Search

The College Cost Reduction Act would overhaul the Higher Education Act, making changes to student borrowing and repayment, borrower protections, college oversight, postsecondary data, and more. The bill includes a new proposed risk-sharing model that would require colleges to repay the federal government for a calculated proportion of their previously enrolled students' unpaid federal student loans--including missed payments and waived unpaid interest, as well as discharged principal under an income-driven repayment program or under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. This proportion would be calculated for each degree program at a college using a formula that accounts for college costs charged to students while enrolled and student earnings after they leave. Because this proposal would create financial liabilities for colleges that incentivize them to promote some types of degrees and programs and disincentivize others, The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) potential effects it would have by program, college, and sector. They found that the proposal would likely discourage colleges from promoting and supporting public service professions.

The U.S. Government Accountability office (GAO) recently released a report presenting new data on eligibility and uptake for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) among college students with low incomes. The report paints a stark picture that, despite high levels of food insecurity among college students, few are receiving SNAP benefits. Our new brief highlights the report's findings and offers policy recommendations to improve student eligibility for SNAP and ensure that students who do qualify are receiving this crucial benefit.

Across the nation, states and school districts face a persistent shortage of educators with expertise in promoting both the English proficiency and academic achievement of English learner (EL) students. To help improve educators' qualifications and classroom instruction for ELs, the National Professional Development (NPD) program has awarded grants for EL-focused educator professional development projects since 2002. This U.S. Department of Education-funded program allows grantees to serve the varied types of educators who work with ELs, including those preparing to join the educator workforce, and encourages grantees to focus on professional development topics and approaches supported by rigorous research evidence. In addition, the NPD program encourages grantees to engage in evaluation activities, including performance measurement and rigorous evaluations of project effectiveness, that may inform project improvement and contribute to evidence building. This study examines the extent to which NPD grantees implemented their projects in ways aligned with these program objectives, drawing primarily on a 2021 survey of all 2016 and 2017 NPD grantees.

The report "How a Federal Grant Program Is Training and Supporting Educators of English Learners" examines the extent to which National Professional Development (NPD) grantees implemented their projects in ways aligned with program objectives, drawing primarily on a survey of all 2016 and 2017 NPD grantees. This document provides background information about the NPD program (Appendix A), the data sources and measures used in this study (Appendix B), supporting statistical details and supplemental findings related to the findings presented in the report (Appendix C), and findings from additional analyses that are not discussed in the report but may help readers better understand the findings (Appendix D).

The purpose of this audit was to determine whether Federal Student Aid (FSA) was effectively implementing the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Simplification Act's provisions pertaining to Federal taxpayer information (FTI) through the Student Aid and Borrower Eligibility Reform (SABER) initiative. The audit covered activities FSA conducted to implement the four FTI systems that FSA utilized, developed, or modified to adhere to the aspects of the FUTURE Act and FAFSA Simplification Act that primarily relate to FSA's ability to use and protect FTI received directly from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The FTI is then used to automatically populate a portion of applicants' FAFSAs. The audit covered December 19, 2019 (when the FUTURE Act was enacted) through May 31, 2023.

This report provides a brief summary of the status of FY2025 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) appropriations as of the cover date of this report. It also provides background on the scope of the LHHS bill generally and the context for congressional appropriations decisions, including the submission of the President's budget request for FY2025 and budget enforcement in the absence of a budget resolution. On May 23, 2024, the House Appropriations Committee voted to report its draft initial suballocations for all 12 subcommittees, including LHHS (30-22). (These draft suballocations, and subsequent revised suballocations, have not yet been reported to the House.) The Senate Appropriations Committee reported to the Senate its full set of suballocations (S.Rept. 118-190) on July 11, 2024 (15-11). On July 10, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the FY2025 LHHS bill in full committee, and voted to report the bill (31-25). The bill (H.R. 9029) was reported to the House on July 12, 2024 (H.Rept. 118-585). Previously, the LHHS subcommittee had approved the draft LHHS bill on June 27, 2024 (voice vote).

A collaboration between The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) and the Student Senate for California Community Colleges (SSCCC), this policy brief examines the costs of attending California Community Colleges (CCCs) for low-income students and the roles that financial aid resources, work hours, and student loan borrowing currently play in meeting those costs. The report sheds light on the college affordability challenges that CCC students face and the need for state and CCC leaders to consider strategies that support CCC students' ability to afford and complete their education. Key recommendations from the brief include, among others, supporting equitable financial aid reform and encouraging more students to apply for financial aid. [This report was co-produced with The Student Senate for California Community Colleges.]

