Search

Children with disabilities remain among the most excluded from education in Global Partnership for Education (GPE) partner countries and other lower-income countries. Despite considerable activity funded both through GPE and by other donors, as well as by partner countries themselves, the level of international support to inclusive education remains too low and patchy for countries to transform their education systems so they are fully inclusive of children with disabilities. Development partners need to coordinate; help to build a stronger evidence base at global, regional and national levels; and go beyond isolated interventions to support reforms that have the potential to make the whole system more inclusive. To do this, development partners need to share knowledge on their activities globally and at the country level. This paper, and the underlying mapping exercise, aims to facilitate knowledge sharing in the sector by analyzing thematic and geographic focus areas of major development partners supporting inclusive education.

This study uses a concurrent embedded mixed-methods design to assess the impact of additional funding on student outcomes in a large, urban school district in the Southeastern United States. The district implemented student-based budgeting (SBB), which allocates dollars to schools based on student characteristics using a weighted student funding (WSF) formula and provides flexibility to principals to allocate those dollars under site-based budgeting. Using simulated instruments in a difference-in-differences framework, we estimate the impact of additional funding on student outcomes provided by WSF. Student test scores in math and ELA increased by 0.14 and 0.12 standard deviations, respectively. Our qualitative analysis suggests that the flexibility given to principals was a key mechanism that improved student outcomes.

California's K-12 funding and instructional policies for English learners (ELs) have changed significantly over the past 2 decades, including new requirements for instructional materials specific to ELs statewide and a new school funding system that funds ELs at a higher rate. These major policy shifts held the potential to change student learning outcome patterns for ELs. This brief summarizes those policy changes and, as a first step in identifying their impact, describes changes over time in the development of academic skills and English proficiency among ELs in California. We find that English learners' academic achievement by 3rd grade has improved over time, shrinking the achievement gaps between K-cohort ELs and other students in English language arts (ELA) and math. We also find that more-recent cohorts of kindergarten ELs are reaching English proficiency on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) in earlier grades than previous cohorts did. For the less recent cohorts who had reached Grade 5 by 2018-19, we find almost no change in the overall share who were proficient in English by the end of elementary school. We also find only half of kindergarten ELs were reclassified as English proficient by the end of elementary school in 2018-19.

The Houston Independent School District (HISD) is seeking a $4.4 billion bond aimed at addressing critical infrastructure and educational needs. Branded as "Renew HISD," the package would rebuild and modernize over 40 campuses, upgrade HVAC systems, improve campus security, and expand early childhood and career and technical education programs. As the district was preparing the proposal, the Kinder Institute for Urban Research fielded survey questions in January 2024 to the Greater Houston Community Panel to understand public support for a bond. Results of that survey were shared with district officials, and a follow-up survey was conducted in August 2024 to determine whether public support had changed. This brief summarizes the main findings of the January survey with additional discussion of what was learned in the August follow-up survey.

In April 2024, the School Finance Indicators Database released new estimates of school district funding gaps, which refer to the difference between how much per-pupil funding each district "receives" and how much per-pupil funding each district "needs." Linking these estimates to Texas Education Agency (TEA) student achievement ratings, this brief examines the extent of funding gaps in Texas school districts and how they impact student performance. The brief also identifies the gaps that are of greatest concern. Key findings include: (1) Overall, 73% of Texas school districts are underfunded, but the extent to which they are underfunded varies greatly; (2) Districts with larger funding gaps tend to have lower TEA student achievement ratings; and (3) About 17% of Texas school districts are considered "severely" underfunded, with funding gaps exceeding 40% of their needs. Severely underfunded districts are strongly associated with TEA student achievement ratings of C or lower.

