Search

Understanding how urban school districts allocate their education funds can help school leaders create more effective budgeting strategies and provide a basis for advocating for additional funding when necessary. This report provides an overview of how urban districts distribute their financial resources, highlights key areas of spending, and examines current challenges they face.

Each year, school systems and lead agencies plan for how to improve student learning in the coming year. This process involves reviewing student achievement and progress data, establishing priorities, aligning budgets to these priorities, and implementing plans with support. Ensuring students receive the supports they deserve will require ongoing data-driven decision-making that responds to community needs. This 2024-2025 school system planning guide presents: (1) Vision for Success; (2) Master Timeline; (3) School System Planning Process Overview; (4) Essential Professional Learning Structures; (5) 2024-2025 Priority Focus and Funding; (6) 2024-2025 Super App; and (7) School System Support. [For "2023-2024 School System Planning Guide," see ED631308.]

Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) invited 10 districts to participate in a community of practice designed to increase understanding of how to braid and blend federal funds. District teams composed of principals, superintendents, business managers, and other district leaders participated in four 90-minute virtual sessions. The purpose of these sessions was to help leaders: (1) Collaborate with other districts to increase their knowledge and understanding of how to braid and blend federal funds; (2) Identify strategic considerations for mitigating common challenges that may arise when braiding and blending funds; and (3) Identify tools and resources that can support the successful implementation of braiding and blending funds. This guide was developed based on the community of practice work to inform other district and school leaders across Illinois about braiding and blending resource allocation strategies. The guide has four parts. It begins with an overview of the community of practice that the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and the Region 9 Comprehensive Center conducted to support Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in braiding and blending federal funding. Following some background information, the next section provides users with the steps for braiding and blending funds by using a specific tool, including a table of priority areas and federal funding categories and programs. The third section addresses reporting. The final section is a series of appendices, including Illinois guidelines, scenarios, examples from ISBE and several Illinois districts for braiding and blending, and resources to inform those efforts.

Each year, school systems and lead agencies plan for how to improve student learning in the coming year. This process involves reviewing student achievement and progress data, establishing priorities, aligning budgets to these priorities, and using all available funding sources. Ensuring children receive the supports they deserve will require ongoing data driven decision making that responds to community needs. School systems and lead agencies will use four resources to create and submit successful applications: (1) the Louisiana 2023-2024 School System Planning Guide (SSPG), a resource for LEAs and lead agencies to plan and budget resources; (2) strong school system planning tools, resources, and activities to develop and/or update their multi-year strategic plans to drive funding requests for Super App and budget modifications in the Achieve! application; (3) School System Planning Framework and Funding Guidance to identify their own evidence-based priorities for student improvement; and (4) an editable Strategic Planning and Budgeting Workbook for school systems to use in preparation to submit Super App. [For "2022-2023 School System Planning Guide," see ED615264.]

Each year, school systems and lead agencies plan for how to improve student learning in the coming year. This process involves reviewing student achievement and progress data, establishing priorities, and building a budget aligned to these priorities using all available funding sources. Louisiana's 2022-2023 School System Planning Guide (SSPG) is a resource for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and lead agencies to plan and budget resources to meet the needs of all students in three main grants management applications: (1) Achieve!; (2) Believe!; and (3) Super App. This guide includes key action steps and associated resources for school systems to create and submit the Academic Recovery and Acceleration Plan, Achieve! Incentive applications, and Super App. [For "2020-2021 School System Planning Guide," see ED608294.]

This toolkit contains practical resources to introduce charter support organizations (CSOs) to the benefits and advantages that leading federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) activities can bring to their state. With a practical set of tools to assist CSOs with CSP engagement, this toolkit focuses on the CSP grants to state entities, which enables state agencies--including CSOs--to award CSP subgrants to eligible applicants in their states.

Each year, school systems plan for how to improve student learning in the coming year. This process involves reviewing student achievement and student progress data, establishing priorities, and building a budget aligned to these priorities using all available funding sources. In an effort to support school systems with this process, the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) has consolidated three processes that historically have been separate: (1) establishing priorities; (2) budgeting of federal formula funds; and (3) applying for competitive funds. School systems can engage in all three of these processes using the Super App. The Super App allows school systems to build a plan and secure funding for the core components of school improvement. This guide provides crucial guidance on how a school system will build a plan and submit a Super App for formula and competitive funds to support that plan. The guide also includes additional resources that align with priorities highlighted in the School System Planning Framework, as well as a checklist that outlines the process to complete the Super App. [For "2019-2020 School System Planning Guide," see ED594230.]

Developed for California's local education agencies, this resource identifies six components an infrastructure needs to have in place to operate a well-functioning special education program. The publication also provides a tool for examining the degree to which these components are in place in your system. The results of that examination can help you decide where best to start system improvement efforts. The Six Basic Components: (1) Collaboration and Communication. Norms and processes that allow for meaningful and productive interaction between special education programs and other programs, as well as between schools and families; (2) Staffing. Processes to monitor and address personnel needs, and strategic allocation of staff with defined roles and responsibilities; (3) Policy and Procedures. The existence of up-to-date, documented, and accessible procedures that are compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), along with a robust pre-referral system, such as a multi-tiered system of support; (4) Data Systems. Accurate and consistent data sources that are accessible and monitored at the student, classroom, and school levels; (5) Resource Management. Budget planning and monitoring processes that ensure that resources for special education are strategically allocated and managed to meet state and federal guidelines and to serve students with disabilities; and (6) Instructional Practices. Professional learning opportunities, systems, and processes for general and special education teachers and other personnel, to support high-quality Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and all students' access to the general education curriculum.

AASA, The School Superintendents Association, is committed to supporting superintendents and other school district leaders throughout the country during this challenging and unprecedented time. The following report presents a synthesis of the Guidelines for Reopening Schools recommended by superintendents throughout the United States as part of an ongoing AASA task force.

