Search

This brief communicates findings from Phase 1 of "State Responses to COVID-19 -- Implications for Outcomes-Based Funding" a 50-state policy scan to determine how Outcomes-Based or Student Success Funding (PBF/OBF/SSF) policies are shifting in response to COVID-19 related budget fluctuations. Conducted between August and December of 2020, this 50-state scan included the following goals: (1) explore how COVID-19 and related budget cuts have impacted state SSF policies; and (2) explore how, if at all, shifts in SSF policies affected the level or type of support provided to sectors and institutions that serve Black, Latinx and low-income students. The research team reviewed publicly available websites, including those of state legislatures, higher education agencies, local and state-level media, and systematically recorded data along several key elements. Research for Action (RFA) found that over one third of states running SFF/PBF/OBF models in FY20 either implemented a new hold harmless provision, extended a FY20 hold harmless provision that had been set to expire, or paused their formula for FY21. Few states heightened their focus on racial equity through SSF models. Some states communicated an intent to increase institutional focus on underrepresented minority students through SFF/PBF/OBF models, but none adopted new equity metrics for FY21. [For a related report, "The State of Promise Programs during COVID-19: Results from a Policy Scan," see ED614912.]

This brief communicates findings from Phase 1 of "State Responses to COVID-19 -- Implications for Outcomes-Based Funding and Promise Programs," a 50-state policy scan to determine how Promise Program policies are shifting in response to COVID-19 related budget fluctuations. Conducted between August and December of 2020, this 50-state scan included the following goals: (1) explore how COVID-19 and related budget cuts have impacted state Promise Programs; and (2) explore how, if at all, shifts in Promise Programs affected the level or type of support provided to sectors and institutions that serve Black, Latinx and low-income students. The research team reviewed publicly available websites, including those of state legislatures, higher education agencies, local and state-level media, and systematically recorded data along several key elements. Overall, more than half of statewide Promise programs made changes to program components in response to COVID-19. Of the 15 programs that made changes, it was found that 11 programs adjusted eligibility requirements, with many relaxing requirements to maintain access and others imposing additional eligibility requirements in response to budget cuts. Of the programs that adjusted eligibility requirements, most sought to maintain or expand access for students to account for challenges during the coronavirus pandemic. [For a related report, "The State of Student Success Funding during COVID-19: Results from a Policy Scan," see ED614911.]

On May 4, 2017, the United States House of Representatives narrowly passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) as a repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Independent analyses of the AHCA show that it would leave 23 million more people uninsured by 2026, and make coverage less comprehensive and affordable for millions more. Many low-income and nontraditional students would be likely to lose health insurance coverage, which would harm their ability to complete and persist in postsecondary education. In addition, the proposed bill would further damage postsecondary education, because it would take away billions of dollars of federal Medicaid spending, forcing states to deny coverage and ration care--or to divert state funds from other purposes, such as state funding for postsecondary education, to replace the lost federal investment in Medicaid. Almost all of the jobs created in our economy since the Great Recession require some sort of postsecondary credential, and state support for postsecondary education is more important than ever. Yet the AHCA's proposed cuts to Medicaid will devastate state budgets--and if the past is any guide, state policymakers are very likely to respond by reducing funding for public colleges and universities. Such a downstream impact would deeply harm millions of students as they pursue a pathway towards economic mobility, and ultimately would be detrimental harm our nation's future.

The landscape of K-12 education funding in the United States is exceptionally complex. When it comes to funding an equitable, high-quality education for English Learners (ELs), discussions often focus on federal funds under Title III of the "Every Student Succeeds Act" (ESSA)--an important source of funding for many aspects of ELs' education, but by no means the only one. There are numerous policy and budget levers that determine the level of resources available to support these students. This issue brief provides an overview of these policy and budget mechanisms, how they work, and why they are relevant to EL education. Among the questions it explores: What federal, state, and local funding sources are available? What administrative considerations are at play, such as the rules for how funds are distributed and used? And what do stakeholders within and outside a school system need to know to be empowered to participate in the budgeting process? Particularly as school systems navigate the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, the associated economic downturn, and forecasted budget cuts, it will be important to ensure that ELs and their unique learning needs are a priority. The brief lays out a number of ways actors at the federal, state, and local levels--from Congress and the U.S. Department of Education, to state education agencies, districts and schools, and interested community members--could work to increase the adequacy and equity of funding for EL education.

