Your search found 259953 results.

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Educational Finance; Income; Public Policy; Enrollment Trends; Tax Allocation; Tax Effort; Tuition; Trend Analysis; Educational Trends; Predictor Variables; Educational Resources; Statistical Data; State Aid; Resource Allocation; Expenditure per Student; Financial Support; School Support; State Surveys; Comparative Analysis; Interstate Programs; Tables (Data); School Taxes; School Funds; Local Government; State Government; Student Financial Aid; Costs; Operating Expenses; Public Colleges; Medical Schools; Rural Extension; Economic Climate; Educational Policy

Abstract:
The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in the report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and non-tax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data among states and over time; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent fiscal year. Appended are: (1) Grapevine Media Tables; (2) Glossary of Terms; (3) State Data Providers; and (4) SSDB Collection Instructions. (Contains 12 figures, 13 tables, and 13 footnotes.) [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2011," see ED530332.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (15644K)

Descriptors:
Evidence; Educational Objectives; State Aid; Finance Reform; Educational Finance; Outcomes of Education; Academic Achievement; Equalization Aid; Educational Equity (Finance); Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Program Evaluation; Resource Allocation; School Districts

Abstract:
Michigan radically altered its school finance system in 1994. The new plan, called Proposal A, significantly increased state aid to the lowest-spending school districts and limited future increases in spending in the highest-spending ones, abolishing local discretion over school spending. I investigate the impact of Proposal A on the distribution of resources and educational outcomes. I analyze the differential effects on the lowest-spending and the highest-spending districts, highlighting the role of local discretion, which has so far been neglected in the literature. I also provide important evidence on the effect of spending on academic performance. Proposal A was quite successful in reducing interdistrict spending disparities. There was also a significant positive effect on student performance in the lowest-spending districts as measured in state tests. However, the constraints on future increases in spending may have had a negative effect on student performance in the highest-spending districts. (Contains 10 tables, 4 figures, and 40 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Educational Finance; Competition; Awards; Grants; Financial Problems; Private Financial Support; Incentive Grants; Federal Programs; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Donors; Funding Formulas; Finance Reform; Equalization Aid

Abstract:
Two years after the U.S. Department of Education awarded $650 million in Investing in Innovation grants, some of the winners are still facing financial uncertainty. Other grantees have also encountered problems with matching funds coming through, and some nonprofit grantees have been forced to contribute their own money to match the initial amount. For its part, the Education Department has lessened the matching-fund requirements, but is less clear on possible outcomes for the grantees that have run into financial problems. Those developments have raised questions about the competition's structure, including calls by some observers for the awards to be opened up to the for-profit sector. In August 2010, the Education Department awarded 49 five-year grants to school districts, nonprofit organizations, and universities, ranging from $3 million to $50 million each. The grants were intended to help scale up education programs with proven outcomes or develop promising ones. The terms of the competition, which was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, required the winners to raise 20 percent of their awards in matching funds from the private sector, such as philanthropies or individual donors, and to do so in about five weeks. The requirement set off a scramble--many grantees did not secure the 20 percent of their grants needed until the final days before the deadline. The Education Department had reached out to the philanthropic community about i3, and an online registry created by a group of major foundations and managed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation aimed to match grantees and funders. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Disadvantaged Schools; Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Finance; Court Litigation; State Aid; Financial Needs; Financial Problems; Resource Allocation; Finance Reform; Economic Impact; Legal Problems; Legal Responsibility; Educational Administration

Abstract:
Even as they struggle to climb out of deep financial holes, states are facing lawsuits that contend they do not meet their constitutions' requirements to provide sufficient funding to districts and fail to provide resources for disadvantaged schools and student populations. This article reports on legal battles in Texas, Colorado, and elsewhere which challenge whether states are living up to their school funding obligations. One of the more dramatic fights is taking shape in Texas, where four separate lawsuits--brought by an assortment of poor, middle-income, and wealthy districts, along with advocacy groups--have been challenging different aspects of the school finance system. Those cases are playing out in the shadow of deep cuts, more than $5 billion by some estimates, that lawmakers imposed last year on the state's schools--reductions that school officials say have laid bare the flaws in the current system. Although the outcomes of lawsuits in a number of states are not likely to be known for some time, the cases could result in courts' directing legislatures to make fixes to school finance systems, as was the case in Washington state. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Low Income Groups; State Aid; Educational Finance; Scholarships; Equalization Aid; Community Colleges; Program Effectiveness; Academic Persistence; Academic Achievement; Demonstration Programs; Program Implementation; College Attendance; Eligibility; College Credits; Control Groups; School Holding Power; Student Financial Aid; Program Evaluation; Enrollment; Performance Based Assessment

