Principal turnover in the United States has become a pressing issue, with as many as 18% exiting schools annually, associated with detrimental effects like reduced student achievement and increased teacher turnover. While previous studies have focused on predictive models assuming a single type of exiting principal, this research delved into the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the 2008–09 Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS) from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to identify distinct categories among exiting principals: "Satisfied" and "Disaffected." Satisfied principals, comprising around two-thirds of exits, displayed high satisfaction, influence, and minimal school climate issues. In contrast, Disaffected principals, about one-third of exits, reported lower influence, negative attitudes, and more climate problems. Specifically, Disaffected principals felt restricted in setting curriculum and standards, lacked enthusiasm for their role, and often considered transferring out. The study highlights that universal approaches to address turnover might not effectively target the Disaffected minority, suggesting the need for tailored strategies to combat principal turnover.

A current study analyzes the outcomes of students in Washington State's Community and Technical Colleges over seven years after enrollment. Researchers examine wage increases and employment patterns based on the type of credentials earned—short-term certificates, Associate Degrees, and Long-Term Certificates. The study highlights the significant economic benefits and enhanced employability associated with Associate Degrees and Long-Term Certificates, except for Humanities Associates Degrees, which show minimal wage increases. Interestingly, short-term certificates fail to contribute to increased wages or employment likelihood beyond earning college credits. The findings emphasize the need for prioritizing investment in credentials with higher market value, like Associate Degrees and Long-Term Certificates, despite their higher cost compared to short-term certificates. This is crucial, especially as there's been increased funding for short-term certificates despite their limited returns, as indicated in various state studies. Additionally, advocating for stackable short-term certificates to align with longer-term credentials could enhance the value of these programs. Lastly, efforts to guide students towards higher-return career pathways from the Humanities and Social Sciences, perhaps through early career awareness initiatives, are suggested.

A new study examines charter school closures due to financial struggles and explores funding patterns impacting their viability. Analyzing nine years of finance data from California, it compares spending between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools, receiving 10% less per pupil in revenue, spend 23% less on instruction and 50% less on pupil support services. They allocate less to administrative costs but invest more in consulting services and operations. This suggests cost-saving strategies such as hiring less experienced teachers and employing part-time consultants. While this fiscal flexibility aids financial stability, it raises concerns. Lower spending on essential areas like instruction and support might affect school quality and academic performance. This challenges assumptions about charter schools' autonomy leading to higher spending on instruction. The findings imply a delicate balance between fiscal flexibility and educational quality in charter schools, highlighting potential sustainability concerns if lower spending compromises student outcomes.

Researchers conducted an experiment to determine if incentives could improve low-income students' attendance in tutoring programs provided through Supplemental Education Services (SEdS). Three groups of 5th-8th graders were formed: one offered a $100 reward for regular attendance, another receiving certificates of recognition, and a control group without incentives. Surprisingly, the monetary reward didn't increase attendance, while the certificate group attended 40% more sessions than the control. This contrasts with past studies showing monetary incentives for improved test scores as ineffective, suggesting that mere rewards may not enhance skills without additional support. The certificate approach proved cost-effective, costing $9 per student versus $100 for the monetary incentive. However, wider implementation's effectiveness might diminish due to students' varied perceptions of recognition's value, related to existing academic achievements or repeated rewards. The study's success suggests non-monetary incentives are effective and inexpensive. Policymakers and educators seeking to boost student participation in underutilized programs should consider these findings, emphasizing nuanced research into varying incentives' effectiveness and cost-efficiency to motivate student engagement. Despite these promising results, a comprehensive solution requires a deeper understanding of how different incentives affect diverse student populations and their sustained impact over time.

A new study delves into teacher perceptions of financial incentives within the context of the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program, examining how rewards influence teacher behaviors and participation. It explores data from a TIF-supported program offering rewards for various achievements. Research shows diverse reactions among teachers based on payout sizes, valuing fairness, linkages to effort, and performance. Larger awards elicited more positive responses and influenced ongoing participation. However, the findings imply these incentives might draw high-performing teachers, raising questions about their impact on reshaping the teacher workforce. Teachers emphasized the importance of fair, linked-to-performance payouts to sustain their engagement in the program. The study highlights crucial design elements for incentive programs, advocating for attainable maximum awards, fairness considerations, credible performance measures, transparent eligibility criteria, and clear payout rules. It urges further research using representative data to comprehend teachers' responses to different incentive combinations over time, essential for refining educator incentive programs.