Early literacy has been elevated by governors across the nation as an indicator of success in school and in life. The 2019 Governor's Pocket Guide to Early Literacy underscores the importance of early literacy with compelling state examples of outcomes, initiatives and investments in early reading. This version is a brief, digestible guide that focuses on how governors can use their unique position to promote reading proficiency by the end of third grade through their executive authority, public awareness and agenda setting, policy making and budgeting. The guide also highlights a few reading scores from the 2019 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) results. NGA [National Governors Association] Education previously released a guide in 2013, a lengthier report on this topic. [NGA Education Director Beth Caron, Senior Policy Analyst Mandy Sorge, Policy Analyst Tiffany Ferrette and Elizabeth Burke Bryant and Ralph Smith from the Campaign for Grade Level Reading contributed to this publication. For the 2013 guide "A Governor's Guide to Early Literacy: Getting All Students Reading by Third Grade," see ED583168.]

Few things can impact the success of students at community colleges more than budget and planning. Faculty must therefore have a basic comprehension of budget processes and of faculty roles in them. This paper aims to serve various purposes. It provides a primer on how the system-wide budgeting process works prior to colleges receiving monies from the state and assists faculty leaders in understanding these processes. It details some of the changes occurring at the state level around the Student Centered Funding Formula, changes to categorical programs, and other elements, all of which have implications for local faculty leaders. Finally, it describes local processes from several different perspectives -- those of a single college district, a small multi-college district, and a large multi-college district -- to provide practices that may be helpful for faculty leaders tackling budget considerations at their own colleges. This paper addresses different aspects of the campus budget and proposes processes to consider, and it is intended as a reference, especially for faculty who are not inherently comfortable with budget language and processes.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) Education Policy, guides Agency-wide investments in education and is the primary source of direction for all education programming. The policy outlines key principles and priority areas that are critical to supporting countries on their journey to self-reliance. It applies to all USAID education programming, regardless of the funding account, directive, or program area, and regardless of the managing operating unit, office, or team. USAID's Education Policy reinforce the goals outlined in the U.S. Government Strategy for International Basic Education (FY 2019-2023). This document is a reference for USAID operating units to guide implementation of the USAID Education Policy throughout the program cycle. It provides information on operational aspects of the policy, including key considerations throughout the program cycle, Agency-level monitoring and reporting, budget and funding parameters, and other areas. This guidance and information will assist Missions in practically applying the principles outlined in the USAID Education Policy: (1) Prioritize country-focus and ownership; (2) Focus investments on measurably and sustainably improving outcomes; (3) Strengthen systems and develop capacity in local institutions; (4) Work in partnership and leverage resources; (5) Drive decision-making and investments using evidence and data; and (6) Promote equity and inclusion. [For the "USAID Education Policy," see ED591357.]

Student-Based Budgeting (SBB)--also called weighted student funding, fair student funding, student-based allocations, or student-centered funding--is a school funding system where schools receive dollars based on the number of enrolled students and their individual needs (such as English language learners, or students from high-poverty backgrounds), and often includes giving school leaders more control over their budgets. SBB differs from the traditional funding system used in most American school districts, where resources are distributed to schools in the form of staff and dollars designated for specific purposes. As a result, principals in traditional systems have limited flexibility over their resources. Many districts also provide little transparency as to why schools get what they get, which makes it difficult to assess how equitably the funding system allocates resources. In contrast, SBB is designed to promote the three pillars of a high-performing funding system: (1) Equity; (2) Transparency; and (3) Flexibility. As of 2018, as many as 16 major urban school systems use SBB. This report examines what districts need to consider to ensure that SBB is fully integrated into their overall system strategy. It is intended to help district leaders assess whether SBB is the right strategic move for their district.

For more than a decade teacher residencies have prepared classroom-ready teachers for hard-to-staff subjects and high-need schools. Across the country, mounting evidence shows that residencies produce effective teachers who stay in the profession longer and produce greater student achievement than traditionally-trained teachers. No residency, however, can be truly successful if it is not financially sustainable. The financial challenges confronting new and existing residencies are complex, but they can be overcome with smart, intentional planning and strategic thinking. That's why the National Center for Teacher Residencies (NCTR) teamed up with Public Impact to develop "Design for Impact", a suite of resources to help existing residencies become more sustainable, and to ensure that new programs start off on solid financial footing. "Design for Impact" guides programs as they collect and analyze financial data, and its interactive budgeting tool helps program leaders understand how different scenarios and decisions impact revenues and expenditures over time. In addition, "Design for Impact" helps programs understand the importance of cost sharing with their partners, and it will help them identify and secure new revenues as they negotiate with school districts, institutes of higher education, and community partners.

This statistical report details tax and spending changes proposed by New York State districts. A figure shows budgeted change in per-pupil spending by region for the 2018-19 school year. Statistics in the following categories are provided for all reporting New York districts: (1) Projected Enrollment, 2018-19; (2) Budgeted 2018-19 Spending (totals in thousands); (3) School Property Tax Levy (totals in thousands); (4) Budgeted Spending (per-pupil amounts); (5) Spending Change (per-pupil amounts); (6) Property Tax Levy (per-pupil amounts); and (7) Difference from Cap (per-pupil amounts).

This guide was created to help district leaders understand the benefits and drawbacks of the four-day school week, assess their district's readiness to make the switch, and evaluate the results of implementing the new schedule. This guide begins with an overview of common goals and outcomes for the four-day school week. It then provides a set of questions and tools that helps district leaders assess their district's readiness to implement the schedule change, along with guidance to assess the results. This guide's goal is to help district and community leaders make informed decisions about the usefulness of the four-day school week and, if they decide to move forward, implement the schedule in the most effective way possible.

Having a disability can be one of the most marginalizing factors in a child's life. In education, finding ways to meet the learning needs of students with disabilities can be challenging, especially in schools, districts, regions, and countries with severely limited resources. Inclusive education--which fully engages all students, including students with disabilities or other learning challenges, in quality education--has proven particularly effective in helping all students learn, even while challenges to implementing inclusive education systems remain. This guide provides suggestions for developing inclusive education systems and policies, especially for low- and middle-income countries that are moving from a segregated system toward an inclusive system of education. We specifically address the needs of countries with limited resources for implementing inclusive education. However, our strategies and recommendations can be equally useful in other contexts where inclusive education practices have not yet been adopted. Two appendices are included.

