Your search found 2014 results.

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; Money Management; Statistics; Expenditures; Postsecondary Education; Reference Materials; College Faculty; College Students; Educational Research; Academic Libraries; College Libraries; Research Libraries; Classification; Finance Reform

Abstract:
In previous editions of the CAUT Almanac, data for provincial postsecondary education expenditures, total expenditures and university and college revenues and expenditures was reported from Statistics Canada's Financial Management System (FMS), which Statistics Canada last published for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Statistics Canada will be adopting the internationally-accepted Government Finance System (GFS) as a replacement for the FMS. The first release of GFS data is scheduled for calendar year 2014, which will be used in the 2014-2015 edition of the CAUT Almanac. This report offers highlights and statistics on the following topics: (1) Finance; (2) Academic Staff; (3) Students; (4) Universities and Colleges; (5) Research; (6) Libraries; (7) Canada + Provinces; and (8) International. Classification of Universities are appended. Technical notes and sources are included. Individual sections contain tables and figures. Text is provided in both English and French. 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:
Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Qualifications; Teacher Salaries; Educational Research; Meta Analysis; Funding Formulas; Educational Finance; Teacher Distribution; Disproportionate Representation; Experienced Teachers; Work Environment; Disadvantaged Environment; Disadvantaged Schools; Minority Groups; Performance Factors; Change Strategies; Educational Change; Salary Wage Differentials; Incentives; Educational Resources; Finance Reform; Educational Policy; Personnel Policy; Expenditures; School Demography; Disadvantaged; Policy Analysis; Personnel Management

Abstract:
The inequitable distribution of well-qualified teachers to students in the United States is a longstanding issue. Despite federal mandates under the No Child Left Behind Act and the use of a range of incentives to attract teachers to high-need schools, the problem remains acute in many states. This study examines how and why teacher quality is inequitably distributed, by reviewing research and examining data on school funding, salaries, and teacher qualifications from California and New York--two large states that face similar demographic diversity and educational challenges. Using wage adjustments to control for cost of living differentials, we find that both overall school funding and teacher salary levels are highly inequitable both across and within states--generally exhibiting a ratio of 3 to 1 between high- and low-spending jurisdictions. Furthermore, low-salary districts serve students with higher needs, offer poorer working conditions, and hire teachers with significantly lower qualifications, who typically exhibit higher turnover. We find that districts serving the highest proportions of minority and low-income students have about twice as many uncredentialed and inexperienced teachers as do those serving the fewest. In an elasticity analysis, we find that increases in teacher salaries are associated with noticeable decreases in the proportions of teachers who are newly hired, uncredentialed, or less well educated. These teacher qualifications, in turn, are associated with student achievement, holding student characteristics constant. We review research on strategies that have been largely unsuccessful at addressing this problem, such as "combat pay" intended to recruit teachers to high need schools, suggesting that small bonuses might be productive if added to an equitable salary structure where working conditions are comparable, but may be inadequate to compensate for large differentials in salaries and working conditions. We review studies illustrating successful policy strategies in states that have taken a more systemic approach to equalizing salaries, raising teaching standards, and providing supports for teacher learning and school development. We recommend federal initiatives that could provide stronger supports and incentives for equalizing students' access to well-qualified and effective teachers, including equalizing allocations of ESEA resources across states, enforcing existing ESEA comparability provisions for ensuring equitable funding and equally qualified teachers to schools serving different populations of students, evaluating progress on resource equity in state plans and evaluations under the law, and requiring states to meet standards of resource equity--including the availability of well-qualified teachers--for schools identified as in need of improvement. (Contains 11 tables, 11 figures, and 8 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 (1314K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Educational Policy; Higher Education; Student Financial Aid; Federal Aid; Grants; Tax Credits; Finance Reform; Financial Aid Applicants; Student Loan Programs; Access to Education; Community Benefits; Educational Benefits; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; College Applicants; Eligibility; Change Strategies; Program Effectiveness

