Your search found 234562 results.

Descriptors:
Charter Schools; Educational Facilities; Traditional Schools; Public Education; Public Schools; School Districts; Grants; Educational Finance; Financial Support; Expenditure per Student; Educational Equity (Finance)

Abstract:
Traditional public school districts hold a monopoly over the financing and ownership of public education facilities. With rare exceptions, public charter schools have no legal claim to these buildings. This monopoly is an accident of history. It would never have developed had there been substantial numbers of other public schools, not supervised by traditional districts, when public school facilities laws were written. The district model of facilities planning is not suited to a diverse portfolio of autonomous schools with distinct programs and life-cycles that require different spaces at different times. What public charter schools currently receive in facilities aid is simply inadequate. Of the 42 jurisdictions with charter laws, only 17 provide any kind of direct facilities aid, either capital grants or per pupil funding, and just three of those provide per-pupil capital funding of more than $1,000. The status quo is costly both to public charter schools, which must use operating dollars to pay for facilities expenses, and to districts, which pay inordinate amounts to maintain vacant facilities and lose potential rental income in the process. Certain principles should guide the creation of a new system: It must serve all the children in a given community; treat all public schools as equal competitors for available space; make school performance an element in decisions about occupancy; only require payment for space if public facilities dollars are provided to schools; and free educators (in both charters and traditional schools) to focus on student achievement rather than facilities. Change must begin in the state capital by ensuring charters equitable access to both existing space and any state facilities revenue streams. Local leaders should make school facilities a municipal concern, rather than leaving it to school district officials. States and municipalities should consider at least three options for professional, third-party management of the public education facilities portfolio: real estate trusts; municipal construction authorities; and contracts with nonprofit corporations. The transition to new modes of ownership and financing will take time--but there is no excuse for inaction on facilities inequities, even within the current legal framework. (Contains 115 endnotes.) 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 (1710K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Special Education; Special Needs Students; School Districts; Educational Finance; Expenditure per Student; Costs; Differentiated Staffs; Cost Effectiveness; Tuition; Residence Requirements; Student Transportation; National Competency Tests; Grade 5; Grade 8; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Student Ratio; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
It's a woeful fact: Few students with special needs achieve a high (or even modest) level of academic proficiency. The latest (2011) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results show, for example, that 62 percent of eighth graders with disabilities fell below the "basic" level in reading, as did 64 percent in math. This study is intended to open some windows and encourage some fresh breezes by examining three key questions: (1) How much variation in special education spending exists among districts?; (2) What can we learn from school districts that spend less on special education, yet achieve the same or better outcomes than demographically similar but higher-spending counterparts?; and (3) What savings might be realized if the special education field focused on outcomes rather than inputs? To find out, the author and his colleagues first analyzed the special education staffing patterns of more than 1,400 school districts, representing nearly one-third of all students in the United States. Then they drilled down into a purposeful sample--ten pairs of comparable districts in five states, with one of each pair spending less on special education but achieving at higher levels. They found the following: (1) If districts with above-average special education (SPED) staffing were able to staff at the national median, collectively they would save over $10 billion a year; and (2) The vast majority of special education spending in districts is for staff. Based on these findings, they close with three federal/state and two local policy recommendations. At the federal/state level, they recommend the following: (1) An end to maintenance of effort requirements; (2) Preserving and strengthening the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's (ESEA) subgroup accountability and reporting, including those provisions pertaining to students with special needs; and (3) Permitting greater flexibility in the use of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds. At the local level, they recommend the following: (1) That districts employ "more effective" general education and special education teachers--not more of them or more non-teachers (i.e., aides); and (2) That they carefully manage pupil loads for special education teachers. Appended are: (1) Maintenance of Effort for IDEA Funds: Demystifying Required Special Education Spending Levels; (2) Data and Methods; (3) Data Requests; and (4) Selected Demographics for Participating States. (Contains 18 tables, 3 figures and 39 endnotes.) [Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli.] 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 (912K)

Descriptors:
Minority Group Children; School Desegregation; Federal Aid; Grants; Teacher Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Racial Composition; Financial Support; Race; Racial Differences; Language Usage; Magnet Schools; Charter Schools; School Districts; Educational Innovation; Public Schools; Competition; Child Care; Low Income Groups; Student Diversity

