Search

At their best, K-12 public school systems can be engines of social and economic mobility. Unfortunately, schools in lower-income districts -- whose students have the greatest academic needs -- often receive less funding than their counterparts in more affluent districts. Discussions about closing these funding gaps usually zoom all the way out to the state level or all the way down to the district level. But a big part of the problem lies in how funding is distributed across districts in the same metro area -- and in state policies that allow wealthy communities to raise and keep large amounts of local revenue exclusively for their own schools. "Leveling the Landscape: An Analysis of K-12 Funding Inequities Within Metro Areas" takes a closer look at the scale and sources of education funding within 123 large metro areas in 38 states, focusing on funding disparities among districts serving the same region. Key takeaways include: (1) a majority of public school students (62%) live in large metro areas with more than five districts -- a level of fragmentation that makes funding disparities more likely; (2) within fragmented metro areas, wealthy districts often generate much more local funding per student than less affluent districts; (3) state policies, despite their progressive tilt, rarely bridge this gap -- and often don't even come close; (4) in 49 of the 123 large metro areas we examined, school districts in affluent areas receive the most funding per pupil; (5) closing the state and local funding gap between districts within the metro areas we examined would cost $26 billion in additional state funding per year; and (6) more ambitious policies can greatly reduce or even eliminate funding disparities. The report also explores policy tools state leaders can use to ensure all districts within the same metro area at the very least receive similar funding per student and ideally, set the stage for even greater levels of per-pupil funding to flow to higher-needs districts.

Most Americans today need some education beyond high school to secure a well-paying job, and higher education is a key factor in social and economic mobility. But higher education is not accessible to all students. To further equalize opportunity, states must understand options for improving the way they fund higher education. America's public K-12 system has been grappling with similar funding disparities for decades -- challenges that offer important lessons for postsecondary funding. Bellwether's analysis, "Strengthening State Higher Education Funding: Lessons Learned From K-12," identifies insights and lessons from K-12 finance policy that may be instructive as states rework how they fund higher education. This report explores four topics and associated questions that are also relevant across K-12 education: (1) Equity: How can states distribute funding to students and public IHEs with the greatest needs?; (2) Adequacy: How much funding is enough to achieve the desired outcomes?; (3) Cost Sharing: How can local governments and states share the cost of public higher education?; and (4) Stability: How can public IHEs secure consistent and predictable funding?

English learners (ELs) are one of the fastest-growing student groups in the U.S. K-12 system, making up about one in 10 students enrolled in public schools nationwide. Despite research showing that EL students need more resources and supports to be successful in school, funding at the federal, state, and local levels to provide those additional resources is largely inadequate and not well targeted to students' needs. This brief addresses the following questions: (1) Why is funding for EL students important? (2) What characteristics in the EL population are important to consider in funding systems? and (3) How are programs and services for EL students currently funded?

In this report, the authors propose and simulate a framework for a new foundation formula approach to distributing federal K-12 education aid. This proposal, with full funding and compliance, would provide every school district with the estimated revenues necessary to reach the goal of average national outcomes in mathematics and reading. The framework is designed to target assistance where it is most needed by allocating federal funds based not only on student need (as is currently the case), but also on states' and school districts' ability (and willingness) to contribute themselves, given their capacity to raise revenue--in other words, based on their "effort." [The following contributed to this report: Burnie Bond, Preston Green III, Esther Quintero, Mary Cathryn Ricker, John See, Ajay Srikanth, and Vicki Thomas.]

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act) is the primary federal law aimed at developing and supporting career and technical education (CTE) programs for secondary and postsecondary students. In the 109th Congress, the Perkins Act was reauthorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (Perkins IV; P.L. 109-270). The Perkins Act was most recently amended in the 115th Congress by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V; P.L. 115-224). Perkins V was signed into law by President Trump in July 2018 and went into effect on July 1, 2019. The purpose of the act is to develop more fully the academic knowledge and technical and employability skills of secondary and postsecondary students who elect to enroll in CTE programs. This report provides an overview of Perkins V, including its design, implementation, and funding as described in statute. After a brief introduction to CTE, the report is divided into sections that focus on a detailed description of the Basic State Grants (BSG), discuss National Activities and other programs under Title I, and summarize additional provisions under Title II. A final section summarizes Perkins V authorizations and appropriations. The appendices provide a brief history of federal involvement in CTE as well as formulas and allocations for the BSG.

