Latest Reports from the Education Policy Center

Increasing parental choice has been a leading theme of recent education policy intended to enhance the academic achievement of low-performing students in the United States. These policies aim to "level the playing field" in access to high-quality education for disadvantaged students who cannot otherwise afford higher-quality schooling options. Public school choice programs in D.C. are successful; disadvantaged students are able to attend higher-performing schools than their neighborhood public schools, even with prolonged commutes. Overall, the findings provide evidence that the relatively advantaged students are taking advantage of public school choice programs. However, choice exacerbates student quality disparities between low- and high-poverty schools, casting some doubt on the benefits of such programs.

Principals tend to prefer working in schools with higher-achieving students from more advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. Principals often use schools with many poor or low-achieving students as stepping stones to what they view as more desirable assignments. District leadership can also exacerbate principal turnover by implementing policies aimed at improving low-performing schools such as rotating school leaders. Using longitudinal data from one large urban school district we find principal turnover is detrimental to school performance. Frequent turnover results in lower teacher retention and lower student achievement gains, which are particularly detrimental to students in high-poverty and failing schools.

Faced with budget shortfalls, states and localities are considering cuts to K-12 education, including reductions in teaching staff. Consequently, governors, lawmakers, and school officials are taking a second look at seniority provisions in their collective bargaining agreements and weighing the costs and benefits of the prevailing system under which the last hired is typically the first fired.

This brief provides an overview of the evaluation of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP) of the National Science Foundation (NSF), focusing on the main conclusions and recommendations arising from the evaluation.

This report presents findings from the process and summative (quasi-experimental) evaluation of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP) of the National Science Foundation (NSF). HBCU-UP seeks to enhance the quality of undergraduate education and research in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) at HBCUs as a means to broaden participation in the nation’s STEM workforce. Findings suggest that the HBCU-UP program yielded an intervention model characterized by a core set of capacity-building strategies associated with successful student educational and employment outcomes. HBCU-UP graduates (mostly African Americans) outperform a national comparison sample in graduate degree completion and are more likely to be employed in STEM than African American graduates nationally. The report includes recommendations for future funding and dissemination.

African American students at historically black colleges are twice as likely as African American students nationally to complete graduate degrees in science and engineering if their colleges received a capacity-building grant from the National Science Foundation, an evaluation of the HBCU-UP program found.

This paper assesses the determinants of teacher job change and the impact of such mobility on the distribution of teacher quality. High and low-quality teachers are more likely to leave than those in the middle of the distribution. In contrast, the relationship between teacher productivity and inter-school mobility is relatively weak. Teachers who rank above their faculty colleagues are more likely to transfer to a new school within a district and exit teaching. As the share of peer teachers with more experience, advanced degrees or professional certification increase, the likelihood of moving within district decreases. There is also evidence of assortative matching among teachers. The most effective teachers who transfer tend to go to schools whose faculties are in the top quartile of teacher quality. Teacher mobility exacerbates differences in teacher quality across schools.

Over 2000 teachers in Washington state received reduction-in-force (RIF) notices in the past two years. Linking data on these RIF notices to a unique dataset of student, teacher, school, and district variables the authors determine factors that predict the likelihood of a teacher receiving a RIF notice. A teacher's seniority is the greatest predictor, but (all else equal) master's degree teachers and credentialed teachers in the "high-needs areas" of math, science, and special education were less likely to receive a RIF notice. For a subset of the teachers there is no observed relationship between effectiveness and the likelihood of receiving a RIF notice. Results suggest a different group of teachers would be targeted for layoffs under an effectiveness-based vs. seniority-driven layoff system.

Differences in teacher quality would appear to be the most likely reason for disparities in the quality of high-poverty and lower-poverty schools. However, the linkages between teacher quality and socio-economic-based disparities in student achievement are quite complex. Using data from North Carolina and Florida, this paper examines whether teachers in high-poverty schools are as effective as teachers in schools with more advantaged students. Bottom teachers in high-poverty schools are less effective than bottom teachers in lower-poverty schools. The best teachers, by comparison, are equally effective across school poverty settings. The gap in teacher quality appears to arise from the lower payoff to teacher qualifications in high-poverty schools. In particular, the experience-productivity relationship is weaker in high-poverty schools and is not related to teacher mobility patterns. Recruiting teachers with good credentials into high-poverty schools may be insufficient to narrow the teacher quality gap. Policies that promote the long-term productivity of teachers in challenging high-poverty schools appear key.

Minorities have been traditionally underrepresented in scientific fields. For over 10 years, they have been the target of a National Science Foundation (NSF) effort to retain students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)—namely, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program. This brief condenses key findings from the Urban Institute’s four-year evaluation of LSAMP, focusing on the progression of LSAMP participants through the STEM education pipeline and comparing their outcomes with those of representative samples of minority and nonminority students.