Search

Approximately 1.3 million public school students in the United States were identified by their schools or districts as experiencing some form of homelessness in 2019-20. The housing instability faced by these students is associated with a range of acute needs, including transportation, food security, health care, and emotional and mental health. These challenges have negative impacts for student learning and are associated with lower academic achievement and attainment. This brief reviews major federal and state sources of funding for students experiencing homelessness. It finds that federal funding is insufficient to achieve the goals of federal law and is unevenly distributed. Further, only four states provide dedicated funding to support students experiencing homelessness. Recommendations include increases in funding and an entitlement formula for the McKinney-Vento Act, as well as expansion of allowable uses of funds to cover acute needs, and more informative data about resource use. [For the full report, see ED630219.]

This brief summarizes a study of five school districts that have been recognized for their efforts to provide high-quality services to students experiencing homelessness. The districts worked hard to identify students experiencing homelessness and supplemented modest federal funds with private funding, district funding, community-based resources, and other school services to provide transportation, essential items such as food and clothing, health services, academic supports, and housing supports, wherever possible. Districts identified inadequate, unreliable, and restrictive funding streams as particular challenges that limited their efforts. This brief outlines federal, state, and local policy changes to address these obstacles and ensure that students have access to a web of school- and district-based supports. The report [ED626558] on which this brief is based can be found at https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ supporting-students-homelessness-report.

Approximately 1.3 million K-12 public school students across the United States were identified as experiencing homelessness in 2019-20. In all cases, the stress, instability, trauma, and school mobility created by homelessness increase risks to physical, social, and emotional health and to educational engagement and achievement. Districts play an important role in creating environments and coordinating a set of supports that help these students overcome the challenges they face. However, districts face a number of challenges in identifying and serving students experiencing homelessness. The result is under-identification of students and insufficient support provided to students. This study examines how five school districts--Browning Public Schools, Cincinnati Public Schools, Polk County Public Schools, Santa Fe Public Schools, and Spokane Public Schools--work to serve students experiencing homelessness. The authors draw on interview data with homeless program staff, including coordinators, liaisons, and social workers, and budget data to describe how the districts identify and address the needs of students experiencing homelessness, how districts fund and staff their programs, and the challenges that districts confront in meeting the needs of students experiencing homelessness. [For the research brief, see ED626557.]

In recent decades, states and districts have moved toward making education more equitable. A key component of equity in education is providing additional funds for economically disadvantaged students, commonly referred to as "at-risk students." At-risk students are most often defined as students who qualify for free or reduced priced lunches through the National School Lunch Program, meaning that their family income falls below 130 percent or 185 percent of the federal income poverty line, respectively. Studies have found a connection between providing additional funding for these at-risk students and increased academic success. However, there is discrepancy between states on how at-risk students are funded and how much additional money they receive. This report analyzes how states fund at-risk students and how much additional money at-risk students receive from states.

In the United States most teacher compensation issues are decided at the school district level. However, a group of states have chosen to play a role in teacher pay decisions by instituting statewide teacher salary schedules. Education Commission of the States has found that 17 states currently make use of teacher salary schedules. This education policy analysis provides information on each of the 17 states' salary schedules and addresses the following policy questions: (1) How do salary schedules work? (2) Why do states institute salary schedules? (3) What policy issues exist with salary schedules? (4) What are the alternatives to salary schedules?

This year is the 40th anniversary of the passage of Public Law 94-142--most commonly known as the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The law not only changed the way that students with disabilities are educated in this country, it also fundamentally changed the way that states fund their K-12 education programs. This ECS Progress of Education Reform outlines some of the facts--and myths--surrounding IDEA and how its passage has made state policymakers think differently about how they fund their public schools. Over the past 40 years, the federal IDEA law has changed the way states and school districts educate students with disabilities. Prior to 1975, the education that students with disabilities received varied greatly--with some students not being allowed to receive any form of public education. Since 1975 all students with disabilities are guaranteed an appropriate education in the least restrictive manner possible. The cost of implementing the IDEA mandates has fallen largely on state and local governments. With the federal government currently providing about one-third of the funds for special education that it committed to in the original legislation, state and local governments must think differently and refine their school-funding formulas.

The nation continues to recover from one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. States were hit hard, incurred significant losses, and many are only just now showing signs of meaningful recovery. Whether it is efforts to bring investments in pre-K back to pre-recession levels or creating new investments, states have indicated, for the second year in a row, that investing in pre-K is a priority. And this issue is clearly a bipartisan one, with Democrats and Republicans alike showing their support for pre-K. Two of the largest investments come from Republican-controlled South Carolina and Democratically-controlled Massachusetts. Findings indicate that a total of 30 states plus D.C. increased their investments in pre-K and that, nationally, states' investment in pre-K rose by 6.9%.

Due to the current economic downturn, policymakers have been looking for budgetary options that allow for reductions in expenditures without impacting student achievement. One cost-cutting policy that some states and districts have adopted is to keep instructional time the same but shorten the school week. A recent policy brief from the Education Commission of the States (ECS) found that approximately 120 districts in 17 states have made the move to a four-day school week. But the question still exists--what cost savings, if any, are produced? This report shows what savings a district might realistically expect to realize when moving to a four-day week. A bibliography is included.

The information in this document describes how selected states fund English Language Learner/English as a Second Language (ELL/ESL) programs. The states chosen for this survey include: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Texas. All information contained in this StateNote is derived from state sources. [This is an update of an ECS StateNote originally completed in 2002.]

This report examines how a new, comprehensive state education funding formula, if adopted by Pennsylvania, would impact the School District of Philadelphia. After comparing Philadelphia with 10 other big city districts across the country, the analysis concludes that a state formula based on district needs, demographics, and ability to pay--such as those used in most states--would not necessarily provide a substantially higher level of aid for urban districts. Equally important, the analysis finds, is the overall amount of state spending on education. According to the report, per-pupil funding for Philadelphia schools was less than that of seven of the 10 other districts studied­--all of which were in states with funding formulas. Information on selecting comparative districts is appended.