Abstract:
The Secretary of Education has expressed strong support for school diversity and reduction of racial isolation in speeches and in the Joint Guidance on Voluntary School Integration, and the Department of Education (DOE) has included a general preference for school integration among its permissible funding preferences. However, this support for school integration is not yet reflected in the requirements and point systems of many key competitive grant programs, where it might make the most difference. In the long struggle for Congressional agreement on an ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) reauthorization bill and a collective understanding that the primary achievement goal of No Child Left Behind could not be achieved as originally defined, USDOE has offered states flexibility to commit to their own, federally approved plans in exchange for waivers from 10 ESEA requirements. In terms of flexibility for Highly Qualified Teacher Improvement plans and the principle of Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership, the flexibility does not exempt states from the ESEA requirement of ensuring that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other students by less desirable teachers. (Contains 51 footnotes.) [Additional research for this paper was provided by Michael Hilton.] 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 (525K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Finance; Financial Support; Federal Aid; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Grants; Educational Change; Funding Formulas; School Districts; Poverty; Academic Achievement; Special Education; National Competency Tests; Graduation Rate; Enrollment; Suburban Schools; Rural Schools; Urban Schools

Abstract:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Recovery Act) of 2009 provided an unprecedented level of funding designed to "stimulate the economy in the short-term and invest wisely, using these funds to improve schools, raise achievement, drive reforms and produce better results for children and young people for the long-term health of our nation." The distribution of Recovery Act funds was intended to reflect these multiple goals. Nearly $97.4 billion were allocated to the U.S. Department of Education (ED), of which $70.6 billion were awarded by ED for primary and secondary (K-12) education through existing and new federal programs. These funds were distributed to states and districts using formulas based primarily on population and student poverty and through competitive grants. Consistent with its emphasis on transparency, the Recovery Act also included extensive reporting requirements for the receipt and use of Recovery Act funds. This report brings together publicly available information about Recovery Act education grants--all awarded by September 30, 2010--and the sub-grants made by grant recipients as of December 31, 2010. It examines (1) how much states and districts received from the Recovery Act and its different programs; and (2) whether and how the distribution of funds varied by selected characteristics of the recipient states and districts. This information lays the groundwork for ED's multi-year evaluation, "Charting the Progress of Education Reform: An Evaluation of the Recovery Act's Role." The evaluation examines the implementation of K-12 education reforms promoted by the Act across states, school districts, and schools. Key findings from this examination reveal that: (1) the Recovery Act provided an average of $1,396 per pupil for K-12 programs; (2) the Recovery Act K-12 funding to individual states ranged from $1,063 to $3,632 per pupil; (3) on average, 81 percent of Recovery Act K-12 funding was awarded to local education agencies (LEAs), either through sub-grants from states or through direct grants from ED. In total, 93 percent of all school districts in the nation received Recovery Act funds from at least one program; and (4) high-need school districts--defined as those with the highest rates of child poverty as well as those with the lowest student achievement--received considerably more funding per pupil than did districts with less need. Appended are: (1) Data Sources; (2) Methods; and (3) Supplementary Data Tables. (Contains 15 figures, 13 tables, and 45 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:

 ERIC Full Text (1088K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Finance; Disadvantaged Youth; Disabilities; Program Effectiveness; School Districts; Educational Change; State Departments of Education; Stimuli; Economic Factors; Federal Legislation; Federal Aid; Financial Support; Public Schools; Postsecondary Education; Budgeting; Grants

Abstract:
To blunt the effects of the economic downturn that began in 2008, President Obama called for, and on February 13, 2009 the Congress passed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This federal economic stimulus package had three primary goals: to save and create jobs, to cultivate economic activity and long-term growth, and to increase accountability and transparency in government spending. Federal appropriations for the ARRA eventually totaled approximately $840 billion and were directed toward tax cuts, funding for entitlement programs, and investments in infrastructure, health, energy, education, and other programs. In the area of education, the Act provided economic stimulus funds to states for both K-12 public schools (the focus of this report) and postsecondary education institutions. ARRA also included additional fiscal year (FY) 2009 funding for the Title I program for disadvantaged children and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 2010, states and school districts received an additional $10 billion to save or create educators' jobs through the Education Jobs Fund legislation. The Center on Education Policy (CEP) at the George Washington University has tracked the use of ARRA and Education Jobs funds and the implementation of ARRA-related reforms since these laws were enacted. Between December 2009 and February 2012, CEP released six reports looking at the effects of the ARRA on K-12 education across the United States, all available at www.cep-dc.org. These six reports were based on survey responses of state and local officials charged with implementing the ARRA and Education Jobs programs. In particular, CEP surveyed state education agency (SEA) officials and governors' staff and conducted nationally representative surveys of school district officials, including superintendents, chief financial officers, and program directors. Responses to all of the surveys were kept anonymous to encourage frank answers. This summary report synthesizes findings across all six reports and distills themes and conclusions based on a retrospective look at the effects of ARRA on K-12 education. Several main conclusions can be drawn from CEP's surveys of officials on the front lines of implementing ARRA. First, ARRA funding helped to blunt the effects of the budget cuts in K-12 education faced by most school districts and many states. Second, the ARRA largely met its primary purpose of saving or creating K-12 teaching jobs and other education-related jobs. Third, in addition to saving jobs, ARRA has encouraged states to pursue a common reform agenda centered on the four assurances tied to the receipt of ARRA funds--namely, adopting rigorous standards and assessments, implementing statewide student data systems, enhancing teacher effectiveness, and improving low-performing schools. States and districts have used stimulus funding to implement these priorities and have made progress in carrying out many aspects of these four reforms. Even so, key activities related to the reforms have not yet been implemented, and in some cases budget cuts have led states and districts to slow or postpone action on the reforms. Fourth, the funding benefits of ARRA appear, to a large extent, to have bypassed state education agencies, which play a crucial role in implementing the ARRA and state reform agendas. Many SEAs report having experienced funding cuts and staffing reductions over the past few years, which have affected their capacity to improve K-12 education. The remainder of this report provides background on the ARRA and Education Jobs programs and highlights findings and themes about the impact of these programs. 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 (452K)