Research suggests that there are several positive impacts of mental health programming in K-12 educational settings, including improvements in students' overall health, academic and social outcomes. Additionally, comprehensive and effective school mental health systems can lead to a variety of beneficial outcomes for schools and communities, including improved school climate and safety, reduced exclusionary discipline, and improved youth, family and educator engagement. Recognizing that education systems can support the full continuum of student mental wellness in many ways -- including universal prevention and wellness promotion, early identification, targeted intervention and treatment -- state education leaders continue to make student mental health a priority. Underscoring how crucial it is that education systems address the mental wellness of students, research shows that of those students who access the treatment they need, at least 70% begin their journey to treatment at school. In order to support the whole child throughout their educational experience, state leaders may explore how to effectively use financial resources to provide mental health services and supports to students. Funding for student mental health is used to support a variety of activities and comes from several sources, including various state and federal funding streams. This Policy Brief explores and describes common sources of funding that states use to support K-12 school-based mental health programming and provides an overview of how states use those sources of funding to serve students.

The National Association of Scholars believes that higher education should gather scholars and students to cultivate excellence and pursue the truth, transmit the heritage of Western civilization to a new generation, prepare cultured and virtuous citizens, and train students for vocational success. American colleges and universities should embody academic excellence and foster it in their students. Institutions of higher education should strive to make their classes affordable, so as to make higher education accessible for any qualified student. This policy guide provides a guideline of 40 detailed suggestions for legislative reforms. These initiatives, if enacted by Congress, would encourage reform of America's costly, politicized, and dysfunctional system of higher education. The report is comprised of the following sections: (1) Finances; (2) Rights; (3) America; (4) Equality; (5) Regulatory Reform; and (6) Additional Proposals.

COVID-19 has provided the impetus for Congress to implement reforms, many of which are long overdue. Policymakers should take the necessary steps to restore educational autonomy to states and reduce federal regulations and compliance. This "Backgrounder" outlines six reforms that federal policymakers can undertake to free school leaders to meet the needs of families more effectively and to put more power in the hands of parents to determine where and how their children learn. These reforms are: (1) reducing burdensome federal regulations; (2) adopting the policies in the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) Act; (3) allowing Title I portability; (4) allowing Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) portability; (5) making Head Start dollars student-centered and portable; and (6) expanding the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

The Tuition and Fee Report is produced annually by the Colorado Department of Higher Education to provide detailed information on the tuition and fee rates at Colorado's public institutions, as well as to give context regarding the state funding environment in which tuition and fee rate-setting occurs. From Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 to FY 2019-20, resident tuition and fees increased an average of 1.1 percent across all of Colorado's public institutions. At four-year institutions, the average increase was 1.5 percent, and at two-year institutions, the average was 0.2 percent. This relatively small increase was in large part thanks to a significant General Fund investment of $121 million in FY 2019-20. This year, the report highlights flat tuition across nearly all the state's institutions as a result of a historic state investment of $121 million in FY 2019-20. While mandatory fees did increase at most institutions, tuition being held flat for one year demonstrates the commitment of both the state and institutions to contain costs. In accordance with C.R.S. § 23-1-105.5(2), this report provides detailed information on the tuition and fee rates that Colorado public institutions of higher education charged to resident and non-resident students and is divided into the following sections: (1) Definitions; (2) Key Findings; (3) The Process of Tuition Setting and the Relationship to Costs; (4) A Summary of Tuition and Fee Changes in the 2019-20 Fiscal Year; (5) Interstate Comparisons; and (6) Appendices which provide detailed examples and comparisons across institution type, student groups, and year-to-year comparisons. [For the 2018-19 report, see ED593343.]