Building on the inaugural survey conducted three years prior, the 2015 CASE Community College Alumni Relations survey collected additional insightful data on staffing, structure, communications, engagement, and fundraising. This white paper features key data on alumni relations programs at community colleges across the United States. The paper compares results from 2015 and 2012 across such areas as the structure, operations and budget for alumni relations, alumni data collection and management, alumni communications and engagement strategy, as well as fundraising activities with alumni. The latest snapshot from community colleges across the United States shows that alumni relations has made progress. Survey questions are appended. [For the prior White Paper, "Benchmarking Alumni Relations in Community Colleges: Findings from a 2012 CASE Survey. CASE White Paper," ED571308.]

In 2015, the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) administered the Digital Instructional Materials Survey regarding state policies and guidelines for the acquisition, vetting, and funding of instructional resources for all 50 states, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Based upon this survey, independent research, and interviews with educators from a variety of educational and government organizations, this publication strives to inform educators, non-traditional instructional materials publishers, technology developers, and investors on the increasingly supportive environment of states with respect to innovation around digital instructional materials. Seven states reported that they have statutes requiring the implementation of digital instructional materials in the next five years. This is a dramatic shift in state policy, as legislators are now recognizing the benefits of digital learning and the need for instructional materials that are available via devices anywhere, anytime. Additionally, all states that have a textbook definition now include digital materials as part of that definition. States are working towards ensuring a vibrant marketplace with more than half of states reporting that they are creating policies and specific procedures for companies to follow when selling digital instructional materials. This report is organized around the following six areas: (1) essential conditions; (2) state acquisition policies; (3) funding and budget implications; (4) state policies; (5) current progress; and (6) next steps. This report complements the Digital Instructional Materials Acquisition Portal (DMAPS), an online database with details regarding each state's policies and practices regarding the acquisition of digital instructional materials. The following are appended: (1) Endnotes; (2) Website: Digital Instructional Materials Acquisition Policies for States (DMAPS); (3) State Digital Instructional Materials Policy Highlights; (4) School/District Exemplars; (5) Glossary; (6) Licensing for Digital Resources Chart; and (7) K12 Instructional Materials Acquisition Process.

With public school budgets pinched and educational demands rising, "business as usual" is becoming less and less tenable in American schools. Taxpayers, parents, teachers, principals, and students are expected to do more with fewer resources. But what's the best way to go about slimming down and shaping up the system of public education? Which cost-saving strategies trim the bottom line while safeguarding the interests of kids? Which might have a better chance of succeeding in the court of public opinion? This paper addresses these questions and more. The authors asked respondents to grapple with various cost-cutting measures and budgetary trade-offs that district leaders are facing in today's harsh economic climate. Results are based on 1,009 interviews conducted in March 2012 with a randomly selected, nationally representative sample of adults eighteen and older. (The statistical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points). Key findings include: (1) The public is aware of the impact of the nation's economic challenges on their local public schools, and they don't believe things are going to get better any time soon. They are far more likely to think that solutions lie in cutting costs than in raising taxes or taking a wait-and-see approach. Yet the verdict is mixed on the schools' capacity to manage money efficiently; (2) The public approves a number of specific cost-cutting measures; (3) If teachers must be let go, however, their effectiveness should drive layoff decisions, even at the expense of losing seasoned instructors or increasing class size. Still, the public much prefers limiting class size in the core subject areas than in other subjects; (4) When it comes to budget cuts, special education is not immune as far as most Americans are concerned. That's not to say the commitment of Americans to educate children with special needs is waning--it's not. But they have concerns about the growth, cost, and effectiveness of serving these kids well; (Of eleven possible cost-cutting strategies that districts might deploy, just two were rejected by a majority of survey respondents: (1) By a 66 percent to 24 percent margin, the public rejects "shortening the school year by requiring employees to take unpaid days off"; (b) By a 70 percent to 23 percent margin, the public disapproves of "reducing non-teaching staff such as aides, librarians and school nurses to the bare minimum"; and (6) In three other areas, the public is split about cost cutting: charging fees for sports and extracurricular activities, utilizing non-certified teachers in certain subjects, and making more extensive use of virtual education. Appended are: (1) Methodology; and (2) Complete Survey Results. (Contains 14 figures and 9 endnotes.) [Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Amber M. Winkler.]

