from a federally funded technical assistance project, Florida Inclusion Network. The tool supports a facilitated review and subsequent action planning for greater inclusive practices that includes learners with severe intellectual disabilities. This chapter describes the BPIE process and offers examples of its application in districts across Florida with particular reference to practices that support learners with severe intellectual disabilities.

The research predicts which public school teachers are likely to resign their union membership since agency fees were found unconstitutional in Janus v. AFSCME. We compare teachers in right-to-work states with comprehensive collective bargaining laws with teachers in former agency shop states, using unique district-teacher matched data constructed from the School and Staffing Survey. We find that teachers who are male, Hispanic, part-time, with alternative certification, work either in charter schools or in schools with more students qualifying for free lunches are more likely to become nonunion. Teachers who are black, work under a collective bargaining, have post-graduate degrees, are more experienced, work in larger schools or in areas with a higher cost of living, perceive more school problems or a poor school climate, work in an elementary school, or teach special education are more likely to remain union members now that agency shop provisions are unenforceable.

Differences in the cost of living and the general attractiveness of communities lead to significant, regional differences in the prices school districts must pay for their most important resource – people. According to the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics, labor costs differ by more than 50% from the lowest-cost district to the highest-cost district within California, Florida, New York, Texas, and West Virginia. Furthermore, all states but Hawaii and Rhode Island face at least a 7.7% internal differential in labor cost. Most states fail to account for such cost differences in their school finance formulas, leading to inequitable differences in school district purchasing power. This chapter compares and contrasts the various strategies states use to make geographic cost adjustments to their school funding formula, describes the implications of geographic adjustment for interstate and intrastate measures of school finance equity (and corresponding litigation), and discusses the impact that such adjustments could have on the distribution of federal aid for economically disadvantaged students under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

For a variety of reasons, the districts, educators, and students of the largest cities in the United States garner substantial popular and scholarly attention. In the discourse and debate related to urban education, policymakers and researchers often cite accounts and articles derived from these larger urban areas. Yet, we found that school districts educating 47,700 or fewer students accounted for 61 percent of students educated in urban school districts in the United States. Comparison of the composition of student populations revealed that larger urban school districts exhibited greater concentrations of students identified as non-white and receiving free or reduced lunches. Overlooking the variation among urban school districts could result in ineffective reforms, poor educator preparation, skewed funding, and irrelevant research.

Do principals from small, medium, and large school districts have the same level of decision making power? Do teachers from small, medium, and large school districts have the same level of decision making power? This chapter tried to address these questions by analyzing 2011–2012 nationally representative School and Staffing Survey data. We found that comparing with large districts, teachers and principals at small and medium school districts perceived higher levels of decision making power in most school policy areas. We also found that although there were statistically significant differences among the three district sizes, practically significant differences existed in establishing curriculum for teachers and in establishing curriculum and deciding budget for principals. Implications of the findings were discussed.

The impact of an effective principal on the quality of teaching and learning has been clearly established. Logically, the next question to be answered is: How can we best prepare principals to lead the improvement of instructional practices and outcomes for students? Partnerships between school districts and universities have shown the capacity to be an effective means of preparing principals, and much has been confirmed about how those partnerships should be structured in order to benefit both partners. This document looks briefly at the literature that describes and supports these partnerships, outlines the framework of a successful partnership in Florida, and provides insightful “lessons learned” throughout the planning, implementation, and evaluation of that partnership.

Since both organizations realize important benefits, constructing a district/university partnership should be easy. However, differences in the professional cultures of the two organizations as well as differences in the demands and constraints they each face make it a challenging task. From finding the right university partner to planning the collaborative work in detail; what was learned in the Florida partnership is described in straightforward terms. In this way, the document provides a road map to a successful district and university partnership.

This chapter examines the potential and barriers for evidence-based practices in Californian schools. In a large and complex school system, the state plays an important role in legitimating the use of certain types of evidence, but evidence-based practices are heavily determined by the resources, actors, and prevailing cultures in a local district environment. Until recently, high-stakes accountability policies mandated improvements in student test performance and intrusive interventions for failure. In recent years, the state has shifted to a different accountability approach that emphasizes local control and the use of multiple measures of school performance to pursue continuous improvement around locally developed goals and interventions. Amid this context, two stories arise about evidence-based practices in California. In one story, a set of major and highly touted districts have led the way in demonstrating evidence-informed continuous improvement district-wide. In these districts, the new state accountability approach, enabling leadership, long-term commitments to collective learning, networked opportunities to learn, and access to elite external expertise have contributed to fairly extensive practices of disciplined team problem-solving involving rich data. In a second story, schools and districts that face resource scarcity, high turnover, and conflict and in which past high-stakes accountability left a deep imprint on prevailing norms and routines, leaders and teachers have had difficulty establishing a conducive context for collective learning. However, given ingrained practices and limited absorptive capacity, it is not entirely clear how to enable productive evidence-based practices in such contexts.