The 2013 session of the 118th Indiana General Assembly adjourned sine die on Saturday, April 27, 2013. The legislature considered over 2,200 bills during the session, many of which addressed education policy and school governance, or were child-related legislation. The following is a summary of 12 key PK-12 education bills that were enacted into law by the legislature. Many other bills were passed by the legislature on a number of public policy topics including PK-12 education, higher education, and child welfare and advocacy. For more information on these laws, go to: www.in.gov/legislative. The acts of legislation included in this report were selected by the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy (CEEP) at Indiana University for their significance and potential long-term impact on the PK-12 education delivery system in Indiana.

A unique feature of this legislative summary is the inclusion of commentary and perspectives from statewide education and advocacy associations on the new laws. Representatives from many associations were invited to share their views concerning the pros and cons of the new laws because of their knowledge and expertise of topics covered by the legislation. These education leaders were generally invited to comment on each new law highlighted in this publication. However, of those who responded, many were selective in which laws they chose to share remarks. The summary also includes the perspectives of Dr. Russ Skiba, Equity Project Director, and Terry Spradlin, Director for Education Policy at CEEP. These comments do not represent, nor are they necessarily endorsed by CEEP.

The 2013 session of the 118th Indiana General Assembly adjourned sine die on Saturday, April 27, 2013. The legislature considered over 2,200 bills during the session, many of which addressed education policy and school governance, or were child-related legislation. The following is a summary of 12 key PK-12 education bills that were enacted into law by the legislature. Many other bills were passed by the legislature on a number of public policy topics including PK-12 education, higher education, and child welfare and advocacy. For more information on these laws, go to: www.in.gov/legislative. The acts of legislation included in this report were selected by the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy (CEEP) at Indiana University for their significance and potential long-term impact on the PK-12 education delivery system in Indiana.

A unique feature of this legislative summary is the inclusion of commentary and perspectives from statewide education and advocacy associations on the new laws. Representatives from many associations were invited to share their views concerning the pros and cons of the new laws because of their knowledge and expertise of topics covered by the legislation. These education leaders were generally invited to comment on each new law highlighted in this publication. However, of those who responded, many were selective in which laws they chose to share remarks. The summary also includes the perspectives of Dr. Russ Skiba, Equity Project Director, and Terry Spradlin, Director for Education Policy at CEEP. These comments do not represent, nor are they necessarily endorsed by CEEP.

Skyrocketing tuition and fees, increasing student debt, and a weak economy have led many to wonder whether the benets of going to college are worth the costs. More students than ever are taking on student loans -- a troubling trend that suggests that college is becoming less accessible to many students, even as our economy requires greater numbers of highly educated workers. In this report, the authors review the status of undergraduate student debt in California and consider it in light of the economic benets of attaining a college degree.

This report finds that student debt has increased notably in recent years. In 2010, almost half of California freshmen took out a student loan -- ten years earlier, only one-third did so. Moreover, the size of those loans has increased. The average loan amount for freshmen in California increased 36 percent (adjusted for inflation) between 2005 and 2010, reaching almost $8,000 for that first year alone. Students at private colleges are much more likely than students at the state's public colleges to take out loans, and the amounts of those loans are substantially higher at private institutions. Of particular concern are students at private for-profit colleges.

Almost all students attending those institutions take out loans, and the loan amounts are higher than at any other type of institution. Despite the increase in debt, college is a good investment for the vast majority of students. Labor market outcomes, including employment and wages, remain far better for college graduates than for less educated workers, and all but the lowest-paid college graduates earn sufficient wages to pay off average debts. However, certain students do not fare so well.

Those who do not finish college have far lower earning potential than those who do. And a small share of students take out massive loans and have trouble paying them back. Default rates are particularly high for students who attend private for-profit colleges. By keeping tuition low in the past (and even now at community colleges) and, more recently, by expanding grant aid to those attending public institutions, California policymakers and higher education officials have ensured that student debt is lower in California than in the rest of the United States. Relatively high graduation rates coupled with strong labor market outcomes have kept default rates on student loans very low for attendees of the University of California and the California State University, and at almost all private nonprofit colleges. Efforts by policymakers to limit state aid to institutions with poor student outcomes, including high student loan default rates, should continue. Almost all of the poorly performing schools are private for-profit institutions.