The Partnership for College Completion (PCC) was founded to "advance equity in higher education" by supporting colleges and universities to improve college completion for Black, Latinx, and Pell-eligible students--those groups that experience persistent disparities in completion. Simultaneously, PCC engages in state policy reform to bring about systems-wide change. Begun in 2018, the Illinois Equity in Attainment Initiative (ILEA) is its flagship initiative, designed to partner with Illinois colleges and universities to assist them in narrowing their college completion gaps. Promising new research suggests improving equity in college completion requires an explicit focus on race, attention to organizational change, commitment to equity-focused policies and plans, and cross-institutional partnerships to help manifest change. Drawing from this research, ILEA and its partner institutions developed and implemented public-facing equity plans to improve graduation rates for their Black, Latinx, and Pell-eligible students. This study examines how the ILEA collaborative institutions confronted and negotiated structural barriers inhibiting graduation for these historically marginalized groups. The report aims to: (1) Provide study partners, including the Partnership for College Completion, with program feedback; (2) Inform readers about equity plan development and implementation, policy, and practice collaboratives; (3) Identify strengths and growth opportunities about PCC's efforts to bring colleges and universities together to jointly improve college completion for Black, Latinx, and Pell-eligible students; and (4) Reflect on implementation successes and challenges.

Tempe PRE was designed as a high-quality preschool program to create more opportunity for children in Tempe. In the 2021-2022 school year, NORC at the University of Chicago conducted an evaluation of Tempe PRE to understand how the program was being implemented and its effects on children and families. They also collected students' outcome data the following year once they entered kindergarten to measure impacts on achievement compared to a control group. This evaluation documented the successful early installation of a high-quality preschool program that was designed to provide novel access to children from low-income households who would not otherwise have had such an opportunity in their community. Through close collaboration among multiple local government and philanthropic partners, and with a strong, common commitment to quality, the Tempe PRE program was structured and implemented with key components hypothesized to produce positive child outcomes.

As school systems work to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, states continue to grapple with persistent teacher shortages, a lack of teachers of color in the workforce, and high turnover rates undermining recruitment efforts. Teachers' effectiveness and their likelihood of staying in teaching are strongly influenced by the quality of preparation they receive, and well-designed teacher residencies have been found to support both of these outcomes. Research suggests that teacher candidates who receive their preparation through teacher residencies--which combine comprehensive, financially supported preparation with a post-program service requirement--tend to be retained in their districts longer than other candidates, on average, thereby lowering rates of new teacher attrition and reducing the need to hire more new teachers. This research is based on the initial designs for residencies that guided the federal legislation on residencies and several early state adoptions. States and the federal government are seeking policy strategies to better recruit, prepare, and retain a qualified teacher workforce. To understand the growing evidence and policy landscape, this report begins with an overview of research on the teacher residency model and then describes state and federal policy trends and opportunities supporting teacher residencies. This includes a look across recent efforts in 12 states to fund and grow high-quality, research-aligned residencies: Arizona, California, Delaware, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.

This quasi-experimental study examined the effectiveness of a one-time emergency financial relief program among Pell Grant eligible undergraduate students in Spring 2015 pursuing their first bachelor's degree across academic and financial outcomes. The academic outcomes included retention to the next semester, degree completion, attempted credit hours, and grade point average. The financial outcome captured whether students received a stop registration hold due to an unpaid financial balance in the semester after receiving the emergency relief. The results reveal that financial relief applied to low-income students' accounts can improve their retention and graduation rates. The financial relief was most effective among first-generation college students, resulting in a complete elimination of the retention gap for first-generation students. The emergency relief did not improve GPA or substantially change the number of credits earned. A concerning finding was that students receiving this emergency support were more likely to receive a financial hold in a subsequent semester and that effect was stronger among students of color (Black/African American, Hispanic/Latine, Asian, Multiracial, American Indian/Alaska Native), males, and first-generation college students.

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.