This publication provides governmental and higher education decision-makers a statewide perspective of Arkansas public higher education finance for the 2015-17 biennium, as well as trends for the past several years. It also contains a detailed financial profile of each institution and presents a basis for comparative assessments of revenue sources and expenditure patterns. The Fact Book contains seven sections: (1) the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommendations for appropriations for the 2015-17 biennium; (2) 2015-17 legislative appropriations; (3) funding history of Arkansas higher education; (4) history of current fund revenues and expenditures; (5) history of unrestricted educational and general and auxiliary revenues and expenditures; (6) history of athletic revenues and expenditures; and (7) miscellaneous supplemental information. The Financial Profiles section of the 2015 Fact Book relies on Series 17 information submitted by institutions of higher education for revenue and expenditure breakouts. Also, in an effort to assist the reader in analyzing specific trends, Section 5 focuses on individual institutions with profile sections that contain five years of data. Four appendices are included: (1) Institutional Abbreviations; (2) Glossary of Commonly Used Terms and Acronyms; (3) Arkansas Public Higher Education Institutions; and (4) Arkansas Higher Education Institutions by County. [For the 2005 Fact Book, see ED489074]

The 2014 edition of "Financial Accounting for Local and State School Systems" updates the 2009 (see ED505993) and 2003 editions of the handbook. The 2003 edition was the work of the NCES National Forum on Education Statistics, Core Finance Data Task Force. That task force systematically rewrote nearly the entire text, incorporating new chapters and reviewing and revising the account code structure and account code definitions. The 2009 edition of the handbook incorporated changes resulting from the issuance of GASB Statements 40 through 47. This edition incorporates changes resulting from the issuance of GASB Statements 48 through 70. Appended are: (1) Summary of Account Code Changes Since 2009; (2) Other Resources; (3) Glossary of Acronyms; (4) Illustrative Financial Statements for an Independent School District; and (5) Criteria for Distinguishing Equipment From Supply Items.

The Peace Corps "Programming, Training, and Evaluation Guidance" (PT&E Guidance) will assist field PT&E staff to optimally support trainees and Volunteers to build the capacity and contribute to improving the lives of people in their country of service. The PT&E Guidance consists of four parts. Part 1 of this guide provides an overview of the Peace Corps' mission, goals, and approach to development. Part 2 of this guide explains the way in which the Peace Corps works to achieve its mission by helping host countries provide a public benefit and improve well-being among their community members through implementing Peace Corps projects. Part 2 outlines how to develop a project plan, including a project framework, as well as the development of a monitoring, evaluation, and reporting plan. Part 3 of this guide explains the Peace Corps' approach to training design and will help post staff assess, design, and adapt an effective training program to prepare and empower Volunteers throughout their service. Part 4 covers topics related to management and implementation of Peace Corps PT&E. This section covers planning, budgeting, and funding, as well as building effective teams and Volunteer support. All four parts of this guide are intended to provide simple and easy-to-use reference materials for post staff as they build quality programs.

Life is a journey filled with many twists and turns. While the journey can be exciting, it is a good idea to know where you are going so you can decide how to get there. Career development is all about getting the knowledge and skills you need to make more informed career decisions. Right now is an excellent time to develop skills that will help you manage your career throughout life. This career education and planning guide will help you to: (1) Discover your interests, values and skills; (2) Match your interests and needs to over 650 careers, 8000 postsecondary schools, and 2000 scholarships; and (3) Plan your future and build a portfolio.

As states and families begin to recover from the effects of the Great Recession, some of the urgency about college affordability may start to ease. The most recent "Trends in College Pricing" report shows tuition rising more slowly than in recent years (Baum and Ma 2013). Growth in Pell grant applications is also expected to slow as income picks back up and many students transition into newly available jobs. Yet it could all happen again when the next crisis hits. Education budgets could be slashed indiscriminately, tuition could skyrocket just as incomes are falling, and the worst-off states could find themselves least able to keep the college dream alive for students who count on public support. If we learned anything from the last few years, however, we can be better prepared. In order not to repeat some of the mistakes of the recession, it will help to understand how the economy, college costs, and college prices interact. Factors that can make costs higher or lower than the average include: (1) Types of programs offered (e.g. engineering costs about twice as much as business, and nursing costs three times as much as liberal arts); (2) Instructional approach (larger vs. smaller classes, distance or hybrid vs. classroom-based, tenured faculty vs. lecturers or adjuncts); (3) Low- or high-cost location (e.g. Oklahoma is generally less expensive than New Jersey); (4) Size (larger institutions usually spend less per student) (5) Age of institution (new institutions have start-up costs, older ones may have costly historic buildings to maintain and operate); and (6) Management philosophy and administrative efficiency.

Difficulties in paying for college and in maintaining good academic performance are two major hurdles to college graduation for low-income students. In recent years, state and federal budgets for postsecondary education have been cut significantly, limiting the options policymakers, education leaders, and communities have to improve rates of college attendance and graduation. Even when tuition and fees are covered by state and federal financial aid, lack of resources to help pay for other costs of attendance (such as book and living expenses) can lead students to choose to work more at paid jobs, and as a result, study less or interrupt their studies. Additionally, many low-income students, particularly in community colleges, lack the foundational academic skills they need. Underpreparation for college-level work and limited resources may reinforce each other, contributing to the current stagnation in college graduation rates for low-income students. Performance-based scholarships, which simultaneously address the financial and academic challenges that many low-income students face, is one strategy that may help boost rates of academic success and graduation for this population. A performance-based scholarship is need-based aid designed to help reduce the financial burden on a low-income student, while at the same time providing incentives for good academic progress. This guide offers helpful information and tools for developing and implementing a performance-based scholarship program. Drawing on the research findings and experiences from two research demonstrations that tested the effectiveness of performance-based scholarships for different types of students in diverse academic settings, this guide provides details on: (1) Alternative designs for performance-based scholarship programs used in several community colleges, a four-year college, and two portable scholarship programs, and (2) Components needed to design, plan, and implement a performance-based scholarship program. The guide offers readers lessons, advice, and clear steps for adding performance components to an existing scholarship program or for developing a new one. Collectively, the information in this guide is intended to help scholarship providers to be more purposeful and efficient when making decisions about whom they choose as recipients, how the awards are offered, and what to expect from recipients. Appended are: (1) Opening Doors and PBS Demonstration Program Highlights; (2) Logic Model Worksheet; (3) Disbursement Verification Template; and (4) Example of Encouraging E-mails [This guide was written with Alyssa Ratledge, and Melissa Boynton.]