In an era with seemingly ever-increasing college tuition, the state should find additional ways to make college affordable for greater numbers of Californians. Improving pathways from community colleges, with their very low tuition, to four-year colleges should be a high priority. The new associate degree for transfer is a step in the right direction. Finding ways to help families save for college should be another state priority. One option would be to create a college savings program that guarantees full tuition at the state's public universities. Numerous states have adopted such programs, and hundreds of thousands of families are participating in them. Finally, to keep costs down, state policymakers and higher education officials need to ensure adequate funding of higher education institutions, as well as eciency in the delivery of higher education. Online offerings are one -- as yet unproven -- possibility for efficiency gains.

Ultimately, the significance of a college education is larger than the gains enjoyed by any one person. California's future prosperity depends on public policies that promote college enrollment and completion for increasing numbers of Californians.

Low-income adult learners often struggle to finance their college expenses, having to contend with competing responsibilities involving work, family, and school. This report presents findings from a study of performance-based scholarships at two community colleges in New York City -- the Borough of Manhattan Community College and Hostos Community College, both part of the City University of New York system. Students who were eligible for the program could receive up to $2,600 total over two semesters, or up to $3,900 total over two semesters plus a summer semester. Payments were contingent upon maintaining a minimum level of enrollment and grades, and were made directly to students.

The program in New York City is one of six being studied as part of the Performance-Based Scholarship (PBS) Demonstration. Each program is designed to serve a different target population and to test an alternative incentive structure, and all employ a random assignment research design.

The program in New York City is a test of a scholarship-only program, with no services attached to the award. It targets adult students who are in need of developmental education, and aims to learn whether these scholarships are an effective way to help students progress academically. In addition, the program's design allows researchers to test whether offering students a summer scholarship as well can further improve their academic outcomes. Analysis suggests that the scholarship-only program:

* Encouraged more full-time enrollment during the semesters in which the program operated. Full-time enrollment increased 4.1 percentage points in the first semester and 6.0 percentage points in the second semester of the scholarship program.

* Did not increase the average number of semesters registered or credits earned over two years. While students who were eligible for the scholarship attempted more credits on average, this impact was small and was not accompanied by impacts on the number of semesters registered or cumulative credits earned.

* Increased registration and credit accumulation in the summer semester. However, this increase did not lead to increased registration or credit accumulation over the two-year followup period.

* Had impacts on students at one college but not on students at the other college. There is exploratory evidence that the program at one of the colleges had positive impacts on key academic outcomes. The analyses suggest that the impacts varied by college and that the college environments may have influenced these impacts.

MDRC will continue to publish findings from each of the six programs in the PBS Demonstration in the coming years. The program in New York makes an important contribution to the overall demonstration and to the study of performance-based scholarships.

Low-income adult learners often struggle to finance their college expenses, having to contend with competing responsibilities involving work, family, and school. This report presents findings from a study of performance-based scholarships at two community colleges in New York City -- the Borough of Manhattan Community College and Hostos Community College, both part of the City University of New York system. Students who were eligible for the program could receive up to $2,600 total over two semesters, or up to $3,900 total over two semesters plus a summer semester. Payments were contingent upon maintaining a minimum level of enrollment and grades, and were made directly to students.

The program in New York City is one of six being studied as part of the Performance-Based Scholarship (PBS) Demonstration. Each program is designed to serve a different target population and to test an alternative incentive structure, and all employ a random assignment research design.

The program in New York City is a test of a scholarship-only program, with no services attached to the award. It targets adult students who are in need of developmental education, and aims to learn whether these scholarships are an effective way to help students progress academically. In addition, the program's design allows researchers to test whether offering students a summer scholarship as well can further improve their academic outcomes. Analysis suggests that the scholarship-only program:

* Encouraged more full-time enrollment during the semesters in which the program operated. Full-time enrollment increased 4.1 percentage points in the first semester and 6.0 percentage points in the second semester of the scholarship program.

* Did not increase the average number of semesters registered or credits earned over two years. While students who were eligible for the scholarship attempted more credits on average, this impact was small and was not accompanied by impacts on the number of semesters registered or cumulative credits earned.

* Increased registration and credit accumulation in the summer semester. However, this increase did not lead to increased registration or credit accumulation over the two-year followup period.

* Had impacts on students at one college but not on students at the other college. There is exploratory evidence that the program at one of the colleges had positive impacts on key academic outcomes. The analyses suggest that the impacts varied by college and that the college environments may have influenced these impacts.

MDRC will continue to publish findings from each of the six programs in the PBS Demonstration in the coming years. The program in New York makes an important contribution to the overall demonstration and to the study of performance-based scholarships.