In 2021, California committed to providing universal prekindergarten (UPK) for all 4-year-olds and expanding access for income-eligible 3-year-olds by 2025-2026. California UPK includes several early learning programs, including transitional kindergarten (TK), the California State Preschool Program (CSPP), Head Start, and locally funded early learning programs. To support UPK expansion, California's legislature and administration established the Universal Prekindergarten Planning and Implementation Grant in 2021, which allocated $200 million to all local education agencies (LEAs) serving kindergarteners, which include school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education. The California Department of Education surveyed all grant recipients in August 2023 about their UPK programs. This report provides an update on UPK implementation across the state through an analysis of survey responses from 1,384 LEAs, which represent almost all (95%) public school districts and two thirds (65%) of charter schools that serve elementary grades. Findings provide insights into LEAs' progress in UPK implementation related to service delivery models, facilities and transportation, instruction and assessment, strategies to support student needs, workforce development, implementation challenges, and technical assistance needs. In addition to statewide insights, the survey revealed promising practices and wide access with UPK expansion in California's four largest districts during their first year of implementation. The findings in this report may help policymakers and practitioners identify areas for additional investments and supports.

In the face of financial, political, and capacity constraints, leaders within the Baltimore City Public School System and Chicago Public Schools are making progress toward closing post-pandemic gaps in student learning. The executive leadership teams serving Baltimore City Public School System and Chicago Public Schools are using several strategies to help their systems build back after the pandemic including: (1) standardizing key elements of instructional cores and adding instructional staff across their systems, while maintaining some school-level flexibility; (2) supporting existing staff to become teachers and "building the bench" of new principals, while also promoting school leaders and administrators from within; (3) spending federal pandemic-relief money Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) and other supplements, while hoping to avoid cutting into funding for instruction; (4) insulating schools as much as possible by taking the political hits themselves and making concessions to demanding stakeholders; and (5) confronting continued enrollment declines, limited central office capacity, constrained teacher labor markets, changes in school boards, shifting local interests, and uncertain state-level financial support. The strong leadership modeled in both districts remains at the heart of moving forward, despite the fact they are straining against their capacities. While there may be nuanced differences, all leaders in maxed-out districts will have to search for new options and forge alliances with new partners within school boards, unions, and state-level governments. This project is part of the American School District Panel (ASDP), a research partnership between the RAND Corporation and the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at Arizona State University's Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; and (6) Definitions.

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; and (7) Definitions.

Unlike vouchers and tax credit scholarships that do not allow parents to customize their children's education, Education savings accounts (ESAs) provide funding to pay for part-time classes at public and private schools, tutoring, curricula, services for special needs, and more. As navigating the opportunities that come with ESAs can be difficult, there is a growing movement to include "choice navigators" as an eligible expense in ESA programs, which can inform parents what educational opportunities are available and help tailor an education program for their children. This paper examines several key elements, including determining the types of navigation services that parents need in the changing education landscape; identifying best practices that states can adopt to simplify ESA navigation; tapping into the experiences of current ESA users and traditional homeschoolers; and deciding whether there are policies that can encourage an adequate supply of navigators without creating counterproductive rules.

Pursuant to California Education Code provisions 17201(i)(1)(B)(C), 17203.5, and 66014.6, the California Community Colleges Student Housing 2024 report provides the following information: (1) the 2024 Annual Progress on California Community Colleges Affordable Student Housing; (2) the 2024 California Community Colleges Housing Insecurity; and (3) the 2024 Annual Progress on California Community Colleges Housing Stock.

An ongoing debate in K-12 education policy has been between the "reform" agenda, including charter schools and school vouchers, and advocates of traditional public schools, led by educator unions. A similar split has emerged in higher education, particularly community colleges. Using California as an example, this paper: 1) summarizes the evolution of the current political divide between advocates of the "completion and success" agenda and faculty-led opponents, including the major reforms involved, 2) discusses the claims that leading organizations on each side have made, including their policy priorities, and 3) argues that the two sides share do share some areas of mutual agreement. The paper concludes by noting future policy considerations that could complicate reform efforts.