Student-Based Budgeting (sometimes called Weighted Student Funding, or Fair Student Funding, depending on the district) differs fundamentally from the traditional funding model, which distributes resources to schools in the form of staff and dollars designated for specific purposes. Student-Based Budgeting (SBB) allocates dollars to schools based on the number of enrolled students, where each student receives a funding "weight" based on need. This model can allow districts to increase equity, transparency, and flexibility in their funding system. In this guide, you will find information to consider whether SBB is right for your school system, including stories of how districts such as Boston, Denver, Baltimore, and Cleveland implemented SBB. [Foreword by Karen Hawley Miles.]

The federal government pays for a wide range of goods and services that are expected to be useful some years in the future. Those purchases, called investment, fall into three categories: physical capital, research and development (R&D), and education and training. There are several economic rationales for federal investment. It can provide public goods that the private sector and state and local governments would not provide efficiently, such as national defense and basic scientific research. It can promote long-term economic growth--as education spending does by developing a skilled workforce, as R&D spending does by prompting innovation, or as infrastructure spending does by facilitating commerce. And it can support the work of the federal government by, for instance, providing the structures and equipment necessary to perform federal activities. In 2012, the federal government spent $531 billion on investment, representing 15 percent of federal spending and 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). This report focuses on investment that the federal government makes either directly or through grants. [This report was written with guidance from Joseph Kile and Chad Shirley.]

The goal of this introductory implementation guide is to provide practical guidance for designing, implementing, and managing a green revolving fund (GRF) at a college, university, or other institution. The GRF model is widespread in higher education, with at least 79 funds in operation in North America representing over $111 million in committed investment as of late 2012. GRFs have proven their ability to reduce operating costs and environmental impact while promoting education and engaging stakeholders. The number of GRFs in operation has increased 60 percent since 2010 and 15-fold in the last decade. In 2011, the Sustainable Endowments Institute (SEI) launched The Billion Dollar Green Challenge, an initiative that encourages colleges, universities, and other nonprofit institutions to invest in their own GRFs. As part of this initiative, SEI has researched GRFs at a wide range of institutions and has developed a suite of tools and resources to support GRF adoption. However, it can be difficult to establish and manage an effective GRF. There is a need for a guiding document that taps into the expertise of presidents, administrators, facility managers, sustainability directors, students, consultants, and other stakeholders with GRF experience to establish best practices. This Guide--a co-publication of SEI and the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)--is intended to fulfill that need. The Guide is informed by data and insights from schools that have already incorporated GRFs into their campus operations. It includes information from (1) interviews with dozens of stakeholders representing institutions that vary in size, setting, and wealth; (2) research conducted by SEI, AASHE and other organizations; (3) and the direct experience of its authors in implementing and advising on GRFs at a variety of institutions. A list of resources is included. (Contains 1 figure.) [Additional funding for this paper was provided by the David Rockefeller Fund, John Merck Fund, Merck Family Fund, Roy A. Hunt Foundation, and Wallace Global Fund.]

"School Budget Hold'em" is a game designed to help school districts rethink their budgeting process. It evolved out of Education Resource Strategies' (ERS) experience working with large urban districts around the country. "School Budget Hold'em" offers a completely new approach--one that can turn the budgeting process into a long-term visioning exercise around how the district can best serve its students. The game format enables school leaders and colleagues to step outside of the constraints of day-to-day decision-making and review the district's resource use in a more integrated way. As one creates "hands" of investments and savings options that extend beyond typical operational efficiencies, one will see possible ways to improve district performance while still meeting budget reduction goals. Much of the power of "School Budget Hold'em" comes from playing the game with others and engaging in a dialogue about what is possible even in these tough fiscal times. The important thing to remember is that there are no right or wrong answers. What matters is what is right for one's district. "School Budget Hold'em" can be useful in many different contexts and in many different ways. The authors have seen it work successfully with: (1) district leaders looking to find a way to address a looming budget reduction; (2) school board members looking for how to best support districts to make difficult choices that maximize student learning; (3) state policymakers and education advocates looking for how to best support districts to make difficult choices that maximize student outcomes; (4) parents and community members looking to get an introduction to district budgeting; (5) education policy students looking for a hands-on approach to complement their coursework; and so much more!

"The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Teachers, Parents and the Economy" (2011) examines the teaching profession and parent-school engagement at a time when there has been a prolonged economic downturn. The survey explores how teachers, parents and schools are working together to promote student learning and healthy development in the context of reduced budgets, reallocation of resources, and continued attention to improving teaching and learning. These issues are examined from the perspectives of teachers, parents and students. Findings reveal that teachers are less satisfied with their careers; in the past two years there has been a significant decline in teachers' satisfaction with their profession. The effects of the economic downturn are felt widely and deeply in education. Parent engagement has increased in the past 25 years but remains a challenge for many schools. The survey documents--from the perspectives of teachers, parents and students--how schools and parents can and do effectively collaborate to promote student learning, and how factors such as parent engagement and the economy are associated with teacher job satisfaction. Appended are: (1) Methodology; and (2) Questionnaires. (Contains 19 figures and 24 endnotes.)

Congress completed the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process on December 17th, 2011, finalizing annual funding for federal education programs through September 30, 2012 at $68.1 billion, down $233 million from the prior year. It is the first year since 2007 that Congress did not increase total appropriations for education programs. This issue brief is a helpful guide to the appropriations process and recently-enacted fiscal year 2012 education funding. It includes an analysis of funding for major education programs, an explanation of key budget developments and laws that shaped this year's funding, and a retrospective timeline of the 2012 appropriations process. It also includes tables comparing 2012 funding to earlier House and Senate proposals, prior year funding levels, and the president's 2012 budget request. (Contains 20 notes.)

