
Children and Youth;Education and Literacy
School choice policies, a fixture of efforts to improve public education in many cities. aim to enable families to choose a school that they believe will best meet their child's needs. In New York City, choice and the development of a diverse portfolio of options have played central roles in the Department of Education's high school reform efforts. This report examines the choices and placements of New York City's lowest-achieving students: those scoring among the bottom 20 percent on standardized state tests in middle school. Focusing on data from 2007 to 2011, the report looks at who these low-achieving students are, including how their demographics compare to other students in NYC, the educational challenges they face, and where they live. The bulk of the report reviews low-achieving students' most preferred schools and the ones to which they were ultimately assigned, assessing how these schools compare to those of their higher-achieving peers. The findings show that low-achieving students attended schools that were lower performing, on average, than those of all other students. This was driven by differences in students' initial choices: low-achieving students' first-choice schools were less selective, lower-performing, and more disadvantaged. Overall, lower-achievingand higher-achieving students were matched to their top choices at the same rate. Importantly, both low- and higher-achieving students appear to prefer schools that are close to home, suggesting that differences in students' choices likely reflect, at least in part, the fact that lower-achieving students are highly concentrated in poor neighborhoods, where options may be more limited.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / New York County / New York City

Analyzing data from over 26,000 U.S. middle and high schools, the report reveals profound disparities in suspension rates when disaggregating data by race/ethnicity, gender, and disability status. The report identifies districts with the largest number of "hotspot" schools (suspending 25 percent or more of their total student body), suggests alternatives that are already in use, and highlights civil rights concerns.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States

This Field Guide is designed to give quick and easy access to key data that will support the work to improve Idaho's education system.
To meet the needs of the 21st century workforce and economy, the Idaho State Board of Education has set an ambitious goal: 60% of Idahoans age 25-34 will have a post-secondary certificate or degree by 2020.
Given the current status and pace of progress, we are not on track to meet that goal.
Idaho must do better to prepare its students for success.
This Field Guild provides the facts and figures, with key information and insight, about the need and opportunity to improve Idaho's K-12 education system.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Western) / Idaho

Education and Literacy, Poverty
This paper examines whether teachers in schools serving students from high-poverty backgrounds are as effective as teachers in schools with more advantaged students. The question is important. Teachers are recognized as the most important school factor affecting student achievement, and the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their better off peers is large and persistent.
Using student-level microdata from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 from Florida and North Carolina, the authors compare the effectiveness of teachers in high-poverty elementary schools (>70% FRL students) with that of teachers in lower-poverty elementary schools (<70% FRL students). The results show that the average effectiveness of teachers in high-poverty schools is in general less than teachers in other schools, but only slightly, and not in all comparisons. The authors also find differences in within-school-type variation in teacher effectiveness in nearly every comparison. These differences are largely driven by the longer tail at the bottom of the teacher effectiveness distribution in high-poverty schools. Teachers at the top of the effectiveness distribution are very similar across school settings.
The observed differences in teacher quality between high-poverty and lower-poverty schools are not due to differences in the observed characteristics of teachers, such as experience, certification status and educational attainment. Rather, they appear to arise from differences in the marginal return or payoff from increases in a characteristic. In particular, the gain in productivity from increased experience is much stronger in lower-poverty schools. The lower return to experience in high-poverty schools does not appear to be a result of differences in the quality of teachers who leave teaching or who switch schools. Rather, it may be the case that the effect of experience on teacher productivity may depend on the setting in which the experience is acquired.
If there are positive spillovers among teachers that depend on teacher quality (ie. teacher "peer effects") or if exposure to challenging student populations lessens the future productivity of teachers (i.e. leads to "burn out"), teachers in schools serving large proportions of low-income students may simply not improve much as time goes by.
These findings suggest that solutions to the achievement gap between high and lower-poverty schools may be complex. Changing the quality of new recruits or importing teachers with good credentials into highpoverty schools may not be sufficient. Rather, the findings suggest that measures that induce highly effective teachers to move to high-poverty schools and which promote an environment in which teachers' skills will improve over time are more likely to be successful.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Southern)-North Carolina, North America-United States (Southern)-Florida

Education and Literacy;Men;Race and Ethnicity
The first of a four-volume series on the role of school counseling in the education of young men of color, this report includes short essays, student-produced artwork, and an interview on the topic.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States

In the United States, people generally view education through the lens of their own children and their own schools. Many Americans think a serious need for better educational performance is largely restricted to low-income children and families -- and that middle class lifestyles equate to a world-class education. While this need for low-income students is very real and very important, this report suggests that the need for better education extends deeply into America's middle class.
This three-part report highlights achievement in middle class American schools based on new analyses of math and science data from the 2009 PISA results and the results of a pilot study involving 105 American high schools that took a new test known as the OECD Test for Schools (based on PISA). The test is a school-level internationally benchmarked tool that measures reading, math and science knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds. Importantly, the OECD Test for Schools also measures key competencies such as critical thinking and problem solving as students are expected to apply their mastery of rigorous reading, math, and science content.
In the first section, the inescapable conclusion from data from the 2009 PISA study is that a large percentage of American middle class high schools have not kept pace as countries like Singapore, Finland, Korea and Germany have raised standards, invested in teachers and lifted their overall performance.The second section offers some good news -- highlighting individual U.S. schools that are global leaders. The third section summarizes some important lessons learned and the opportunities for restoring America's leadership in public education and strengthening America's competitiveness in the global economy.
The report concludes with a call for U.S. high schools across the economic spectrum to take advantage of this new international benchmarking opportunity and find out how they compare with -- and can learn from -- the world's top performing countries and schools.
August 1970
Geographic Focus:

Education and Literacy;Prison and Judicial Reform
This guide for practitioners is one of four manuals that, together, explain how drug court teams can create a program to help drug court participants pursue higher education. The Practitioners Manual provides a road map for the entire program, which gives step-by-step guidance to participants enrolling in and seeking financial aid for college.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York

Education and Literacy;Prison and Judicial Reform
This guide for trainers is one of four manuals that, together, explain how drug court teams can create a program to help drug court participants pursue higher education. The Practitioners Manual provides a road map for the entire program, which gives step-by-step guidance to participants enrolling in and seeking financial aid for college. The other three manuals provide support for participants, interns and trainers.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York