Abstract:
The expense of attending college is one factor that may explain why low-income students often drop out of school. In California, despite generous state aid and relatively low fees at community colleges, many low-income students still have substantial college-related costs that they cannot cover. To compound matters, federal support for students has come under intense pressure, heightening the importance of available resources for low-income students. In 2008, MDRC launched the national Performance-based Scholarship Demonstration, now running in six states, to evaluate whether performance-based scholarships--an innovative type of financial assistance that is intended to supplement existing financial aid--are effective at improving academic success. This brief describes the California program, through which students are eligible for scholarships that vary in amount and duration. The California study is aiming to learn more about the types of scholarships that work best for low-income students and to inform policymakers and others about the academic gains that modest amounts of additional aid can trigger. (Contains 1 table, 2 figures, and 8 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (190K)

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Tax Effort; Income; Educational Finance; Tax Allocation; Enrollment Trends; Public Policy; Tuition; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Educational Resources; Predictor Variables; Data Analysis; Statistical Data; Educational Indicators; Annual Reports; Performance Factors; Fiscal Capacity; School Support; Interstate Programs; State Aid; State Surveys; Comparative Analysis; Measurement Objectives; Measurement Techniques; Research Methodology; Charts; Graphs; Tables (Data); Resource Allocation; Funding Formulas; School Funds; School Taxes

Abstract:
The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in the report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and non-tax revenue, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data among states and over time; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account in making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent fiscal year. Appended are: (1) Grapevine Media Tables; (2) Glossary of Terms; (3) State Data Providers; and (4) SSDB Collection Instructions. (Contains 15 tables, 12 figures and 13 footnotes.) [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2010," see ED517206.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (6098K)

Descriptors:
Taxes; Income; State Aid; Disadvantaged; Educational Finance; School Districts; Public Policy; Funding Formulas; Finance Reform; Resource Allocation; Change Strategies; Organizational Change; Audits (Verification); Program Proposals; Educational Equity (Finance); Expenditure per Student; Equalization Aid; State Regulation

Abstract:
Tax revenue flows to California's nearly 1,000 school districts through many different channels. According to the Governor's Committee on Education Excellence (2007), this system is so complex that the state cannot determine how revenues are distributed among school districts, and after reviewing a large number of academic studies in the Getting Down to Facts project, Loeb, Bryk, and Hanushek (2007) conclude that California's school finance system is irrational, inequitable, inefficient, and inadequate. The consensus in both the policy and research communities is that California's system is in dire need of reform. In response to this emerging consensus, there have been two notable reform proposals. In 2007, the Governor's Committee on Education Excellence proposed to replace the current maze of revenue programs for districts with three simple and transparent programs: a base program providing for the general needs of school districts, a special education program providing additional funds for special education students, and a targeted program providing additional funds for districts with many English learners and economically disadvantaged students. Bersin, Kirst, and Liu (2008) proposed a similar structure. These proposals were analyzed in two previous PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) reports. Although both of these proposals focus primarily on combining many current revenue programs into the special education and targeted programs, the base program under both proposals constitutes more than three quarters of all funding. Under both proposals, this base would be built on top of existing revenue limit funds, a source of revenue for school districts dating back to the 1970s. Revenue limit funds combine property tax revenue and state aid to provide the bulk of revenue currently allocated to school districts. In concept, it is simple to calculate each district's entitlement to these funds. In reality, the revenue limit entitlement is a complex series of formulas reflecting a long and complex history. And while it is commonly believed that revenue limit funds are equitably distributed because of a series of lawsuits in the 1970s and subsequent efforts to equalize funding per student, differences in funding per pupil can be significant. In 2005-2006, the difference in revenue limit funding between the state's highest and lowest funded districts was $26,510 per student. This paper seeks to explain the differences in funding across districts by examining the variation in seven components of revenue limit funding. An accompanying data set lists revenue limit funds per pupil for each of California's 978 districts in 2005-2006. The spreadsheet also lists the seven components for each district and explains why one district's funding differs from another's. A glossary is included. (Contains 14 tables, 1 figure, and 46 footnotes.) [For the technical appendix, see ED515652.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Educational Indicators; Federal Programs; Public Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Public Policy; Poverty; Educational Finance; Social Indicators; Public Schools; Educational Improvement; Academic Achievement; Funding Formulas; Educational Equity (Finance); State Aid; Resource Allocation; Achievement Tests; Taxes; State Legislation; Accountability; Truancy; Average Daily Attendance; Low Income; Violence; Suspension; At Risk Students; Models; School Districts