State and local funding for general operating budgets for Kansas public schools will be at a five-year low this school year, yet total Kansas school district spending will reach an all-time high of $5.67 billion according to estimates released by the Kansas State Department of Education. Total per pupil spending is projected to reach $12,454 per full-time equivalent pupil, an increase of $171 over last year. The rise in total funding is due to a $155 million increase in state retirement contributions, equaling a $339 per pupil increase. Total district spending is expected to be slightly higher than in 2009. That was the final year of funding increases following the Montoy school finance lawsuit and before a deep recession led to state spending cuts. This report, prepared by the Kansas Association of School Boards, examines why--in spite of overall spending increases by the state--boards of education and administrators have been forced to reduce budgets and cut staff and programs for students.

After decades of focusing on expansion and access, California's institutions of higher education are now being handed a more difficult charge: to dramatically increase the number of college graduates with diminishing state funding. There is a growing consensus that the United States needs to ratchet up its production of college graduates to turn around the economy and remain competitive. California's performance is vital to this national agenda. Experts warn that California needs to start on a steep upward climb--each year issuing about 16,000 college degrees "more" than the year before--until one million additional Californians have postsecondary degrees. For decades, state leaders have been relatively content to leave the higher education system on autopilot, guided by a 1960 Master Plan that offers no guidance for dividing resources among the three systems to produce desired levels of education, for defining affordability, for determining whether students in different segments should pay different amounts or shares of cost, or for determining what quality education should cost in each segment. Fiscal planning is not well-informed by systematic analysis of spending and revenue patterns and is not guided by a vision of what outcomes are sought from postsecondary education and how resources can best be allocated to achieve them. This project uses data from a national initiative to illustrate the kinds of analysis that could better inform fiscal planning. The Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability is a national initiative designed to help decision makers adopt more rational funding approaches for higher education. The authors use their data to draw comparisons across California's three public systems of higher education, explain noteworthy changes over time, and discuss how California compares to the rest of the nation. As data extend only to 2009, they cannot document the most recent trends, but the seven-year trends they document provide a useful context for future planning. The report presents data about five fundamental questions: who attends? what do we spend? how do we spend it? who pays? what do we get? Some highlights include: (1) California relies more than most states on its public postsecondary sector, with 85% of postsecondary enrollments served by the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), or the California Community Colleges (CCC). Of the three, CCC and, to a lesser extent, CSU will need to contribute most of the needed growth in college degrees, as they serve broad sectors of the population (Figures 3, 4, 5); (2) The sector that serves the most disadvantaged students (CCC) spends the least, by far, on education and related (E&R) costs (see p. 7 definitions); UC spends over two-and a-half times more than CCC on E&R per student--the largest such disparity in the nation (Figures 6, 9); (3) There has been a sharp decline in state subsidies for UC and CSU (much steeper than for universities across the country) but a slight increase at CCC (Figure 14); (4) UC spending has risen by 4% despite shrinking revenues, while CSU and CCC spending has more closely tracked revenue trends (Figures 8, 24, 25); (5) Compared to national counterparts, UC and CSU spend more per student while CCC spends less, but the lower spending at CCC is due to collecting far less tuition revenue; state and local support for CCC is higher than the national average (Figures 9, 15, 19); (6) Among the three categories of E&R spending (instruction, student services, other general support) the higher expenditures at UC are due mostly to spending on instruction (Figures 10, 11, 12); (7) Students at UC and CSU are paying a much higher share of their educational costs due to steep tuition increases, but the higher tuition revenue has only partially offset the loss of state funds (Figures 16, 17, 22, 23); (8) All three segments are increasing the numbers of degrees produced annually and are reducing the cost per degree, but the improvements are far less than the magnitude of increase needed (Figures 26, 27, 28); and (9) All three segments, but particularly CCC, spend more per degree than their national counterparts; CCC spends 30% more than the national average per degree and 40% per completion (degrees plus certificates) (Figure 29). (Contains 29 figures and 19 endnotes.)

State appropriations for higher education are highly cyclical, with downturns in funding during difficult financial times followed by increases in funding when state finances improve. This policy brief shares recent research about whether the duration of recoveries from cuts in appropriations for higher education has changed over time and which characteristics of states are associated with shorter or longer durations for recovery. The authors investigate national trends and provide detailed descriptions for five states: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Wisconsin. They find that the duration of recoveries has increased in each decade from 1979 to 2007 and that states with higher tuition and a centralized governing board are likely to face longer recovery times. The authors conclude with implications and recommendations for campus leaders and policymakers. (Contains 9 figures and 12 notes.)

In light of the fiftieth anniversary of President Kennedy's call to action back in 1961, The Arc wanted to know if people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) are still living in the shadows. So, they launched a national online survey, Family and Individual Needs for Disability Supports (FINDS), from July 22, 2010 to October 31, 2010 to find out. The survey was widely disseminated through a variety of groups, including: the Association of University Centers on Disabilities, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, the American Network of Community Options and Resources, the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered, the National Council on Independent Living, Best Buddies, Easter Seals, the Autism Society of America and state and local chapters of The Arc. Families from all 50 states and DC completed surveys. Nearly 5,000 caregivers responded (4,962). The vast majority of caregiver respondents were family members (95%) who are living with their family member with disabilities (75%), and who are female (89%), Caucasian (90%) and married (75%). Additional detail regarding respondents is available in the FINDS Technical Report. The results are representative of the people who heard about the survey and responded and may not be representative of all people with disabilities and their families. This paper presents the findings from the survey. (Contains 9 endnotes.) [Funding for this paper was provided by Ecology and Environment, Inc.]