The Global Partnership for Education (GPE) has made a commitment to support the multistakeholder pledge made at the second Global Refugee Forum to ensure every child living as a refugee realizes their right to a quality education and is included in national education systems that are adequately supported to cater to the needs of every child, both from the host community and those living as refugees. A holistic approach is needed to transform education systems to be truly inclusive for those children. UNICEF Innocenti (2023) highlights areas of policy and practice which are especially relevant for their inclusion within education systems, irrespective of their gender, nationality or disability status. Within this framework, there are 10 dimensions that affect the level of inclusion within an education system, including legal frameworks, type of school, system financing, social protection, school infrastructure, teachers, curriculum, language of instruction, assessment and certification, and education data systems. This tool--which is intended to be used by GPE Secretariat country teams and partner countries--highlights ways to address dimensions of the above framework within the policy dialogue on partnership compacts (which identify partner countries' priority reforms), GPE-funded grants and broader education sector dialogue. This document is organized by selected priority areas drawn from the GPE 2025 strategy, preceded by one overarching consideration. The areas are: (1) Policies and financing; (2) Data systems; (3) Access; (4) Learning, including early learning; and (5) Quality teaching. Gender equality and intersecting vulnerabilities are considered throughout.

District leaders seeking to close schools often frame decisions as "right-sizing" or "modernizing the footprint" of the district. Historical influences such as population and economic shifts and desegregation during the civil rights era, and more recent factors like deteriorating building conditions, school performance "accountability" measures, declining enrollment, and the expansion of school choice policies have contributed to school closure decisions. Whatever language used, or factors considered, these consequential decisions often spark fierce community debate. In Pennsylvania, which operates one of the most inequitable public education systems in the nation, several communities have controversial histories of school closures, including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and rural regions. Now, the prospect of future school closures again looms large as many districts have experienced several years of declining enrollment and face financial cliffs, challenges made worse in the wake of COVID-19. To inform community members and guide district leaders navigating these difficult decisions, this brief revisits Research for Action's 2013 Issue Brief on School Closings Policy. In this update, the authors focus on the inequitable impacts of school closures on students, staff, and surrounding communities, with particular attention to how systemic and historical inequities continue to influence the school closure process. The brief concludes with considerations from research on school closures for school district leaders and decision-makers contemplating closing schools that can better inform plans and address potential equity issues for students and surrounding communities.

In order to assist higher education institutions and their students during the pandemic, the federal government established the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Fund, which directed over $75 billion to institutions of higher education--including nearly $25 billion to community colleges--over a three-year period. The U.S. Department of Education worked on a rapid timeline to distribute these funds to institutions, which they could use to provide direct aid to students facing financial challenges and cover institutional costs related to the pandemic. Drawing on a survey of community colleges in six states--California, Michigan, New York (State University of New York [SUNY] colleges), Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas--this report provides insight into the specific pandemic recovery activities colleges implemented, colleges' perceptions of how successful HEER funds were in addressing student and institutional needs during the pandemic, and colleges' views of unmet needs. The institutional survey was completed by 170 out of a total of 265 community colleges in the six states. Key findings from the report: (1) Colleges spent nearly all the HEER funds they received. Given the large amount of HEER funding and the fact that colleges did not need to submit a proposal and budget for how they would use the funds, it should not be assumed that colleges would have spent all the money they received. Yet colleges spent nearly all the funds they received by the time the HEER program ended in June 2023; (2) HEER funds met a variety of student and institutional needs during the pandemic. Colleges had relatively few problems using the funds and felt that the aid was successful in mitigating student and institutional hardships; (3) Colleges focused on retaining existing students; they employed a variety of methods to support students in need. Colleges used HEER funds to support and retain existing (pre-pandemic) students rather than to recruit new students. They focused on supporting students with financial exigencies, including those experiencing food and housing insecurity. They used institutional aid to forgive debt owed to the college and to provide food, housing, and childcare assistance; (4) Spending patterns suggest that colleges experienced similar challenges during the pandemic and often prioritized the same objectives. Despite differences in state contexts and institutional settings, colleges tended to allocate funds in similar ways. For example, most colleges used aid for campus safety and technology hardware. Expenditure patterns also shifted over time in similar ways, indicating that colleges were responsive to evolving needs; (5) Expenditures related to campus safety and technology remained strong but decreased in frequency over time; expenditures to support students' mental health increased in frequency. Mental health services was the only expenditure category that increased in frequency in each of the three years of funding, likely reflecting the toll the pandemic took on students' mental health; (6) Comparing pre- and post-pandemic spending, HEER funds had the most impact on increasing support for technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance. Colleges used HEER funds both to fund existing services and to begin offering new ones. Fewer than a third of colleges had services in place to provide technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance before the pandemic; many more did so afterward; (7) Concerns about the end of HEER funding and priorities for future funding expose a need for continued flexible resources to address students' financial needs. Colleges' main concern about the end of HEER funding was that it would limit their ability to support students during an emergency. Their top priority for using future funding was additional student aid; and (8) Rural and vocational/technical colleges (as defined by the Carnegie Classification) may have had fewer resources prior to the pandemic and may be in greater need of additional support. Colleges in towns and rural areas and colleges focused on technical training were less likely to offer a number of supports both pre- and post-pandemic. Rural colleges were also less likely to report having received additional funding for pandemic recovery from sources other than HEER funds. Overall, while the survey findings suggest that HEER largely met the goals for which it was intended, they also point to the importance of addressing systemic challenges facing community college students and the institutions that serve them. Now that the immediate crisis of the pandemic has passed and HEER funding has ended, there is an opportunity to think strategically about the investments that are needed to promote student success over the long term, particularly for underserved and financially vulnerable students who are the most at risk of stopping out or not enrolling in the first place.

