115TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION/SENATE DOCUMENT 115–3

NATIONAL DEBATE TOPIC FOR HIGH 

SCHOOLS, 2017–2018 

Resolved: The United States Federal 

Government Should Substantially Increase Its 

Funding and/or Regulation of 

Elementary and/or Secondary 

Education in the United States 

NATIONAL DEBATE TOPIC FOR HIGH SCHOOLS, 2017–2018 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. Section 1333 

Compiled by the Congressional Research Service 

Library of Congress 

U.S. Government Publishing Office 

Washington, DC 2017 

26–011 ★ (Star Print) 

03:37 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 026762 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SD003S1P.XXX SD003S1P
(II)

44 U.S.C., SECTION 1333 

CHAPTER 13—PARTICULAR REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS 

Sec. 1333. National high school and college debate topics 

(a) The Librarian of Congress shall prepare compilations of pertinent excerpts, 

bibliographical references, and other appropriate materials relating to: 

(1) the subject selected annually by the National University Extension Association as the national high school debate topic and 

(2) the subject selected annually by the American Speech Association as the 

national college debate topic. 

In preparing the compilations the Librarian shall include materials which in his 

judgment are representative of, and give equal emphasis to, the opposing points of 

view on the respective topics. 

(b) The compilations on the high school debate topics shall be printed as Senate 

documents and the compilations on the college debate topics shall be printed as 

House of Representative documents, the cost of which shall be charged to the 

congressional allotment for printing and binding. Additional copies may be 

printed in the quantities and distributed in the manner the Joint Committee 

on Printing directs. 

(P.L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1270) 

Historical and Revision Notes 

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., Supp. III, Sec. 170 [Sec. 276a] (Dec. 30, 1963, Pub. 

L. 88–246, Secs. 1, 2, 77 Stat. 802) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................ V 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3 

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 3 

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........................................................................... 4 

FEDERAL EDUCATION LAWS ............................................................................ 6 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) / EVERY 

STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) ......................................................... 6 

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (IDEA) ..................................... 8 

PERKINS CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT (PERKINS) ... 11 

EDUCATION REGULATIONS .............................................................................. 12 

EDUCATION EXPENDITURES ............................................................................ 15 

FEDERAL FUNDING ...................................................................................... 15 

STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING .................................................................... 16 

TEACHER QUALITY .............................................................................................. 19 

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP ......................................................................................... 24 

PUBLIC SCHOOL ALTERNATIVES .................................................................... 27 

CHARTER SCHOOLS ...................................................................................... 28 

MAGNET SCHOOLS ....................................................................................... 30 

PRIVATE SCHOOLS ....................................................................................... 32 

VOUCHERS ...................................................................................................... 33 

DC OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM ........................................ 36 

ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 37 

EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................................... 39 

COMMON CORE STANDARDS ..................................................................... 40 

STATE STANDARDS ....................................................................................... 43 

ASSESSMENTS ....................................................................................................... 45 

STANDARDIZED TESTING ........................................................................... 45 

STATE ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................. 46 

NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................... 48 

SUBJECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 51 

(V)

Foreword

The 2017–2018 high school debate topic is: ‘‘Resolved: The 

United States Federal Government Should Substantially Increase 

Its Funding and/or Regulation of Elementary and/or Secondary 

Education in the United States.’’ 

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library 

of Congress prepared this bibliography to assist high school debaters in researching the topic. This bibliography is intended to assist 

debaters in the identification of further references and resources on 

the subject. In selecting items for inclusion in this bibliography, 

CRS has sampled a wide spectrum of opinions reflected in the current literature on this topic. No preference for any policy is indicated by the selection or positioning of articles, books, or websites 

cited, nor is CRS disapproval of any policy, position, or article to 

be inferred from its omission. 

The bibliography was prepared by Audrey Crane-Hirsch, 

Darren Jones, LaVonne Mangan, and Laura Monagle, Reference 

Librarians, and Technical Information Specialists in the Knowledge 

Services Group of CRS and in the Jefferson Reading Room of the 

Library of Congress. 

The project team leader was Jerry W. Mansfield, Lead Information Services Coordinator, Knowledge Services Group. 

We wish the best to each debater as they research, prepare, and present arguments on this year’s topic. 

Mary B. Mazanec, Director 

Congressional Research Service 

NATIONAL DEBATE TOPIC FOR HIGH SCHOOLS, 2017-2018

RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY 

INCREASE ITS FUNDING AND/OR REGULATION OF ELEMENTARY AND/OR 

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE 2017-2018

HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE TOPIC

Compiled by

Audrey Crane-Hirsch, Darren Jones, LaVonne Mangan, and Laura Monagle, Reference 

Librarians, and Technical Information Specialists in the Knowledge Services Group of CRS and

in the Jefferson Reading Room of the Library of Congress

under the direction of project team leader

Jerry W. Mansfield, Lead Information Services Coordinator,

Knowledge Services Group

August 2017

Introduction

The 2017-2018 high school debate topic is: “Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should 

Substantially Increase Its Funding and/or Regulation of Elementary and/or Secondary Education in the 

United States.” The topic is selected annually by ballot of the delegates from the National Catholic 

Forensic League, the National Debate Coaches Association, and the National Speech and Debate 

Association, all organized under the umbrella organization, the National Federation of State High 

School Associations.

This selective bibliography, with brief annotations, is intended to assist debaters in identifying resources 

and references on the national debate topic. It lists citations to journal articles, books, congressional 

publications, legal cases, organizations, and websites. The bibliography is divided into ten broad 

sections: Background and History, Federal Education Laws, Education Regulations, Education 

Expenditures, Teacher Quality, School Leadership, Public School Alternatives, Accountability 

Systems, Educational Accountability, and Assessments.

Summary

The purpose of the bibliography is to provide students with a brief overview of information related to the 

2017-2018 high school debate topic.

This compilation is not intended to provide complete coverage of the topic. Further research on the topic 

may be accomplished at high school, public, and research libraries.

In addition to the resources included in this bibliography, there are many more international 

organizations, U.S. Government agencies, private think tanks, and non-governmental organizations 

(NGOs) that provide information on the debate topic and sub-topics on their websites. Debaters are 

encouraged to consult library resources as well as the Internet for their research.

(3)
Background and History

The United States Constitution does not address the subject of education, yet George Washington and 

Thomas Jefferson among others believed that the Federal government should promote schooling. Except 

for a few weak steps to foster education in the states, there was no federal agency specifically focused on 

this issue until after the Civil War. In 1867, during the era of Reconstruction in the south, Congress 

created a small, autonomous Department of Education headed by a Commissioner of Education. Henry 

Barnard, the most celebrated educator of the day and a long-time proponent of a federal education 

agency, was selected as the first U.S. Commissioner of Education. The agency’s primary focus was to 

collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems.

Although it was given the name “Department,” the agency did not have cabinet-level status. Numerous 

problems within the fledgling entity sparked congressional dissatisfaction and led to a subsequent loss of 

autonomy. By 1869, the Department of Education was reconstituted as an agency within the Department 

of the Interior and was renamed the Office of Education. The federal education agency remained in the 

Department of the Interior for 70 years, although under different names. In 1870, it became the Bureau 

of Education; in 1929, it was named the Office of Education again.

In 1939, the Office of Education was removed from the Department of the Interior and was moved to the 

newly created Federal Security Agency. This agency was later upgraded to the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare (HEW) in 1953, with the Office of Education being one of its major components. 

Until the 1950s, the federal education agency remained a small entity devoted primarily to the collection 

and dissemination of information. There was one major exception, however. From 1884 to 1931, it 

administered an Alaska program which not only operated schools in Alaska, but maintained programs to 

aid the overall well-being of the Alaska native peoples.

Beginning in the 1950s, the Office of Education grew rapidly. Congress enacted numerous programs to 

aid education in the states and assigned the administrative duties for those programs to the agency. While 

the office employed 286 people in 1947, by 1960 that number had swelled to nearly 1,100 and by 1996 it 

exceeded 3,100. This growth led to dramatic changes in the structure of the federal education agency.

Between 1966 and 1970, the HEW hierarchy included an Assistant Secretary for Education who advised 

the Secretary of HEW on education matters but who had no authority over programs in the Office of 

Education. In 1972, Congress created a new educational research agency, the National Institute of 

Education (NIE), which was separate from the Office of Education. These two units formed equal parts 

of a new Education Division of HEW that was headed by an Assistant Secretary for Education. In 

theory, the Assistant Secretary for Education became the nation’s highest federal education official, with 

the Commissioner of Education continuing to head the Office of Education.

4
In October 1979, with the support of President Jimmy Carter and endorsement by the National Education 

Association, the Department of Education was created. Comprised of HEW’s former Education 

Division, the new agency was headed by a Secretary of Education and became part of the President’s 

cabinet. Its door officially opened on May 4, 1980.

During the 1980 election, the dissolution of the Department was a campaign promise of the Republicans. 

However, the Reagan Administration only made mild efforts to achieve this goal during its early years 

and, ultimately, it came to accept the Department’s existence. In fact, President Reagan’s second 

Secretary of Education, William J. Bennett, gained national prominence for himself and the Department 

with his promotion of academic excellence.1

In 1994 the Republicans had taken control of both Houses of Congress and federal control of and 

spending on education soared. That trend continued unabated despite the fact that the Republican Party 

made abolition of the Department a cornerstone of its 1996 platform and made campaign promises 

calling it an inappropriate federal intrusion into local, state, and family affairs. The GOP platform read: 

“The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control 

jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling 

in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.”2 During his 1996 presidential 

campaign, Senator Bob Dole promised to eliminate the Department of Education.

In 2000, there was yet another resolution passed, this time by the Republican Liberty Caucus, to abolish 

the Department of Education; however, President George W. Bush did not pursue the abolition of the 

department. There were also campaign promises in 2008 and 2012 by presidential candidate Ron Paul to 

abolish the department.

The future of the Department of Education remains uncertain, for on February 7, 2017, Representative 

Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the department. Congressman Massie's 

bill, which is one sentence long, states, “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 

2018.”3

During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump stated, “I may cut Department of 

Education—Common Core is a very bad thing. I think that it should be local education.”4 As a possible 

first step, President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal cuts $9.2 billion, or 13.5%, from the Department’s 

budget.5

Today, the Department of Education operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. 

The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 18,200 school districts and 

1 Sniegoski, Stephen J. A Bibliography of the Literature on the History of the U.S. Department of Education and Its 

Forerunners. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 

Educational Resources Information Center, (ERIC 304 394), 1988.

2 https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/elimination-lost-what-happened-abolishing-departmenteducation.

3 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/899?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr899%22%

5D%7D&r=1.

4 Fox News Sunday 2015 Coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls, Oct 18, 2015.

5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trump-seeks-to-slash-education-department-but-make-bigpush-for-school-choice/2017/03/15/63b8b6f8-09a1-11e7-b77c-0047d15a24e0_story.html?utm_term=.56a93e6d

2425.

5
over 50 million students attending roughly 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools. 

Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 12 million 

postsecondary students.

Federal Education Laws

This section focuses on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), replaced by the Every 

Students Succeeds Act (ESSA); the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); and the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins). The programs authorized under these three acts 

are administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Collectively they account for the majority 

of the federal funds administered by ED for elementary and secondary education purposes.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was first signed into law in 1965 by President 

Lyndon B. Johnson. Nearly 40 years later, in 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No 

Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which reauthorized the original ESEA. In December 2015, the U.S. 

Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a new law to replace NCLB. President Obama 

subsequently signed ESSA into law on Dec. 10, 2015. The Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Improvement Act (IDEA) was originally passed in 2004 (PL 108-446 12/3/2004). IDEA was amended 

by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95 12/10/2015). The Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education Act was passed as Public Law 109-270 on 8/12/2006.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

U.S. Department of Education Law and Guidance

Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=pn.

(Replaced by Every Student Succeeds Act)

This webpage provides links to legislation, federal regulations, guidance and other policy documents.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

U.S. Department of Education Law and Guidance

Available at: https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

ESSA was signed into law on December 10, 2015. It reauthorized and amended the ESEA.

Articles

Gross, Betheny and Paul Hill. “The State Role in K-12 Education: From Issuing Mandates to 

Experimentation.” Harvard Law & Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 2 (2016): 299-326.

Available at: http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/10.2_2_GrossHill.pdf.

This paper examines the challenges states face as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) shifts 

authority to them. It explores the roles states are accustomed to playing and the capacities they will need 

to develop to move forward. It looks at the potential risks of deregulation.

Klein, Alyson. “States, Districts Will Share More Power under ESSA.” Education Week, Vol. 81, no. 8 

(2016): 4-10.

Available at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/under-essa-states-districts-to-sharemore.html.

6
The author provides a two-page, nutshell summary of the key elements of the Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESSA). She discusses how ESSA scales back the federal role in K-12 education and the challenges 

that come along with implementing it.

Weiss, Joanne and Patrick McGuinn. “States as Change Agents under ESSA.” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 

97, no. 8 (May 2016): 28-33.

As federal education mandates decrease under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), state education 

agencies (SEAs) will face great change and great opportunity. The authors discuss the roles that state 

agencies must take on, those they might take on, and those they should avoid.

Books

Alexander, Kern, and M. David Alexander. The Law of Schools, Students, and Teachers in a Nutshell,

5th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 2015.

This compact study guide provides a non-technical overview of laws that govern the operation of U.S. 

public schools. Chapter 10 discusses the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Hess, Frederick M. and Max Eden, eds. The Every Student Succeeds Act: What It Means for Schools, 

Systems, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2017.

This book brings together a cross-section of journalists, researchers and policy analysts to examine key 

aspects of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized and replaced the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It includes opposing viewpoints and critiques of the move from 

ESEA to ESSA.

Inside the Every Student Succeeds Act: The New Federal K-12 Law. Bethesda, MD: Education Week 

Press, 2016.

In this book, Education Week explains what the law will mean for accountability and testing, teacher 

quality, early childhood education, special education, academic standards including the Common Core, 

English language learners, and teacher evaluation.

