Search

An afterword is presented to the issue of the journal that discusses topics such as data-driven decision making in education and educational policy, the importance of data in education as a method for accountability, and developing data cultures at educational institutions.

This paper has two major objectives. The first is to document the degree to which state allocation formulas under the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) Chapter 2 bloc grant promote traditional equity or redistribution objectives. The second is to explain factors associated with the variation among states, in the redistributive nature of their Chapter 2 formulas. Decision rules are initially posited and then employed to measure roughly the redistributive orientation of state formulas in all 50 states. We then use the redistribution measure as the dependent variable in a multiple regression analysis to address the paper's second objective. The independent variables used represent common but often competing notions of the contexual factors that are hypothesized as being associated with redistributive policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to provide the most recent national information available on the relationship between school district poverty, local fiscal needs and capacities, and Chapter 1 allocation levels. Two central questions will be addressed. First, what is the relationship between a school district's poverty rate (the primary basis for Chapter 1 allocations) and its local revenue raising capability? Second, how are Chapter 1 funds allocated among districts with different poverty rates, fiscal capacities, and local revenue bases? Following a presentation of findings related to these questions will be a discussion of some of their implications with regard to targeting federal compensatory aid to the "right" school districts, schools and students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the role of States in the implementation of federal categorical aid programs in education in the U.S. The State Education Agencies (SEA) are playing an increasingly dominant role in initiating and controlling educational governance and policy decisions. Intergovernmental implementation is strongly affected by the way federal expectations and administrative actions interact with state context to influence the role orientation of SEA program staff. The three critical components of intergovernmental implementation framework are: the context of intergovernmental implementation; key intergovernmental implementation variables and State role orientation. Though changes in a statute and in regulations can clarify federal expectations and can reduce the possibility for intergovernmental conflicts that arise over ambiguities in expectations, equal importance should be placed on role orientation and the critical conditions for effective intergovernmental program administration. There is a need to promote greater congruence between federal administrative expectations and local performance in discrete categorical education programs.