This report is the fourth in a series that unpacks the barriers to access that families face, the variety of solutions that navigation organizations have developed, and the challenges that limit the reach and impact of those solutions. This series offers recommendations for how to help navigators address these challenges and support more families and students. This report discusses the issue of scaling and sustaining navigation supports. There are no easy answers to the challenge of sustaining and scaling navigation services. Reliable revenue streams are hard to come by, and navigation organizations must carefully consider various funding models while prioritizing the best interests of the families they serve. The strength of family-navigator relationships makes navigation inherently unique for every family but also resource intensive -- requiring navigation organizations to think creatively and strategically to lower costs and improve efficiency. By diversifying revenue sources and leveraging strategies like tiered support levels, peer support, virtual interactions, and AI-powered research, navigation organizations can do more to sustainably increase their reach while continuing to deliver high-quality services.

This report is the third in a series that unpacks the barriers to access that families face, the variety of solutions that navigation organizations have developed, and the challenges that limit the reach and impact of those solutions. This series offers recommendations for how to help navigators address these challenges and support more families and students. Navigation organizations lack access to information on learning options and must often collect it themselves. Several challenges contribute to the lack of information available on the quality of learning options, beginning with the lack of consensus regarding what constitutes a "quality" education. This report discusses the importance of providing families with guidance on options that best match students' needs. More and better data on learning options is necessary, and there are ways that funders, intermediaries, researchers, and policymakers can help. Accreditation systems and input metrics can build the foundation for more robust measures. Tailored approaches to measure the quality of providers could surface new, valid, and reliable measures for others to adopt. Over time, improvements to data would allow navigators, families, and the field to better understand the learning options that best support students' success.

This report is the second in a series that unpacks the barriers to access that families face, the variety of solutions that navigation organizations have developed, and the challenges that limit the reach and impact of those solutions. This series offers recommendations for how to help navigators address these challenges and support more families and students. Navigation organizations provide important supports for families looking to participate in direct funding programs. They can be partners in raising awareness of the programs, while their navigators help families prepare applications and select learning options that meet their child's needs. Addressing logistical barriers associated with direct funding policies and programs takes up a significant amount of time, however, and the time spent on logistical barriers then limits the time navigators and families can spend on what they came together to do: Connect to learning options aligned to students' needs, interests, and goals. This report discusses how better policy designs and stronger implementation of direct funding programs can minimize these logistical barriers and enable navigation organizations to direct more resources to providing educational guidance.