Congress amended and extended the "Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education" ("Perkins IV") in 2018 with passage of the "Strengthening Career and Technical Education Act for the 21st Century" ("Perkins V"); the law became effective on July 1, 2019. "Perkins V" increases federal funding for career and technical education (CTE), including the amount available for states to spend on educating students who are incarcerated. To provide a framework and to support states as they develop their "Perkins V" plans, this report looks back at how states used "Perkins IV" funds to serve individuals in states institutions during three fiscal years (FYs) 2012-14. This report addresses four research questions: (1) What was the total amount of "Perkins IV" funds that each state made available in each of the three fiscal years (FYs 2012-14) for state institutions, including states correctional institutions?; (2) What percentage of their total grant allocation from "Perkins IV" did each state make available in each of the three fiscal years (FYs 2012-14) for all types of state institutions?; (3) How many incarcerated students in state correctional institutions received programs and services with the "Perkins IV" funds for state institutions?; and (4) What types of programs and services did states offer incarcerated students in their state correctional institutions with "Perkins IV" funds? The number of individuals served in state institutions could increase with the "Perkins V" 1 percent increase in funds made available to serve individuals in state institutions, such as state correctional institutions, juvenile justice facilities, and educational institutions that serve individuals with disabilities. The data and the information in the state narratives about the services and activities for incarcerated students may assist state and local decisions makers in developing correctional education programs with the amount made available under "Perkins V."

This report provides key insights into the difficult working conditions endured by teachers in Arizona and across the nation. Arizona provides just $8,569 in per pupil funding, the lowest among all states. In fact, Arizona provides $5,477 "less" per pupil than the national average. Arizona also invests only 2.5% of its state wealth, as measured by the gross domestic product of its economy, in K-12 public education -- the lowest percentage in the nation. And Arizona's high-need schools, as measured by district poverty levels, receive the same levels of funding as the state's low-need schools. In this report, the authors present their analysis of the condition of public school funding in Arizona and 48 other states. Using the most recently available data from the 2016-17 school year, they rank and grade each state on three core measures to answer the question: How fair is school funding in your state? The measures are: (1) Funding Level; (2) Funding Distribution; and (3) Funding Effort. Each state's rankings and grades on these school measures are presented as a tool to inform policymakers, business and community leaders, teachers, parents and students about the condition of public school funding in their state. The report is also designed to assist advocates in their efforts to improve the level and distribution of school funding for students in state public school systems.

In statehouses across the United States, policymakers annually debate how best to fund public education and how best to distribute those funds. The complexity of school finance issues facing state legislators and policymakers, however, can be daunting. To provide greater clarity and reliable information, this report offers guidance about how to create well-balanced, equitable, and efficient school finance systems focused on ensuring meaningful educational opportunities for all students. Substantial and growing research shows that money, particularly when well spent, leads to improved student performance and lifetime outcomes, especially for underserved students. The costs for failing to adequately and equitably educate all children are high for states. A cost analysis from 2007 found that a student who does not graduate from high school costs the economy approximately $240,000 over his or her lifetime in terms of lower tax contributions, higher reliance on Medicaid, higher rates of criminal activity, and higher reliance on welfare. In contrast, a high school graduate earns an estimated $630,000 more over a lifetime compared to a student who drops out. With inflation, these increased earnings would be even higher today--reaching about $765,000 per high school graduate. Creating a strong, equitable school finance system is a challenging but achievable task. This report includes a discussion of two critical foundational steps for developing a high-quality, equitable, and efficient school finance system; describes the essential building blocks used for designing that system; and includes a brief overview of three states that serve as examples for creating more equitable, high-quality school finance systems. [For the policy brief, see ED606465.]

America's education system, from kindergarten through the state university, is designed to produce college graduates. Those who stop short of at least a community-college diploma are widely regarded as failures, or at least victims of a failed system. Yet most Americans fall into this category, and current trends offer little hope for improvement. Politicians and policymakers are finally paying attention to this population--which, roughly speaking, comprises the working class--and calls for more vocational education and apprenticeships have become fashionable. But a more fundamental reordering of the nation's misshapen educational infrastructure is necessary if alternatives to the college pipeline are to take their rightful place as coequal pathways to the workforce. Key finding of the report are: (1) Fewer than one in five students travel smoothly from high school diploma to college degree to career; most Americans fail to earn even a two-year associate's degree. Students are as likely to drop out of high school, skip higher education, drop out of college, or earn a degree unnecessary to their subsequent jobs; (2) Contrary to conventional wisdom, a college degree is neither necessary nor sufficient for reaching the middle class. The wage and salary distributions for college graduates and high school graduates overlap significantly; high-earning high school graduates in a wide variety of fields that require no college degree earn substantially more than low-earning college graduates; and (3) While the potential demand for a serious Career and Technical Education (CTE) pathway is huge, the federal government spent only $1 billion on CTE in 2016 but more than $70 billion subsidizing college attendance. State and local governments spent an additional $80 billion on college and almost nothing on expanding CTE pathways. Federal spending on college has more than doubled since 1990; spending on CTE has declined.