Mathis, William J. and Tina M. Trujillo, eds. Learning from the Federal Market-Based Reforms: 

Lessons for ESSA. A volume in The National Education Policy Center Series, Charlotte, NC: 

Information Age Publishing, 2016.

The authors explore the major elements of education reforms, as well as the social, political, and 

educational contexts in which they take place.

Yell, Mitchell L. Law and Special Education, 4th ed. New York: Pearson, 2016

This textbook, written for non-lawyers, presents an overview of the history and development of federal 

laws that mandate special education to students with disabilities. Chapter 7 addresses the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act. 

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, Report to accompany H.R. 2362. 89th Cong., 1st sess., (H. Rept. 143). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.

This 1965 House report discusses the need for the initial legislation that became the Elementary and 

7
Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides federal aid to PreK-12 schools and sets federal 

education policy. It includes minority views of opposition to the legislation.

U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Every Child Achieves Act 

of 2015. Report to accompany S. 1177. 114th Cong., 2nd sess. (S. Rept. 231). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Publishing Office, 2015. (This act was later renamed the Every Student Succeeds Act).

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-114srpt231/pdf/CRPT-114srpt231.pdf.

This Senate report discusses the purpose and need to reauthorize and amend the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 to revise federal education programs and requirements related to state 

academic standards.

Websites

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), ESSA materials

Available at: https://www.aft.org/search/site/essa.

AFT is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO and teacher/educator’s professional employee advocacy 

organization. The site provides information for teachers and schools on evolving education issues for 

teachers and schools. It includes statements on ESSA during the law’s development and since passage.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Federal Issues| Education

Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/federal-issues-education.aspx.

This overview provides NCSL's resources on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) such as a full 

summary of the bill and letters to federal officials, and NCSL’s comments on federal regulations that 

impact state education policy.

National Education Association (NEA), ESSA Implementation Begins

Available at: http://www.nea.org/home/65276.htm.

NEA’s ESSA Implementation Begins website is one of NEA’s issue and action pages on the new federal 

education law and regulations. The “Related Links” section provides NEA’s statements on ESSA during 

the law’s development and after passage. NEA is a teacher/educator’s professional employee advocacy 

organization.

National PTA

Available at www.pta.org.

PTA's mission is to make every child’s potential a reality by engaging and empowering families and 

communities to advocate for all children.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

U.S. Department of Education Law and Guidance 

Available at: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) seeks to ensure that all children with disabilities 

have access to a free, appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services 

designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and 

independent living.

8
Articles

______. “Minorities Identified for Special Education: Defining ‘Too Many’.” Education Week, vol. 35, 

no. 37 (2016): 14-15.

This short article gives direct quotes from educators, researchers, and advocates (including their 

institutions and titles) on both sides of the question about whether minority students are overrepresented 

in special-education programs and screening.

Archerd, Erin. “Response to Intervention: A Rising Tide or Leaky Boat?” Ohio State Journal on Dispute 

Resolution, vol. 30, no. 2 (2015): 233-273.

The author explains that Response to Intervention (RTI), adopted in 2004 as both an educational 

measure and a screening measure by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), also offers benefits 

for many students—such as English Language Learners (sometimes known as English as a Second 

Language [ESL] students)—who do not have learning disabilities, but who would nonetheless benefit 

from additional appropriately targeted educational services. The author argues that RTI can and should 

be adopted at the local level, without a need for change in federal law or regulation.

Czapanski, Karen Syma. “Kids and Rules: Challenging Individualization in Special Education.” Journal 

of Law & Education, vol. 45, no. 1 (Winter 2016): 1-38.

Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2728001.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires school districts, with parental input, to 

develop an individualized educational plan (IEP) for each special education student. The author argues 

that the individualization of IEPs, combined with privacy laws, prevents schools from openly using 

preplanned educational plans that would benefit many students, and therefore contends that the law 

should be changed to allow rule-based plans where appropriate, not just individualized plans.

Dhuey, Elizabeth. “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.” In Encyclopedia of Education 

Economics & Finance, vol. 1, edited by Dominic J. Brewer and Lawrence O. Picus, 399-403. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2014.

The encyclopedia entry on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides background 

information and traces the historical development of the Act. It identifies the key provisions in prior acts 

on which IDEA builds, beginning with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which the 

author contends acknowledged the reality that educating children with disabilities was more expensive 

than educating children without disabilities.

Pasachoff, Eloise. “Advocates, Federal Agencies, and the Education of Children with Disabilities.” Ohio 

State Journal of Dispute Resolution, vol. 29, no. 3 (2014): 461-494.

Available at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2402&context=facpub.

This essay discusses the role that relevant federal agencies can play in implementing and enforcing 

federal laws that protect children with disabilities. It provides a guide to agency structure and jurisdiction 

that can help advocates for these children better understand each office.

Walker, Brenda. “Sixty Years after ‘Brown v. Board of Education’: Legal and Policy Fictions in School 

Desegregation, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and No Child Left Behind.” Multiple 

Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, vol. 14, no. 2 (2014): 41-51.

The author describes numerous legal and policy fictions inherent in Brown, the Individuals with 

9
Disabilities Education Act, and the No Child Left Behind Act. She identifies strategies to eradicate these 

fictions in school reform for African American students.

Books

Alexander, Kern, and M. David Alexander. The Law of Schools, Students, and Teachers in a Nutshell,

5th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 2015.

This compact study guide provides a non-technical overview of laws that govern the operation of U.S. 

public schools. Chapter 10 discusses the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Claypool, Mark K. and John M. McLaughlin. How Autism is Reshaping Special Education: The 

Unbundling of IDEA. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.

The authors explore four major events that have transpired since the last reauthorization of IDEA that 

will have a significant impact on the next iteration of the law. They examine how the effects of these 

events on the special education process have been burdened by regulation.

Colker, Ruth. Disable Education: A Critical Analysis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

New York: New York University Press, 2013.

The author describes the shortcomings in the IDEA Act that minimize its effectiveness for poor and 

minority children. She offers suggestions on how resources might be allocated more equitably along 

class lines.

Yell, Mitchell L. Law and Special Education, 4th ed. New York: Pearson, 2016.

This textbook, written for non-lawyers, presents an overview of the history and development of federal 

laws that mandate special education to students with disabilities. Chapter 4 addresses the Individuals 

with Disabilities Act.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Improving Education Results for 

Children with Disabilities Act of 2003, Report to accompany H.R. 1350. 108th Cong., 1st sess., (H. Rept. 

77). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt77/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt77.pdf.

This 2003 House report, from the most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act, discusses the need to reauthorize and amend the Act. It includes minority views of 

opposition to the legislation.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Subcommittee on Education 

Reform. IDEA: Focusing on Improving Results for Children with Disabilities, Hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Education Reform of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 

Representatives. 109th Cong., 1st sess., March 13, 2013, Serial No. 108-9. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 2013.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg86871/pdf/CHRG-108hhrg86871.pdf.

In advance of the last IDEA reauthorization, this hearing sought to evaluate and critique IDEA programs. 

Topics raised included the need for more reliable methods of identifying children with disabilities, early 

intervention, teacher training, and the administrative burdens of the Act.

10
Websites

Center for Parent Information & Resources.

Available at: http://www.parentcenterhub.org.

This is a central hub of information and products for the network of Parent Centers serving families of 

children with disabilities. CPIR employs user-centered process to gather perspectives to create products 

and services that increase Parent Centers’ knowledge and capacity in specific domains.

National Education Association (NEA), IDEA/Special Education

Available at: http://www.nea.org/home/16348.htm.

NEA is a teacher/educator’s professional employee advocacy organization. NEA’s ESSA IDEA/Special 

Education Website is one of NEA’s issue and action pages. The section provides NEA’s positions and 

actions, research and tools for schools, and articles on statements on IDEA Special Education issues.

U.S. Department of Education Law and Guidance

Available at: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/.

This webpage provides the links to text of the law, federal regulations, memos, Dear Colleague letters, 

and FAQs.

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act

Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/sectech/leg/perkins/index.html.

The Act provides an increased focus on the academic achievement of career and technical education 

students, strengthens the connections between secondary and postsecondary education, and improves 

state and local accountability.

Articles

Boyes, Rod. “Opportunities and Challenges for CTE.” Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers,

vol. 91, no. 7 (October 2016): 60-61.

The author examines the opportunities and challenges for career and technical education (CTE) in the 

United States. He discusses how CTE programs contribute to economic progress and better quality of 

life.

Fitzgerald, Katie and Heather Singmaster. “Learning from the World: Best Practices in CTE and Lessons 

for the United States.” Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, vol. 92, no. 3 (March 2017): 30-

35.

This article describes how other countries are promoting career and technical training and working to 

overcome the stigma sometimes associated with CTE. It discusses federal CTE investment in the United 

States, as derived primarily through the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, and looks at statefunded CTE programs.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Health Education, Labor, and Pensions. Carl D. Perkins Career 

and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2005, Report to accompany S. 250. 109th Cong., 1st sess.

(S. Rept. 109-65.) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-109srpt65/pdf/CRPT-109srpt65.pdf.

11
This Senate report discusses the background and need for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Improvement Act of 2005 and provides a section-by section analysis.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Preparing Today’s Students for 

Tomorrow’s Jobs: Improving the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, Hearing before 

the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 113th Cong., 1st sess., November 19, 2013, Serial 

No.111-134. Washington, DC: U.S. Publishing Office, 2015.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg85479/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg85479.pdf.

A hearing to examine the importance of career and technical education programs as well as the current 

deficiencies in these programs. Recommendations to strengthen these programs include increased 

coordination with the business community and improved accreditation and certification processes.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Helping Students Succeed by 

Strengthening the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, Hearing before the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce. 114th Cong., 2nd sess., May 17, 2016, Serial No.114-48. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Publishing Office, 2017.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20060/pdf/CHRG-114hhrg20060.pdf.

A hearing to examine the benefits of career and technical education programs supported by the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and to examine reforming the legislation to provide more 

control to states and local school districts.

Websites

Perkins Collaborative Resource Network

Available at: http://cte.ed.gov.

U.S. Department of Education website that includes information on legislation, grant programs, 

accountability, national initiatives, and resources. The section on resources includes links to Perkins 

Reports to Congress, national assessments, audit reports, articles and other publications.

U.S. Department of Education Law and Guidance

Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/sectech/leg/perkins/index.html.

This webpage provides links to the text of the law, information on congressional activity, program and 

policy memos and Federal Register notices.

Education Regulations

Articles

Bowman, Kristi L. “The Failure of Education Federalism.” University of Michigan Journal of Law 

Reform, forthcoming. (Posted 30 Nov 2016. Last revised 27 Apr 2017. Site visited 23 May 2017.)

Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876889.

The author contends that the quality of public schools has sharply declined due to state-level legislative 

inaction, executive-branch acquiescence, and judicial abdication. She argues for an enhanced federal role 

in K-12 public education across all three branches of the federal government, including funding 

conditions Congress could impose; enforcement actions the Department of Education could bring; and 

ways that federal courts could interpret constitutional claims in educational litigation.

12
Cross, Christopher. “The Shaping of Federal Education Policy Over Time.” The Progress of Education 

Reform, vol. 16, no. 2 (May 2015).

Available at: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/19/16/11916.pdf.

This report, produced by the Education Commission of the States, provides an overview of major events 

in the history of K-12 federal education regulatory policy.

Gross, Betheny and Paul T. Hill. “The State Role in K-12 Education: From Issuing Mandates to 

Experimentation.” Harvard Law & Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 2, June 2016: 28.

Available at: http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/10.2_2_GrossHill.pdf.

Addresses the Every Student Succeeds Act giving states more autonomy over public education.

Haney, Patrick. “Coercion by the Numbers: Conditional Spending Doctrine and the Future of Federal 

Education Spending.” Case Western Law Review, vol. 64, no. 2(2013): 577-617.

Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol64/iss2/13.

The author argues that there is a strong case that the conditions that have accompanied recent federal 

educational funding are unconstitutionally coercive. The author proposes two legislative approaches to 

reduce federal coercion: competitive funding programs and attaching tiered conditions to funding.

Haubenreich, John. “Education and the Constitution.” Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 87, no. 4 

(2012): 436-454.

The author examines the increased tension between the federal government and the states over control of 

education. He looks to primary sources from the U.S. colonial and precolonial periods to uncover the 

thoughts of early leaders and thinkers as they were working to build the country.

Lawson, Aaron. “Educational Federalism: A New Case for Reduced Federal Involvement in K-12

Education.” Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, vol. 2013, no. 2 (Summer 2013): 

281-318.

Available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=elj.

The author argues that widespread federal involvement in education policy prevents state courts from 

fully protecting local children’s educational needs and opportunities. Reducing the extent of federal 

involvement in education would remove barriers to state courts’ ability to evaluate and, when 

appropriate, to declare state educational-funding schemes unconstitutional (either under equal protection 

provisions, or under state constitution provisions that guarantee an “adequate” education).

Peterson, Paul E. “The End of the Bush-Obama Regulatory Approach to School Reform.” Education 

Next, vol.16, no. 3 (Summer 2016).

Available at: http://educationnext.org/end-of-bush-obama-regulatory-approach-school-reform-choicecompetition.

The author suggests that recent presidents have used a regulatory approach to school reforms that neither 

closed racial gaps nor lifted student achievement to desired levels, but that the Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESSA) ends the era of education reform through regulation. He argues that choice and competition, 

namely in the form of charter schools, are the best hope of reform.

Robinson, Kimberly Jenkins. “Disrupting Education Federalism.” Washington University Law Review,

vol. 92, no. 4 (2015): 959-1018.

Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss4/7.

13
The author proposes restructuring and strengthening the federal role in education as the best way to 

create a foundation for a system that provides equal access to an excellent education. She argues that 

both the executive branch and Congress can expand their authority under the Spending Clause.

Books

Jennings, Jack. Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education 

Press, 2015.

This book includes sections on the origins of ESEA; standards, testing, and accountability; other federal 

education policies; and the federal role in education. The author proposes that current federal programs 

and directives be replaced with a policy in which the federal government works with the states to 

improve classroom teaching and learning.

