Your search found 976 results.

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:
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:
Poverty; Public Schools; School Districts; Educational Finance; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Compliance (Legal); Comparative Analysis; Evaluation Methods; Data Analysis; Equal Education; Equalization Aid; Educational Equity (Finance); School District Spending; Resource Allocation; Expenditure per Student

Abstract:
The "Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965" ("ESEA") requires that school districts provide services to higher-poverty, Title I schools, from state and local funds, that are at least comparable to services in lower-poverty, non-Title I schools. The current Title I comparability requirement allows school districts to demonstrate compliance in various ways and does not require comparability of actual school-level expenditures. New data collected in response to a requirement in the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" ("ARRA") make it possible, for the first time, to conduct a nation-wide analysis comparing school-level expenditures in Title I and non-Title I schools and to examine the potential impact of revising the Title I comparability requirement to focus on school-level expenditures. This policy brief examines the projected number of school districts that would be out of compliance with an expenditures-based comparability requirement under various possible specifications, the amount of funds that such districts might need to add to Title I schools and higher-poverty schools in order to come into compliance, and the amount of additional funds that could flow to low-expenditure schools. Appended are: (1) Data Source and Quality; and (2) Supplemental Tables. (Contains 7 tables and 6 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 (271K)

Descriptors:
Family Income; Family Characteristics; Foreign Countries; Student Financial Aid; Equalization Aid; Tuition; Postsecondary Education; College Attendance; Cohort Analysis; Middle Class; Students; High School Students

Abstract:
This paper examines the implications of tuition and need-based financial aid policies for family income--post-secondary (PS) attendance relationships. We first conduct a parallel empirical analysis of the effects of parental income on PS attendance for recent high school cohorts in both the U.S. and Canada using data from the 1997 Cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and Youth in Transition Survey. We estimate substantially smaller PS attendance gaps by parental income in Canada relative to the U.S., even after controlling for family background, adolescent cognitive achievement, and local residence fixed effects. We next document that U.S. public tuition and financial aid policies are actually more generous to low-income youth than are Canadian policies. By contrast, Canada offers more generous aid to middle-class youth than does the U.S. These findings suggest that the much stronger family income--PS attendance relationship in the U.S. is not driven by differences in the need-based nature of financial aid policies. Based on previous estimates of the effects of tuition and aid on PS attendance, we consider how much stronger income--attendance relationships would be in the absence of need-based aid and how much additional aid would need to be offered to lower income families to eliminate existing income--attendance gaps entirely. 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:
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:
Higher Education; Educational Finance; Paying for College; State Aid; Tax Effort; Equalization Aid; Federal Government; Role; Public Speaking; Advocacy; Educational Legislation; Educational Opportunities

Abstract:
A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provision for higher education was first adopted in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 and was included as a requirement for states to participate in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The information in this article was presented before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor on November 1, 2007, supporting the enactment of the maintenance of effort statutory language. This article focuses on two distinct areas--both of which have significant ramifications for collegiate costs and equal opportunity--(1) accountability and transparency, and (2) college costs, state appropriations, and "maintenance of state tax effort." It describes the existing problems and then offers policy recommendations that would help remedy some of the primary concerns of taxpayers and policymakers. (Contains 1 figure.) 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; Educational Finance; Resource Allocation; Student Financial Aid; Annual Reports; Budgeting; Budgets; Economic Impact; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Expenditures; State Action; Educational Policy; State Policy; Politics of Education; Funding Formulas; Equalization Aid

Abstract:
By late 2008, the United States was in the midst of its most severe economic recession since the 1930s, brought on by a collapse in real estate prices and exacerbated by the failure of many large banks and financial institutions. Heeding calls from economists, Congress and the Obama administration passed a historic law in early 2009 to stimulate the economy with $862 billion in new spending and tax cuts. This paper is the first in a four-part series examining the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's of 2009 (ARRA's) effect on state spending for higher education. The forthcoming reports will provide an analysis of state allocations of State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF) to higher education, a study of how those funds were used in select states, and a look at the status of state higher education funding after the SFSF monies are no longer available at the end of fiscal year 2011. (Contains 3 tables and 9 notes.) [For related reports, see "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending: Part 2 of 4" (ED540795); and "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending Part 3: State Case Studies" (ED540796).] 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 (224K)

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Federal Legislation; Incentives; Student Financial Aid; Federal State Relationship; State Federal Aid; Educational Finance; Equalization Aid; Financial Policy; Finance Reform; Funding Formulas; Program Effectiveness; Compliance (Legal); Tuition; Policy Analysis