To blunt the effects of the economic downturn that began in 2008, President Obama called for, and on February 13, 2009 the Congress passed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This federal economic stimulus package had three primary goals: to save and create jobs, to cultivate economic activity and long-term growth, and to increase accountability and transparency in government spending. Federal appropriations for the ARRA eventually totaled approximately $840 billion and were directed toward tax cuts, funding for entitlement programs, and investments in infrastructure, health, energy, education, and other programs. In the area of education, the Act provided economic stimulus funds to states for both K-12 public schools (the focus of this report) and postsecondary education institutions. ARRA also included additional fiscal year (FY) 2009 funding for the Title I program for disadvantaged children and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 2010, states and school districts received an additional $10 billion to save or create educators' jobs through the Education Jobs Fund legislation. The Center on Education Policy (CEP) at the George Washington University has tracked the use of ARRA and Education Jobs funds and the implementation of ARRA-related reforms since these laws were enacted. Between December 2009 and February 2012, CEP released six reports looking at the effects of the ARRA on K-12 education across the United States, all available at www.cep-dc.org. These six reports were based on survey responses of state and local officials charged with implementing the ARRA and Education Jobs programs. In particular, CEP surveyed state education agency (SEA) officials and governors' staff and conducted nationally representative surveys of school district officials, including superintendents, chief financial officers, and program directors. Responses to all of the surveys were kept anonymous to encourage frank answers. This summary report synthesizes findings across all six reports and distills themes and conclusions based on a retrospective look at the effects of ARRA on K-12 education. Several main conclusions can be drawn from CEP's surveys of officials on the front lines of implementing ARRA. First, ARRA funding helped to blunt the effects of the budget cuts in K-12 education faced by most school districts and many states. Second, the ARRA largely met its primary purpose of saving or creating K-12 teaching jobs and other education-related jobs. Third, in addition to saving jobs, ARRA has encouraged states to pursue a common reform agenda centered on the four assurances tied to the receipt of ARRA funds--namely, adopting rigorous standards and assessments, implementing statewide student data systems, enhancing teacher effectiveness, and improving low-performing schools. States and districts have used stimulus funding to implement these priorities and have made progress in carrying out many aspects of these four reforms. Even so, key activities related to the reforms have not yet been implemented, and in some cases budget cuts have led states and districts to slow or postpone action on the reforms. Fourth, the funding benefits of ARRA appear, to a large extent, to have bypassed state education agencies, which play a crucial role in implementing the ARRA and state reform agendas. Many SEAs report having experienced funding cuts and staffing reductions over the past few years, which have affected their capacity to improve K-12 education. The remainder of this report provides background on the ARRA and Education Jobs programs and highlights findings and themes about the impact of these programs.

This brief summarizes the ways that schools and their teachers can simultaneously reach more students with excellent teaching, expand teachers' career opportunities, and sustainably fund higher pay and other priorities. This is based on Public Impact's school models that use job redesign and technology to extend the reach of excellent teachers to more students, for more pay, within budget. Most of these models create new roles and collaborative teams, enabling all teachers and staff to develop and contribute to excellence. This brief summarizes: (1) School models for extending the reach of excellent teachers; (2) How reach models can generate savings that schools can use for higher pay and other priorities; (3) How schools can use savings, including paying teachers more; and (4) A comparison of savings and cost factors, and of pay increase potential, when using different reach models. Model overview table is appended. (Contains 3 notes.)