Manna, Paul and Patrick McGuinn. Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century: Overcoming 

Structural Barriers to School Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013.

A number of leading education scholars assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing education 

regulations. They also address how traditional forms of regulation are changing to ensure better 

educational outcomes for children.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Evers, Williamson M. Federal Overreach and Common Core. White Paper no. 133, Pioneer Institute for 

Public Policy Research, July 2015.

Available at: https://truthinamericaneducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Federal-Overreach-andCommon-Core.pdf.

This report provides background and analysis on the controversies surrounding the Common Core and 

its related tests. The author proposes an alternative approach to school improvement.

Hanna, Robert. Seeing Beyond Silos: How State Education Agencies Spend Federal Education Dollars 

and Why. Center for American Progress, June 2014.

Available at: https://www.americanprogress.org/search/?query=Seeing%20Beyond%20Silos.

This study looks at how states use federal education dollars and how federal regulations might lead states 

to use funds in less productive ways. It provides recommendations for improving the regulatory 

environment.

Harris, Douglas N., et al. A Principled Federal Role in PreK-12 Education. Washington: Brookings 

Institution Press, 2016.

Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_20161206_principled_federal

_role_browncenter1.pdf.

This essay attempts to define an appropriate, vital role for the federal government in Pre-K-12 education. 

It looks at the evolution of the federal role in education and the inherent tensions and synergies between 

federal, state, and local governments.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education. Supplanting the Law and Local Education Authority Through 

Regulatory Fiat, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 

Education of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. 114th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 21, 

2016, Serial No. 114-53. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2017.

14
Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg21538/pdf/CHRG-114hhrg21538.pdf.

Hearing includes critiques of the Department of Education’s proposed “supplement not supplant” 

regulation, contending that the Department was acting without authority and would harm public schools 

and their students. A witness from the Center for American Progress argued in favor of the regulation as 

supporting equity for children in high-poverty schools.

U.S. Department of Education. 

Education Department Releases Final Regulations to Promote a High-Quality, Well-Rounded Education 

and Support All Students.

Available at: https://ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essaaccountstplans1129.pdf.

These regulations, effective January 30, 2017, amend the regulations implementing programs under Title 

I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to implement changes to the ESEA 

by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) enacted on December 10, 2015. The Secretary also updates 

the current ESEA general regulations to include requirements for the submission of state plans under 

ESEA programs, including optional consolidated state plans. Changes address 34 CFR Parts 200 and 

299.

Education Expenditures

Federal Funding

Articles

Camera, Lauren. “Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?: Here's a look at what your 

tax dollars have gone toward in the education sphere.” US News and World Report, Jan. 14, 2016.

Available at: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-fundingwhere-does-the-money-go.

Article provides an overview of federal education funding.

Houck, Eric A. and Elizabeth Debray. “The Shift from Adequacy to Equity in Federal Education 

Policymaking: A Proposal for How ESEA Could Reshape the State Role in Education Finance.” RSF: 

The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3 (2015): 148-167.

Available at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/605405.

Article addresses a new formula for ESEA’s supplemental funding for students and teachers.

Kornhaber, Mindy L., Nikolaus J. Barkauskas, and Kelly M. Griffith. “Smart Money? Philanthropic and 

Federal Funding for the Common Core.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 24, no. 93 (September 

12, 2016).

Article examines federal and philanthropic funding for the Common Core State Standards Initiative 

reform by states by their revenue finance resource.

McGuinn, Patrick. “Schooling the State: ESEA and the Evolution of the U.S. Department of Education.” 

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3 (2015): 77-94.

Available at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/605401.

Article addresses the federal grant-in-aid system in public education.

15
Nelson, Adam R. and Nicholas M. Strohl. “From Helping the Poor to Helping the Middle Class: The 

Convergence of Federal K-12 and Higher Education Funding Policy Since 1965.” In The Convergence of 

K–12 and Higher Education: Policies and Programs in a Changing Era, edited by Christopher P. Loss 

and Patrick J. McGuinn, 43-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2016.

Leading scholars of education policy bring together a distinguished and varied array of contributors to 

systematically examine the growing convergence between the K-12 and higher education sectors in the 

United States. The national focus on outcomes and accountability, originating in the K-12 sector, is 

exerting growing pressure on higher education, while trends toward privatization and diversification--

long characteristic of the postsecondary sector--are influencing public schools.

Books

Brewer, Dominic J. and Lawrence O. Picus, eds. Encyclopedia of Education Economics & Finance, vols. 

1 and 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2014.

A two-volume encyclopedia that contains over 300 entries by economics experts to assist state level 

decision makers and national researchers analyze how school spending and teacher compensation 

impacts student outcomes and how to raise and distribute funds for public schools in an equitable 

manner for both schools and taxpayers. Other public education economic debates are also addressed.

Hattis, Shana Hertz, ed. The Almanac of American Education 2017, Ninth Edition, Lanham, MD: Bernan 

Press, 2017.

Organized into three sections: Part A - National Education Statistics; Part B - Region and State 

Education Statistics; and Part C - County Education Statistics. Includes per-student expenditures.

State and Local Funding

Articles

Baker, Bruce and Mark Weber. “Beyond the Echo-Chamber: State Investments and Student Outcomes in 

U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education.” Journal of Education Finance, vol. 42, no. 1 (2016): 1-27.

Addresses state investments in elementary and secondary education from 1993 to 2013, evaluating both 

the level of funding over time and the extent to which funding is targeted to districts serving highpoverty populations.

Bourdeaux, Carolyn, and Nicholas Warner. “School Districts' Expenditure Responses to Federal 

Stimulus Funds.” Journal of Education Finance, vol. 41, no. 1 (2015): 30-47.

Reviews data of Georgia's 180 school districts that received 2009-2011 federal stimulus funds to 

evaluate the different funding mechanisms to school districts when the federal funding was withdrawn.

Collins, Johnathan. “Buying schools with social capital: how local response to state reform fosters 

education revenue inequality.” Local Government Studies, vol. 43, iss.1 (2017): 22-43.

Article addresses inequality in public school revenue relative to social capital network status using a 

comparative analysis of the counties and school districts in California.

Davis, Matthew, Andrea Vedder, and Joe Stone. "Local Tax Limits, Student Achievement, and SchoolFinance Equalization." Journal of Education Finance, vol. 41, no. 3 (2016): 289-301.

U.S. states have enacted, for public K-12 schools, tax/expenditure limits (TELs), constraining funding 

for local governments and school districts, school-finance equalization (SFE) systems that reduce the 

16
variation in funding across school districts, or both. Using Oregon as an example of a state that has 

enacted both TEL and SFE limitations to state funding on education, the article examines the effect of 

these constraints on student achievement.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

The Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP).

Available at: http://aefpweb.org/.

AEFP (formerly the American Education Finance Association) provides a forum for education finance 

researchers and produce or sponsor papers and reports on current education finance issues.

Baker, Bruce D. Does Money Matter in Education? Second Edition. Albert Shanker Institute 2016.

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563793.pdf.

Report addresses relationship between funding and school quality.

Education Commission of the State (ECS). Finance 

ECS gathers information on state laws and the policies of State Education Associations (SEAs) and 

Local Education Associations (LEAs) on a variety of educational issues. ECS provides this information 

through a variety of formats, including reports on education issues and a continually updated State 

Legislation database that contains state legislation and regulations for the various issues.

Available at: http://www.ecs.org/?s=&fwp_issues=finance (ECS Finance) and http://www.ecs.org/statelegislation-reports-on-finance/ (State Legislation Finance).

Jackson, C. Kirabo , Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico. "The Effects of School Spending on 

Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms," The Quarterly Journal 

of Economics, vol. 131, no. 1, 2016: 157-218.

Study reviewed the impact of court-ordered school finance reforms on long-term adult outcomes. 

Researchers found that increased per-pupil spending, induced by school finance reforms, narrowed adult 

socioeconomic attainment differences between those raised in low-income and high-income families.

Leachman, M. N., et al. “Most States Have Cut School Funding, Some Continue Cutting.” D.C.: Center 

on Budget and Policy Priorities. January 25, 2016.

Available at: http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/most-states-have-cut-school-fundingand-some-continue-cutting.

The authors’ survey of state budget documents finds that most states provide less support per student for 

elementary and secondary schools than before the Great Recession. These cuts, the authors argue, 

weaken schools’ capacity to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers and 

entrepreneurs.

National Association of School Budget Officers (NASBO). State Expenditure Report (Fiscal 2014-2016

Data), Chapter 1: Elementary and Secondary Education.

Available at http://www.nasbo.org/reports-data/state-expenditure-report.

An annual report that provides state and local spending on K-12 and higher education.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). School Finance.

Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-finance.aspx.

17
This overview provides NCSL's tracking of education finance legislation, state role in funding education, 

education finance litigation, and trends in education funding.

National Education Association (NEA), Education Funding.

Available at: http://www.nea.org/home/1019.htm.

The ESSA Education Funding website is one of NEA’s issue and action pages. The section provides 

NEA’s statements to Congress, education funding, and related charts. NEA is a teacher/educator’s 

professional employee advocacy organization.

National Education Association (NEA). Rankings & Estimates: Rankings of the States 2016 and 

Estimates of School Statistics 2017. May 2017:147.

Available at: http://www.nea.org/home/44479.htm and 

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/2017_Rankings_and_Estimates_Report-FINAL-SECURED.pdf.

NEA’s annual report consists of two parts. Rankings compares states on a variety of education and 

funding measures, including general financial resources and revenue and expenditures for the most 

recent school year. Estimates shows how education funding in each state has changed over time.

School Funding Fairness.

Available at: http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/home.

A project created by the researchers at Rutgers Graduate School of Education and Education Law 

Center. The project creates the report, “Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card” and related 

materials, such as interactive reports, press releases, and media mentions; related publications on school 

finance equity; and open access to compiled data sets and code for further analysis.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Governments Division. Public Education Finances Report: 2014.

Available at https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/econ/g14-aspef.html.

An annual survey of school system finances. Provides education finance data, including revenues, 

expenditures, debt, and assets [cash and security holdings] of elementary and secondary public school 

systems. Statistics cover school systems in all states and including the District of Columbia. Data are 

available in viewable tables and downloadable files. The most current survey was last updated June 2016 

and provides fiscal year 2014 data.

U.S. Congress. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education. Next Steps for K-12 Education: Implementing the Promise to 

Restore State and Local Control, House of Representatives. 114th Cong, 2nd sess., February 20, 2016, 

Serial No. 114-38. Washington, DC: GPO, 2014.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg98524/pdf/CHRG-114hhrg98524.pdf.

The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act puts states and school districts in charge of education 

and includes provisions to keep the Department of Education in check. For example, the law protects the 

right of state and local leaders to determine what standards, assessments, and curriculum are best for 

their students and ensures state and local leaders are responsible for accountability in school 

improvement.

18
U.S. Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), National Center for 

Education (NCES). Education Finance Statistics Center (EDFIN).

Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/edfin/index.asp.

Provides finance information on public elementary and secondary education.

U.S. Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), National Center for 

Education (NCES). Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School 

Year 2013-14 (Fiscal Year 2014), NCES 2016-301, October 2016.

Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016301 and 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016301.pdf.

This is a “First Look” that contains national and state totals of revenues and expenditures for public K-12

education for school year 2013-14. Includes revenues by source and expenditures by function and object, 

including current expenditures and instructional expenditures per pupil. This report presents data 

submitted annually to NCES by state education agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Earlier reports are available at: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_rev_exp.asp. The preceding report and 

earlier reports are developed from data contained in the Department of Education's primary database on 

public elementary and secondary education in the United States, the Common Core of Data (CCD), a 

comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and 

school districts, which contains data that are designed to be comparable across all states.

U.S. Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), National Center for 

Education (NCES). Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: 

School Year 2013-14 (Fiscal Year 2014), NCES 2016-303, February 2017.

Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016303 and 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016303.pdf.

This is a “First Look” report that presents data on public K-12 education revenues and expenditures at 

the local education agency (LEA) or school district level for fiscal year (FY) 2014. Specifically, this 

report includes findings from the following types of school finance data: revenue and expenditure totals 

by state and the 100 largest LEAs; expenditures by function and object totals by state; current 

expenditures per pupil by state; interest on debt; and capital outlay. Earlier reports are available at: 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_pubdistricts.asp.

These reports are developed from data contained in the Department of Education's primary database on 

public elementary and secondary education in the United States, the Common Core of Data (CCD), a 

comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and 

school districts, which contains data that are designed to be comparable across all states.

Teacher Quality

Among the many qualities of a classroom teacher expected by the National Education Association, 

parent-teacher organizations, accreditation bodies, and students, those at the top of the list include: 

teachers who are committed to their students, their craft and to learning; trained teachers who possess 

deep subject matter knowledge and who continue their own education to stay abreast of advances in their 

subjects; and teachers who can effectively manage their classrooms and monitor student achievement. 

The following resources address these areas of teacher quality.

19
Articles

Baker, Bruce D. and Mark Weber. “State School Finance Inequities and the Limits of Pursuing Teacher 

Equity through Departmental Regulation.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 24, no. 47 (April 

2016).

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1100175.pdf.

Evaluates connections between district and school level spending measures and teacher equity measures.

Browne-Ferrigno, Tricia. “Special Issue: Developing and Empowering Teacher Leaders for Collective 

Leadership.” Journal of Research on Leadership Education, vol. 11, no. 2 (August 2016).

Journal special issue presents articles on transitioning teachers to leadership through development.

Garrett, Rachel and Matthew P. Steinberg. “Examining Teacher Effectiveness Using Classroom 

Observation Scores: Evidence From the Randomization of Teachers to Students.” Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 37, no. 2: (June 1, 2015): 224-242.

This article leverages the random assignment of teachers to classrooms from the Measures of Effective 

Teaching (MET) study to identify teacher effectiveness using scores from the Framework for Teaching 

(FFT) instrument.

Jacobs, Sandi. “Improve tenure with better measures of teacher effectiveness.” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 

97, no. 6 (February 23, 2016): 33-37.