Students often interrupt their college education for various reasons, such as engaging in professional internships or taking voluntary breaks known as gap years or semesters. While past research has extensively explored the positive labor market outcomes of internships, little attention has been paid to their academic effects, or the impact of gap years, on students. In a comprehensive study examining over 100,000 undergraduate students across 463 U.S. institutions, internships emerged as beneficial, enhancing study habits, GPAs, satisfaction with coursework, future educational aspirations, and career ambitions. Conversely, gap years were linked to negative academic consequences, decreasing study habits, GPAs, satisfaction with college experiences, aspirations for further education, and interpersonal skill development, while increasing the preference for part-time employment post-graduation. The study suggests that institutions should promote and expand internship programs to support academic and career growth, while discouraging or providing disincentives for students considering gap years, highlighting the need for students to evaluate the academic implications before taking such breaks.

Government initiatives aim to enhance walking and cycling to school, prioritizing safety through programs like Safe Routes to School (SRTS). While SRTS effectively improves public health by encouraging physical activity and reducing injuries, few studies address the potential savings in student transportation costs for districts and families. Schools spend billions on student transportation, and hazardous walking conditions often necessitate busing short distances, known as hazard busing, adding costs without resolving safety issues. This study highlights that investing in engineering improvements to enhance safety near schools could reduce long-term busing expenses. Real-world examples, like Austin's pedestrian bridge, demonstrate substantial savings after eliminating the need for busing. The collaboration between cities, schools, and parents is crucial to prioritize safety improvements. However, this shift requires alignment among different agencies, revisions in reimbursement formulas, and community involvement to ensure successful transition and utilization of safer infrastructure by families, preventing the burden of transportation costs from simply shifting to them.

The persistence of high school dropout rates, especially among low-income and minority students, remains a concern despite recent declines. Targeting student engagement as a key prevention method, studies examine whether in-school arts participation can reduce dropouts. Research based on Texas high school data suggests that students engaged in arts courses face a lower dropout risk. However, caution is necessary as this correlation doesn't confirm causation. Factors like student background and unobserved characteristics may influence both arts participation and dropout behavior. While controlling for various student and school factors reduces dropout risk associated with arts participation, it doe not eliminate it entirely, suggesting a potential causal link. Presently, evidence doesn't explicitly advocate for investing solely in arts education to tackle dropout rates. Yet, it warns against abrupt cuts in arts budgets, stressing the need for a deeper understanding of how robust arts programs engage at-risk students. Despite fiscal pressures leading to cuts in arts education, mounting evidence, including controlled trials, underscores the value of arts in public school curricula, urging policymakers to consider these findings when making decisions.

The process of applying and enrolling in college is increasingly expensive and time-consuming, yet students often make less-than-ideal decisions during this crucial phase. Recent studies have shown that students tend to apply to too few colleges, and high-achieving, low-income students often miss out on better-suited options. A new research paper, "Screening Mechanisms and Student Responses in the College Market," explores how seemingly minor factors—such as college application essays and fees—impact student behavior. Analyzing data from 885 four-year colleges between 2003 and 2011, a new study reveals that the requirement of application essays increased to around 57%, while approximately half of colleges raised their application fees by an average of 30% (around $10). The research shows that colleges introducing essays experienced a 6.5% decrease in applications, while a 10% fee increase correlated with a 1% reduction in applications. This highlights that even small changes significantly influence student decisions in the college application process, emphasizing the importance of these procedures for students, colleges, and policymakers.

Education policies often focus on evaluating the effectiveness of interventions without considering their costs. This oversight limits policymakers’ ability to make informed decisions about resource allocation. Understanding intervention costs in relation to their effectiveness is crucial for efficient policymaking. For instance, reducing high school dropout rates, a national priority, could alleviate substantial economic burdens, yet education budgets are limited. Researchers conducted cost-effectiveness analyses on five dropout prevention programs, finding considerable variations in costs and effectiveness. Remedial programs aimed at dropouts were notably more expensive per additional graduate compared to preventative programs, which targeted at-risk students still in school. These findings emphasize the need for cost-effectiveness assessments in educational program evaluations to guide policymaking effectively. Without such analyses, research evidence alone may not provide policymakers with a comprehensive view for decision-making, potentially leading to inefficient resource allocation.