By late 2008, the United States was in the midst of its most severe economic recession since the 1930s, brought on by a collapse in real estate prices and exacerbated by the failure of many large banks and financial institutions. Heeding calls from economists, Congress and the Obama administration passed an historic law in early 2009 to stimulate the economy with $862 billion in new spending and tax cuts. This law, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), included nearly $100 billion in one-time funding for new and existing education programs, an historic sum given that annual appropriations for federal education programs at the time were approximately $60 billion. The largest single education program included in the law was the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, a new $48.6 billion program that provided direct grant aid to state governments in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The program was designed to help states maintain support for both public K-12 and higher education funding that they might have otherwise cut in response to budget shortfalls brought on by the economic downturn. This paper examines how eight states and their public institutions of higher education used the funds to support higher education and what will happen to these institutions' budgets in fiscal year 2012 when the funds are no longer available. It uses information collected through phone interviews with officials in state higher education offices and at public institutions of higher education to determine how states distributed the funds and how institutions actually used them. Using this information, some general conclusions can be made about how the ARRA funds actually affected higher education in America and what is likely to happen once the funds are no longer available. While every state used the funds differently, the author and her colleagues find that the states they studied used the vast majority of their funds to support salaries and benefits for instructional staff. And while these funds played an important part in keeping these institutions of higher education financially solvent in 2009, 2010, and 2011, many institutions will face budgetary challenges in 2012 and beyond. This paper is the third in a three-part series examining these trends. (Contains 17 notes.) [For related reports, see "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending in the States: Part 1 of 4. Issue Brief" (ED540794); and "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending: Part 2 of 4" (ED540795).]

By late 2008, the United States was in the midst of its most severe economic recession since the 1930s, brought on by a collapse in real estate prices and exacerbated by the failure of many large banks and financial institutions. Heeding calls from economists, Congress and the Obama administration passed a historic law in early 2009 to stimulate the economy with $862 billion in new spending and tax cuts. This law, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), included nearly $100 billion in one-time funding for new and existing education programs, a historic sum given that annual appropriations for federal education programs at the time were approximately $60 billion. This paper is the second in a four-part series examining these trends. Forthcoming reports will provide a study of how select states used SFSF funds and a look at the status of state higher education funding after the SFSF monies are no longer available at the end of fiscal year 2011. Division of ARRA Education Stabilization Funds by Education Sector and Year are appended. (Contains 3 tables and 14 notes.) [For related reports, see "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending in the States: Part 1 of 4. Issue Brief" (ED540794); and "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending Part 3: State Case Studies" (ED540796).]

By late 2008, the United States was in the midst of its most severe economic recession since the 1930s, brought on by a collapse in real estate prices and exacerbated by the failure of many large banks and financial institutions. Heeding calls from economists, Congress and the Obama administration passed a historic law in early 2009 to stimulate the economy with $862 billion in new spending and tax cuts. This paper is the first in a four-part series examining the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's of 2009 (ARRA's) effect on state spending for higher education. The forthcoming reports will provide an analysis of state allocations of State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF) to higher education, a study of how those funds were used in select states, and a look at the status of state higher education funding after the SFSF monies are no longer available at the end of fiscal year 2011. (Contains 3 tables and 9 notes.) [For related reports, see "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending: Part 2 of 4" (ED540795); and "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending Part 3: State Case Studies" (ED540796).]