Abstract:
Three years after signing the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965--legislation that established the Basic Education Opportunity Grant (now called the Pell Grant)--President Lyndon Johnson declared that "every man, everywhere, should be free to develop his talents to their full potential--unhampered by arbitrary barriers of race or birth or income." As it was originally designed, the federal student financial aid system was intended to increase access to higher education for students who would otherwise be unable to attend. In the nearly five decades since the enactment of the HEA, however, there have been numerous legislative changes that have altered the structure and focus of the system. Today, many students and families find obtaining information about federal aid challenging and the process of applying for aid daunting. In fact, last year nearly 750,000 students initiated the financial aid application process but had their application returned because of insufficient data--and never resubmitted. The federal student aid system has grown into a complicated web of programs that are not clearly or purposefully coordinated to help students complete a degree or certificate. The system consists of grant, loan, and campus-based aid programs under Title IV of the HEA, as well as several federal tax credits and deductions. The federal student aid system is currently oriented around the admirable goal of increasing access to postsecondary education. Unfortunately, the system is not focused on helping these students cross the finish line once they start the race. Nationally, retention rates from the first to second year in both two- and four-year institutions are 67 percent or less. On-time completion rates are also disappointingly low, even for four-year private institutions, which graduate slightly more than 50 percent of students in four years. The federal student aid system can and must work better. Americans must demand a system that offers returns on the national investment in higher education and gives incentives and supports for students to complete postsecondary degrees. In an upcoming paper, the Alliance for Excellent Education will outline recommendations for reforming the federal student aid system to significantly increase the rates at which students enroll in and, most importantly, complete postsecondary programs. (Contains 2 tables and 31 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:

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

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Time on Task; Educational Finance; Financial Support; Academic Achievement; Student Behavior; Elementary School Students; Funding Formulas; Finance Reform; Scores; Gender Differences; Economically Disadvantaged; Low Income Groups; Socioeconomic Background; School Schedules; Satisfaction; Violence

Abstract:
In this paper, I examine how student academic achievements and behavior were affected by a school finance policy experiment undertaken in elementary schools in Israel. Begun in 2004, the funding formula changed from a budget set per class to a budget set per student, with more weight given to students from lower socioeconomic and lower educational backgrounds. The experiment altered teaching budgets, the length of the school week, and the allocation of time devoted to core subjects. The results suggest that spending more money and spending more time at school and on key tasks all lead to increasing academic achievements with no behavioral costs. I find that the overall budget per class has positive and significant effects on students' average test scores and that this effect is symmetric and identical for schools that gained or lost resources due to the funding reform. Separate estimations of the effect of increasing the length of the school week and the subject-specific instructional time per week also show positive and significant effects on math, science, and English test scores. However, no cross effects of additional instructional time across subjects emerge, suggesting that the effect of overall weekly school instruction time on test scores reflects only the effect of additional instructional time in these particular subjects. As a robustness check of the validity of the identification strategy, I also use an alternative method that exploits variation in the instruction time of different subjects. Remarkably, this alternative identification strategy yields almost identical results to the results obtained based on the school funding reform. Additional results suggest that the effect on test scores is similar for boys and girls but it is much larger for pupils from low socioeconomic backgrounds and it is also more pronounced in schools populated with students from homogenous socioeconomic backgrounds. The evidence also shows that a longer school week increases the time that students spend on homework without reducing social and school satisfaction and without increasing school violence. 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 Finance; Charter Schools; Educational Vouchers; Elementary Secondary Education; Elections; Political Campaigns; Funding Formulas; Finance Reform; Politics of Education; Change Strategies; Educational Change; School Restructuring