Veterans' educational assistance programs provide benefits or services to eligible service members and veterans and their family members, as applicable, to help such individuals pursue education or training. The GI Bills provide financial assistance while recipients are enrolled in approved education or training programs. Eligibility is based on a qualifying individual's service in the uniformed services. This report provides brief descriptions of the various veterans' educational assistance programs, including the GI Bills, that are currently available to veterans and other eligible individuals through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The first sections of this report describe the active GI Bills and other veterans' educational assistance programs, in descending order based on the number of current beneficiaries. The subsequent section highlights eligibility interactions between the veterans' educational assistance programs and other relevant benefit programs. The final section provides information on benefit recipients and expenditures for the educational assistance programs. A summary of selected characteristics of the various active GI Bills is presented in Appendix A. A description of the GI Bills that are no longer paying benefits and some lessons learned when they were in operation is provided in the subsequent appendices.

The purpose of the addendum is to document the findings from the Year 2 student achievement analyses of a teacher-level randomized experiment, which was designed to examine the implementation and impact of a scalable version of the 2-year MyTeachingPartner Secondary (MTP-S) program as part of a federally-funded Education Innovation and Research (EIR) project. Due to COVID-caused delays, we were unable to include findings about the impact of MTP-S on Year 2 student achievement in the final report produced at the end of the EIR project (Wayne et al., 2023). With the support of a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation, we were able to complete the collection and analyses of Year 2 student achievement data presented in this addendum. Similar to the Year 1 student achievement findings presented in our EIR final project report, the Year 2 student achievement findings did not reveal any significant program impact on students' math or English language arts achievement at the end of the 2-year program. Findings from this study need to be interpreted with caution given study limitations resulting largely from the influence of the pandemic.

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.

The federal government has prescribed nutritional requirements for school meals since the authorization of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in 1946. Such requirements have changed throughout the course of history. Current law requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe "minimum nutritional requirements" based on "tested nutritional research." In addition, school meal nutrition standards must be "consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines [for Americans]" (DGAs). Under these parameters, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established detailed nutritional requirements in regulations. This report discusses the latest revision of nutritional requirements for school meals, as promulgated by the USDA in a final rule on April 25, 2024. According to USDA, the rule was informed by the DGAs and feedback from stakeholders on a proposed rule. In addition to summarizing the contents of the final rule, this report provides a recent history of changes to the nutrition standards and discusses reactions to and potential implications of the rule. While the report covers most of the finalized changes, it does not detail every requirement included in the final rule.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), previously named the Veterans Administration, has been providing veterans educational assistance benefits, including GI Bill benefits, since 1944. The benefits have been intended, at various times, to compensate for compulsory service, encourage voluntary service, prevent unemployment, provide equitable benefits to all who served, and promote military retention. In general, the benefits provide grant aid to eligible individuals enrolled in approved educational and training programs. The newest GI Bill was enacted on June 30, 2008, as the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill), Title V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252). This report provides a detailed description of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The first section introduces the concept of entitlement. The second section describes participant eligibility criteria. The third section discloses the period during which the benefits must be used. The subsequent section describes the eligible programs of education. This is succeeded by an explanation of the eligible benefit payments. The final section illustrates current data on obligations and participation.

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.

The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) annual survey of tuition and fees collects the resident and nonresident tuition and fees at public two- and four-year institutions in the WICHE region for undergraduate and graduate students. WICHE administered the most recent survey to state higher education executive offices, system offices, and institutions in each of the WICHE states, territories, and freely associated states in Summer 2023. Complete data from the survey are available on WICHE's online dashboard and enable comparisons of rates over time, across states, territories, and freely associated states, and between Carnegie Classifications. Unless otherwise indicated, tuition and fees rates are in current U.S. dollars, and average rates at the state and regional levels are weighted by full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment. This WICHE Insights summarizes recent tuition and fees for undergraduates at public institutions in the West.

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.

Boosting literacy among school-age children remains a national priority. Nearly one third of students in the United States have not developed the foundational reading skills needed to succeed academically, with students living in poverty, students with disabilities, and English learners especially at risk. Starting in 2010, Congress invested more than $1 billion for state literacy improvement efforts through the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) program. SRCL was intended to focus funding on disadvantaged schools, encourage schools to use evidence-based practices, and support schools and teachers in providing comprehensive literacy instruction. These efforts were expected to lead to improved literacy outcomes for students. This study assesses how well SRCL implementation was aligned with these goals, using information collected from states, districts, and schools in all 11 states awarded grants in 2017.

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).