The persistence of the Great Recession provides us with the opportunity to engage in a long overdue conversation about public investments in America's children. Less than ten percent of the Fiscal Year 2010 federal budget of $3.603 trillion is allocated to children and youth. This percentage is likely to decline in the next decade if current laws and policies remain unchanged. While state and local governments spend more on children than the federal government, especially for public education, these investments vary greatly from state to state. The fiscal fragility of governments at all levels, combined with growing disparities in family resources, points directly to the vulnerability of large numbers of America's children. At the same time, the Baby Boomer population, born between 1946 and 1964, is a very large group with increasing needs for health care and retirement benefits. This older generation will depend on the health, productivity, and well-being of the children and youth growing up today. It makes good sense to invest in our children, but how much should that be? How should a society like ours--a leading democracy with strong values of individualism and entrepreneurial effectiveness--make the tough choices about allocating public resources to each generation of Americans? How do we respect a wide range of diversity in our communities, yet share a common sense of purpose as a nation? The annual essay, "Tough Choices: Creating a New Social Contract for America" (Ruby Takanishi and Lisa Chen) included herein recommends specific policies that should be considered in the courageous conversations that must take place immediately, so that corrective actions can follow shortly thereafter. (Lists 24 resources.)

(Purpose) The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between certain characteristics of US states and their budgeting systems for higher education (HE), and to derive implications for Japanese HE budgeting policy from the results. (Methodology) The US's State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) conducted a 30-item questionnaire survey on state higher education budgeting for all 50 states from January to March in 2008 (response rate: 78%). Following general and simple analyses, the following four hypotheses were formed and examined with empirical analyses: (H1) there is a significant correlation between the importance of HE budget in the overall state budget and the adoption of funding formulae; (H2) inflation and fluctuation in enrolment affect whether the funding formula approach or the baseline-incremental approach is selected; (H3) justifications of public financing to the state HE sector are influenced by the cost-sharing status between households and the state government; and (H4) the governors' budget proposal and the legislative passed budget are influenced by certain external factors. (Results) H1 was proved with satisfactory statistical significance. However, H2 showed a result opposite to that originally expected, and H3 could not be proved statistically. These results indicate that the funding formula approach is used more frequently by states which recognize their HE budget as more important comparative to other states and which have experienced greater fluctuations in inflation than the other states over recent years. With regards to H4, the financial burden of households did not affect the justifications selected. Governors' proposals were significantly influenced by the budget volume of primary and secondary education, while legislative passed budgets were largely determined by state unemployment rate. (Conclusions) The results show that funding formulae are in use in more unstable situations and that the decision makers executive and legislative branches do not recognize the importance of the bases of budgeting requests and justifications on the providers' side. (Recommendations) The budgeting system for Japanese national universities is simply dominated by fiscal reform measures, and has much to learn from the strategic decision-making involved in US state HE budgeting systems. (Additional Data) Manuscript contains 16 tables, 13 figures and 35 endnotes.

The United States Department of Education's "Annual Performance Report" (APR) for fiscal year (FY) 2009 provides detailed information on how the outcomes of the strategic performance measures identified in its "FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan" and updated in the "Fiscal Year 2008 Performance and Accountability Report" were met. It also details areas in need of improvement that the Department must address for those measures not meeting or exceeding targeted expectations. This year, the Department is reporting on its "FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan". A new strategic plan for FY 2010-2015 is under development. The Department will assess all measures that appear in this report and decide which will be reported in support of the FY 2010-2015 plan, which will be revised and which will need to be discontinued and replaced. Retained, revised and discontinued measures will appear in the "FY 2010 Annual Performance Report" during the transition between plans. In FY 2009, the Department voluntarily participated in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Pilot Program for Alternative Approaches to Performance and Accountability Reporting in an effort to present more streamlined information to the public, Congress and the President. The "Annual Performance Report" (APR) is required under the OMB Pilot Program. The initial report, the "Agency Financial Report," released in November 2009, provided detailed information on the Department's financial performance and stewardship over its financial resources in accordance with the "Government Performance and Results Act of 1993" ("GPRA"). Appended are: (1) Summary of Inspector General Audits and Government Accountability Office Reports by Goal; (2) Summary of Performance Evaluations by Goal; (3) Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations; and (4) Selected Department Web Links.

This literature review looks at the impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 on English language learners (ELLs), educators and schools. A brief overview of the current state of English as a second language teaching for adult learners will first be described. Then the importance of the enactment of the NCLB of 2001 is mentioned. Both the problems and the benefits the NCLB has created for ELLs and educators and schools will be presented. This literature review shows that although the NCLB has posed challenges to ELLs, teachers, and schools, the benefits it has brought for ELLs in particular and the education system in general outweigh the problems and challenges. The NCLB Act of 2001 can be deemed as a victory for disadvantaged student groups in the United States both in terms of legal written rights to be provided with quality English language education and budget allocation.