Argues that states should ensure that districts make good tenure decisions for teachers who are proven 

effective, while providing support and appropriate due process rights to ineffective teachers.

Kennedy, Mary M. “How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching?” Review of Educational 

Research, vol. 86, no. 4 (December 1, 2016): 945-980.

This review sorts professional development programs according to their underlying theories of action to 

illuminate the programs’ purpose or premises about teaching and teacher learning.

Martínez, José Felipe, Jonathan Schweig, and Pete Goldschmidt. “Approaches for Combining Multiple 

Measures of Teacher Performance: Reliability, Validity, and Implications for Evaluation Policy.” 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 38, no. 4 (December 1, 2016): 738–756.

Addresses teacher evaluation systems and how to combine multiple measures of complex constructs into 

composite indicators of performance.

Moran, Renee M. R. “The Impact of a High Stakes Teacher Evaluation System: Educator Perspectives 

on Accountability.” Educational Studies, vol. 53 no. 2 (Mar/Apr. 2017): 178-193.

This article focuses on teacher perceptions of the use of student achievement data to evaluate individual 

teacher effectiveness. The results indicate that teachers have a desire for accountability.

Preston, Courtney. “University-Based Teacher Preparation and Middle Grades Teacher Effectiveness.” 

Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 68 (August 12, 2016): 102-116.

Assesses the relationship of the features of teacher preparation programs to teacher effectiveness, to 

provide guidance for program improvement. Using four years of data from 15 middle grades teacher 

preparation programs, this study estimates the relationship of their required elements of coursework and 

fieldwork to student achievement gains in math and English/language arts.

20
Books

Akiba, Motoko and Gerald LeTendre, eds. International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy.

New York: Routledge, 2018.

Examines how global, national, and local policy actors conceptualize, negotiate, and contest teacher 

quality, and develop and implement teacher policies.

Au, Wayne and Christopher Lubienski. World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education 

Industry. NY: Routledge, 2016. 

See Chapter 2, pp. 27-43.Verger, Antoni, Christopher Lubienski, and Gita Steiner-Khamsi “The role of 

the Gates Foundation and the philanthropic sector in shaping the emerging education market.” 

Addresses changes in public education policy development and education reform by organizations 

funded by capital through business enterprises.

Brady, Michelle and Randy K. Lippert. Governing Practices: Neoliberalism and the Ethnographic 

Imaginary. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2016.

See Chapter 10, p. 288. Mitchell, Katharyne and Chris Lizotte. “Governing through Failure: 

Philanthropy, Neoliberalism, and Education Reform in Seattle.”

Chapter 10 addresses philanthropic involvement in education reform.

Carter, Julie and Hilary Lochte, eds. Teacher Performance Assessment and Accountability Reforms: The 

Impacts of edTPA on Teaching and Schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

The editors present multiple perspectives on the dual struggle that teacher educators face as they make 

sense of the Teacher Performance Assessment while preparing their pre-service teachers for the highstakes teacher exam.

Frontier, Tony and Paul Mielke. Making Teachers Better, Not Bitter: Balancing Evaluation, Supervision, 

and Reflection for Professional Growth. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, August 2016.

Asserts that the evaluation of teachers ensures competence as well as encouraging and supporting 

expertise. Provides step-by-step protocols for working with teachers.

Gitomer, Drew H. and Courtney A. Bell, eds. Handbook of Research on Teaching, Fifth Edition.

Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, May 2016.

Book covers a variety of topics ranging from the history of teaching to technological and literacy issues.

Grissom, Jason A. and Peter Youngs, eds. Improving Teacher Evaluation Systems: Making the Most of 

Multiple Measures. New York: Teachers College Press, November 22, 2015.

This book has compiled and addresses the impacts and challenges of data-intensive teacher evaluation 

systems.

McKnight, Katherine S., ed. Addressing the Needs of All Learners in the Era of Changing Standards: 

Helping Our Most Vulnerable Students Succeed Through Teaching Flexibility, Innovation, and 

Creativity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

Educators discuss standards as a way to provide more rigorous instruction and illustrate how teachers are 

uniquely qualified to determine the most effective methods for developing students' skills and close the 

achievement gap.

21
Murphy, Joseph F. Professional Standards for Educational Leaders: The Empirical, Moral, and 

Experiential Foundations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin (January 2017).

Authoritative guide to understanding and applying the "Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 

(PSEL).”

Quintero, Esther, ed. Teaching in Context: The Social Side of Education Reform. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard Education Press, April 2017.

The studies featured here suggest an alternative approach to enhancing teacher quality: creating 

conditions and school structures that facilitate the transmission and sharing of knowledge among 

teachers, allowing teachers to work together effectively, and capitalizing on what we know about how 

educators learn and improve.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

American Educational Research Association (AERA)

Available at: http://www.aera.net/.

AERA is a national research association on education.

Baird, Matthew, et al. Improving Teaching Effectiveness: Access to Effective Teaching: The Intensive 

Partnerships for Effective Teaching Through 2013-2014. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016.

Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1295z4.html.

Addresses the distribution of effective teachers within and across schools in Intensive Partnership sites.

Education Commission of the State (ECS). Teaching Quality.

Available at: http://www.ecs.org/?s=&fwp_issues=teaching-quality.

More detailed ECS Teaching Quality resources are available: State Legislation: Teaching 

Quality. Available at: http://www.ecs.org/?s=&fwp_issues=teaching-quality&fwp_doctype=statelegislation&fwp_per_page=100.

ECS gathers information on state laws and the policies of State Education Associations (SEAs) and 

Local Education Associations (LEAs) on a variety of educational issues. ECS provides this information 

through a variety of formats, including, for example, its and other entities’ reports on education issues 

and a continually updated database that contains state legislation and regulations for the various issues.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Teachers.

Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/teachers.aspx.

This overview provides NCSL's tracking of current policies and practices and state policy options to 

prepare and license effective teachers; to recruit, retain and support effective teachers; and to evaluate 

teachers.

National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ).

Available at: http://www.nctq.org/siteHome.do.

NCTQ is funded by foundations and private donors and accepts no government funding. NCTQ’s Board 

of Directors and Advisory Board are composed of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. NCTQ’s 

vision is that “every child deserves effective teachers and every teacher deserves the opportunity to 

become effective.”

22
National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). State of the States 2015: Evaluating Teaching, Leading 

and Learning (November 2015).

Available at: http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/StateofStates2015.

Report addresses current policy trends on how states are evaluating teachers.

National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook (December 2015)

Available at: 

http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/2015_State_Teacher_Policy_Yearbook_National_Summary_NCTQ_Report.

Ninth annual Yearbook report. The Yearbook contains a national summary and state-specific reports for 

all 50 states and the District of Columbia, on the state laws, rules, and regulations impacting the teaching 

profession.

Pomerance, Laura, Julie Greenberg, and Kate Walsh. Learning About Learning: What Every New 

Teacher Needs to Know. National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), January 2016.

Available at: http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/Learning_About_Learning_Report and 

http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Learning_About_Learning_Report.

NCTQ evaluation of thousands of pages of teacher education textbooks for discussion of research-based 

strategies that every teacher candidate should learn in order to promote student learning and retention.

U.S. Congress. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education. Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. 

Exploring Efforts to Strengthen the Teaching Profession, House of Representatives. 113th Congress, 2nd

Sess., February 27, 2014, Serial No. 113–47. Washington, DC: GPO, 2014.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg86746/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg86746.pdf.

Effective teachers can motivate students to explore the unknown, think critically, and challenge 

expectations. This hearing addresses the need and methods to strengthen the education of our teachers.

U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Fixing No Child Left 

Behind: Supporting Teachers and School Leaders, Senate. 114th Congress, 1st Session, January 27, 2015, 

Serial No. 98-078 PDF. Washington, DC: GPO, 2017.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114shrg93078/pdf/CHRG-114shrg93078.pdf.

This hearing investigates potential problems with No Child Left Behind. Some argue that it set 

unrealistic goals for schools across the country, then failed to give them the resources they needed to 

succeed. 

U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Teacher Preparation: 

Ensuring a Quality Teacher in Every Classroom, Senate. 113th Congress, 2nd sess., March 25, 2014, 

Serial No. 22-606 PDF. Washington, DC: GPO, 2016.

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg22606/pdf/CHRG-113shrg22606.pdf.

This hearing addresses the need for quality teacher education to boost student achievement and ensure 

that low-income students get high quality education.

U.S. Department of Education. Preparing and Credentialing the Nation's Teachers: The Secretary's 

Tenth Report on Teacher Quality (Report on Teacher Quality 2016). August 2016.

Available at: https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TitleIIReport16.pdf.

This report is intended to provide Congress, aspiring teachers, the education community, researchers and 

23
policymakers, and the general public with information that Congress has identified as important to a 

basic understanding of teacher preparation in America.

U.S. Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEERA.) Does Content-Focused Teacher 

Professional Development Work? Findings from Three Institute of Education Sciences Studies.

Evaluation Brief, November 2016.

Available at: https://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20174010 and

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174010/pdf/20174010.pdf.

This brief synthesizes three large-scale recent random assignment studies from the Institute of Education 

Sciences evaluated teacher professional development (PD) programs in different grades in reading and 

mathematics.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

Mathematica Policy Research. DC.: The Content, Predictive Power, and Potential Bias in Five Widely 

Used Teacher Observation Instruments. November 2016.

Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2017191 and 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569941.pdf.

This study examined data from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Measures of Effective Teaching 

project to address three research questions that might inform district and state decisions about selecting 

and implementing five widely used teacher observation instruments: the Classroom Assessment Scoring 

System, the Framework for Teaching, the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations, the 

Mathematical Quality of Instruction, and the UTeach Observational Protocol.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

Mathematica Policy Research. DC.: Teacher and Principal Preparation and Support and Teacher and

Principal Effectiveness Websites.

Available at: https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-focus-areas/education/teacher-and-principalpreparation-and-support.

Mathematica is a nonpartisan research organization that conducts policy research, data collection, and 

data analytics on a variety of social policy issues, including education. The U.S. Department of 

Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has contracted with Mathematica for reports on 

teacher preparation and effectiveness that are released under the Department.

School Leadership

Among school-related factors, school leadership may be second only to teaching in its impact on student 

learning and achievement. School leaders are capable of transforming a school environment so that its 

students and teachers can flourish. While principals create conditions that encourage great teaching, 

superintendents can create conditions that allow principals to become even better leaders. The following 

sources look at the issue of school leadership.

24
Articles

Benzel, B. L. “Race to the bottom: Corporate school reform and the future of public education.” School 

Administrator, vol. 73, no. 2 (2016): 42-43.

Benzel chronicles the major events leading to the federal reauthorization of ESEA and the subsequent 

consequences that generated the still-continuing debate about the purpose, processes, and measures for 

educational achievement.

Fuller, Edward J., Liz Hollingworth, and Andrew Pendola. “The Every Student Succeeds Act, State 

Efforts to Improve Access to Effective Educators, and the Importance of School Leadership.” 

Educational Administration Quarterly, May 26, 2017.

Examines the degree to which state equity plans identify the distribution of principals and principal 

turnover as factors influencing three leadership mechanisms that affect student access to effective 

teachers—namely, hiring of teachers, building instructional capacity of teachers, and managing teacher 

turnover.

Galloway, Mollie K. and Ann M. Ishimaru. “Equitable Leadership on the Ground: Converging on HighLeverage Practices.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 25, no. 4, January 2017.

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1126861.pdf.

Engaging a group of 40 researchers, practitioners, and community leaders recognized as having expertise 

on equity in education, researchers inquired how the experts would define leadership standards to 

address this question.

Galloway, Mollie K. and Ann M. Ishimaru. “Radical Recentering: Equity in Educational Leadership 

Standards.” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 3 (June 8, 2015): 372-408.

This article establishes a new set of standards designed to guide the preparation and professional 

development of educational leaders with equity at the core.

Williams, Sheneka M. “The Future of Principal Preparation and Principal Evaluation: Reflections of the 

Current Policy Context for School Leaders.” Journal of Research on Leadership Education, vol. 10, no. 

3 (Dec. 2015): 222-225.

Journal issue presents articles on how state policy adoption responds to federal policies involving 

principal preparation and evaluation.

Books

Manna, Paul and Patrick McGuinn, eds. Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century: 

Overcoming the Structural Barriers to School Reform. Jackson, TN: Brookings Institution Press, January 

18, 2013.

A compilation of essays by education scholars, analysts, and practitioners on the impact of specific 

policy changes in areas such as standards and teachers, among other categories.

Murphy, Joseph F. Professional Standards for Educational Leaders: The Empirical, Moral, and 

Experiential Foundations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, January 2017.

Authoritative guide to understanding and applying the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 

(PSEL) standards.

25
Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

American Association of School Administrators (AASA). ESSA Resource Library.

Available at: http://www.aasa.org/ and http://www.aasa.org/AASAESSA.aspx.

AASA is an advocacy organization for school administrators.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

Available at: http://ccsso.org/Who_We_Are.html.

CCSSO is a national nonpartisan and nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of 

elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense 

Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions.

Finnan, Leslie A. and Robert S. McCord. 2016 AASA Superintendents Salary and Benefits Study: NonMember Version. American Association of School Administrators (AASA), February 2017.

Available at: 

http://aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/2016%20Superintendent%20Salary%20and%2

0Benefits%20Study%20Non-Member%20Edition.pdf and http://www.aasa.org/research.aspx.

Fifth edition of the annual survey study tracking the demographics, salary, benefits, and other elements 

of the employment contracts of school superintendents throughout the country.

Herman, Rebecca, et al. School Leadership Interventions Under the Every Student Succeeds Act: 

Evidence Review Updated and Expanded. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, January 2017.

Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1550-2.html.

This report describes the opportunities for supporting school leadership under Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESSA), discusses the standards of evidence under ESSA, and synthesizes the research base with 

respect to those standards.

Lerum, Eric. School Leadership Policy Toolkit. Center on Reinventing Public Education, April 2016.

Available at: http://www.crpe.org/publications/school-leadership-policy-toolkit.