Abstract:
A tight race for governor, the heavy burden of rebuilding a school funding system recently declared unconstitutional, and a fourth ballot measure in two decades on charter schools has placed Washington state on an intense--and unpredictable--road for education this year. Washington is one of nine states that do not allow charter schools, and the largest among them in population. Charter advocates nationally, who are keeping a close eye on the referendum, stress that Washington is the only noncharter state with a large metropolitan area such as Seattle-Tacoma, home to many underprivileged students they argue would benefit most from charters. The Republican candidate for governor, state Attorney General Rob McKenna, supports charters, but he also wants to partner with the state teachers' union to expand the share of the state budget dedicated to K-12 public schools. His Democratic opponent, Jay Inslee, a former congressman, says charters would dilute resources needed by a school system already facing plenty of demands. Many of his supporters, especially those in the 82,000-member Washington Education Association, see Mr. McKenna as carved from the mold of Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker, a union antagonist, and see vouchers and similar policies on the horizon if he wins. And both candidates are grappling with a landmark state Supreme Court ruling in January requiring Washington to revamp its funding system, with mixed reviews and vague plans on the best ways forward. This is the fourth time Washington voters have gotten a chance to allow charter schools--the idea was voted down in 1996, 2000, and 2004. If approved, the initiative on next month's ballot would permit up to 40 charters to begin operating statewide (there are about 2,280 public schools in the state and roughly 290 districts). A statewide commission would approve them, as could districts that apply to be authorizers, with commission members appointed by the governor and the leaders of both legislative chambers. 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:
Educational Finance; Long Range Planning; Finance Reform; School Administration; Fiscal Capacity; Budgeting; Critical Path Method; Educational Planning; Strategic Planning; Change Strategies

Abstract:
To navigate today's fiscal challenges successfully, school districts must constantly examine the long-term fiscal implications of policy, programmatic, and human resource decisions on their organization. They must look at the effect of such items as bargaining agreements, contracted services, placement costs, transportation costs, benefits, supplies, property, capital improvements, and debt service. They must maintain fiscal prudence while meeting the needs of students and the wants of the community. In the face of rising costs and reduced revenues from federal, state, and local sources, the challenges can seem insurmountable. But by implementing a long-range fiscal plan, they don't have to be. This paper discusses three stages of developing a long-range fiscal plan: (1) developing a plan; (2) analyzing the plan; and (3) implementing the plan. (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

Descriptors:
Budgeting; Strategic Planning; Efficiency; Cost Effectiveness; Educational Finance; Finance Reform; School Administration; Benchmarking; Program Improvement; Best Practices

Abstract:
For most districts, budgeting has become a cost-cutting exercise designed to close the gap between revenues and expenses. During this process, decision makers inherently assume that existing operations are efficient and effective--an assumption that is rarely validated by facts. Cutting programs and services balances budgets but does not necessarily improve efficiency or effectiveness. In addition to reducing costs through cuts, the budgeting process should focus on eliminating waste, raising efficiency, and improving performance. Measuring, benchmarking, and setting goals for efficiency and effectiveness on an annual basis can help transform a school district. In fact, the mere act of shining the light on performance and raising awareness will affect how funds are used. Regular use of measures can define the future look of one's district and gauge progress toward that future. 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; School Business Officials; Finance Reform; Outsourcing; Technology Integration; Change Strategies; Educational Change; Consolidated Schools; Cost Effectiveness

Abstract:
The effects of the Great Recession of 2007-2009 continue to challenge school business officials (SBOs) and other education leaders as they strive to prepare students for the global workforce. Economists have borrowed a word from chemistry to describe this state of affairs: hysteresis--the lingering effects of the past on the present. Today's SBOs are experiencing hysteresis on the revenue and expense sides as they prepare their upcoming budgets. Revenues are expected to be elusive and dysfunctional based on how states collect and distribute funds. SBOs are in a better position to manage hysteresis with respect to expenses. The key is to focus on three cornerstones: consolidation, technology, and outsourcing. In the private sector, the executive counterparts have turned to these three areas to restore profitability to their companies. Perhaps SBOs can improve fiscal stability in their districts by using some of the same methods. 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