The Center for National University Finance and Management in Japan requested a study that would investigate the specifics of the higher education budgeting process in each of the states. Recognizing the value such a study would have for its members, the national association of State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) created a survey tailored to fit the needs and interests of the SHEEO community as well as satisfy the requirements of the contract with the Center. The survey was intended to gather the details necessary to provide a greater understanding of the factors that most significantly affect decisions states make regarding their budgets. The survey of budgeting practices focused on fiscal year 2007. While budgeting procedures are generally stable, they have changed and continue to change over time. SHEEO gathered information relative to three key components of the higher education budgeting process: (1) Operating budget request, including components of requested funding and the respective roles of institutions, sectors, systems, and states; (2) Operating budget negotiations, in particular, the respective roles and interests of the governor, executive agencies, and legislature in determining appropriations; and (3) Operating budget allocations, primarily legal constraints, processes, and other factors affecting the allocation of appropriations across institutions. Survey results indicate that higher education budgeting practices are diverse, complex, and dynamic. No two states take exactly the same approach to the budgeting process. Each state aims to meet its own needs. Since no two states have the same needs, each state must develop a process that will best address its needs and goals. These processes are constantly evolving as conditions in the states change. Three appendices are included: (1) State Budgeting Processes Survey Instrument; (2) Catalog of Additional State References; and (3) State Summary. (Contains 2 footnotes, 2 figures and 14 tables.)

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) the federal government is pumping nearly $790 billion dollars into state and local coffers to strengthen the United States economy. In order to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible, states are being asked to invest much of this funding into regions within 30 days, and to have the funding obligated and spent within the next 18 months. In addition to getting the money out quickly, states and regions have the enormous challenge of having to figure out how to make the best and most strategic use of the funding. Most important, is how to do this so that low-income youth and adults can attain the postsecondary credentials they need to earn family sustaining wages. Presented in this paper are some basic steps states and regions might consider taking to determine how to use the stimulus. First, there are three points to keep in mind: (1) ARRA funding, and whatever system might be created with the stimulus and other available dollars, "are the means to an end"; (2) the goal is to get people jobs and jump start the economy; and (3) to have a sustained effect, short-term actions need to be part of a long-term plan.

The system that finances Michigan's schools from kindergarten through 12th grade is a perennial topic of conversation among policymakers, parents, taxpayers and voters. A constructive discussion of this issue, however, requires a sound knowledge of the financial workings of Michigan's elementary and secondary school system. This knowledge is precisely what the authors have attempted to provide. While the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has developed numerous policy recommendations over the years, this primer is exclusively informational. This primer addresses the following: (1) how revenues are raised for Michigan's elementary and secondary public school system; (2) how money is distributed to education programs and school districts once it is collected by various taxing authorities; and (3) how districts budget monies to be spent on the various activities involved in operating schools and other educational programming. This book is arranged in four sections. The first--and the shortest--is "A Brief Overview of the Structure of Michigan's Public School System," which defines a few basic terms and sketches the main local, state and federal agencies involved in financing Michigan's public school system. This overview should help readers unfamiliar with Michigan's public school structure navigate the remainder of the book. The second, third and fourth sections are considerably longer than the first and cover the three areas: tax revenues, distribution of revenues and financial management of those revenues by school districts. Appended are: (1) U.S. Department of Education Spending in Michigan; (2) Summary of "Durant" Court Decisions; and (3) Guide to a New School Finance Electronic Module. An index is included. (Contains 29 graphs, 238 footnotes, and 410 endnotes, footnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Glenda Rader, Darcy Marusich, Alison Taylor, Steve Zakem, John Schwartz, Thomas Moline, Charles Pisoni, Gary Start, Paul Soma, Tim Yeadon, Mary Ann Cleary, Douglas Newcombe, Vicki Duso, Clark Volz, Howard Heideman, Paul Brown, Phil Boone, Patrick Dillon, Jayne Klein, and Dianne Easterling.]