Nontuition expenses--including housing, food, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses, in addition to books and supplies--constitute a significant financial burden for many students pursuing higher education, even if they receive grant aid to help them pay tuition and fees. Well-designed policy interventions at both the federal and state levels could effectively address the hardships some students face. A large increase in the maximum Pell grant to provide students additional funds for living expenses may seem like a straightforward solution, but that approach is not optimal. Doubling the maximum Pell grant would increase the aid most current full-time recipients receive by the same dollar amount, regardless of the size of their current Pell grant. In other words, it would double the grant for the lowest-income students, who currently receive the maximum, but would increase it by much larger proportions for those whose somewhat higher incomes qualify them for smaller grants. The program's cost would more than double. In this report, we propose alternative design options for a need-based basic living stipend. Awarding two Pell grants, with the second grant explicitly for nontuition expenses, would be less expensive and more targeted to the lowest-income students than doubling the maximum. Our preferred option would be a distinct need-based living stipend supplementing an increased Pell grant. The stipend would be standard, not based on individual cost of attendance, which is an inconsistent metric. The maximum stipend could be lower than the maximum Pell grant. The stipend would decline at a chosen rate as incomes increase. This approach would be most flexible and would be less expensive and better targeted than an increase in the maximum Pell grant that would give the same amount of funding to the lowest-income students. A federal matching program providing incentives to states to provide need-based living stipends would be a useful complement to this federal program and could tailor aid to local circumstances.

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.

The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) was the largest onetime federal investment in K-12 schools in history, funneling almost $200 billion to states and school districts. We use novel data from Washington State to investigate the extent to which ESSER funding causally influenced spending on school personnel. We argue one cannot infer this directly from ESSER claims data because of the fungibility of school budgets. Thus, we rely on a more direct signal of district hiring decisions: public education job postings scraped from district hiring websites. To address endogeneity concerns, our preferred approach employs an instrumental variables strategy that exploits a formula mechanism used to determine Title I funding for 2020-21 (and thus ESSER allocations in 2022) based on the number of Title I formula-eligible children. We find strong, arguably causal, evidence that public school hiring increased in response to the availability of ESSER funding. Specifically, we estimate that each $1,000 in ESSER allocations caused districts to seek to hire $206 in additional staff, disproportionately teachers. These estimates suggest that roughly 12,000 new staff (including 5,100 teachers) were hired in Washington because of ESSER. In the absence of new funding, school staffing budgets will likely need to contract substantially following the sunset of ESSER.

This is the technical appendix for the report "From Insights to Impact: Fostering Innovation through Texas" which examines the current national landscape of higher education research and development to help gauge Texas' current position and identify opportunities to drive further innovations into the future. This appendix includes the following sections: (1) Maintaining Texas' Edge; (2) From Roadmap to Reality; (3) Texas' Competitive Position; (4) Technology Transfer Landscape; and (5) Amplifying the Impact. [This report was produced with TIP Strategies, Inc. and Research Bridge Partners.]

The federal government provides child development, elementary and secondary education, and educational assistance to Indian children, in a federal school system and in public school systems that predominantly receive state and local funding. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees the federally funded BIE system of elementary and secondary schools. This report provides a brief history of federal Indian education programs, a discussion of students served by these programs, an overview of programs and their funding, and brief discussions of selected issues in Indian education.

Student debt has exploded over the past several decades, rising to over $1.7 trillion. Federal student loans represent over 90% of student loan balances, with private financing making up the remainder. Research has shown that the negative impact of student debt has not been distributed equally across different demographics, with Black borrowers disproportionately feeling the adverse effects of student debt. Yet to date, little research has explored how monthly repayment burdens-- defined as the borrower's monthly payment as a share of their earnings--vary across different demographic groups or how that may relate to the specific fixed-payment structure of student loans. This study uses the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), a comprehensive national survey of U.S. families' financial lives, to identify differences in monthly repayment burdens across racial groups. The study found that, on average, Black borrowers pay a greater percentage of their monthly income toward student loans than white borrowers.

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?

Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) play a prominent role in the nation's higher education system. For example, 574 HSIs enrolled over 2 million Hispanic students in the 2021-2022 school year, representing 60 percent of all Hispanic students in college. Like most colleges, HSIs must continue to invest in their facilities and digital infrastructure to serve their students safely and effectively. A 2021 House report includes a provision for the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the infrastructure needs--both physical and digital--at HSIs. This report describes HSIs': (1) facility needs; (2) digital infrastructure needs; and (3) funding sources for capital projects. To conduct this work, GAO surveyed a representative sample of HSIs in the U.S. (including Puerto Rico) and received generalizable responses from 169 colleges. GAO also analyzed the most recent HSI data on college student and institutional characteristics (2021-2022), finances (2020-2021), HSI grant programs (2017-2022), and COVID relief funds (2021). GAO also visited 10 HSIs--selected to capture different sizes, sectors (public or private nonprofit), and geographic regions--and interviewed Education officials and HSI organizations. In addition, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance.

