NOTE :: Various file formats are used on this page that may require download. If larger than 1mb, it will take longer to download. For instructions or more information, please visit our download page.
The abstracts used in this resource were taken from the websites of organizations supplying the referenced documents.
Carroll, S. J., & Erkut, E. (2009). How taxpayers benefit when students attain higher levels of education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Describes how increases in students' educational attainment result in benefits to taxpayers, in the form of increases in tax revenues and decreases in public spending on social support programs and correctional facilities.
Gottfried, M. A., Stecher, B. M., Hoover, M., & Cross, A. B. (2011). Federal and state roles and capacity for improving schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
U.S. educators and policymakers are concerned about the poor performance of the public schools, particularly schools that serve students from low-income families. Although education is primarily a state function, the federal government also has a longstanding interest in improving education for disadvantaged students, and it targets funding to this group. Federal involvement in states' provision of education has grown since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, and the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA, known as No Child Left Behind, represented a significant increase in federal intervention, particularly in terms of school improvement. ESEA could be reauthorized in 2011, and there is much discussion about the most-effective way to balance federal and state responsibilities for improving schools and how best to frame federal policy to promote this goal. This report reviews the literature on the state and federal roles in education, examines the effectiveness of states' ongoing school-improvement efforts, and considers options for framing future federal guidance and support of state school-reform efforts. Three general conclusions stand out: a) the federal government has multiple policy alternatives from which to choose, and reauthorized ESEA legislation need not merely replicate approaches from the past; b) the challenge that educators and policymakers face at present involves developing rather than replicating successful strategies to improve low-performing schools; c) states vary tremendously in terms of their strategies and capacity to improve low-performing schools. Consequently, the optimal federal-state relationship would entail flexibility and incorporate a range of policy levers.