The consolidation of rural schools in the United States has been a controversial topic for policy-makers, school administrators, and rural communities since the 1800s. Issues in the consolidation movement have been concerns of efficiency, economics, student achievement, school size, and community identity. Throughout the history of schooling in America, school consolidation has been a way to solve rural issues in the eyes of policy makers and many education officials. Today, faced with declining enrollments and financial cutbacks, many rural schools and communities continue to deal with challenges associated with possible school reorganizations and consolidations. This paper, developed by the NREA Consolidation Task Force, provides a review of the literature on rural school consolidation, defines consolidation, addresses current research and issues related to consolidation with respect to school size, economies of scale, and student achievement, and concludes with proposed recommendations for the NREA Executive Board. Most importantly, it is concluded that there is little if any proven benefit to consolidation, and that rural communities should make every possible effort to maintain a physical school presence, while rural community and school leaders should take into account every possible variable to decide if consolidation is really the best option.

This document is the implementation plan for the Information Technology for the 21st Century (IT[squared]) initiative. With this initiative, the Federal Government is making an important re-commitment to fundamental research in information technology. The initiative proposes $366 million in increased investments in computing, information, and communications research and development (R&D). Six agencies--all highly dependent on advances in information technology--are participating in the initiative: Department of Defense (DoD) (including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA]); Department of Energy (DOE); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); National Institutes of Health (NIH); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and National Science Foundation (NSF). Each agency will bring its own unique mix of capabilities and expertise to bear on an appropriate subset of the R&D objectives of the initiative. The initiative will extend existing R&D and provide opportunities to address new, complementary R&D topics in three key areas: long term information technology R&D leading to fundamental advances in computing and communications; advanced computing infrastructure to facilitate scientific and engineering discoveries of national interest; and research on the economic and social implications of the Information Revolution, and the training of additional information technology workers at universities. Details for each of these areas are presented in three sections of this report, with each section providing an introduction and strategy and descriptions of specific agency efforts. A final section presents the management plan, outlining IT[squared] interagency management objectives and management structure; general implementation guidelines; reporting; and the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) and other external advisory groups. A table at the beginning of the report shows the proposed IT(squared) fiscal year 2000 budget, in millions of dollars, for each agency and each of the three key areas. (AEF)

A study of 207 faculty at a state university in the southeastern United States and 102 faculty members at the University of Valencia (Spain) examined demographic variables and attitudes toward money, income, and life satisfaction. Demographic variables (sex, age, education, marital status, race, current job experience, total work experience, and number of job changes) and money attitudes (using factors titled budget, evil, equity, success, and motivator) were used to predict self-reported income and life satisfaction. Using a five-point scale, participants rated their satisfaction with personal/family life and life as a whole. Multiple regression analyses showed that predictors of income for Americans were: age, equity, gender (male), budget, and education; for the Spanish sample, work experience, education, evil, and sex were predictors of income. In both samples, married professors reported higher life satisfaction. In measuring life satisfaction, other predictors for the American sample were intrinsic job satisfaction, success, sex, and level of education. For the Spanish sample predictors were extrinsic job satisfaction, and age. High income Spanish faculty tended to believe that money does not lead to unethical behavior and that money is not evil. Two appended tables provide statistical data; also appended is the money ethic scale used for measurement. (Contains 36 references.) (CH)

Based on data obtained from the state supervisors of foreign languages by the Joint National Committee for Languages, this brief report lists the threats that jeopardize the status of language programs in the United States. These include: budget constraints; the possibility of further minimizing the federal role in education; reversing the education reform efforts achieved during the 103rd Congress with the implementation of Goals 2000 and "Improving America's Schools"; and the isolationist attitude pervading Congress, which could affect any and all programs that are international in scope. Also detailed are the threats that loom at the state and local levels. The final section highlights the threats to language education in a select number of states, including New York, Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina, Colorado, California, Washington, Georgia, and Massachusetts. (JL)