Attracting and retaining high-quality teachers is a pressing policy concern. Increasing teacher salaries and creating more attractive compensation packages are often proposed as a potential solution. Signed into law in March 2023, the LEARNS Act increased Arkansas's minimum teacher salary from $36,000 to $50,000, guaranteed all teachers a minimum raise of $2,000, and added flexibility allowing school districts to deviate from seniority-based traditional salary schedules. To study school districts' adjustments to the new legislation, we collected information about districts' teacher compensation policies one year before and the first year of implementation. We also integrated this data with teachers' administrative records to study patterns of teacher retention and mobility. Our results reveal a more equitable distribution of starting teacher salaries across districts, with minimal variation. The LEARNS Act notably increased funding for rural and high-poverty districts, mitigating the negative association between starting salaries and district poverty rates. However, the initial effects on teacher retention and mobility were modest. While some positive trends emerged, such as reduced probabilities of teachers transitioning to non-instructional roles and increased new teacher placement in geographic areas of shortage, broader impacts on retention and mobility were limited in the first year of implementation.

Across the country, as technology continues to advance rapidly, the labor market exhibits a growing need for workers who receive frequent and ongoing skill development. Employers in many fields struggle to find adequately trained workers to meet their needs. Community college noncredit career and technical education (CTE) programs are an important contributor to skill and workforce development and help to close this "skills gap." This brief summarizes early findings from a study of FastForward, which uses a pay-for-performance model to fund noncredit CTE programs at the 23 colleges in the Virginia Community College System. FastForward aims to increase the supply of workers who receive credentials for high-demand occupations in Virginia. The FastForward study is focused on identifying institutional and programmatic factors that may influence learners' academic and labor market outcomes. This brief presents findings on the different approaches used by colleges and programs to deliver training, student and staff experiences in these CTE programs, and students' academic and labor market outcomes.

The Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI) launched in 2014 as a collaborative effort to help districts promote student success and improve their fiscal and operational effectiveness. The initiative focuses on four major aspects of institutional effectiveness: 1) student performance and outcomes; 2) accreditation status; 3) fiscal viability; and 4) programmatic compliance with state and federal guidelines. IEPI works in alignment with all California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (Chancellor's Office) divisions and supports several statewide priorities, including currently and formerly incarcerated education and the California Conservation Corps. Thanks to the state investments in IEPI, the Chancellor's Office is able to support college efforts as they contribute to statewide goals, including but not limited to: (1) Reducing and erasing equity gaps in student completion and retention; (2) Reducing regional gaps; (3) Hastening equitable placement in Math and English, accelerating faculty, staff and administrative diversity; (4) Cultivating opportunities for courageous leadership that prioritizes equity in mindset and practice and/or fostering innovations in cultivating a more equitable, inclusive and transformative teaching and learning ecosystem; and (5) Diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) implementation on college campuses. This report includes activities funded pursuant to Section 194 of the State Budget Act of 2022 and progress toward college and district institutional effectiveness indicator goals. This report reflects the period from July 01, 2022, through June 30, 2023.

In December 2023, TICAS published new research on the College Affordability Gap--the gap between students' total cost of attendance and non-loan aid available to them--in California, Michigan, and New York, with a focus on students eligible for Pell Grants. Our new report builds on this research with data from nine additional states (Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington), all of whom are part of TICAS' State Policy Network to Advance Debt-Free College. This research helps to define the magnitude of the affordability crisis students face and offers recommendations for state and federal policymakers to incrementally improve college affordability.

More than 90% of IDEA funding is allocated to Part B, Grants to States (Section 611), which contains funding and policy provisions related to special education for children ages 3 to 21. The influence of federal Part B, Grants to States funding on state and local funding decisions is twofold: 1) it links eligibility for IDEA grants to compliance with programmatic and administrative requirements, and 2) it mandates that states and districts maintain consistent levels of state and local funding for special education annually. This brief details its eligibility requirements, allocation methods, and funding trends.