Teacher evaluation, driven by philanthropic support and federal mandates, heavily incorporates classroom observations in most states, where they carry significant weight—contributing to dismissals in 22 states and the District of Columbia. Despite their prevalence, educators disagree on observation protocols, frequency, announcement practices, and assessment tools. Many states opt for standards-based observations, recently endorsed through research like the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study, albeit these assessments were primarily designed to gauge instructional standards rather than predict student outcomes, displaying weak correlations with achievement. The concern over these observations lies in their demanding nature, with numerous scoring criteria and estimated costs of $3 billion annually for nationwide implementation. Calls for innovation in observations, aiming for speed and efficacy, sparked validation studies for the Rapid Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness (RATE). In seven experiments, RATE outperformed benchmarks, accurately identifying effective teachers in just 20 minutes of a lesson using a concise rubric after minimal training. It showcased higher reliability and effectiveness compared to instruments reviewed in the MET study, potentially offering cost-effective, efficient evaluations and early support for struggling teachers, benefitting student learning.

Over the last 15 years, federal and California laws have aided older foster care adolescents in completing high school and accessing higher education. Education is crucial for these youths, often lacking family support. Attainment significantly influences stable employment and self-sufficiency. Despite investments, few studies focus on educational impact for foster care teens. Research in three Midwest states showed small differences in employment and earnings between those with no credential and a GED. High school diploma completion offered a substantial advantage, while some college yielded further benefits, and the highest outcomes were seen in college graduates. On average, former foster care youths earned half of their general population counterparts and faced a 22-point employment gap. However, similar education levels narrowed these gaps, with education impacting foster care youths more than their peers. GED completion didn't significantly alter outcomes, emphasizing the importance of high school diplomas. Legislation emphasizing high school completion and college entry aligns with findings. Yet, to ensure sustained support during degree completion, laws might require reevaluation or expanded partnerships. The California Fostering Connections Act extension to 21 might boost college participation, but higher earnings suggest the need for ongoing support through degree completion.

Over decades, rural areas consistently lose younger residents, especially in economically challenged regions offering unstable work. This outmigration leads to imbalanced demographics, with better-educated individuals leaving and those remaining having lower education and incomes. This shift creates uncertainty about education's significance linked to leaving. Retaining youth becomes vital for rural areas. Recent studies suggest schools inadvertently encourage departure by prioritizing high achievers, yet research involving 9,000 rural students counters this. While high-achieving rural students tend to leave, they share strong community ties and similar desires to depart as their peers. Schools aren't actively pushing students away; instead, students' views on local economies shape their aspirations, irrespective of academic status. This emphasizes rural youths' connections and potential retention if opportunities arise. It underscores the need for national/regional policies supporting rural sustainability, addressing the wider lack of opportunities in rural America. It might not merely be local underinvestment but rather a systemic absence of regional/national investment in rural areas.

A new study assessed the effectiveness of after-school tutoring programs, specifically the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), within Chicago Public Schools. Evaluating these SES providers from 2009 onwards, the research aimed to fairly measure their impact on student achievement by considering student characteristics and school settings. The findings indicated that participating in SES positively influenced student achievement, notably with over 40 hours of tutoring, contributing significantly to annual student gains. Interestingly, there was a decline in hourly rates among providers over time, which correlated with the district's program, and a clear link between provider effectiveness and the number of students served. Successful program attributes, such as effective oversight, coordination, and cost reduction, were identified and could be beneficial for other districts. The strategies developed could be adopted by districts to assess provider effectiveness and provide crucial information to parents, aiding informed decisions. This valuable data could guide California districts granted NCLB waivers in program development and accountability system design. Similar analyses are underway in the Los Angeles Unified School District, highlighting the broader potential application of these findings.