Abstract:
The purpose of this research was to address the public policy of adequacy by the creation of a Florida state-wide poverty index model to assist in the distribution of state and local dollars in funding public education. This poverty index model would measure the amount and severity of poverty in every public school within the state each year and determine how much money should be allocated to each school beyond the basic allocation now in existence by using Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data. This poverty index model would address the funding for schools with a disproportionate percentage of students living in poverty. A weighted formula was developed to increase funding to Florida students focused on addressing poverty and supplemental indicators. The creation of this funding index could be utilized by the state legislature in determining an adequate funding level for all public elementary and secondary students in the state and, thus, to enhance the Florida Education Finance Plan (FEFP). (Contains 4 figures and 94 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Electronic Learning; Income; Economic Climate; Universities; Financial Support; Online Courses; Educational Finance; Enrollment Trends; Economic Impact; Commercialization; Finance Reform; Predictor Variables; Data Analysis; Statistical Data; Public Colleges; Educational Policy; Financial Policy; State Aid; Financial Audits; Needs Assessment

Abstract:
In this paper, we examine the role of e-learning enrolments in revenue functions for four-year public universities. Many universities have moved into e-learning as a resource to overcome the funding shortfall which has been an outcome of the recent economic climate. It is hypothesised that an e-learning presence will enhance revenues for universities in varying capacities. We use panel data from the Department of Education and the Southern Regional Education Board, covering the years 2006-2008. We estimate a fixed effects regression to control for unobserved heterogeneity across universities. Results indicate that e-learning enrolment decreases revenue derived from state appropriations. One possible explanation is that traditional universities have found a new revenue outlet in e-learning that decreases the need for state funding. Our results lend support for universities seeking to break away from being a public entity and towards a profit maximising firm. (Contains 5 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Educational Finance; Finance Reform; Fiscal Capacity; State Aid; Public Schools; Educational Equity (Finance); Income; Measurement; Funding Formulas; School District Wealth

Abstract:
In Massachusetts, state aid to public schools fills the gap between a district's foundation budget and its required local contribution. Historic inequities in required local contributions and the resulting inequities in state aid across districts led to a call for education finance reform. Since 2007, the state has put in place a number of measures intended to improve fairness in regard to local contributions. Recent reforms include using both local income and property values to set target local contributions, capping target contributions at 82.5% of foundation and providing funding mechanisms to bring required district contributions closer to these targets. The goal of this article is to examine the effects of these new policies. Results indicate that the impact of the decision to include income in measuring fiscal capacity has been limited by the imposition of the cap on contributions. Further analysis reveals that the reforms, in general, have been more successful in increasing fairness in districts that previously received too little state aid than in requiring more of perennially under-contributing districts. It is also shown that the ratio of required to target contributions across districts shows a positive relationship with community wealth. Finally, an examination of the 2010 policy that reclassified voluntary excess contributions as required contributions in some districts indicates that smaller communities as well as those with more college graduates were more likely to have seen a reduction in state aid as a consequence of this policy. (Contains 9 tables, 1 figure, and 46 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website