An online resource designed to help policymakers and advocates focus on what makes a great 

principal—and how to get more of them into the schools that need them the most. The toolkit is a 

collaboration between CRPE, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and education reform analyst and 

advocate Eric Lerum. It includes ideas for states to develop strategies to strengthen leadership and model 

legislation drafted by experts in the field.

Ryland, Anne and Lindsey Burke. “Backgrounder: School Rules: Lessons from the ESSA Regulatory 

Process.” Heritage Foundation, No. 3189. (February 1, 2017).

Available at: http://www.heritage.org/education/report/school-rules-lessons-the-essa-regulatory-process

and http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3189.pdf.

Addresses ESEA and ESSA regulations and the extent of education decision-making authority provided 

to states, localities, and parents.

Websites

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). ESSA Toolkit for Principals.

Available at: https://www.nassp.org/advocacy/essa-toolkit.

The ESSA Toolkit provides fact sheets, model legislation to assist creating a new state policy, and an 

interactive map of websites of state departments of education.

26
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP).

Available at: https://www.nassp.org/.

NASSP is an advocacy organization of and for school principals, assistant principals, and school leaders 

from across the U.S. and in over 35 countries around the world.

National Association of School Superintendents (NASS).

Available at: http://nass.us/.

An advocacy organization for school superintendents.

National School Boards Association (NSBA).

Available at: https://www.nsba.org/.

An organization advocating equity and excellence in public education through school board leadership.

Public School Alternatives

In many parts of the country, parents and students have options when it comes to where to send their 

children to school. Whether it be a charter, magnet, or private school where vouchers may be used for 

tuition, public school alternatives exist. The following sources address these options.

Articles

Bali, Valentina A. “Evolving Trends in Public Opinion on the Quality of Local Schools.” Educational 

Policy, vol. 30, no.5 (July 2016): 688-720.

Ratings given by citizens to local public schools in the United States have been rising in the last decades. 

Using national public opinion surveys, this study seeks to understand public evaluations of local schools 

over time. The evidence suggests that citizens in general have moved away from more negative 

assessments of their local public schools, possibly as a result of perceived and real educational advances.

Jabbar, Huriya, and M. Li Dongmei. “Multiple Choice: How Public School Leaders in New Orleans’ 

Saturated Market View Private School Competitors.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 24, no. 

94 (September 19, 2016).

School choice policies, such as charter schools and vouchers, are in part designed to induce competition 

between schools. This study examines the extent to which public school leaders in New Orleans, which 

already has a robust public school choice system, perceived competition with private schools, and the 

characteristics that predicted competition between the two types of schools.

Books

Berends, Mark, Marisa Cannata, and Ellen B. Goldring. School Choice and School Improvement.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2011.

The authors examine how communities, districts, and states use choice as a strategy for improving 

schools and student learning. Their research on private schools, vouchers, charter schools, traditional 

public schools, and intra-district transfer programs provides empirical data to answer central policy 

questions.

Hanushek, Eric A., Paul E. Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann. Endangering Prosperity: A Global View 

of the American School. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013.

27
In Endangering Prosperity, a trio of individuals on international education policy compare the 

performance of American schools against that of other nations. The authors' objective is not to explain 

the deep causes of past failures but to document how dramatically the U.S. school system has failed its 

students and its citizens.

Peterson, Paul E., Michael Henderson, and Martin R. West. Teachers versus the Public: What Americans 

Think about Schools and How to Fix Them. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2014.

The gap between what teachers and the public think about school reform grows even wider when both 

teachers and the public are given more information about current school performance, current 

expenditure levels, and current teacher pay. This book provides the first experimental study of public and 

teacher opinion.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

A New Majority: Low Income Students Now a Majority in the Nation’s Public Schools. Atlanta, GA: 

Southern Education Foundation (January 2015).

The latest data collected from the states by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 

indicates that 51 percent of the students across the nation's public schools were low income in 2013. Half 

or more of public schoolchildren in 21 states were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, a 

benefit available only to families living in poverty or near-poverty.

Charter Schools

Articles

Gawlik, Marytza A. “The U.S. Charter School Landscape: Extant Literature, Gaps in Research, and 

Implications for the U.S. Educational System,” Global Education Review, vol. 3, no. 2 (2016): 50-83.

The author describes the history and current state of the charter school movement, presents a conceptual 

model of the charter school system, and reviews research on charter school outcomes.

Green, Preston C. III, Bruce D. Baker, and Joseph Oluwole. “Having It Both Ways: How Charter 

Schools Try to Obtain Funding of Public Schools and the Autonomy of Private Schools,” Emory Law 

Journal, Vol. 63 (2013): 303-337.

Charter schools are characterized as public schools that receive autonomy from a variety of rules and 

regulations that traditional public schools must follow. In exchange for this increased independence, 

charter schools are accountable to the requirements established in their charter.

Kahlenberg, Richard D. and Halley Potter. “Restoring Shanker’s Vision for Charter Schools,” American 

Educator, vol. 38, no. 4 (Winter 2014-2015): 4-13.

In 1988, American Federation of Teachers president Albert Shanker proposed a new kind of public 

school, a charter school, which would allow teachers to experiment with innovative approaches to 

educating students. Publicly funded but independently managed, these schools would be given a charter 

to try their fresh approaches for a set period of time and be renewed only if they succeeded. This article 

discusses Shanker's original idea for charter schools and what can be done to put charter schools back on 

track to meet that vision.

Kelly, Andrew P., and Tom Loveless. “Comparing New School Effects in Charter and Traditional Public 

Schools.” American Journal of Education, vol. 118, no. 4 (August 2012): 427-453.

28
This study investigates whether student achievement varies during the institutional life span of charter 

schools by comparing them to new public schools. The results show that there is little evidence that new 

public schools struggle with initial start-up issues to the same extent as new charter schools. Even after 

controlling for school characteristics, the authors conclude that new public schools generally perform 

about as well as one would predict given their demographic and socioeconomic profile.

Slade, Rachel. “The Great Charter Schools Debate,” Boston Magazine (September 2016).

Available at: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2016/08/28/charter-schools-debate/.

Charter schools are not just about educating children, Slade argues. They are about the role of 

government, organized labor, faith in data in the classroom, and how much money teachers should earn.

Smith, Nelson. “Who Watches the Watchers? How States Evaluate Charter School Authorizers.”

State Education Standard, vol. 17 no. 1 (Jan. 2017): 31-36.

Smith presents an examination of the state entities charged with approving and monitoring charter 

schools.

Wilson, Terri. “Contesting the Public School: Reconsidering Charter Schools as Counterpublics.” 

American Educational Research Journal, vol. 53, no. 4 (August 2016): 919-952.

Charter schools often emphasize distinctive missions that appeal to particular groups of students and 

families. It is argued these missions, especially ones focusing on ethnic, linguistic, and cultural 

differences, also contribute to segregation between schools. Such schools raise normative questions 

about the aims of education.

Books

Bounds, Mary C. A Light Shines in Harlem: New York's First Charter School and the Movement It Led.

Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2014.

The book tells the history of New York’s first charter school and the early days of the state's charterschool movement. It gives an assessment of what makes the school a success or failure.

Finn, Chester E. Jr., Bruno Manno, and Brandon L. Wright. Charter Schools at the Crossroads: 

Predicaments, Paradoxes, Possibilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2016.

Analyzes the successes and shortcomings of the charter movement, and outlines possible directions for 

the future.

Lubienski, Christopher A. and Sarah Theule Lubienski. The Public School Advantage: Why Public 

Schools Outperform Private Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Much of the data used in research showing that students at private schools perform better than students at 

public schools is nearly a half century old. The authors, after an analysis of data from different kinds of 

schools, provide information to undercut this belief. It concludes that: (1) Traditional public schools are 

not failing to keep pace with charter and private schools and (2) Private schools have higher scores not 

because they are better institutions but because their students largely come from more privileged 

backgrounds that offer greater educational support.

Peterson, Paul E., Michael Henderson, and Martin R. West. Teachers Versus the Public: What 

Americans Think about Schools and How to Fix Them. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 

2014.

29
This book offers the first comparison of the education policy views of both teachers and the public as a 

whole and reveals a deep, broad divide between the opinions held by citizens and those who teach in the 

public schools.

Schneider, Mercedes K. School Choice: The End of Public Education? New York: Teachers College 

Press, 2016.

Tracing the origins of vouchers and charters in the United States, this book examines the push to 

“globally compete” with education systems in countries such as China and Finland. It documents issues 

important to the school choice debate, including the impoverishment of public schools to support 

privatized schools, the abandonment of long-held principles of public education, questionable 

disciplinary practices, and community disruption.

Wohlstetter, Priscilla, Joanna Smith, and Caitlan C. Farrell. Choices and Challenges: Charter School 

Performance in Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2013.

The authors examine the track record of the charter sector in light of the wide range of goals set for these 

schools in state authorizing legislation (the classroom level, the level of the school community, and 

system-wide). They show how the evolution of the charter movement has shaped research questions and 

findings.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Jett, Noa. “Not a Fair Fight: An Evaluation of the Impact of Charter Schools,” Public Policy Initiative, 

Penn Wharton, University of Pennsylvania, (April 24, 2017).

Available at: https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1823-not-a-fair-fight-an-evaluation-ofthe-impact-of.

Are charter schools a stable alternative or are they weakening the foundation of public schools? A

student group evaluates the two sides of the fight for charter schools.

Rausch, M. Karega, Sean Conlan, and Sherry Tracewski. “Authorizer Practices: What’s Working and 

What’s Not, A Qualitative Analysis of Authorizer Evaluations.” National Association of Charter School 

Authorizers (March 2017).

Available at: http://www.qualitycharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Authorizer-Practices-WhatsWorking-and-Whats-Not-March-2017.pdf.

Improvement in authorizing could be among the most significant catalysts in creating high-quality 

schools and closing persistently failing schools that that do not prepare students for future learning, civic 

participation, and workforce demands.

Magnet Schools

Articles

Kitmitto, Sami, et al. “What Happens When Schools Become Magnet Schools? A Longitudinal Study of 

Diversity and Achievement.” Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, (2016).

Magnet schools are one of the many options to meet children's educational needs and interests. This 

study examined 21 Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP)-supported elementary schools from 

around the nation to see how their student body composition and academic achievement changed over 

time.

30
Judson, Eugene. “Effects of Transferring to STEM-Focused Charter and Magnet Schools on Student 

Achievement.” The Journal of Education Research, no. 107 (2014): 255-266.

Schools that focused on aspects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have an 

appreciable effect on students’ achievement in the areas of mathematics, reading, and language arts.

Smrekar, Claire and Honey Ngaire. “The Desegregation Aims and Demographic Contexts of Magnet 

Schools: How Parents Choose and Why Siting Policies Matter.” Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 90, 

no. 1 (January 28, 2015): 128-155.

This report specifies a set of new opportunities for educators, school administrators, and scholars to 

realize the practical aims and strategic advantages envisioned for magnet schools. The authors examined 

the extensive research literature on parents’ choice patterns and school preferences in magnet schools 

and other school-choice programs; compared the reasons parents choose particular schools with the 

criteria school districts use to select magnet school locations and themes; and used geographic 

information system (GIS) tools to add both clarity and complexity to the convergence of parent choice 

patterns and sociodemographic diversity in the four selected school districts.

Wang, Jia, Jonathan D. Schweig, and Joan L. Herman. “Is There a Magnet-School Effect? A Multisite 

Study of MSAP-Funded Magnet Schools.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, vol. 22, no. 

2 (2017): 77-99.

Recent court decisions and policy contexts have motivated a reconsideration of the purpose of magnet 

schools. The focus has shifted from school desegregation to a broader mission. The Department of 

Education defines the purpose of magnet schools as promoting integration, eliminating minority-group 

isolation, addressing achievement gaps by providing high-quality instruction for all students, and 

developing innovative educational methods.

Books

Orfield, Gary, and Erica Frankenberg. Educational Delusions? Why Choice Can Deepen Inequality and 

How to Make Schools Fair. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2013.

The authors bring civil rights back into the center of the debate and try to move from doctrine to 

empirical research in exploring the many forms of choice and their very different consequences for 

equity in U.S. schools. These leading researchers conclude that although helping minority children 

remains a central justification for choice proponents, ignoring the essential civil rights dimensions of 

choice plans risks compounding rather than remedying racial inequality.

Zott, Lynn M. (Editor), School Funding, Greenhaven Press, 2012.

This book is part of the Opposing Viewpoints series which includes two essays (pro and con) on magnet 

schools in Chapter 3: “How Successful Have Recent Funding Initiatives Been?”

Eaton, Susan, “Diverse Magnet Schools Improve Access to Education.”

A study in the peer-reviewed journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis compared academic 

results between students who had applied to Connecticut’s magnet schools and were not selected 

through the blind lottery and students who were selected and got to attend a magnet school. The magnet 

school students who lived in urban zip codes made greater gains in math and reading than did their 

fellow students who stayed in the urban (segregated) schools.

31
Harbison, Victor. “Magnet Schools Are Deeply Flawed.”

When educational leaders decided to create magnet schools, they got it backwards, Harbison argues. 

They pulled out the best and brightest from their communities and sent them away. Many of these 

students felt alienated from their neighborhoods by the time they graduated high school. Instead, it 

argued that educational leaders could have greatly expanded the alternative school model for the bottom 

ten percent of students and these struggling students could have been sent to a school designed to meet 

their education.

Private Schools

Articles

Egalite, Anna J. and Patrick J. Wolfe. “A Review of the Empirical Research on Private School Choice.” 

Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 91, no. 4 (Sept.-Oct. 2016): 441-454.

Argues that there is evidence that private school choice delivers some benefits to participating students 

(particularly in the area of educational attainment) and tends to help, to a limited degree, the 

achievement of students who remain in public schools.

Scanlan, Martin and Karen Tichy. “How Do Private Sector Schools Serve the Public Good by Fostering 

Inclusive Service Delivery Models?” Theory into Practice, vol. 53, no. 2 (April 2014): 149-157.