Year-round school calendars, widely adopted in California due to school crowding, aim to evenly distribute school days. Multi-track calendars, seen as cost-saving, accommodate larger student bodies. There is a belief that redistributing summer breaks could counteract summer learning loss, particularly for disadvantaged students. Research highlights caution regarding year-round schooling. While cost savings are clear, academic gains haven't materialized, impacting high-risk student groups negatively. California showed notably negative effects compared to neutral outcomes in Wake County, North Carolina, where multi-track calendars were used widely. This disparity emphasizes considering demographics; schools with substantial minority or low-income populations may face different challenges. The findings caution policymakers against risking student achievement solely for minor savings. Tailored approaches for schools based on their demographics are suggested. The academic benefits of year-round schooling remain scarce, except for addressing severe overcrowding. Yet, amid tightening budgets, year-round schools are cautiously endorsed as a financial reform, urging further examination and context-specific considerations in policymaking.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) ensures a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities in the US, necessitating services tailored to their needs. However, these specialized services come at a higher cost. To manage these expenses, some states like California use the census funding model, allotting aid based mainly on total district enrollment and a fixed amount per student, independent of specific program characteristics. A new policy brief delves into the pros and cons of this method and discusses ways to address its drawbacks. Advantages include simplicity, legal compliance, adaptability, potential cost-effective placements, and preventing over-identification of disabilities. Yet, there are concerns about inequitable funding, potential inadequacy over time, disincentivizing quality services, and jeopardizing legal protections if students aren't identified. The authors suggest considering adjustments based on regional factors, poverty, disability rates, and monitoring changes to achieve fairness. They also advocate for exploring cost-effective program delivery and weighing alternatives for special education funding structures to better support students while managing costs.

In recent years, budget cuts led to increased class sizes across the US. California notably saw a 20% rise, adding over 4 students per class between 2009–2010. This sparks debate on allocating limited resources, with class size at its core due to its impact on educational costs. Studies on class size effects show inconsistent, modest benefits. Although reducing class size incurred substantial costs in the past, raising it could mitigate harm amid budget cuts. California's prior investment in smaller classes yielded limited effects due to swift implementation. Rising class sizes’ impact depends on implementation; layoffs based on teacher effectiveness might counteract negative effects on student achievement. The debate centers on balancing budgets without compromising student learning, especially crucial amid fiscal challenges in education.

This commentary, part of a broader PACE series exploring school finance, speaks to challenges faced by California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The two biggest problems with the California financial system are inequitable revenue allocations and inefficiencies caused by categorical restrictions. Governor Brown's proposal addresses these issues, but critics argue that the system still has other problems. One major criticism is that there are winners and losers in the system. Under Brown's proposal, the allocations for some districts will look drastically different, with some receiving less than others. This is because current allocations have little connection to the costs of educating students and the characteristics of students and schools. Another alternative is to raise the base so everybody "wins," which would provide more flexibility and a more correlated revenue with costs. However, this system still creates winners and losers because allocations would not be as tightly connected to costs as under the current system. Governor Brown's proposal nevertheless helps solve the two biggest problems with California's school finance system and offers a better alternative to the current financial system.

Governor Brown’s proposed Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) introduces weightage for student poverty and English Learners (ELs). While some categorical programs persist, the formula consolidates other funding streams into the core. An ongoing debate surrounds the inclusion of additional cost factors. States commonly allocate extra funds for special student needs like disabilities, poverty, and limited English skills. Brown’s plan addresses this by providing a 35% weight for low-income students or ELs, with increments for high concentrations in districts. However, there's uncertainty regarding how costs change with increasing concentrations of disadvantaged students. Variations in funding models across states revolve around student needs, grade levels, and demographic factors. Research indicates the necessity of investing in early grades, though consensus on which levels require more resources is lacking. Moreover, adjustments for school size, district size, and teacher labor costs vary widely. While teacher cost adjustments align with mobility and attrition concerns, their direct impact on retaining teachers is unclear. Finally, separate funding for transportation and sparsity considerations are prevalent, but maintaining existing allocations might perpetuate irrational variations across districts. Brown's plan could rationalize transportation funding but may need adjustments for equitable distribution, especially for programs like gifted education and career training currently under categorical funding.

The adjustment for student needs in school funding formulas commonly incorporates categories like special education, at-risk students (often encompassing low-income or those needing remedial education), and English Learners (ELs). Many states determine additional funds for these students through pupil weights, usually a percentage of the base allocation. California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) assigns a 35% weight for low-income students or ELs, with increased weight for higher concentrations in a district. Research suggests poor and EL students require added resources to match peers' academic levels. Studies vary but estimate pupil weights for poverty between 0.30 to 1.22 and 0.24 to 1.01 for ELs. Few states consider concentration factors in funding, though research on peer effects shows the importance of the school's poverty concentration. Handling students in both categories remains debated; some argue they need only the poverty weight. Concerns about funding incentives for ELs' reclassification or abandoning needy students without categorical restrictions persist, but research shows the shift to unrestricted weights coupled with strong accountability might lead districts to find more effective ways to assist these students. Brown's proposed weights, while high individually, might result in allocations similar to states funding these categories separately due to overlapping populations.