Many school districts had to cope with shrinking budgets this past school year, but the effects of these cuts were cushioned to some extent by the availability of federal economic stimulus money. In 2009 and 2010, school districts received about $80 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). These funds were intended to stave off teacher layoffs, stabilize declining state and local education budgets, and blunt other negative effects of the economic downturn for schools. In the summer of 2010, districts received an additional $10 billion through the Education Jobs legislation to save or create education jobs for school year 2010-11. Now that the ARRA and Education Jobs funds are nearly depleted, what do school districts expect their budgets to look like for school year 2011-12? This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent non-profit organization, describes the fiscal condition of school districts for school year 2010-11 and the anticipated fiscal condition for school year 2011-12, the extent to which ARRA and Education Jobs funds are making up for funding shortfalls, and the types of cuts being made to balance district budgets. The authors' data were drawn from responses to a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of school districts in the winter and spring of 2011. This is the second CEP report on the financial status of school districts and their implementation of ARRA; the first was released in July 2010. Two other CEP reports have addressed state fiscal conditions and state ARRA implementation. Seven key findings are evident from the district survey data: (1) A grim situation is expected to worsen in the coming school year; (2) Districts are compensating by cutting jobs; (3) No type of district appears to be immune from budget reductions or staff cuts; (4) Funding cuts are hampering progress on school reform; (5) Most districts have reached the dreaded "funding cliff" with no ARRA funds left to help ease funding shortfalls in school year 2011-12; (6) Most of the districts that received extra funds through ARRA for the federal Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs used at least some of these funds to save or create teaching or other staff jobs; and (7) Districts believe they are better off for having received ARRA and Education Jobs funding. (Contains 8 tables, 5 figures and 3 footnotes.)

Learning in and through the arts develops the essential knowledge, skills, and creative capacities all students need to succeed in school, work, and life. As the top building-level leaders, school principals play a key role in ensuring every student receives a high-quality arts education as part of a complete education. In a time of shrinking budgets and shifting priorities, what can school principals do to make and keep the arts strong in their schools? This guide offers three concrete actions school principals can take to increase arts education in their schools: (A) establish a school-wide commitment to arts learning; (B) create an arts-rich learning environment; and (C) rethink the use of time and resources. Each action is supported with several low-cost or no-cost strategies that other school leaders have used and found to be effective--whether it's beginning an arts program where none exists, making an existing program stronger, or preserving an arts program against future cuts. School principals and other leaders interested in increasing arts education in America's schools can adopt any of these actions and strategies one at a time or implement several at once. When taken together as part of an overall approach, however, their effects are more likely to be cumulative, mutually reinforcing, and more sustainable over time. (Contains 1 footnote.)

This manual provides principles that are an integral part of the accounting requirements for educational service districts (ESDs) in the state of Washington. They are in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles, except where referenced in the ESD principles that follow. This manual provides guidance on the following topics:(1) Legal Compliance; (2) Fund Accounting; (3) Books on Account; (4) Basis of Accounting;(5) Budgetary Control; (6) System of Accounts; (7) Appropriation as a Prerequisite; (8) Gross Basis for Expenditures and Revenues; (9) Encumbrances, Budgeting; (10) Accruals, Receivables; (11) Direct Charging; (12) Inventory; (13) Adjustments; (14) Reporting; (15) Shared Service Arrangements; (16) General Fund Fundraising; and (17) Indirect Cost Limits.

For the past two years, Lumina Foundation for Education has been calling for the United States to increase higher education attainment rates--the proportion of the population that holds a high-quality postsecondary degree or credential--to 60 percent by the year 2025. This call--Lumina's Big Goal--has been taken up by many others. In February 2009, Lumina issued its first "Stronger Nation" report on higher education attainment in the U.S. and in individual states. Since then, the national conversation about higher education has shifted dramatically as a result of a new focus on attainment. Factors that influence attainment--most notably, the need to improve completion rates in higher education--are receiving much more attention at the federal, state and institutional levels. This year, there were several proposals advanced through the federal budget process to increase completion and attainment. In spite of the current state budget crisis, several states have enacted attainment-focused policies this year, including performance funding plans--proposals that tie funding allocations directly to completion rates. There's a growing realization that the higher education system must increase its capacity to serve more students, and that improving higher education productivity is essential to accomplishing this. Of perhaps the most long-term importance, there is new attention to the need to assure the quality of postsecondary degrees and credentials. This need can only be met if individuals better define the learning outcomes that students must obtain at each level of education and then ensure that academic programs give students the opportunity to achieve those outcomes. This new version of "A Stronger Nation", which the Lumina intends to update annually, is the first to report progress toward the Big Goal as well as the gap between current performance and the need. This report also refines the methodology used to calculate higher education attainment, particularly at the state and county levels. The report includes individual profiles for all 50 states. Each profile shows the current level of attainment, the rate of improvement in attainment over the past eight years, and the level of increase needed to reach "Goal 2025," 60 percent attainment by that year. This report also assesses our deepening understanding of the factors driving the need to increase attainment, as well as some of the implications of the Big Goal for colleges and universities, higher education systems, and state and federal policy.

This document provides guidance on effective practice in delivering personal finance education in secondary schools. It is based on the findings from research carried out by NFER (the National Foundation for Educational Research) on behalf of pfeg (Personal Finance Education Group) as part of an evaluation of Learning Money Matters (LMM). This guidance is aimed at those responsible for planning, co-ordinating and teaching personal finance education in their schools, but is useful to all those involved in supporting and delivering financial capability. It sets out: (1) The meaning of personal finance education and why it is important for young people to learn about it; (2) Two case studies of schools, which show how personal finance education can be delivered in two contrasting ways that lead to successful outcomes; (3) Effective practice suggestions regarding what to think about when planning the delivery of personal finance education lessons; (4) Effective practice in relation to deciding how personal finance education should be delivered within schools; (5) Effective practice in adopting the most appropriate teaching approaches which will keep students engaged in lessons and help them to achieve successful learning outcomes; (6) Effective practice in choosing, developing and adapting resources to use when teaching personal finance education; (7) Effective practice in relation to assessing the learning outcomes of personal finance education lessons; and (8) The key principles of planning and delivering successful and effective personal finance education lessons. [This paper was supported by Personal Finance Education Group.]

The California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) conducts policy research and analysis to support long-range planning and student success. This preliminary report on California State University undergraduate demand is the second in the "Ready or Not, Here They Come" series. The series updates CPEC's statewide enrollment demand and institutional capacity reports published in 1995 and 2000. It is intended to support higher education long-range planning and assist the Governor and the Legislature during budgetary and policy deliberations. It provides informed and valid projections of the demand for public undergraduate higher education over the next ten years and estimates of classroom lecture and laboratory capacity needed to maximize student success. Appendices include: (1) Baseline Forecast of Annual First-time Freshman Demand by Ethnicity, 2009 to 2019; (2) Summary of Mid-Range Forecast Assumptions for California State University (CSU) First-Time Freshman Demand; (3) Mid-Range Forecast--Community College Transfer Participation Rates, per 1,000; (4) CSU Undergraduate Enrollment Demand Methodology; and (5) Comments from CSU. (Contains 3 figures.)