The authors focus on how the system of Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of St. Louis has been

purposefully striving for two decades to build the capacity of its schools to meet students’ special needs.

Books

Mulvey, Janet D., Bruce S. Cooper, and Arthur Maloney. Blurring the Lines: Charter, Public, Private 

and Religious Schools Coming Together. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2010.

This book targets policy-makers, analysts in public and private sectors, and legal scholars and 

practitioners. It treats the complex issues of church-state and public-private education, two changing 

crossroads in U.S. education.

Ravitch, Diane. Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's 

Public Schools. New York: Vintage, a division of Penguin Random House, 2014 reprint edition.

The author, a professor at New York University and a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, puts 

forth a plan for what can be done to preserve and improve our public schools.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Belcher, Ellen. “Pluck & Tenacity: How Five Private Schools in Ohio Have Adapted to Vouchers.” 

Columbus, OH: Thomas B. Fordham Institute (January 2014).

Available at: https://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/PluckAndTenacity_

March2014_0.pdf.

Vouchers enable students of limited means, or without access to a good public school, to attend a private 

school. Roughly 30,000 children in Ohio take advantage of a publicly funded voucher. As students leave 

public schools for private ones, how does life change for the private schools that accept vouchers? This 

report delivers a candid view of life in private schools that take voucher students.

Catt, Andrew D. Public Rules on Private Schools: Measuring the Regulatory Impact of State Statutes 

and School Choice Programs. The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice (May 2014).

32
This report provides a framework for understanding the impact of state government statutes regulating 

private schools, regulations distinct to a given school choice program, and any regulatory growth over a 

program’s lifespan.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. School Choice: Private School Choice Programs Are Growing 

and Can Complicate Providing Certain Federally Funded Services to Eligible Students, GAO-16-712,

August 11, 2016.

This report examines (1) participation in private school choice programs and the characteristics of 

students, (2) program requirements for participating private schools, and (3) how the Department of 

Education supports districts’ efforts to deliver these federally funded services in the context of school 

choice programs. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, surveyed all voucher and ESA 

programs as of fall 2015, and interviewed Department of Education officials and other stakeholders.

Websites

National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS).

Available at: https://www.nais.org/.

A nonprofit membership association that provides services to more than 1,500 independent private K-12

schools in the United States. NAIS publishes the subscription magazines Independent School and

Independent Teacher and provides directories of its schools and public statistical tables (Facts at a 

Glance and National Tables).

National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA).

Available at: https://www.ncea.org/.

NCEA conducts Catholic education research as well as providing private education resources for its 

members. It conducts an annual survey of Catholic elementary and secondary schools, including 

enrollment patterns, regional geographic trends, types and locations of schools, student and staffing 

demographic characteristics, and student participation in selected education programs.

Vouchers

Articles

Chakrabarti, Rajashri. “Vouchers, Public School Response, and the Role of Incentives: Evidence from 

Florida.” Economic Inquiry, vol. 51, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 500-526.

Much of the literature studying the effect of voucher programs on public schools has looked at the effect 

on average student and school scores. This paper tries to investigate some of the ways in which schools

facing the Florida accountability-tied voucher program responded to it.

Eckes, Suzanne E., et al. “Dollars to Discriminate: The (Un)intended Consequences of School 

Vouchers.” Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 91, no. 4 (Sept.-Oct. 2016): 537-558.

Examines state voucher statutes and discusses the potential for voucher programs to discriminate 

against marginalized groups. The authors argue that each state has an obligation to ensure that any 

benefit it creates must be available to all students on a nondiscriminatory basis—including the benefit of 

a publicly funded voucher for attendance at a private school.

33
Fleming, David J., et al. “Similar Students, Different Choices: Who Uses a School Voucher in an 

Otherwise Similar Population of Students?” Education and Urban Society, vol. 47, no. 7 (November, 

2015): 785-812.

The authors examine which factors predict why some parents enroll their children in voucher schools 

while other parents with similar types of children, and from similar neighborhoods, do not. They 

investigate how aware parents are of their educational options, where they get their information, and 

what school characteristics they deem the most important.

Gooden, Mark A., Huriya Jabbar, and Mario S. Torres Jr. “Race and School Vouchers: Legal, Historical, 

and Political Contexts,” Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 91, no. 4 (2016); 522-536.

This authors investigate legal and political issues as they relate to school vouchers serving students of 

color. Specifically, they draw on empirical, historical, and legal research to examine whether school 

vouchers will create a more equitable system of education for poor students of color.

Hart, Cassandra M.D. “Contexts Matter: Selection in Means-Tested School Voucher Programs.” 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 36, no. 2 (June 2014): 186-206.

This study examines public school characteristics and public and private school market characteristics, 

associated with participation among elementary-aged students in a means-tested school voucher program 

in Florida. When these factors are considered together, the mean achievement and disciplinary incident 

rate of students' own public schools, as well as public and private school market variables, independently 

predict voucher use.

Heise, Michael. “Education Rights and Wrongs: Publicly Funded Vouchers, State Constitutions, and 

Education Death Spirals.” Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol.42, no. 3 (March, 2015): 745-762.

The author argues the popularity of vouchers illustrates not only the ever-shifting politics surrounding 

education policy, but also the public’s growing frustration with the inability of many public schools to 

generate and deliver adequate education services.

MacGuidwin, Scott and Ajjit Narayanan. “School Vouchers: Pros and Cons.” Public Policy Initiative, 

Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania (November 25, 2015).

Available at: https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1076-school-vouchers-pros-and-cons.

Studies of the federally funded DC voucher program found that there was no conclusive evidence that 

vouchers affected student achievement. Children who were given vouchers performed no better in math 

and reading than the children who weren’t. The authors argue that taking money out of public school 

systems to allow a few to attend private schools is harmful in the long run for the public school system, 

taking away much-needed public funds, often from already failing schools.

Oluwole, Joseph and Preston C. Green III. “School Vouchers and Tax Benefits in Federal and State 

Judicial Constitutional Analysis.” American University Law Review, vol. 65, no. 6 (2016): 1335-1435.

Examines judicial precedents on the efficacy of challenges to government aid programs under state 

constitutional provisions governing educational efficiency, uniformity, state control, local control, new 

debt, anti-gift, no aid, and public purpose. Also discusses the implications of the federal and state 

government aid jurisprudence for tax benefit and voucher legislation.

34
Toole, James. “The Role of Government in Education Revisited: The Theory and Practice of Vouchers, 

with Pointers to Another Solution for American Education.” Social Philosophy and Policy, Oxford (Fall 

2014): 204-228.

Focuses on school choice initiatives as a route to educational improvement.

Books

Carl, Jim. Freedom of Choice: Vouchers in American Education. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Series on 

American Political Culture, 2011.

The origins of school vouchers are seated in identity politics, religious schooling, and educational 

entrepreneurship. As the most radical form of "school choice," vouchers remain controversial in 

education today. Are vouchers about academic achievement or political and social agendas?

Schneider, Mercedes K. School Choice: The End of Public Education? New York: Teachers College

Press, 2016.

The author claims there is increasing evidence of charter mismanagement—with public funding all too 

often being squandered while public schools are being closed or consolidated. Tracing the origins of 

vouchers and charters in the United States, she documents potential issues important to the school choice 

debate, including the impoverishment of public schools to support privatized schools, the abandonment 

of long-held principles of public education, questionable disciplinary practices, and community 

disruption.

Zott, Lynn M., ed. School Funding. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2012.

This book is part of the Opposing Viewpoints series which includes two essays (pro and con) on school 

vouchers in Chapter 3: “How Successful Have Recent Funding Initiatives Been?”

Anrig, Greg. “School Vouchers Fail to Improve Education.”

Anrig argues that a student’s family income and the collective social and economic background of his 

classmates are by far the important influences on his academic future. Not only do lower-income 

students tend to score relatively poorly, children of any background who attend high-poverty schools are 

far more likely to produce worse test results than they would in schools made up of primarily middleclass students. The author believes America’s urban school systems remain dysfunctional primarily 

because the country is as segregated by race and income as at any time since the civil rights revolution.

Winters, Marcus A. “School Vouchers Save Money and Improve Education.” 

The author examined the success of Florida’s school voucher program and found that vouchers are one 

of the few policies that not only save money, but improve learning outcomes. He argues competition 

from the voucher program actually produced improvements in public schools.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Samwick, Andrew. Donating the Voucher: An Alternative Tax Treatment of Private School Enrollment.

Washington, DC: Cato Institute Research Briefs in Economic Policy, no. 1 (May 2014).

In the United States, about 10 percent of elementary and secondary school-age children are sent to 

private schools, which through their accreditation meet the requirement that students receive an adequate 

education. By paying out of pocket for their children's private education, Samwick argues, these families 

relieve a financial burden on local, state, and federal taxpayers, who would otherwise have to fund the 

35
public education of these children. The author's research examines the option to allow a federal (and 

possibly state) tax deduction for parents who send their children to private schools, in the amount of the 

per-pupil expenditure in their local public schools.

DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (DC OSP Program)

This is the Nation’s only federally funded school voucher initiative created by Congress in 2004.

Articles

Wolf, Patrick J. and Michael McShane. “Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze? A Benefit/Cost Analysis of the 

District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.” Education Finance and Policy, vol. 8, no. 1 

(Winter 2013): 74-99.

School voucher programs have become a prominent aspect of the education policy landscape in the 

United States. The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is the only federally funded voucher program 

in the country. This article estimates the benefit/cost ratio of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, 

primarily by considering the increased graduation rate that it induced and the estimated positive 

economic returns to increased educational attainment.

Wolf, Patrick J., et al. “School Vouchers and Student Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from 

Washington, DC.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 32, no. 2 (Spring 2013): 246-270.

School vouchers provide government funds that parents can use to send their children to private schools 

of their choice. This article examines the empirical question of whether or not a school voucher program 

in Washington, DC affected achievement or the rate of high school graduation for participating students. 

Analysis revealed evidence that the DC voucher program had a positive impact on high school 

graduation rates and reading achievement, while there was no evidence that it affected math 

achievement.

Books

Stewart, Thomas and Patrick J. Wolf. The School Choice Journey: School Vouchers and the 

Empowerment of Urban Families. UK: Palgrave Macmillan U.S., 2014.

The authors follow 110 families in Washington, DC's Opportunity Scholarship Program. This book 

provides a realistic look at how urban families experience the process of using school choice vouchers 

and offers policy lessons from the DC voucher program.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Dynarski, Mark, Julian Bets, and Jill Feldman. Applying to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: 

How Do Parents Rate Their Children's Current Schools at Time of Application and What Do They Want 

in New Schools? NCEE Evaluation Brief. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation 

and Regional Assistance (August 2016).

The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program was created by Congress in 2004 to provide 

tuition vouchers to low-income parents. This brief provides a snapshot of traditional public schools, 

charter schools, and those private schools that participate in the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), 

in Washington, DC. It first looks at the number of each type of school and enrollment changes in the last 

decade. Responses from a survey of principals conducted in 2014 is used to describe schools on 

dimensions such as their academic climate, goals for teachers, instructional programs, school safety, and 

parent involvement.

36
Accountability Systems

Mandated by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), accountability systems are the set of policies and 

practices that a state uses to measure how schools are performing for students, reward those that are 

serving all of their students well, and prompt improvement in those that are not.

Articles

Bush, Jeb, Heather Hough, and Michael Kirst. “How Should States Design Their Accountability 

Systems?” Education Next, vol. 17, no. 1 (Winter 2017): 54-62.

Two very different views on reshaping school accountability systems are discussed.

Della Sala, Matthew R. and Robert C. Knoeppel. “Measuring the Alignment Between States' Finance 

and Accountability Policies: The Opportunity Gap.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 23, no. 

60/61 (June 29, 2015): 1-22.

Attempts to conceptualize, measure, and evaluate the degree to which states have aligned their finance 

systems with their respective accountability policies.

Ford, M. R. and D.M. Ihrke. “School Board Member Definitions of Accountability.” Journal of 

Educational Administration, vol. 55 no. 3 (2017): 280-296.

Discusses the different ways in which nonprofit charter and traditional public school board members 

define the concept of accountability in the school or schools they oversee.

Klein, Alyson. "Tricky Balance in Making Shift from Blueprint to K-12 Reality." Education Week, vol. 

36, no. 16 (January 4, 2017): 2-5.

Klein reflects on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in the year since it was passed in 2016. She 

also examines concerns over greater flexibility given to states and districts regarding issues such as 

standardized tests, school choice, and marginalized students.

Okilwa, Nathern and Bruce Barnett. "Sustaining School Improvement in a High-Need School." Journal 

of Educational Administration, vol. 55, no. 3, 297-315, 2017.

Okilwa and Barnett’s report examines how Robbins Elementary School has sustained high academic 

performance over almost 20 years despite several changes in principals. It analyzed longitudinal data 

based on state-level academic and demographic data, two earlier studies of the school, and recent

interviews with teachers, the principal, and parent leaders.

Walker, T. Anthony. “Recasting the Vision for Achieving Equity: A Historical Analysis of Testing and 

Impediments to Process-Based Accountability.” Education and Urban Society, vol. 49, no. 3 (April 26, 

2016): 297-313.

The author explores past and current education testing frameworks as a pretext for constructing a policy 

platform with the efficacy to transform systems and structures that hinder opportunities and resist 

equitable practices.

37
Books

Braun, Henry, ed. Meeting the Challenges to Measurement in an Era of Accountability. New York: 

Routledge, 2016.

A compilation of essays on ways to reform education assessment and accountability.

Chenoweth, Karin. Schools that Succeed: How Educators Marshal the Power of Systems for 

Improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2017.

The author argues that turning around low performing schools is difficult, but the knowledge and

expertise needed to do it successfully already exists in various schools.

Duke, Daniel Linden. The Children Left Behind: America's Struggle to Improve Its Lowest Performing 

Schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

The book draws on dozens of actual examples to illustrate the wide range of measures adopted over the 

last 15 years to improve schools.