In 1992 the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) surveyed administrators in member libraries regarding resource strategies of the previous three years. This paper summarizes revenue activities, adaptive tactics, and budgetary practices reported by 87 Canadian, U.S. private, and U.S. public university libraries and establishes a baseline for comparing these factors. The period from 1990 to 1992 has been a difficult one for ARL members, with the largest reductions in public support experienced by public university libraries. All respondents sought outside revenues to supplement their campus allocations. Virtually every responding library had experienced some form of internal restructuring, and three of every five had eliminated positions over the three-year survey period. Administrators valued flexibility in fund reallocation very highly, but few had much control over carrying unspent funds to the next year. While 88% of respondents expected the demand for services to grow, only 32% anticipated budget increases. Greater selectivity in activities and greater library sharing are likely to result from the economic realities. Three appendixes contain the survey summary results, the cover letter, and the questionnaire. (Contains 33 references.) (SLD)

In this report, Pre-K Now, a campaign of the Pew Center on the States, reviews state budgets to see which legislatures understand the economic and educational value of high-quality, voluntary pre-kindergarten. In light of the tough fiscal environment, the news for young children is surprisingly good. A chart that documents pre-k budget allocations for FY10 for all 50 states and the District of Columbia is included. Fifteen states, including one in the second year of a biennial budget, passed pre-k funding increases, and six flat funded. Enrollment-based increases are also expected in all nine states and the District where pre-k is supported through the school funding formula. Ten decreased investments in pre-k. One state had not finalized a pre-k budget at press time, and 10 provide no state funding for pre-k. The net total increase for FY10 is more than $64 million, and nationwide, state investments will reach $5.3 billion.

In this report, Pre-K Now, a campaign of the Pew Center on the States, evaluates gubernatorial proposals to determine which leaders see voluntary, high-quality pre-kindergarten programs as essential. The news is good: The majority of governors are prioritizing pre-k, and though more modest than in recent years, gubernatorial proposals for FY10 still call for increasing state early education investments by almost 4 percent to $5.4 billion, nationally. A chart detailing the FY10 pre-k budget proposals of all 50 governors and the mayor of the District of Columbia and compares them with the final appropriations from FY09 is included. Fourteen governors are recommending nearly $150 million in new investments, and 13 more are proposing to protect current investments by flat funding their state programs. The chart also notes which governors used the unique opportunity afforded by their state of the state addresses to champion pre-k.

This is the fifth edition of the State Governance Action Report that has been produced since 2000 by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges' (AGB's) Ingram Center for Public Trusteeship and Governance. Focusing primarily on state and higher education policies directly affecting governance, trusteeship, and institutionally related foundations, this issue of the Report reminds everyone that America's unique form of governance remains unsettled in many states and subject to tinkering in several others. Much of the policy discussions and legislation described in this issue is intended to improve board, trustee, and institutional performance and the achievement of state goals and higher education agendas. Long-term measurable results, however, may be hard to assess. The budget shortfalls noted in the Report also affect public institutions' relationships with their states as proposals to either reexamine or restructure governance, accountability, and reporting requirements emerge from state policymakers. Some institutions have realized that the state is no longer the senior partner in terms of investment, but still the senior partner in terms of control. Without question, the national imperative to educate more students successfully until completion of a degree or certificate has major implications for governance, including the ability of governance systems to leverage improved performance from the institutions they oversee. The uncertain fiscal climate and budget shortfalls affect not only college and university operations, but also student access and affordability. Nevertheless, adhering to their public missions, many institutions are willing to commit to affordability, cost management and productivity, higher degree productivity, and transparency facilitated by effective governance. The emerging College Promise project undertaken by New Jersey's state colleges and universities, still being finalized this summer, may be the best example. But several statewide efforts described in this report are underway to address these issues and create a broad public agenda for higher education: Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas, just to name some. [For "State Governance Action Report, 2007", see ED517373.]