In the realm of education funding reform, the debate revolves around how to fairly distribute financial resources among districts. While base revenue per student usually remains consistent across districts, additional funding aims to offset the varying costs of education. California's approach, through Brown's LCFF, uses student weights to consider poverty, language learning, and grade levels. States explore various methods to include cost factors: categorical programs, block grants, pupil weights, and direct adjustments to the foundation amount. Each method has its merits and downsides, reflecting the challenge policymakers face in deciding the most effective route for equitable allocation. The discussion focuses on shifting from categorical programs to weighted students or adjusted foundation levels, emphasizing that such changes could yield better outcomes. However, concerns persist about removing categorical restrictions, fearing a potential loss of funding for vital programs like adult education or arts. The tension lies between local district autonomy and statewide priorities, raising questions about governance and whether setting educational priorities should be centralized or decentralized. Policymakers aim to strike a balance between offering district flexibility while ensuring effective resource utilization, with growing advocacy for an accountability-driven approach over categorical funding enforcement.

The primary aim of state finance systems across the U.S. is to achieve equalization, especially in states with local school funding under legal scrutiny. California’s current revenue limit and Governor Brown’s proposed formula both follow the traditional foundation state-aid model. In this structure, state aid per pupil is calculated as the foundation amount minus the required tax rate multiplied by assessed property wealth per pupil. Determining the foundation amount involves historical, political, and cost-based considerations. California’s current system heavily relies on historical expenditure levels from the 1970s, adjusted for inflation and equalization. Brown's proposal seems influenced by state average revenue limits after budget-induced cuts. Setting the foundation amount based on the actual cost of education remains a point of contention. California’s approach, compared to other states, tends to lag in per-pupil spending despite achieving equalization post-Serrano. States often adopt foundation formulas, aiming to increase spending in poorer districts ('leveling up'), yet California's spending remains lower on average. The ongoing debate emphasizes balancing actual educational costs, political feasibility, and historical context. Brown’s proposed base amounts, while lower than past estimates for California's educational needs, are not significantly different from those in other states using the foundation formula. However, comparing base amounts across states requires understanding that these figures represent the minimum cost to educate students without additional needs or district-specific characteristics.

In the discourse surrounding Governor Brown’s proposed “Local Control Funding Formula” (LCFF), the "School Finance" series aims to dissect long-debated issues prevalent in school finance, exploring known and unknown facets. While delving into specifics of the funding formula in future posts, the series initiates with a retrospective perspective on California’s educational funding evolution. It outlines the simplicity but inherent complexity of the current system, rooted in district revenue limits and categorical aids. Historic milestones like Serrano v. Priest and Prop 13 reshaped the state's funding landscape, emphasizing equity but excluding targeted funds from equalization discussions. Notably, the series emphasizes the evolution towards equitable distribution through foundation state-aid formulas, similar to Brown’s proposed model. It highlights the trade-offs between centralized funding, equal distribution, and local control, presenting Brown’s formula as offering enhanced spending flexibility by replacing categorical programs with cost-specific weights. The series underscores that while California’s move aligns with existing models, empirical insights should guide policy decisions for the welfare of its students.

In examining the state of gifted and talented education (GATE), the impact of financial strains on these programs in California becomes apparent. During budget constraints, districts often slash funding for GATE, leading to drastic program reductions. Despite the belief that gifted students can excel without additional resources, international assessments, like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), reveal American gifted students underperform globally, notably in math and science. This underperformance might stem from the inequitable funding landscape where the average district receives minimal state support ($3.38 per pupil), leaving only a minority with additional funding. Advocating for increased GATE funding seeks to rectify disparities rather than create inequality. The present funding discrepancies result in a form of horizontal inequity, suggesting that access to resources shouldn't hinge on a district's wealth. Encouraging uniform opportunities for gifted students, regardless of district economic status, aligns more with equitable education principles.