Duke, Daniel Linden. Leadership for Low-Performing Schools: A Step-by-Step Guide to the School 

Turnaround Process. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

The author believes that overcoming the challenge of low-performing schools requires talented and 

dedicated school leaders whose knowledge and skills extend beyond what is covered in conventional 

principal preparation programs.

Hirsch, E. D. Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed Educational Theories.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2016.

The author addresses issues in contemporary education reform and suggests that cherished truisms about 

education and child development have led to unintended and negative consequences.

Yeh, Stuart S. Solving the Achievement Gap: Overcoming the Structure of School Inequality. New York: 

Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

Yeh examines the causes of the student achievement gap, suggesting that the prevailing emphasis on 

socioeconomic factors, sociocultural influences, and teacher quality are misplaced.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Deeds, Carinne and Zachary Malter. “Accountability for Alternative Education: Lessons Learned from 

States and Districts.” American Institutes for Research. College and Career Readiness and Success 

Center. D.C. August 2016.

Available at: http://www.ccrscenter.org/products-resources/ccrs-center-webinars-events/accountabilityalternative-education-lessons-learned.

In this brief you will find an overview of the accountability measures used by states and districts to 

assess the college and career readiness of students who are educated in alternative programs and schools.

Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Department of Education. “Accountability and Virginia Public 

Schools, 2016-2017 School Year.” Richmond, VA: 2017. 

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573019.pdf.

This document offers a brief guide to understanding Virginia's system for holding schools accountable 

for raising student achievement.

38
Le Floch, Kerstin, N. Alicia Garcia, and Catherine Barbour. “Want to Improve Low-Performing 

Schools? Focus on the Adults.” Education Policy Center at American Institutes for Research. D.C : 

March 2016.

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571848.pdf.

The authors suggest that policymakers focus school policy on the development and support of human 

capital to improve low-performing schools. They argue that policies must aim to get the right people in 

schools.

Martin, Mike. reVISION,.“School Accountability Systems and the Every Student Succeeds Act.” Hunt 

Institute. Durham, N.C. August 2016, pp.1-15.

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569952.pdf.

Martin presents a framework for school accountability systems that achieve college and career readiness 

for all students.

National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Dover, NH.

Marion, Scott F. “Considerations for State Leaders in the Design of School Accountability Systems 

Under the Every Student Succeeds Act.” February 19, 2016.

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570461.pdf.

Marion provides recommendations and guidance for states seeking to navigate the narrow timeline 

provided for adjusting their accountability systems.

Osborne, David. “Creating Measurement and Accountability Systems for 21st Century Schools: A Guide 

for State Policymakers.” Progressive Policy Institute, October 2016.

Examines the need for states to rethink their assumptions before revising their measurement and 

accountability systems under ESSA.

Websites

California. Department of Education. “Accountability: Program Information Pertaining to School 

Performance,” Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education, February 10, 2017. Available at: 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/.

The website provides information about how California agencies and schools are meeting the needs of a 

diverse student population based on a concise set of measures.

U. S. Department of Education. “Standards, Access and Accountability.”, D.C: U. S. Dept. of Education, 

Jan. 26, 2017. Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa.html.

The site presents academic standards for all students and for measuring student achievement to hold 

schools accountable for educational progress.

Educational Accountability

Educational Accountability—the idea of holding schools, districts, educators, and students responsible 

for results—is one of the watch words in education today. In states and districts, policymakers are 

moving to reward achievement and punish failure in schools, in an effort to ensure that children are 

getting a good education and that tax dollars aren't being wasted.

39
Common Core Standards

Articles

Arabadjis, Heather. “The Common Core Conundrum.” USA Today, vol. 145, no. 2864 (May 2017): 54-

55.

The author of this article, a teacher in New York State, argues that parents need to prepare their children 

to take demanding and challenging tests to provide them for the standards of the future.

Bindewald, Benjamin J., Rory P. Tannebaum, and Patrick Womac. “The Common Core and Democratic 

Education: Examining Potential Costs and Benefits to Public and Private Autonomy.” Democracy & 

Education, vol. 24, no. 2 (Nov. 2016): 1-10.

The paper assesses prevalent critiques of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and analyzes 

content from the CCSS in language arts and literacy to determine whether the standards are likely to 

support or undermine key democratic aims of education.

Ferguson, Maria. "In Standards Battle, States Should Stay the Course." Education Week, vol. 36, no. 23 

(Mar. 1, 2017): 20-21.

The author examines education standards across the United States and says that policymakers, education 

leaders, and the media should not lose sight of the amount of time and resources that have been devoted 

to implementing the new Common Core State Standards.

Jochim, Ashley and Patrick McGuinn. “The Politics of the Common Core Assessments.” Education 

Next, vol. 16, no. 4 (Fall 2016): 44-52.

Reports on why states are quitting the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers 

(PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) to curb opposition to the Common 

Core Assessments.

Massell, Diane and Paul Perrault. “Alignment: Its Role in Standards-Based Reform and Prospects for the 

Common Core.” Theory Into Practice, vol. 53, no. 3 (May 2014): 196-203.

The authors write that the new Common Core State Standards depart significantly from existing practice, 

especially in their high level of cognitive demand, topical range, and curricular sequencing.

Matlock, Ki L., et al. “Teachers' Views of the Common Core State Standards and Its Implementation.” 

Educational Review, vol. 68, no. 3 (Aug. 4, 2015): 291-305.

This article reports on a survey that addressed teachers’ views on and support of the Common Core 

State Standards and its implementation. Teachers were asked how its operation has affected their 

teaching, the standards’ anticipated effects, and their thoughts about leaving the profession prematurely.

Peterson, Paul E., et al. “Common Core Brand Taints Opinion on Standards.” Education Next, vol. 17, 

no. 1 (Winter 2017): 8-17.

The results of a poll pertaining to education policies highlight the public's view of the quality of 

education in the United States and of the effectiveness of the Common Core Education Standards in 

enhancing U.S. educational standards.

40
Prothero, Arianna. “District Chiefs Back Common Assessments.” Education Week, vol. 34, no. 6: (Oct. 

1, 2014): 8.

In a survey by the Gallup group and Education Week, a majority of the district superintendents surveyed 

said that states should stick with their common-core testing consortia.

Troia, Gary and Steve Graham. “Common Core Writing and Language Standards and Aligned State 

Assessments: A National Survey of Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes.” Reading and Writing, vol. 29, no. 9 

(Nov. 2016): 1719-1743.

A random sample of 482 teachers of grades 3 through 8 from across the United States were surveyed 

about their perceptions of various aspects of the new Common Core standards.

Books

Bigham, Jared T. The Common Core Standards. New York: Alpha, Inc., 2015.

Bigham attempts to offer a clear look at what the Common Core State Standards really are and how they 

affect a child.

Campbell-Whatley, Gloria D. A School Leader's Guide to Implementing the Common Core: Inclusive 

Practices for All Students. New York: Routledge, 2016.

Addresses the problems, challenges, and issues that general and special education leaders face on a dayto-day basis in implementing the Common Core standards in their schools.

Dueck, Jim. Common Sense About Common Core: Overcoming Education's Politics. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

The author gives a breakdown of Common Core State Standards and argues that they are necessary for 

achieving America's Race to the Top.

Jiao, Hong and Robert W. Lissitz, eds. The Next Generation of Testing: Common Core Standards, 

Smarter-Balanced, PARCC and the Nationwide Testing Movement. Charlotte, NC: Information Age 

Publishing, Inc., 2016.

An overview by education experts of the intent, history, and current status of the nationwide testing 

movement.

Pullmann, Joy. The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of America's 

Kids. New York: Encounter Books, 2017.

A discussion of how and why Common Core State Standards were implemented into the American 

educational system and who benefits from the program.

Shober, Arnold F. In Common No More: The Politics of the Common Core State Standards. Santa 

Barbara CA: Praeger, 2016.

This book examines the rise and fall of our national education standards from their inception to the 

present day.

Zarra, Ernest J. Common Sense Education: From Common Core to ESSA and Beyond. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

41
Zarra’s book analyzes the new direction today's schools must pursue for student learning and their 

success beyond high school.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Batel, Samantha and Scott Sargrad. Better Tests, Fewer Barriers: Advances in Accessibility through 

PARCC and Smarter Balanced. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, February 2016.

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568077.pdf.

Batel and Sargrad provide a summary of the PARCC and Smarter Balanced exams and argue that they 

represent a movement toward better assessments and advances in universal design and accessibility.

Websites

Common Core State Standards Initiative. “Common Core State Standards Initiative: Preparing 

America’s Students for Success, 2017.” Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Available at: 

http://www.corestandards.org/.

This website is the official home of the Common Core State Standards. It is hosted and maintained by 

the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for 

Best Practices (NGA Center). It provides parents, educators, policymakers, journalists, and others access 

to the actual standards, as well as supporting information and resources.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). CCSS Forward: State Resources and Success Stories 

to Implement the Common Core.

Available at: 

http://www.ccsso.org/CCReady_Discover_State_Created_Tools_Resources_and_Standards_Implementa

tion_Success_Stories.html

This website, assembled in 2014 from contributions by over 40 states convened through CCSSO's 

Implementing the Common Core Standards (ICCS) group and State Collaboratives on Assessment and 

Student Standards (SCASS), provides tools for educators and researchers to implement the Common 

Core State Standards (CCSS). CCSSO, a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public 

officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of 

Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions, 

provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues, including Common 

Core.

Video

What Is Common Core? The Controversial Standards Explained.

Education Week. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (September 28, 2015). 

Available at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/common-core-state-standards/.

The video examines the developments and debates around the Common Core Standards, along with 

some of the misconceptions that have accompanied its rollout. It demonstrates what students should 

know and when they should know it.

42
State Standards

Articles

Graue, M. Elizabeth, Bethany Wilinski, and Amato Nocera. “Local Control in the Era of Accountability: 

A Case Study of Wisconsin Pre-K.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 24 no. 60/61 (May 2016): 

1-26.

Through interviews with state policymakers and district-level administrators, this paper describes how 

the contradictory principles of local control and increased state and national standards are shaping the 

policy and practice of Wisconsin's pre-K system.

Hassel, Bryan C. “Charter Schools: The Landscape and the Horizon.” State Education Standard, vol. 17, 

no. 1 (Jan. 2017): 6-14.

Hassel reviews the growing charter school sector and how State Boards of Education (SBEs) and State 

Education Agencies (SEAs) have some degree of responsibility for this growing set of schools.

Jackson, Jacob and Michal Kurlaender. "K-12 Postsecondary Alignment and School Accountability: 

Investigating High School Responses to California's Early Assessment Program." American Journal of 

Education, vol. 122, no. 4 (Aug. 2016): 477-503.

This is a study of California's introduction of the Early Assessment Program to bridge the gap between 

K-12 educational standards and postsecondary education requirements, similar to the Common Core 

State Standards movement.

Jacob, Brian. "The Changing Federal Role in School Accountability." Journal of Policy Analysis & 

Management, vol. 36, no. 2 (Spring 2017): 469-477.

The article focuses on the expansion of educational policy of the United States federal government.

Lauren, Douglas Lee and S. Michael Gaddis. "Accountability Pressure, Academic Standards, and 

Educational Triage." Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, vol. 38, no. 1 (Mar. 2016): 127-147.

Data from students in North Carolina is used to show that an increase in rigorous education standards has 

had a mixed effect on low-income students.

Nicholas Tampio. "Democracy and National Education Standards," The Journal of Politics, vol. 79, no.1 

(Jan. 2017): 33-44.

Tampio argues that the Common Core State Standards Initiative has been a top-down policy that aims to 

prepare children for the economy rather than democracy.

Books

Daly, Alan J. and Kara S. Finnigan, eds. Thinking and Acting Systemically: Improving School Districts 

Under Pressure. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2015.

The focus of this book is to discuss ways to bring about school system-wide improvements, rather than 

school-by-school improvement, to dramatically raise education outcomes.

43
Harris, Sandra, Julia Ballenger and Jason Mixon. Standards-Based Leadership: A Case Study Book for 

the Superintendency. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2016.

This book is written specifically for superintendents and is framed within the most recent standards: 

Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015.

Urbanski, Cynthia D. Untangling Urban Middle School Reform: Clashing Agendas for Literacy 

Standards and Student Success. New York: Teachers College, 2016.

The author tells the story of how students in a middle school in a crime-ridden neighborhood are told to 

“do as they are told” so they can succeed while students in an affluent neighborhood are told to think 

creatively.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Phillips, Gary W. National Benchmarks for State Achievement Standards. Washington, DC: American 

Institutes for Research, Feb. 22, 2016.

Available at: http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/National-Benchmarks-StateAchievement-Standards-February-2016_rev.pdf.

This report uses national benchmarking as a common metric to examine state achievement standards and 

compare how high these standards are compared to the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) achievement levels; comparing NAEP to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, the 

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC), and the ACT Aspire exam.

Websites

Commonwealth of Virginia. “Standards of Learning (SOL) & Testing.” Richmond, VA: Virginia Dept. 

of Education, 2017. Available at: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/.

This is a presentation of the Standards of Learning (SOL) for Virginia Public Schools which establish 

minimum expectations for what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade or 

course.

Gewertz, Catherine. “What Tests Does Each State Require? An Interactive Breakdown of States’ 2016-

2017 Testing Plans.” Education Week, Feb. 15, 2017. Available at: 

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/what-tests-does-each-state-require.html.

The website shows how states assessment plans break down in the 2016-2017 school year.

Standards, Assessment & Accountability and State Collaboratives on Assessment and Student Standards 

(SCASS)

Available at: 

http://ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/State_Collaboratives_on_Assessment_and_Student_Standards_(SC

ASS).html.

SCASS strives to develop and implement high standards and valid assessment systems that maximize 

educational achievement for all children. The organization also brings State Education Agency (SEA) 

career service professionals together to solve complex problems impacting the states.

44
Assessments

Standardized Testing

Articles

Barth, Patte. "Testing the Tests." American School Board Journal, vol.203, no. 5 (October 2016): 64-65.