The majority of college financial aid offices have seen cuts to their operating budgets this year compared to the 2007-08 academic year when the recession began, according to the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrator's latest QuickScan Survey. Sixty-two percent of financial aid offices reported operating budget cuts this year and 22 percent reported that their operating budgets were cut by 11 percent or more. Seven percent said they expected budget cuts later this year. Another 30 percent received level funding through the recession and only 5 percent reported an increase in their operating budget. Many financial aid offices face level or reduced funding as their workload increases due to record numbers of financial aid applicants, awards, and appeals. Financial aid offices at every type of higher education institution (public, private, nonprofit, for profit, two-year, and four-year) seem to have been equally susceptible to budget cuts in recent years. There were no significant differences in the frequency or severity of budget cuts between institution types. Survey respondents were split on how budget cuts were implemented. Most (41 percent) said their school implemented budget cuts across the board, while 34 percent said budget cuts happened on an office by office level. Financial aid offices with budget cuts have implemented a variety of strategies to cut costs. Reducing staff travel is the most common strategy with 61 percent of survey respondents cutting travel. Other common strategies include: reducing office supply and equipment expenses (56 percent); forgoing salary or cost of living increases (51 percent); reducing staff training (32 percent); and implementing hiring freezes (33 percent). Other strategies reported by survey respondents, include: (1) Gaining efficiencies through increased automation of processes and communications; (2) Deferring projects; (3) Relying on efficiencies and costs savings from previous years to balance out cuts recently implemented; and (4) Reducing office hours.

"Trends in College Spending, 1998-2008: Where does the money come from? Where does it go? What does it buy?" is the third in a series of reports on college and university spending from the Delta Cost Project. The findings presented in this report concentrate on the 1998 to 2008 time period--the last academic year for which spending data are available, and what in retrospect may turn out to be a high point in funding for higher education. The Great Recession that began in the middle of the 2008 academic year falls outside of the time period covered in this report. We know that funding has fallen since then, leading to budget cuts that are reported to be heaviest in the public sector and in those private institutions that had come to be dependent on investment earnings for operating funds. Unlike earlier recessions, when revenues were expected to rebound within a few years, the consensus now is that the "new normal" means that higher education has seen a permanent reduction of roughly 10 percent of its revenue base--more in some areas of the country, less in others--money that won't be coming back, and can't realistically be made up in tuition increases. The data in this report also help to remind us that the funding cuts that came in 2009 and 2010 occurred on a base that, in many institutions, were at historic highs. As we collectively try to find our way to the "new normal," we need to recognize that a return to the pre-recession levels of spending is neither realistic, nor for the most part necessary to ensure adequate funding. The question ahead is how to best allocate available resources to accomplish public goals for higher education. That will require more attention from policy makers and institutional leaders to spending, and to the regular use of data to guide decisions about where funds are spent. The authors hope that the metrics presented in this report are useful tools to help support this necessary new focus. Definitions of variables included in aggregate spending measures and additional data details are appended. (Contains 22 figures and 4 footnotes.)

The ministry has identified one core business that is an ongoing key responsibility. It is called "Core Business One: Lead and Support the Education System So That All Students Are Successful at Learning." The core business includes four goals with specific outcomes that describe the end results the ministry wants to achieve in fulfilling its mission. The ministry also has identified strategies for 2010-13 that support the ministry goals and the "Government of Alberta Strategic Business Plan". The four goals are: (1) High-quality learning opportunities; (2) Excellence in student learning outcomes; (3) Success for First Nations, Metis and Inuit students; and (4) Highly responsive and responsible education system. Their strategies, outcomes, performance and accountability measures are presented in this report. Also presented are expense by core business, ministry statement of operations, and consolidated net operating result.

This handbook has been designed as the national standard for state and local education agencies to use in tracking and reporting financial data for school districts to use in preparing their comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs). The purpose of the handbook is to ensure that education fiscal data can be reported in a comprehensive manner. The 2009 Edition contains guidance conforming to Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements, up to Statement 47. There are chapters on budgeting, governmental accounting and financial reporting. Account codes have been updated to reflect changes in the new reporting requirements and developments in technology and security. There are also special chapters on accounting student activity funds and a model for school level program cost accounting. Eight chapters comprise this guide: (1) Introduction; (2) Financial Reporting Within a System of Education Information; (3) Budgeting; (4) Government Accounting; (5) Financial Reporting; (6) Account Classification Descriptions; (7) Cost Accounting and Reporting for Educational Programs; and (8) Activity Fund Guidelines. Appendices include: (1) Summary of Account Code Changes Since 2003; (2) Other Resources; (3) Glossary of Acronyms; (4) Illustrative Financial Statements for an Independent School District; and (5) Criteria for Distinguishing Equipment from Supply Items. (Contains 27 exhibits.)

In this report, part of an annual series that began in 1997, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reviews its activities under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The report covers public laws enacted and legislation considered by the Congress in 2008 that would impose federal mandates on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. Three appendices are included: (1) An Overview of Key Provisions in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); (2) Public Laws that Contain Federal Mandates as Defined in UMRA; and (3) Primary Contributors to CBO's Analyses of Mandates. (Contains 9 tables and 3 footnotes.)