Many of the Bureau of Indian Education's (BIE) 183 schools are located in remote tribal lands that faced extraordinary challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to experience ongoing effects. Congress appropriated about $1.5 billion to help BIE and its schools respond to the pandemic. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the use of COVID-19 relief funds by schools and BIE as part of GAO's responsibilities under the CARES Act. This report examines how BIE and schools spent their COVID funds and BIE's guidance to schools on fund use, and the extent to which BIE oversees schools' fund use. GAO surveyed a generalizable sample of 85 BIE schools, with 70 schools responding, to collect information on their use of COVID funds and the extent to which BIE provided them guidance on spending. GAO also analyzed agency data on BIE schools' purchase card activity; reviewed relevant federal statutes, regulations, and agency policies and procedures for overseeing school COVID spending; and interviewed BIE and school officials.

The Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Fund had two main purposes: (1) to ensure that colleges could continue to provide education to students in the wake of the pandemic and (2) to provide emergency financial assistance through colleges directly to students. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, this ARCC Network brief uses college financial data--including data recently released for fiscal year 2022--to look at what happened to college finances and to assess the importance of HEER funding for the financial solvency of community colleges over the course of the pandemic. The authors find that during the peak years of the pandemic (2020-2022), community colleges lost huge numbers of students: On average, colleges lost 580 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students or 15% of pre-pandemic year-on-year enrollment, whereas college enrollments typically fluctuate by +/-2% each year. The authors also find that federal HEER funding saved community colleges from massive losses in tuition revenue during the pandemic. Instead of losing revenue, HEER funding increased total revenue per college from $81 million to $84 million, covering lost tuition and offsetting new costs associated with the pandemic. HEER funding also provided $4 million in student aid per college, on average, making up for lost resources students experienced during the pandemic. The authors--who also wrote an associated blog post that includes an interactive dashboard on this topic--contend that community colleges are confronting new fiscal challenges post-pandemic. As HEER funding has ended, many community colleges are faced with a difficult fiscal outlook, with increased costs due to inflation and decreased overall enrollments relative to pre-pandemic levels. Navigating these new fiscal realities will be extremely challenging for community colleges, raising new concerns about the viability of many colleges in the post-pandemic era. [This report was written with the Accelerating Recovery in Community Colleges (ARCC) Network.]

This "2019-2020 IACC Autism Research Portfolio Analysis Report" presents trends in autism research funding from 2008 to 2020 and alignment of research projects with the primary Objectives of the 2016-2017 IACC Strategic Plan, as well as the Cross-Cutting Objective. An analysis of funding for projects that align with the Cross-Cutting Theme on disparities in autism, introduced in the "2017-2018 Portfolio Analysis Report," is also included. To ensure that the portfolio analysis represents the most comprehensive view of the U.S. autism research landscape, the Office of National Autism Coordination (ONAC) and the IACC regularly review available information about autism research to identify additional funders to partner in this effort. In 2019 and 2020, five federal funders and four private funders, each of which is supporting autism biomedical and services research, were added to the portfolio analysis.

Earlier this year, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced the College Cost Reduction Act (CCRA), a bill to reform higher education grant and loan programs and to establish new accountability rules for colleges. A key part of the bill would replace the myriad income-driven repayment (IDR) plans for federal student loans, including the Biden administration's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, with a new repayment plan. The bill features income-based payments, a cap on total payments, and monthly subsidies that waive unpaid interest and reduce principal balances for certain borrowers. In this brief, the authors compare the CCRA plan with the Biden administration's SAVE plan, the most generous IDR plan. The authors also compare the CCRA plan with another version of IDR, the Pay as You Earn (PAYE) plan.