Descriptors:
College Graduates; Educational Attainment; Educational Change; Public Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Public Policy; Graduation Rate; Educational Opportunities; Intervention; Outcomes of Education; Salary Wage Differentials; Salaries; Expenditure per Student; Scores; Racial Differences; Achievement Gap; Teacher Effectiveness; Charter Schools; Academic Achievement; Economics

Abstract:
The Hamilton Project's mission is advancing opportunity, prosperity, and growth. On both the individual and society-wide levels, a strong public education system enables Americans to achieve those objectives. Indeed, education has historically been the great equalizer and offered students of all backgrounds not the promise of equal outcomes but the prospect of equal opportunity. It has allowed for the growth and development of a thriving middle class, and it has helped make the proverbial rags-to-riches story not just a possibility but a narrative that is inherently American. Education is a powerful force for promoting opportunity and growth. It is not surprising that an individual's educational attainment is highly correlated with her income: college graduates generally earn more than less-educated Americans. Now, more than ever, it is essential for the United States to increase high school and college completion rates to make the nation more prosperous and to enable Americans to share the bounty of the economy more equally. Despite this impetus, educational completion rates in the United States have stagnated over the past few decades. Addressing these challenges is no easy task. It is often difficult to know where to begin to tackle a problem this complex. Moreover, education is a subject that by its nature evokes opinions that are highly personal, emotional, and ideological. In debating public policy, especially education, it is best to start at the basics: What are the facts? This memo proceeds as follows. Chapter 1 includes facts on the disparity in outcomes between more-educated and less-educated Americans, and explains why education matters. Chapter 2 highlights several weaknesses in America's K-12 education system and points to specific challenges for policymakers to address. Finally, Chapter 3 draws on the economic literature to identify several interventions that thus far have yielded positive results and are promising starting points for education reform. A technical appendix is included. (Contains 15 figures and 1 box.) 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:
Expenditures; School Districts; Public Schools; School Statistics; State Departments of Education; Income; Federal Aid; Educational Finance; School District Size; Charter Schools; Tables (Data); Elementary Secondary Education; Expenditure per Student; Enrollment; Instruction; Pupil Personnel Services

Abstract:
This report presents data from the School District Finance Survey (F-33) of the Common Core of Data (CCD) survey system for school year (SY) 2009-10, fiscal year 2010 (FY 10). The F-33 is a district-level financial survey that consists of data submitted annually to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information; therefore, the selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using the F-33 component of CCD. The selected findings do not represent a complete review of all observed differences in the data and are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. This report presents findings on public education revenues and expenditures at the local education agency (LEA) level using FY 10 provisional data from the F-33 of the CCD survey system. This First Look provides users with an opportunity to access provisional F-33 data that have been fully reviewed, edited, and imputed. Final data, including revisions to the provisional data submitted by the SEAs after the close of data collection, will be available during the following collection year. Appended are: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; (2) Common Core of Data Glossary; and (3) Reference Tables. (Contains 11 tables and 4 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:

 ERIC Full Text (1651K)

Descriptors:
Credentials; Salaries; Teacher Effectiveness; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Educational Improvement; Federal Programs; Academic Standards; Educational Policy; Educational Assessment; Accountability; Educational Innovation; College Preparation; Career Development; Readiness; Cutting Scores; History Instruction; Science Education; Educational Indicators; Intervention; Government Role; School Districts; Equal Education; Grants; Guidelines; Educational Principles; Administrative Principles; Politics of Education

