Your search found 2528 results.

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Private Financial Support; Skilled Workers; Grants; Scholarships; Employees; Labor Force Development; Public Policy; Expenditure per Student; Economic Climate; Competition; Tuition; Social Problems

Abstract:
It's no secret that states and the federal government have found themselves in a financial pinch when it comes to higher education. After years of recession and sluggish recovery, states have slashed per-pupil public spending on higher education by 14.6 percent since 2008. At the federal level, though money for Pell Grants has more than doubled since 2008, the program faces a shortfall of about $6-billion for 2014. It's time to experiment with a new way of leveraging private capital to finance postsecondary education and training--the social-impact bond. In its simplest form, a social-impact bond has three players: (1) the government; (2) private investors; and (3) providers of a social program. Under a bond agreement issued by the government, private investors front the money to providers, who offer services designed to reduce the likelihood that those in the program will need additional government services in the future. But unlike traditional state or municipal bond programs, the government repays investors only if the social program meets agreed-upon performance targets. If the program fails, the government pays nothing. And if it exceeds expectations, resulting in public savings, investors reap a return on their investment. These bonds are now popping up around the United States, including a partnership between Goldman Sachs and New York City to decrease recidivism of young offenders in Riker's Island jail and new programs in Massachusetts to reduce homelessness and juvenile recidivism. President Obama has announced pilot "pay-for-success projects" at the Departments of Labor and Justice to achieve specific social-service outcomes. What do such programs have to do with solving the skills gap? It's time to experiment with a new way of leveraging private capital to finance higher education. Local employers who need more skilled workers face a dilemma when it comes to investing in training employees. Directly subsidizing tuition for employees can help retain workers temporarily, but better-educated employees may also be more likely to defect and join competitors. Meanwhile, binding them to the company in return for postsecondary training raises legitimate concerns about "indentured servitude." Business-sponsored scholarship programs for prospective students present a similar problem: Competitors can get a "free ride" on those investments. The social-impact bond mitigates those problems. It also provides local businesses with an additional avenue to shape postsecondary offerings to reflect labor-force needs. 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:
Grants; Private Colleges; Institutional Characteristics; Universities; Graduation; Scores; Full Time Equivalency; Predictor Variables; School Size; College Entrance Examinations; Expenditure per Student; Correlation; Graduation Rate; Probability; Undergraduate Students; Academic Persistence; Student Characteristics; Personality Theories; Regression (Statistics); Models

Abstract:
Graduation outcomes are analyzed at public and private baccalaureate colleges and universities in the United States. The purpose is to determine the effect of institutional characteristics on a binary indicator of college graduation. The effect of the percentage of Pell grant recipients on graduation outcomes is of primary interest, controlling for other covariates. Institutional characteristics have a major effect on college graduation outcomes. Key institutional variables that appear to have the largest effect on graduation outcomes include percent Pell recipients, private college status, and institutional average SAT scores. College size and expenditures per FTE student have a direct but more moderate relationship to graduation outcomes. Implications for baccalaureate education are discussed. (Contains 1 figure and 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:

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

Descriptors:
Educational Finance; Budgeting; Funding Formulas; Resource Allocation; Expenditure per Student; Public Schools; School Choice; Educational Equity (Finance); Student Characteristics

Abstract:
One way districts can enable funding portability is with the use of student-based allocation formulas that allocate funds to districts and schools based on enrollment of students and student types. The student-based allocation model enables "pocketbook power," creating incentives for schools to attract students, keep full enrollment, and demonstrate excellent student performance. Student-based allocation models (also known as "weighted student funding") have been around for two decades, but not always as a mechanism to enable choice and accountability. Some policymakers implemented these kinds of policies to create more financial equity across schools, or as a component of school-based decision-making. This brief explains the need for a student-based allocation system in the context of school choice, and provides an overview of the key features that enable student choice across schools within districts. Specifically, the brief covers: (1) How traditional staffing-based allocation schemes clash with choice policies; (2) How student-based allocation can enable more portable funding across schools; and (3) Whether it is feasible for schools to lose funds as students choose other schools. (Contains 6 figures and 9 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 (521K)

Descriptors:
Community Colleges; Enrollment; Enrollment Trends; College Credits; Student Characteristics; Two Year College Students; Online Courses; Dual Enrollment; High School Students; Academic Degrees; College Programs; Adult Literacy; Labor Force Development; Apprenticeships; Graduation Rate; Transfer Rates (College); Education Work Relationship; Outcomes of Education; Income; Adult Basic Education; Tuition; Fees; Student Financial Aid; Educational Finance; Expenditure per Student; Human Resources; School Personnel; College Faculty; College Administration; Salaries; Part Time Students; Full Time Students

Abstract:
Each fall, the Iowa Department of Education collects enrollment data from Iowa's community colleges on the tenth business day of the semester. The fall data pertain to the 2012-13 academic year (fiscal year 2013). This report is the only report on fiscal year 2013 until next year's "Annual Condition of Iowa's Community Colleges." Fall enrollment for 2012 was 100,519 students, a 5.2 percent decline from fall 2011. Since 2008, community college enrollment has grown rapidly, likely a result of the recession of 2008 and 2009. Table 2-1 displays enrollment figures for the latest five years. Enrollment fell at 12 of the 15 community colleges. More students were enrolled part-time (less than 12 semester credit hours) than were enrolled full-time. Students enrolled part-time accounted for 53.9 percent of total fall enrollment, compared to 51.8 percent last fall. The fall enrollment of full-time students fell from 51,107 (48.2 percent of total enrollment) to 46,354 (46.1 percent of total enrollment), a 9.3 percent decline, while the fall enrollment of part-time students dropped slightly (-1.3 percent) from 54,868 students in 2011 to 54,165 students in 2012. Although overall fall enrollment has increased more than tenfold since 1965, the number of full-time students as a percentage of total fall enrollment has steadily declined from 90.8 percent in 1965 to 46.1 percent in 2012. (Contains 272 tables and 105 figures.) [This data for this paper was compiled with the assistance of Geoffrey Jones.] 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 (3859K)