The link between education funding levels and student outcomes is a matter of continuing debate, including in New York State. State education aid in New York follows a progressive formula that targets more aid to lower-income, higher-need school districts, yet these districts continue to dominate lists of the state's lowest performing schools. The Center for Education Pipeline Systems Change at the Rockefeller Institute of Government examines various aspects of the education system to pinpoint problems and to identify and grow programs that are improving student outcomes and success. In this brief, education spending and academic performance in New York are examined. The state's more than 4,000 public schools are ranked by academic performance, and measures of those schools' fiscal capacity and wealth and poverty measures are presented. District per pupil spending is highlighted.

"Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card" analyzes the condition of state school finance systems with a focus on the fair distribution of resources to the neediest students. The Report Card makes a number of assumptions about how school funding systems should be designed: (1) a fair funding system should provide levels of funding based on student need; (2) student poverty is the most critical variable affecting funding levels and can serve as a proxy for other measures of disadvantage, such as racial segregation, limited English proficiency, and student mobility; (3) fair funding systems are designed "progressively" so that funding increases relative to student poverty; and (4) a sufficient overall level of funding is a crucial starting point for any funding formula to be successful. The Seventh Edition of the Report Card examines the fiscal condition of the nation's schools using data from 2015. This edition of the National Report Card, like its precursors, demonstrates that school funding remains stubbornly unfair in most states. As a result, states have failed to create finance systems that support improved student outcomes, especially among the nation's low-income students. [For the sixth edition, see ED584732.]

For decades, some politicians and pundits have argued that "money does not make a difference" for school outcomes. While it is certainly possible to spend money poorly, this viewpoint is strongly contradicted by a large body of evidence from rigorous empirical research. A thorough review of research on the role of money in determining school quality leads to the following three conclusions: (1) on balance, in direct tests of the relationship between financial resources and student outcomes, money matters; (2) schooling resources that cost money are positively associated with student outcomes; and (3) sustained improvements to the level and distribution of funding across local public school districts lead to improvements in the level and distribution of student outcomes. While money alone is not the answer to all educational ills, more equitable and adequate allocation of financial inputs to schooling provides a necessary underlying condition for improving the equity and adequacy of outcomes. This document presents a brief explanation of the goal of school finance reforms, followed by summaries of the main bodies of evidence that illustrate how equitable and adequate school funding improves student outcomes. It closes with information about how certain kinds of specific investments can help to achieve these outcomes. [For "Revisiting the Age-Old Question: Does Money Matter in Education?," see ED528632. For "Does Money Matter in Education? Second Edition," see ED563793. For the policy brief to this report, see ED606471.]

Policymakers, child care providers, and parents face tradeoffs in determining how much to spend on child care, including how many hours to purchase, and the features of programs that might influence quality. Given these tradeoffs, it is useful to understand what constitutes quality, the cost of care features associated with quality, the effects of quality on child development, and the links between policies, program features, and quality. To address these issues this report reviews more than 60 studies of infant and toddler child care conducted since 1985. The report concludes with a summary of key policy relevant findings, limitations of the research for informing policy, and recommendations for filling in knowledge gaps. [This publication is a product of the Infant and Toddler Policy Research Center at NIEER, which is within the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education.]

This report provides comparisons between Kansas and relevant state groups on key demographic variables. It is a companion piece to the "KASB Comparing Kansas 2017" report that helps show how factors outside of school funding may have an impact on student outcomes for each state. In addition, the Appendix contains the detailed tables supporting the summary information on student outcomes and funding as included in the Comparing Kansas report. [For "KASB Comparing Kansas, 2017," see ED590714.]

The National Report Card (NRC) evaluates and compares the extent to which state finance systems ensure equality of educational opportunity for all children, regardless of background, family income, place of residence, or school location. It is designed to provide policymakers, educators, business leaders, parents, and the public at large with information to better understand the fairness of existing state school finance systems and how resources are allocated so problems can be identified and solutions developed. The NRC is unique among comparative school funding reports because it goes beyond simple per pupil calculations. To capture the complex differences among states, the NRC constructs four interrelated fairness measures--Funding Level, Funding Distribution, Effort and Coverage--that allow for comparisons that control for regional differences. [For the fifth edition, see ED570361.]