How do colleges and universities spend their money? To most, it's a black box. The public looks at tuitions, states look at appropriations, trustees look at the endowment, and department managers look at their budgets. How colleges actually spend their money is barely understood by the general public and even many policy makers. In the current economic environment, opacity about college spending has to give way to greater transparency about spending, and an understanding of the relationship between spending and performance. "Trends in College Spending: Where Does the Money Come From? Where Does It Go?" provides a look inside the black box of higher education finance, highlighting financial trends in operating budgets at public and private nonprofit higher education institutions. Using data that all higher education institutions report annually to the U.S. Department of Education, this report updates earlier work by the Delta Cost Project, focusing on the period from 2002 to 2006, the latest year in which spending information is available. The fiscal data presented in this report include operating revenues and expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) student and adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI); all data are presented in 2006 dollars. Understanding spending requires knowledge of the interaction between enrollment patterns, revenues, spending, and results. This report moves sequentially through each of these, to show: (1) Enrollment patterns; (2) Revenue trends; (3) Spending for education; and (4) Spending increases. Data appendix is included. (Contains 19 figures and 6 footnotes.) [Funding for this paper was provided by Making Opportunity Affordable, an initiative of Lumina Foundation for Education. For "Trends in College Spending: Where Does the Money Come from? Where Does It Go? Executive Summary," see ED539419.]

This paper is intended to provide a selection of easy to use resources and tools to enhance the effectiveness of a local senate president during ongoing budget conversations. It is not intended to provide a narrative description of budgets and budget process, nor a comprehensive listing of the many arcane rules that govern community college budgets. The scope here has been intentionally limited. Given the great variety in approaches to budgeting across the California Community College System, no document could guide senate leaders through the myriad of ways that local districts approach budgeting. The focus here is on developing an informed approach to looking at a local budget and providing local faculty with the understanding they need to advocate effectively. Narrowly speaking, community college budget development is an annual cycle that produces projected revenue and expenditure figures for the operation of the college in the upcoming year. This publication takes a broader view of studying, recording, and understanding the financial picture of the district, using a variety of sources and viewpoints. This, often historical, information can then be put to good use in discussing and preparing any given year's annual budget. Appendices include: (1) An Annotated Glossary of Budget Related Terms; (2) Spreadsheet Example of Tracking Expenditures; and (3) Spreadsheet Example Tracking All Funds.

This handbook contains eight sections and thirty-four short chapters on topics related to being a member of a California community college governing board. The eight sections are: (1) California Community Colleges; (2) The Governing Board; (3) Toward An Effective Board; (4) Policy, Planning and Monitoring; (5) The Board and the CEO; (6) Board/Staff Relationships; (7) Fiscal Responsibilities; and (8) Resources. The handbook is updated annually and provided to all who attend the Trustee Orientation Workshop. It is also sent to all newly elected and appointed trustees. [Scott Lay assisted in the production of this handbook with updates.]

This book is for community leaders, librarians, library committees, volunteers, aid workers and others who are interested in the practical aspect of starting and maintaining a successful library. Throughout the developing world, countless dedicated people respond to the pressing need for information in their communities by helping to start a library. They often have no formal training in library science and overcome enormous difficulties to establish collections of resources that enrich their communities. This book is a practical guide to help communities meet the challenges of setting up and running a library. It was inspired by the author's own experiences setting up a library with a community in West Africa and shaped by letters from hundreds of other aid workers and community librarians from around the globe. First-hand experience with the frustrations, challenges and rewards of setting up a library has given the author a deep sense of respect for and solidarity with community librarians facing similar challenges. The introduction to this manual focuses on specific issues that the community and the library founder(s) need to address before establishing a library. The second and third sections focus on establishing and managing a library. Each section is divided into several parts. There is a list of "action steps" at the end of each part summarising what needs to be done at each stage of planning and running a library. It is best to read through the entire manual once before carrying out the action steps for each part. At the back of this book, there is a "Resource Guide" listing programs that can assist communities, library committees and librarians to carry out the action steps and manage their libraries. A bibliography is included. (Contains 30 figures.) [This book was made possible by funding from the UNESCO Network of Associated Libraries.]

Clackamas Community College (CCC) is a two-year college offering academic and career education to more than 30,000 students a year. CCC has multiple campuses and extension sites, with a large main campus in Oregon City and smaller campuses and sites in Harmony, Wilsonville, Estacada, and Molalla. CCC has identified a pressing need to know more about the patterns and trends in the college's enrollment data and the college's capacity to effectively meet community needs in the future. Clackamas has two primary objectives for this exploratory data analysis project: (1) gain access to reliable information the college can use immediately to make budget and planning decisions for the next two years, and (2) build a foundation for an ongoing research plan that CCC can use to analyze its data internally. CCC identified several high-priority questions related to enrollment, capacity, and student outcomes that served as the foundation for the project and the following report. The questions were initially divided into four separate "tasks" and this document represents the findings of all four tasks. This report reviews the overall project methodology and presents the findings for each of CCC's priority questions. (Contains 41 figures, 18 tables, and 5 footnotes.) [This paper was prepared for Clackamas Community College, Oregon City, Oregon.]

This report describes statistical indicators developed by the Council of the Great City Schools and its member districts to measure big-city school performance on a range of operational functions in business, finance, human resources and technology. The report also presents data city-by-city on those indicators. This is the second time that indicators have been developed, data collected and analyzed, but the first time trend data on existing indicators have been generated on the business operations from the nation's largest urban school districts. In addition, this is the first time that indicators have been developed and data collected and analyzed on the financial and technology operations of these districts. Data have also been collected and analyzed on a sample of indicators for human resource operations. A more comprehensive set of indicators has been prepared to collect and analyze data that will be included in future reports. The overall purpose of this project is to help the nation's urban public schools measure their performance; improve their business, finance, personnel and technology operations; and strengthen their practices. The project's methodology entailed using teams of school-district experts in a range of operational functions in business, finance, technology and human resources to develop the indicators. Preliminary data were collected from major city school systems; the results were fine-tuned using Six Sigma quality-assurance procedures to ensure uniformity and rigor; additional data were collected using the fine-tuned measures; and the final data were analyzed and presented for publication. Each of the indicators in this report includes information about why the measure is important; factors that influence performance; how the indicator is defined and calculated; what the range of responses were across the city school districts; and how the indicators' values are affected by other school district practices. The Council expects that school boards and superintendents in the major cities will be able to use these indicators and the data gather on them to assess their own business, finance, human resources and technology operations; to measure progress on reforms in these areas; and to demonstrate greater transparency to the public. In addition, they will be able to use the highest performing districts to identify best practices based on districts showing particularly positive results. [For the Spring 2008 edition of this report, see ED502289.]