Spending on Instructional Staff Support Among Big City School Districts: Why Are Urban Districts Spending at Such High Levels?

In a recent study conducted under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (CTP), we found that U.S. school districts, on average, direct 2.8% of their annual budgets toward what the Census Bureau defines as instructional staff support

Mandating supplemental intervention services: Is New York state doing enough to help all students succeed?

As states have become more active in establishing curriculum content standards and related assessments disappointingly little attention has been paid to policy efforts that create learning opportunities for students to meet the new standards. This study examines one state policy designed to bolster the opportunity to learn by mandating additional instruction for students not currently achieving proficiency in the state standards. The results focus on a detailed description of New York State's Academic Intervention Services, including its organizational and instructional elements (e.g., staffing, scheduling, student grouping, instructional strategies) across NYS schools. While the majority of states have established curriculum frameworks and linked them to assessment instruments, this experience in NY may be unique for its coordinated emphasis on intervention services (academic and non-academic) linked to rigorous learning and accountability standards. However, the caveats identified in this study promote a familiar sense of local discretion in the interpretation and implementation of state policy mandates. The analyses describe how such practices vary by local district context, such as community wealth and geography, and if those practices have equity implications. The primary analyses draw on survey data from a stratified random sample of 764 teachers and principals from 125 school districts, and feature multi-variate methods with proper adjustment for the clustering of responses within districts (i.e., multiple teachers and administrators within each district)

Mandating supplemental intervention services: Is New York state doing enough to help all students succeed?

As states have become more active in establishing curriculum content standards and related assessments disappointingly little attention has been paid to policy efforts that create learning opportunities for students to meet the new standards. This study examines one state policy designed to bolster the opportunity to learn by mandating additional instruction for students not currently achieving proficiency in the state standards. The results focus on a detailed description of New York State's Academic Intervention Services, including its organizational and instructional elements (e.g., staffing, scheduling, student grouping, instructional strategies) across NYS schools. While the majority of states have established curriculum frameworks and linked them to assessment instruments, this experience in NY may be unique for its coordinated emphasis on intervention services (academic and non-academic) linked to rigorous learning and accountability standards. However, the caveats identified in this study promote a familiar sense of local discretion in the interpretation and implementation of state policy mandates. The analyses describe how such practices vary by local district context, such as community wealth and geography, and if those practices have equity implications. The primary analyses draw on survey data from a stratified random sample of 764 teachers and principals from 125 school districts, and feature multi-variate methods with proper adjustment for the clustering of responses within districts (i.e., multiple teachers and administrators within each district)

Chronic coronary syndromes without standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes: the CLARIFY registry

Background and Aims: It has been reported that patients without standard modifiable cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (SMuRFs—diabetes, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, and smoking) presenting with first myocardial infarction (MI), especially women, have a higher in-hospital mortality than patients with risk factors, and possibly a lower long-term risk provided they survive the post-infarct period. This study aims to explore the long-term outcomes of SMuRF-less patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: CLARIFY is an observational cohort of 32 703 outpatients with stable CAD enrolled between 2009 and 2010 in 45 countries. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with and without SMuRFs were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of 5-year CV death or non-fatal MI. Secondary outcomes were 5-year all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE—CV death, non-fatal MI, or non-fatal stroke). Results: Among 22 132 patients with complete risk factor and outcome information, 977 (4.4%) were SMuRF-less. Age, sex, and time since CAD diagnosis were similar across groups. SMuRF-less patients had a lower 5-year rate of CV death or non-fatal MI (5.43% [95% CI 4.08–7.19] vs. 7.68% [95% CI 7.30–8.08], P = 0.012), all-cause mortality, and MACE. Similar results were found after adjustments. Clinical event rates increased steadily with the number of SMuRFs. The benefit of SMuRF-less status was particularly pronounced in women. Conclusions: SMuRF-less patients with stable CAD have a substantial but significantly lower 5-year rate of CV death or non-fatal MI than patients with risk factors. The risk of CV outcomes increases steadily with the number of risk factors