Abstract:
Congress has recently focused on the complex relationship between federal student aid, states' funding appropriations for higher education, and institutional tuition and fee levels. Fueling this focus is the ongoing cost shit in public higher education, from states to students and families, as well as to the federal government via student aid programs. This shift in who pays for education is primarily a consequence of gradual state disinvestment in public higher education. As a result, college officials have compensated for the loss of state dollars with a combination of cost-cutting measures, reductions in student enrollment, and an increased reliance on student tuition and fee revenues. The shift in higher education funding, from states to students--driven by insufficient, and in many cases, sharply reduced state appropriations for higher education--has placed more pressure on federal lawmakers to expand existing student aid programs. Increased federal investment in student aid has helped negate the impact of rising tuition and fees. The trend in states' disinvestment in public higher education is especially problematic considering the burgeoning student enrollments occurring in many states. As a result, recent federal legislation has included financial incentives for state lawmakers to maintain specified minimum funding levels for public higher education in order to dissuade states from substantially reducing their appropriation commitments. In establishing these "Maintenance of Effort" (MOE) provisions that determine minimum funding thresholds states must meet in order to receive specified federal funds, Congress intended for these federal monies to supplement state resources aimed at supporting institutions and students, not supplant states' fiscal commitments to higher education. (Contains 1 figure and 2 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:
Foreign Countries; Access to Education; Interviews; Questionnaires; Student Attitudes; Eligibility; Funding Formulas; Student Financial Aid; Audits (Verification); Need Analysis (Student Financial Aid); Barriers; Equalization Aid; Financial Policy; Community Involvement

Abstract:
Secondary school education is very critical in any education system because of the crucial role, it plays in catalyzing national development. Consequently, maintaining a high student enrolment at this level should be a priority for all countries. The Constituency Bursary Fund (CBF) was established by the government of Kenya through an act of parliament in 2003 to ensure that the needy students have access to secondary education. This fund provides for the involvement of community members in identifying the bursary recipients. With the communal involvement in decision-making, it was anticipated that there would be fairness and efficiency in the bursary allocation process. However, contrary to the high expectations; cases of complaints about the implementation of the constituency bursary fund are many. It is on the basis of these complaints that the study was conducted. This study was guided by the theory of socialist economics of education. A theory that emphasizes the need to create an economy that redistributes income from the rich to the poor, so as to create equality of well being. The study population constituted of; high school bursary recipients in the 2007 fourth form cohort in Kanduyi constituency, their class teachers and committee members of the Kanduyi Constituency Bursary Fund (KCBF). The purposive sampling technique was used to select the population sample. Questionnaires and interview schedules were used to collect data, which was then coded and analyzed both descriptively and statistically. From the findings, it was established that; the applicant's parentage and academic performance were great determinants of eligibility for bursary allocation. And that the fund is equitably awarded to the recipients. The fund was found to experience the following set-backs namely; the amount of bursary disbursed to the constituency was insufficient and could not meet the demands of the high number of the needy applicants. There was political interference by the local Parliamentarian. The government delays to disburse these funds, a condition that inconveniences many needy students. Based on these findings, the following recommendations were made; the Government Of Kenya (GOK) treasury should allocate more money to the CBF if the applicants are to be served effectively. The government should also establish a management framework devoid of political manipulation to run the constituency bursary fund. (Contains 4 figures and 11 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 Improvement; Educational Change; Profiles; Demography; Educational Finance; Expenditures; Taxes; Funding Formulas; Educational Equity (Finance); Budgets; Income; School Funds; Equalization Aid; Elementary Secondary Education; Postsecondary Education; School Personnel; Public School Teachers; Public Education; Administrative Organization; Educational Policy; Governance; School Districts; Educational Quality; Problems

Abstract:
This article presents the state education finance and governance of Delaware. Funding for public education generally comes from three sources: the federal government (7.6%), the state government (64.3%), and local governments (28.1%). Educational expenditures for K-12 public schools in Delaware total $1.66 billion. Per-pupil expenditure in the state equals $11,061, which is above the national average by about 25%. Delaware's basic education governance structure includes a chief state school officer, a state board of education, and 16 local school boards. The chief state school officer is appointed by the governor for an unlimited term. One challenge facing the state is the low levels of college readiness, college completion, and employment readiness for both White and minority high school graduates. (Contains 1 table.) 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