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.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the frequent closure of school buildings in most countries in the world and has interrupted the school attendance of at least 1.2 billion students in 2020 and 2021. Although many education systems are adapting to varying degrees, the pandemic is showing that countries' current learning infrastructures are highly vulnerable to external shocks. While schools are showing great resilience in trying to compensate for the crisis, they need to be better prepared for similar challenges. The OECD and Education International have jointly established 10 principles that can facilitate the collaboration of education authorities, the teaching profession and their organisations to navigate the crisis effectively and reshape education systems after the pandemic to reach greater levels of educational quality and equity. Education systems around the world are facing similar challenges but generated diverse approaches and experiences. These principles can also contribute to a framework for international co-operation and peer learning.

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

The National Report Card (NRC) evaluates and compares the extent to which state finance systems ensure equality of educational opportunity for all children, regardless of background, family income, place of residence, or school location. It is designed to provide policymakers, educators, business leaders, parents, and the public at large with information to better understand the fairness of existing state school finance systems and how resources are allocated so problems can be identified and solutions developed. The NRC is unique among comparative school funding reports because it goes beyond simple per pupil calculations. To capture the complex differences among states, the NRC constructs four interrelated fairness measures--Funding Level, Funding Distribution, Effort and Coverage--that allow for comparisons that control for regional differences. The data for this fifth abridged edition of the NRC, published annually since 2008, comes from the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Survey. This is the most recent data available. Major findings include: (1) School funding levels continue to be characterized by wide disparities among states, ranging from a high of $17,331 per pupil in Alaska to a low of $5,746 in Idaho; (2) Many of the lowest funded states, such as Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina and Texas, allocate a very low percentage of their states' economic capacity to fund public education; (3) Fourteen states, including Nevada, North Dakota and Illinois, are regressive, providing less funding to school districts with higher concentrations of low-income students; (4) Only a handful of states--Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and Ohio--have generally high funding levels and also provide significantly more funding to districts where student poverty is highest; and (5) Low rankings on school funding fairness correlate to poor state performance on key resource indicators, including less access to early childhood education, noncompetitive wages for teachers, and higher teacher-to-pupil ratios. Appended are: (1) Data and Methodology; (2) Fairness Measures; and (3) Resource Allocation Indicators. [For the fourth edition, see ED570392. For the companion report, "Is School Funding Fair? America's Most Fiscally Disadvantaged School Districts," see ED570415.]

About 13 percent of all public school students receive special educational services and state spending for these students is rising. In Michigan, for example, spending rose 60 percent from 2000 to 2010. While service costs have been increasing, the share of the costs covered by federal funding has been decreasing. Six years ago, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) covered 33 percent of the cost of educating students with disabilities. In 2014, that number dropped to 16 percent. As a result, states and districts are scrambling to pick up a greater share of the tab leading them to rethink their state's funding mechanisms. While all states provide some funding for students with disabilities, the way funds are distributed to districts varies greatly from state to state. This 50-state review focuses on states' primary funding mechanisms for students with disabilities. It clarifies strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms and provides other funding considerations. Tables at the end of the brief offer a 50-state comparison.

Over the past two decades, public higher education has become widely recognized for its contribution to socio-economic adjustment. This paper probes its evolution in two large and affluent democracies, the United States and Germany, whose higher education systems represent distinct ideal types. The analysis argues that public authorities in both countries have liberalized their systems to spur innovation in the provision of higher education. Yet a broad convergence in associated market expansion has coincided with divergence in its modes and consequences. Tracing how the two countries' policy regimes have created path-dependent trajectories of reform, the paper contends that the institutions associated with each state's inherited role in higher education--"enabling" in the US and "constitutive" in Germany--have empowered different social groups to shape state action. Under the influence of investors and managers, institutional drift and conversion have pushed public higher education toward corporatization in the United States. In contrast, interventions by faculty and students have moderated the effects of institutional displacement and layering on the German system's stratification. Given the sector's growing importance, this analysis carries important implications for the comparative study of capitalist evolution. [A bibliography is included.]