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:
General Education; Educational Finance; Public Schools; Funding Formulas; Change Strategies; Educational Change; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Educational Resources; Resource Allocation; Organizational Change; Finance Reform; Program Implementation; Expenditures; Educational Indicators; Educational Assessment; Expenditure per Student; Statistical Distributions; Performance Factors; Barriers; Foreign Countries

Abstract:
There is no fixed rule about how financial resources must be directed to the education sector. It is quite clear that the size of investment in the sector well defines the quality of education students are offered. It is highly important to define the amount of money, which is needed for effective functioning of schools and it is also important to define the system of actions, which will support the functional use of those financial resources. In relation to the above-mentioned, the aim of our study is to analyse general education funding during the post-reform period and based on it to show those problems, which, in spite of the significant rise in funding, arouse as a result of implementing a new system and its further change. Data sets for the research project were taken from the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia, National Statistics Department of Georgia and directly from public schools. The object of study is all public schools in Georgia, and the period of data gathering is from 2005 till 2011. The rational for conducting the study is due to the necessity: the new funding system for the general education schools drastically changed general education finance model. Although, a number of schools fallen under so called deficit school category in the first year of implementation of the new funding system. Period more than 1300 public schools (out of 2180) had shortages in the budget. In 2011 a new, mixed type of funding model was introduced, schools with up to 160 students were funded using so-called need based approach. Under the new funding model schools with student population from 161 to 599 receive base funds. Even though this approach has worked well in terms of eradicating deficits, a number of essential problems were originated. In the paper, the authors present some conclusions and recommendations on how to solve the existing problems and how to improve the financing model in the future; one of the most important conclusions is that voucher funding scheme couldn't manage to accomplish general education funding goals relating fairness, adequacy and effectiveness. This will only be possible (a recommendation), if expenditure on education as a share of GDP increases by at least 4.5-5% (it was 2.3 in 2011). Shifting to the formula funding is among the recommendations; it will guarantee: balance between the regions, stability, comparability, forecast and it will raise the quality of transparency. (Contains 14 tables and 4 figures.) 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 (703K)

Descriptors:
Educational Finance; Foreign Countries; Teacher Attitudes; Correlation; Dropouts; Surveys; Multivariate Analysis; Expenditure per Student; Predictor Variables; Attendance; Intervention; Costs; Family Environment; Gender Differences; Dropout Prevention

Abstract:
This paper examines the relative strength of different factors associated with school drop out using data collected between 2007 and 2009 in Bangladesh. A sample of 9046 children, aged 4-15, was selected across six districts for a household survey focusing on children's school access and experiences. Two groups of children were identified: those who were enrolled in school in both 2007 and 2009 and those who dropped out by 2009. Using a multivariate logit model, results show age and gender, together with financial constraints, such as lack of income and school expenditure, as the top predictors of school drop out. Two other important predictors are lack of parental support for children's school work and school absenteeism. This paper identifies some possible interventions that could reduce school drop out. These include campaigns to reduce late entry and overage enrolment, reductions in direct costs of schooling, and more support for low achieving children to compensate for lack of educational support at home. 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:
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:
Higher Education; Educational Finance; Costs; Tuition; State Policy; Public Policy; Productivity; Expenditure per Student; College Attendance; Government Role; Resource Allocation; Educational Policy; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Educational Change; Health Services; Health Care Costs; Federal Aid; Foreign Countries

Abstract:
Rapid increases in what colleges charge and what they spend per student have been and remain one of the most controversial aspects of American higher education. Tuition, fees, and other college charges have increased in both the public and private sectors at more than twice the rate of inflation for over a quarter century. Trends over time in what colleges and universities spend per student are harder to discern because recent changes in accounting conventions have made it difficult to compare spending patterns. This report seeks to examine the extent to which public policies at both the federal and state levels have shaped these trends in price and cost productivity (measured as spending per student). To accomplish this, the report is divided into the following four sections: (1) A theoretical consideration of how public and private providers meet the demand for higher education; (2) An examination of trends over the past 40 years in what colleges charge, how much they spend per student, and tuition as a percentage of educational costs; (3) A discussion of the various theories that have been put forth for why prices and spending per student have increased so rapidly in the past three decades; and (4) An analysis of the effects public policies may have had on pricing and productivity (measured as spending per student) and a series of suggestions for a series of federal and state policy reforms that could slow the future growth of what colleges charge and spend per student. This paper is one of three in a series on higher education costs. (Contains 11 figures, 3 tables, and 28 notes.) [For "Addressing the Declining Productivity of Higher Education Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Stretching the Higher Education Dollar. Special Report 2" see ED541919.] 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:
Charter Schools; Resource Allocation; Traditional Schools; Educational Administration; Comparative Analysis; Educational Finance; School District Spending; Expenditure per Student; Models

Abstract:
There is widespread concern that administration consumes too much of the educational dollar in traditional public schools, diverting needed resources from classroom instruction and hampering efforts to improve student outcomes. By contrast, charter schools are predicted to have leaner administration and allocate resources more intensively to instruction. This study analyzes resource allocation in charter and district schools in Michigan, where charter and tradition public schools receive approximately the same operational funding. Controlling for factors that could affect resource allocation patterns between school types, we find that charter schools on average spend $774 more per pupil per year on administration and $1141 less on instruction than traditional public schools. (Contains 5 tables and 7 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 (475K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library