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles students with disabilities to a free appropriate public education. Students with disabilities often require additional support to enable them to achieve academic and functional goals relative to their nondisabled peers. These legally protected supports and services all add up to a need for additional school funding to support the education of children with disabilities. This brief examines how states and the federal government allocate funding to support the educational needs of students with disabilities and identifies questions that state advocates and policymakers can pose to better understand and improve their state's system for funding special education services.

IDEA is the cornerstone federal law that safeguards and promotes the educational rights of children with disabilities. It was enacted in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), which established a right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children with disabilities for the first time. Before the EHA, there were gradual changes in laws regarding the treatment and support of individuals with disabilities, driven by legal actions and advocacy from disability rights groups. Over time, these efforts led to the more comprehensive approach seen in the EHA. Since its inception, IDEA has been reauthorized four times, including in 1990 when it acquired its current name. IDEA influences state and local funding decisions both by tying eligibility for IDEA grants -- which represent a substantial share of total funding for special education from all sources -- to meeting specific programmatic and administrative requirements and by requiring states and public school systems to sustain at least the same levels of state and local funding for special education year over year. This brief provides an overview of the purposes of IDEA and the four categories of federally funded programs governed by the law.

This First Look report introduces new data for national and state-level public elementary and secondary revenues and expenditures for fiscal year (FY) 2022. Specifically, this report includes the following school finance data: (1) revenue and expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) expenditures by function, subfunction, and object; (4) current expenditures; (5) revenues and current expenditures per pupil; (6) expenditures from Title I funds; and (7) revenues and expenditures from COVID-19 Federal Assistance Funds. The expenditure functions include instruction, support services, food services, and enterprise operations. The support services function is further broken down into seven subfunctions: instructional staff support services, pupil support services, general administration, school administration, operations and maintenance, student transportation, other support services (such as business services). Objects reported within a function or subfunction include salaries and wages, employee benefits, purchased services, supplies, and equipment. The purpose of a First Look report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information. The selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using NPEFS. They do not represent all of the data and are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. While the tables in this report include data for all NPEFS respondents, the selected findings are limited to the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

This First Look report introduces new data for national and state-level public elementary and secondary revenues and expenditures for fiscal year (FY) 2022. Specifically, this report includes the following school finance data: (1) revenue and expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) expenditures by function, subfunction, and object; (4) current expenditures; (5) revenues and current expenditures per pupil; (6) expenditures from Title I funds; and (7) revenues and expenditures from COVID-19 Federal Assistance Funds. The expenditure functions include instruction, support services, food services, and enterprise operations. The support services function is further broken down into seven subfunctions: instructional staff support services, pupil support services, general administration, school administration, operations and maintenance, student transportation, other support services (such as business services).1 Objects reported within a function or subfunction include salaries and wages, employee benefits, purchased services, supplies, and equipment. The finance data used in this report are from the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS), a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is one of NCES's primary survey programs on public elementary and secondary education in the United States. State education agencies (SEAs) in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five other jurisdictions of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands report these data annually to NCES. The NPEFS instructions ask SEAs to report revenues and expenditures covering prekindergarten through high school public education in regular, special, and vocational schools; charter schools; and state-run education programs (such as special education schools or education programs for incarcerated youth).

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.