While the United States was recovering from the recent economic stress caused by the Great Recession, individual state economies were improving at a slow pace. In 2012, state education budgets came to a crossroads, as most states had exhausted their allocations of federal stimulus dollars. Prior editions of this report noted how many states used stimulus funds distributed through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to support the state's share of education funding from 2009 through 2011. One study shows that many states used the stimulus funds to offset cuts in state education aid, effectively filling holes in their overall state budgets. The data in this Fourth Edition show that by 2012, most states had failed to restore state aid to pre-Recession levels or to otherwise close education budget gaps that resulted when stimulus funds were depleted. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that at least 30 states are providing less state aid (inflation adjusted) per student in 2015 compared to 2008. Local revenues also suffered in the aftermath of the recession because of declining property values. Even when property values do improve, revenue gains often lag behind by years. As this report documents, states have yet to make progress in restoring cuts triggered by the recession, let alone meet their responsibility to fund at levels sufficient to ensure all students an equal opportunity to learn. This failure directly impacts local districts and schools as they struggle without the funds necessary to provide essential resources and meet student needs. Even as school funding has yet to rebound to pre-Recession levels, states are adopting the more challenging Common Core curriculum standards and assessments, and these mandates come with added cost. This National Report Card shines a spotlight on those states that, despite the effects of the Recession, are making the effort to provide fair school funding. The report also highlights those states that have not responded despite the recovery, and continue to fall behind. A conversation on how the states finance public education is long overdue and urgently needed. The hope is that this report contributes to the national dialogue on achieving the goal of preparing children for college and career. Appended are: (1) Data and Methodology; (2) National Child Poverty Rates; and (3) Fairness Measures and Resource Allocation Indicators. [For the third edition, see ED570455.]

This revenue study is based on Fiscal Year 2010-11 (FY11) data for each of 30 selected states plus the District of Columbia (D.C.). Traditional school districts and public charter schools were analyzed and aggregated "statewide." For each state, one to three "focus areas" were selected based on larger concentrations of charter students--most focus areas are large cities, some are metropolitan counties. Traditional school districts and charter schools were analyzed separately in each focus area. The analytic team collected and analyzed all revenues, public and private, flowing to traditional district and public charter schools. FY11 funding includes Federal, State, Local, Other, PublicIndeterminate, and Indeterminate sources. This revenue study relies on one general standard: find and analyze 100% of the dollars for the states and cities under review. Certain adjustments were made to FY11 figures, eliminating adult education and PreK revenues. The goal was to make district and charter figures as comparable as possible. The study findings raise several concerns: a 55% increase in the weighted per pupil disparity amount favoring districts between FY07 and FY11; little improvement in charter schools' access to local public tax revenues or facilities funding; and, state aid systems that systematically deny charter students the same funding levels provided to district students. When will charter schools see a reduction in the funding disparity? When will public school students experience resource equity? Clearly, neither of these events occurred in the FY11 round of research. School finance and policy levers are available to state education agencies that want to equalize charter funding. It is not a matter of intellect but, instead, of building political will to advance the goal of equity for district and charter school students.

The third edition of the National Report Card examines the condition of states' finance systems as the country emerges from the Great Recession, but is still wrestling with its consequences. As in prior editions, this Third Edition of the National Report Card continues to make the case for states to take immediate and longer-term action to improve the fairness of their school finance systems. The Report builds on previous analyses to highlight the repercussions of the financial crisis on the fairness of states' school funding systems. This Edition also presents some additional indicators that exemplify how school finance policies affect the distribution of resources across districts. This data further illustrates the importance of fair school funding as the essential precondition for the delivery of a high-quality education throughout the states. To meet the pressing national imperative to improve educational outcomes, the states must develop finance systems designed to provide a sufficient level of funding that is fairly distributed so that all students, no matter where they live, have the opportunity to learn. Two appendices are included: (1) National Child and Student Poverty Rates; and (2) Federal Equity Commission Report. [For the second edition, see ED533413.]

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

How a state chooses to design its system of funding schools is ultimately a question of education governance, determining who--state policymakers, school districts, or school principals--gets to make the decisions about how and where funding is spent. States have two primary ways of funding schools: the foundation, or base funding that is intended to cover the basic costs of education (teacher salaries, textbooks, materials, and more); and categorical funding targeted to specific purposes (reducing class sizes, programs for English language learners, special education, and more). States have taken varying approaches to categorical grants, some relying on them heavily and others rarely or not at all. This issue brief provides a national landscape on the use of categorical funds by states, the number of categorical programs in each state, how the use of categorical funding has changed since 2008 when states were last surveyed on their use, and views on their effectiveness from state finance personnel. In addition, this issue brief includes case studies of four states and their use of categorical funding. The authors use a combination of prior research on state education finance, existing data from state and national organizations, and newly collected primary data--a state-level survey and district-level interviews--to inform their findings.