Focuses on policies for standardized tests for assessing student performance in school districts of the 

United States. Topics discussed include Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirements, Center for 

American Progress (CAP) analysis of district and state testing policies, and the partnership between the 

National School Boards Association and the educational company Achieve Inc.

Levin-Epstein, Michael. "Standardized Testing in Flux.” Principal Leadership, vol. 16, no. 3 (Nov. 

2015): 34-38.

Levin-Epstein asks whether standardized testing is essential to improving education in the United States 

or an impediment to it.

McCutchen, Krystal L., et al. "Mindset and Standardized Testing Over Time." Learning & Individual 

Differences, vol. 45 (Jan. 2016): 208-213.

Reports the results of a longitudinal study conducted over three semesters within 28 classrooms, in seven 

schools, with a total of 419 participants, to examine the relationship between students' mindset and their 

standardized test performance.

Petrilli, Michael J. "Common Confusion: Most Kids in America Aren't on Track for Success. Why Don't 

They and Their Parents Know It?" Education Next, vol. 17, no. 1 (Winter 2017): 84-85.

Petrilli argues that parents receive constant feedback about the academic performance of their children, 

almost all of it from teachers. If the message from most of these data points is “your kid is doing fine!” 

then it may be difficult for a single “score report” from a distant state test administered months earlier to 

convince them otherwise. The Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers 

(PARCC), worked with communications professionals to develop its score report. Straightforward 

language, intuitive symbols, and pleasing colors invite parents to take in key information about their 

child’s performance. A companion web site, http://UnderstandTheScore.org, allows them to dig deeper.

Shepard, Lorrie A., William R. Penuel, and Kristen L. Davidson. "Design Principles for New Systems of 

Assessment." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 98, no. 6 (March 2017): 47-52.

The authors argue that state and local leaders should take the lead in designing new assessments guided 

by two core principles.

Books

Gordon, Edmund W. and Kavitha Rajagopalan. The Testing and Learning Revolution: The Future of 

Assessment in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

The authors attempt to show how assessment can be used to support teaching and develop students' 

competencies.

45
Heller, Rafael, Rebecca E. Wolfe, and Adria Steinberg. Rethinking Readiness: Deeper Learning for 

College, Work, and Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2017.

The writers offer a new set of competencies to replace what they see as the narrow learning goals of the 

No Child Left Behind Act and explore their implications for schools.

Meier, Deborah and Matthew Knoester. Beyond Testing: Seven Assessments of Students and Schools 

More Effective Than Standardized Tests. New York: Teachers College Press, 2017.

The authors argue that the assessment of a child’s knowledge cannot be reduced to a simple test score. 

They describe seven forms of assessment that they argue are more effective than standardized tests.

Popham, W. James. The ABCs of Educational Testing: Demystifying the Tools that Shape our Schools.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2017.

Popham covers concepts about educational testing such as test reliability and validity, test-building, 

fairness, formative assessment, and the assessment of students' affect.

Wages, Michele. No One Left Standing: Will the Rewrite of NCLB Be Enough? Lanham, MD: Rowman 

& Littlefield, 2016.

Wages says that testing in U.S. public schools is out of control. The stress and pressures for all involved 

have effects that are not even measureable in most instances.

State Assessments

Articles

Doorey, Nancy. “A New Generation of State Assessments.” Perspectives on Language and Literacy,

vol. 41 no. 2 (Spring 2015): 9-17.

A review is conducted of new state tests that show more emphasis on higher order skills than prior state 

assessments.

Fisher, Julia. "Will Eliminating the 'F' Eliminate Bad School Design?" Education Digest, vol. 82 no. 4 

(Dec. 2016): 47-49.

The article focuses on the trend of K-12 school systems eliminating failing grades.

Gewertz, Catherine. “With Common Core, More States Sharing Test Questions.” Education Week, vol. 

34 no. 17 (Jan. 14, 2015): 6-7.

Now that most states have adopted common standards, more of them are looking to pick up assessment 

items others have already developed.

Rothman, Robert and Scott F. Marion. “The Next Generation of State Assessment and Accountability.”

Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 97, no. 8 (May 2016): 34-37.

A pilot program in New Hampshire models innovative ways of creating and applying state assessments 

and educator accountability.

46
Schmidt, William H. and Nathan A. Burroughs. “Influencing Public School Policy in the United States: 

The Role of Large-Scale Assessments.” Research Papers in Education, vol. 31 no. 5 (Oct. 26, 2016): 

567-577.

The authors review the influence of state, national and international large-scale assessments on education 

policy and research.

Books

McDonald, Joseph P. American School Reform: What Works, What Fails, and Why. Chicago, IL: The 

University of Chicago Press, 2014.

Offers assessments of school reform as it has played out in recent history, including large-scale reform 

efforts in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Murphy, Brett Gardiner, ed. Inside Our Schools: Teachers on the Failure and Future of Education 

Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2017.

Teachers from across the country assess how recent education policies have played out in their schools 

and classrooms.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Brodersen, R. Marc, et al. “Overview of Selected State Policies and Supports Related to K-12

Competency-Based Education. REL 2017-249.” Washington, DC: Regional Educational Laboratory 

Central, Feb. 2017. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572994.pdf.

This report categorizes and summarizes state laws and regulations relevant to competency basededucation.

Parsi, Ace and Linda Darling-Hammond. “Performance Assessments: How State Policy Can Advance 

Assessments for 21st Century Learning.” Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of 

Education, Jan. 2015.

This report was written to familiarize state boards of education with performance assessments and help 

them and other policymakers address some of the issues surrounding assessment.

Websites

State of Michigan. “2016-2017 Guide to State Assessments” Lansing, MI: Michigan Dept. of Education 

Office of Standards and Assessment, Sept. 2016. Available at: 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Spring_2017_Guide_to_State_Assessments_jl_536062_7.pdf. The

guide provides an overview of Michigan’s assessment system, which seeks to provide national standards 

for quality and vigor while measuring student success.

Louisiana. Department of Education. “Louisiana Believes.” Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of 

Education, 2017. Available at: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/assessment.

Louisiana Believes is a website that provides assessment schedules and achievement levels for students 

in Louisiana public schools.

47
National Assessments 

Articles

Barth, Patte. "National Report Card Woes." American School Board Journal, vol. 203, no. 1 (February 

2016): 54-55.

A report on the decline in scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) in 2015. It 

also mentions the possible explanations on the fall of NAEP scores.

Kenworthy, Josh. “The Good News Behind America’s Bad Test Scores.” Christian Science Monitor

(Apr. 28, 2016).

The author points out that the gap between the strongest and weakest performing 12th-graders in math 

widened in the past two years on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). However, 

those students who took challenging math classes performed better than those who did not.

Resmovits, Joy. “BACK STORY; An Academic Slowdown; Nationwide, Test Scores Have Stalled. 

What Can be Done About It?” Los Angeles Times, (May 01, 2016): A-2.

The author believes that scores on national tests like the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

won’t improve because there are no stakes for test takers and teachers.

Stuart, Elizabeth A., et al. “Characteristics of School Districts that Participate in Rigorous National 

Educational Evaluations.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, vol. 10, no.1 (June 30, 

2016): 168-206.

The findings in this article raise questions about whether, as currently implemented, the results from 

rigorous impact studies in education are likely to generalize to the larger set of school districts.

Books

Kloosterman, Peter, Doris Mohr and Crystal Walcott, eds. What Mathematics Do Students Know and 

How is That Knowledge Changing? : Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2016.

Provides comprehensive information on what students at grades 4, 8, and 12 (the grades assessed by 

NAEP) can and cannot do in mathematics.

Reports (Government, Organization, or Think Tank)

Blagg, Kristin. Making the Grade in America's Cities: Assessing Student Achievement in Urban 

Districts. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, June 2016. Available at: 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570458.pdf.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress's Trial Urban District Assessment program provides 

data on student achievement in large, urban school districts.

Boser, Ulrich and Catherine Brown. Lessons from State Performance on NAEP: Why Some HighPoverty Students Score Better than Others. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, Jan. 2016. 

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567859.pdf. According to the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress, there is a massive gap between the states with the highest-performing low-income 

48
students and the states with the lowest. An analysis found that many states that have not fully embraced 

standards-based reform have fallen behind.

National Assessment Governing Board. A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading Trial Urban 

District Assessment. D.C: National Assessment Governing Board. U.S. Department of Education, 2014.

The results from the 2013 assessments in mathematics and reading at grades 4 and 8 are highlighted.

National Assessment Governing Board. Science Framework for the 2015 National Assessment of 

Educational Progress. D.C: National Assessment Governing Board. U.S. Department of Education, 

2014.

The purpose of the 2017 NAEP Science Framework is to describe how the new NAEP Writing 

Assessment is designed to measure students’ writing at grades 4, 8, and 12.

National Assessment Governing Board. Writing Framework for the 2017 National Assessment of 

Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board. U.S. Department of 

Education, 2016.

The purpose of the 2017 NAEP Writing Framework is to describe how the new Writing Assessment is 

designed to measure students’ writing at grades 4, 8, and 12.

Sharp, Hager. Facts for Teachers: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2015. Available at: 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED555703.pdf.

Highlights important dates and information about the 2015 administration of NAEP, how NAEP reports 

results, and recent NAEP findings.

U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. The National Assessment of Educational Progress: 

NAEP Subject Areas. Washington, DC: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. Last updated 

March 2, 2017. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subjectareas.aspx.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest nationally representative and 

continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas.

49

SUBJECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

This section of the bibliography was compiled by the U. S. Government Publishing Office

Library Services and Content Management.

These resources are available for purchase at the GPO bookstore at 

https://bookstore.gpo.gov and are also available through https://www.govinfo.gov

and the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications

“Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Substantially Increase Its Funding 

and/or Regulation of Elementary and/or Secondary Education in the United States.”

Beyond NCLB: Views on the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act, 

Hearing, November 8, 2011

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2014: 63 p.

Price: $7.00

The Condition of Education 2009

Publisher: Education Dept., Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics

Year/Pages: 2009: 359 p.

Price: $26.00

The Condition of Education 2010

Publisher: Education Dept., Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics

Year/Pages: 2010: 429 p.

Price: $13.25

The Condition of Education 2012

Publisher: Education Dept., Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics

Year/Pages: 2012: 374 p.

Price: $7.13

51
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations for 2018, Part 3, Department of Education FY 2018 Budget Justifications, 

Hearings, 2017

Publisher: House, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations

Year/Pages: 2017: 1,240 p.

Price: $68.00

Digest of Education Statistics 2009

Publisher: Education Dept., Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics

Year/Pages: 2010: 728 p.

Price: $16.75

ESEA Reauthorization: Early Childhood Education, Hearing, May 25, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2012: 80 p.

Price: $8.00

ESEA Reauthorization: Improving America's Secondary Schools, Hearing, May 4, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2012: 105 p.

Price: $11.00

ESEA Reauthorization: Meeting the Needs of Special Populations, Hearing, April 29, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2012: 55 p.

Price: $6.50

ESEA Reauthorization: Meeting the Needs of the Whole Student, Hearing, April 22, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2012: 92 p.

Price: $10.00

52
ESEA Reauthorization: Rural High School Reform, Field Hearing, July 23, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2012: 51 p.

Price: $5.75

ESEA Reauthorization: School Turnaround, Hearing, April 13, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2012: 82 p.

Price: $9.00

ESEA Reauthorization: Standards and Assessments, Hearing, April 28, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2012: 70 p.

Price: $7.50

ESEA Reauthorization: Supporting Student Health, Physical Education, and Well-Being, 

Hearing, May 18, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2012: 62 p.

Price: $7.00

ESEA Reauthorization: Teachers and Leaders, Hearing, April 15, 2010 

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2011: 99 p.

Price: $10.00

Examining the Policies and Priorities of the U.S. Department of Education, Hearing, 

February 24, 2016

Publisher: House, Committee on Education and the Workforce

Year/Pages: 2017: 100 p.

Price: $10.00

53
Expanding Access to Quality Early Learning: The Strong Start for America's Children 

Act, Hearing, April 10, 2014

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2017: 64 p.

Price: $7.00

Federal Student Aid: Performance-Based Organization Review, Joint Hearing, November 

18, 2015

Publisher: House, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education and Workforce Training

Year/Pages: 2017: 220 p.

Price: $20.00

Fixing No Child Left Behind: Supporting Teachers and School Leaders, Hearing, January 

27, 2015

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2016: 76 p.

Price: $8.00

Fixing No Child Left Behind: Testing and Accountability, Hearing, January 21, 2015

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2017: 104 p.

Price: $10.00

Fostering Innovation in Education, Field Hearing, April 19, 2010

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

Year/Pages: 2012: 44 p.

Price: $5.25

54
No Child Left Behind: Early Lessons from State Flexibility Waivers, Hearing, 

February 7, 2013 

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2014: 94 p.

Price: $10.00

Next Steps for K-12 Education: Implementing the Promise to Restore State and Local 

Control, Hearing, February 10, 2016

Publisher: House, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education

Year/Pages: 2016: 108 p.

Price: $11.00

Next Steps for K-12 Education: Upholding the Letter and Intent of the Every Student 

Succeeds Act, Hearing, February 25, 2016

Publisher: House, Committee on Education and the Workforce

Year/Pages: 2016: 96 p. 

Price: $10.00

Next Steps in K-12 Education: Examining Recent Efforts to Implement the Every Student 

Succeeds Act, Hearing, June 23, 2016

Publisher: House, Committee on Education and the Workforce

Year/Pages: 2017: 128 p.

Price: $12.00

Strengthening Minority Serving Institutions: Best Practices and Innovations for Student 

Success, Hearing, May 13, 2014

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Year/Pages: 2017: 68 p.

Price: $7.00

55
U.S. Department of Education: Information Security Review, Hearing, November 17, 2015

Publisher: House, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Year/Pages: 2017: 96 p.

Price: $10.00

The Value of Education Choices for Low-Income Families: Reauthorizing the D.C. 

Opportunity Scholarship Program, Hearing, November 4, 2015

Publisher: Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Year/Pages: 2017: 136 p.

Price: $13.00

56