Through its "Master Plan for Kids' Mental Health," California has invested $4.7 billion in youth mental and behavioral health since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding behavioral health services on school campuses has been a powerful way to ensure equitable access to this support. However, most of the state's new behavioral health funding is short term, and local educational agencies (LEAs) cannot sustain or expand necessary services without making substantial reductions in other services. Collaborating with external partners--particularly from the health care sector--to create integrated, school-based systems of care offers a promising strategy for sustaining and expanding behavioral health support for students. This research brief investigates how well the state's recent short-term investments are aligned with LEAs' highest priority needs for supporting mental and behavioral health and are aligned with the state's goal of advancing integrated, school-based systems of care to support students in the long term. The brief describes how LEAs' investments of recent short-term funds seem well-aligned with students' most pressing behavioral health needs. However, LEAs have largely used these funds to hire behavioral health staff rather than to invest in long-term, cross-sector partnerships to expand services on campus, which presents a funding sustainability concern. The brief offers recommendations for how state, county, and health plan leaders can maximize the effectiveness of future investments and strengthen partnerships between local education and health care systems to sustain school-based behavioral health supports. A companion brief, "Schools Can't Do It Alone: Envisioning a Statewide System of Support to Advance School-Based Behavioral Health in California," explores the availability of technical assistance on this topic and how a statewide system to support school-based behavioral health might be structured.

This document includes the "FY 2023 Annual Performance Report" (APR) and "FY 2025 Annual Performance Plan" (APP). The APR provides narrative and data on the Department of Education's (Department's) progress toward the strategic goals and objectives outlined in its "Fiscal Years [FYs] 2022-2026 Strategic Plan" (ED625432), and the APP details the Department's planned strategies and activities to achieve those strategic goals and objectives.

At the University of Rhode Island (URI), the URI Open Access Fund Committee met in early 2024 to advise the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs on the continuation of the URI Open Access Fund. The URI Open Access Fund was created in 2013 to reimburse URI authors for Article Processing Charges when they published in qualifying Open Access journals and had no other funding available. The committee examined the current Open Access publishing landscape and consulted with two other institutions on their practices. The report of the committee offers the following six recommendations: 1) The URI Open Access Fund should be retired; 2) Hire a Scholarly Communications Librarian to educate faculty on options for making their work open access, on article-level metrics, demonstrating and enhancing the impact of their scholarship, etc.; 3) Encourage URI faculty to make their articles open access by depositing their manuscripts in DigitalCommons@URI in compliance with the URI Open Access Policy; 4) Continue to support Diamond OA initiatives and Subscribe to Open options that provide OA with no author-facing charges and offer alternatives to the large, for-profit academic publishers; 5) Consider support for the membership models of fully open access publishers, e.g. PLoS, MDPI, Frontiers; and 6) Consider participating in Transformative Agreements through consortia such as Lyrasis. A short bibliography is included.

In an effort to reduce state spending on special education in public schools, New Jersey moved to census-based funding as part of the new school funding formula, the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), adopted in 2008. The census approach funds all districts using the statewide average classification rate and a statewide average "excess cost." This report found that: (1) Classification rates for special education vary greatly among school districts, resulting in the inequitable distribution of resources to fund districts' actual special education enrollment; (2) In 2022-23, districts with classification rates higher than the statewide average received $378 million less than if they were funded on their actual special education enrollment; and (3) Districts with higher-than-average classification rates must divert funding from general education programs or raise additional local revenue to fill the gap for unfunded special education students. In this report, the authors show that census-based funding does not meet the needs of New Jersey school districts and the students, in both special and general education, they serve. The analyses presented in this report demonstrate the need for New Jersey to convene school finance and special education experts to explore and recommend alternative funding models for special education that would better meet the needs of the state's school 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?

The data presented in this report provide facts about the extent to which local, state, and national governments commit resources to public education. The level of commitment to education varies on a state-by-state basis. National Education Association (NEA) Research offers this report to its state and local affiliates as well as to researchers, policymakers, and the public as a tool to examine public education programs and services. Part I of this report -- Rankings 2023 -- provides state-level data on an array of topics relevant to the complex enterprise of public education. Part II of this report -- Estimates 2024 -- is in its 80th year of production. Estimates provides data tables projecting public school enrollment, employment and compensation of personnel, and finances, as reported by individual state departments of education. Part III of this report -- National Trends 2015-24 -- presents summary data of national trends in student enrollment and attendance, staff salaries, sources of school funding, and levels of educational expenditures in the previous 10 years. [For "Rankings of the States 2022 and Estimates of School Statistics 2023. NEA Research," see ED628838.]