In today's highly-skilled economy, rewarding career pathways are available to those who acquire technical skills by enrolling in certificate and associate degree programs in a community or technical college. Such programs are often more costly to offer than liberal arts and sciences programs that prepare students to transfer to four-year institutions to pursue bachelor's degrees, due to the need for smaller class sizes and specialized equipment and facilities. Many of the higher-cost career and technical education (CTE) programs are in fields and industry sectors that are important to economic growth in most states and regions, such as nursing, allied health, various engineering technologies, and alternative energy. Consequently, it can be challenging for colleges, and the states that fund them, to maintain these programs. When hard fiscal decisions result in diminished offerings of programs that are valuable to students and communities, no one is well-served. The California Community Colleges (CCC) are facing this problem now, particularly in the aftermath of several years of budget-cutting during the recession. College officials have had to stretch fewer dollars across their program offerings in order to try to meet enrollment targets. Since colleges receive one set dollar amount per full-time-equivalent student (FTES), there is a fiscal disincentive to maintain high-cost programs. There is much anecdotal evidence, and some empirical evidence, that CTE offerings have been disproportionately reduced in recent years. This is troubling to those who recognize the value of technical education to students, to regions, and to the California economy. This policy brief reports findings of a 20-state study of strategies that may help colleges provide students with access to valuable workforce-oriented programs despite some higher costs. It is intended to help education leaders and policymakers in California continue to work toward realizing the vast potential of the CTE mission of the college system to contribute to student success.

The "2021 NACUBO-TIAA Study of Endowments" (NTSE) provides the most comprehensive analysis of endowment investment returns, asset allocations, and governance policies and practices at hundreds of U.S. higher education institutions and affiliated foundations. The report provides extensive data to help institutions evaluate their investment returns and compare results by endowment size and institution type. [Additional sponsorship for this report came from Russell Investments, State Street Global Advisors, Crewcial Partners, SEI Investments, and Signatory Capital Advisors. For "2020 NACUBO-TIAA Study of Endowments," see ED612013.]

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.]

During the late 1990s public pension funds across the United States accrued large actuarial surpluses. The seemingly flush conditions of the pension funds led legislators in most states to substantially improve retirement benefits for public workers, including teachers. In this study we examine the benefit enhancements to the teacher pension system in Missouri. These enhancements resulted in large windfall gains for teachers who were close to retirement when the legislation was enacted. By contrast, novice teachers, and teachers who had not yet entered the labor force, were made "worse off". The reason is that front-end contribution rates have been raised for current teachers to offset past liabilities accrued from the enhancements. Other things equal, the teaching profession in Missouri is now less appealing for young teachers than it was before the pension enhancements were enacted. Pension-Wealth Calculations are appended. (Contains 2 figures, 7 tables and 31 footnotes.)

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts and mathematics represent a sea change in standards-based reform and their implementation is the movement's next--and greatest--challenge. Yet, while most states have now set forth implementation plans, these tomes seldom address the crucial matter of cost. Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? estimates the implementation cost for each of the forty-five states (and the District of Columbia) that have adopted the Common Core State Standards and shows that costs naturally depend on how states approach implementation. Authors Patrick J. Murphy of the University of San Francisco and Elliot Regenstein of Education Counsel LLC illustrate this with three models: (1) Business as Usual; (2) Bare Bones; and (3) Balanced Implementation. The report examines the tradeoffs associated with each strategy and estimates how much the three approaches would cost each state that has adopted the Common Core. The authors also point out that, since states already invest billions annually in professional development, assessments, textbooks, and other expenses in connection with existing standards, proper forecasting of Common Core costs should "net out" the sums that states would spend anyway for activities that this implementation process will replace. Appended are: (1) Technology in Common Core Implementation; (2) District Budget Estimates; (3) Data Sources; and (4) States' Common Core Resources. (Contains 9 tables and 93 endnotes.) [This report was written with Keith McNamara. Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Amber M. Winkler.]