Abstract:
President Obama and congressional leaders have vowed to take action this year on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently reauthorized and rebranded as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. While most observers remain skeptical that everyone will actually see a signing ceremony in 2011, it does appear likely that at least one house of Congress will produce a bill. In this "briefing book," the authors identify the ten key issues that policymakers must resolve in order to get reauthorization across the finish line, and explore the major options under consideration for each one. The ten issues--which fall under the areas of standards and assessments, accountability, teacher quality, and flexibility and innovation--are these: (1) College and career readiness--Should states be required to adopt academic standards tied to college and career readiness (such as the Common Core)?; (2) Cut scores--What requirements, if any, should be placed upon states with respect to achievement standards (i.e., "cut scores")?; (3) Growth measures--Should states be required to develop assessments that enable measures of individual student growth?; (4) Science and history--Must states develop standards and assessments in additional subjects beyond English language arts and math?; (5) School ratings--Should Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) be maintained, tweaked, or scrapped?; (6) Interventions--What requirements, if any, should be placed on states in terms of rewarding and sanctioning schools and turning around the lowest performers?; (7) Teacher effectiveness--Should Congress regulate teacher credentials (as with the current Highly Qualified Teachers mandate) and/or require the evaluation of teacher effectiveness?; (8) Comparability--Should school districts be required to demonstrate comparability of services between Title I and non-Title I schools, and if so, may they point to a uniform salary schedule in order to do so?; (9) Flexibility--Should the new ESEA provide greater flexibility to states and school districts to deviate from the law's requirements?; and (10) Competitive grants--Should reform-oriented competitive grant programs, including Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation, be authorized in the new ESEA? For each of these questions, the authors offer their own recommendations. These suggestions are meant to point federal education policy in the direction of what they have termed "Reform Realism": a pro-school reform orientation leavened with realism about what the federal government can and cannot do well in K-12 education. Ten steps to a better ESEA are appended. (Contains 3 tables and 22 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:

 ERIC Full Text (8279K) |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Educational Policy; Grants; School Districts; Expertise; State Departments of Education; Case Studies; Comparative Analysis; Measures (Individuals); Competition; Educational Change; Teacher Evaluation; Program Implementation; Web Sites; Financial Support; Interviews

Abstract:
The Obama administration's Race to the Top competitive grant program initiated an unprecedented wave of state teacher-evaluation reform across the country. To date, most of the scholarly analysis of this activity has focused on the design of the evaluation instruments or the implementation of the new evaluations by districts and schools. But little research has explored how "states" are managing and supporting the implementation of these reforms. This paper offers an assessment of how early adopter states' departments of education have undertaken the preparation and implementation of new evaluation systems. It also identifies challenges and lessons that can be used to guide future reform efforts in this area. This assessment of the activities of state departments of education is based on comparative case studies of six states: Colorado, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. These particular states were selected because they are "early adopters" in the area of teacher-evaluation reform and because their states and/or education agencies have undertaken different approaches to implementing the reforms. Two of the states--Tennessee and Delaware--were initial Race to the Top winners, while the other states won smaller grants in later rounds. Research consisted of a review of the scholarly and think tank research on state education agency capacity and teacher-evaluation systems; analysis of reports and data from the state education departments' websites and from organizations such as the Council of Chief State School Officers; a study of media coverage of the reform efforts in the six states; and 15 interviews with national experts on teacher-evaluation reforms and state education agency and local education agency staff in each state. Interviews are appended. (Contains 48 endnotes.) 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 (1563K)

Descriptors:
Minority Groups; Minority Group Students; School Districts; Elementary Secondary Education; Rural Schools; Effect Size; Dropout Rate; Comparative Analysis; Public Schools; Educational Finance; Financial Support; Budgets; Expenditure per Student; Student Transportation; Standardized Tests; Test Results; Socioeconomic Background; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to compare Alabama's rural school districts with its city, suburban, and town districts. Descriptive statistics were used for this population study, with effect sizes calculated using Cohen's d. Findings indicated Alabama's rural school districts serve slightly less affluent student populations, with a lower percentage of minority students, than their counterparts. They are funded at slightly lower levels than their counterparts in other categories, yet spend approximately the same percentage of their budgets on administration and on instruction. They spend a considerably higher percentage on transportation. Although rural district dropout rates are similar to those of their counterparts, from the third to the eleventh grade, student performance on standardized examinations falls gradually behind that of the students in other locale categories. (Contains 9 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:

 ERIC Full Text (281K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library