This brief examines how specific college affordability policies and practices at the federal, state, and institutional levels can be strengthened to close racial equity gaps in college affordability and completion and to support widespread diversity and representation in higher education. By increasing access to financial aid and shifting the way colleges and universities equitably award and disburse funds, we can leverage financial aid as a marketing, recruitment, enrollment, and retainment tool for both low-income and minoritized students, and to counteract the chilling effect of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision curtailing the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education. Socio-economic status is not a perfect proxy for race, but affordability policies are a critical lever for equity, given that Latinx, Black, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (NHPI), and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) students receive multiple forms of grant aid at higher percentages than their white counterparts. The recommendations made in this paper will help close racial/ethnic and economic equity gaps in higher education without violating the SCOTUS decision. [Eileen and Harold Brown provided additional funding for this series of briefs.]

In 2022, the Boston Opportunity Agenda, the Birth to Eight Collaborative and the City of Boston's Office of Early Childhood partnered in the development of this survey of hundreds of early education professionals in the city of Boston, and then expanded its reach to total more than 600 respondents across the state. In it, educators and administrators shared their demographics and educational background, as well as elements of their work experience, wages, and more. Taken together, the data portray a diverse workforce of dedicated professionals who also must manage low wages and long hours in a system that seeks to attract thousands of new workers to replace retiring workers and meet the need for more available early education seats.

To help the nation respond to the pandemic, Congress injected about $4.6 trillion into the U.S. economy through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and subsequent legislation. Of this amount, over $75 billion was directed to institutions of higher education through the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Fund, including nearly $25 billion to community colleges. Using data from the U.S. Department of Education's Education Stabilization Fund Transparency Portal and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, this ARCC Network report examines how HEER funds were distributed to community colleges and the extent to which the colleges spent those funds. It also explores how HEER funding and spending patterns differed by institutional and student characteristics. HEER funding was based mostly on particular kinds of enrollments: States and community colleges with higher enrollments received more funds, and those with higher percentages of Pell recipients and full-time students tended to receive larger awards. The majority of HEER funds were intended to aid in the transition to distance learning, support faculty and staff training, and maintain core instruction and services at colleges. A substantial portion of HEER funding also went to students in the form of emergency aid, and some colleges received "other" HEER funding based on institutional characteristics to address additional unmet needs. Community colleges spent nearly all the HEER funding they received: Collectively, 976 community colleges spent 95% of funds, and nearly half the colleges (484) spent virtually all of their HEER funds. Colleges that spent less of their HEER funding tended to have received larger per-student awards. [This report was written with the Accelerating Recovery in Community Colleges (ARCC) Network.]

The set of appendices in this volume is a companion to the report "Federal Efforts Towards Investing in Innovation in Education Through the i3 Fund: A Summary of Grantmaking and Evidence-Building." The goal of the U.S. Department of Education's Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) was to build high-quality evidence about effective educational strategies and to expand implementation of these strategies. Between 2010 and 2016, i3 awarded 172 grants totaling $1.4 billion to universities, school districts, and private non-profit organizations. The i3 Fund intentionally awarded different types of grants either to develop and test new, innovative but as-yet-unproven strategies or to learn more about the circumstances under which previously tested strategies are effective. Grantees were required to fund independent evaluations that would meet high standards for quality. Appendices included in this document are: (1) Additional Details about the Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Program; (2) Study Design and Methods; and (3) Supplemental Tables and Information on Study Findings.

Finding innovative educational strategies that work is important to help improve student learning and close equity gaps nationwide. The goal of the U.S. Department of Education's Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) was to build high-quality evidence about effective educational strategies and to expand implementation of these strategies. Between 2010 and 2016, i3 awarded 172 grants totaling $1.4 billion to universities, school districts, and private non-profit organizations. The i3 Fund intentionally awarded different types of grants either to develop and test new, innovative but as-yet-unproven strategies or to learn more about the circumstances under which previously tested strategies are effective. Grantees were required to fund independent evaluations that would meet high standards for quality. This report examines the quality and findings of the 148 i3 grants with completed evaluations and provides information about the focus of the strategies those grantees tested.

The number and availability of service-contingent loan forgiveness and loan repayment programs have expanded considerably since the establishment of the first major federal loan forgiveness program under the National Defense Education Act of 1958. This report provides information on federally authorized service-contingent student loan forgiveness and repayment programs in two tables. Table 1 lists programs that were operational on or after October 1, 2021. Table 2 lists such programs that were previously operational prior to October 1, 2021; that were never active; or for which program information is unavailable. Both tables contain the following information: (1) program name; (2) statutory citation; (3) administering agency; (4) qualifying service required of program participants; (5) maximum amount of benefits program participants can receive; (6) most recently available data regarding the amount of funds appropriated for the program or the amount of benefits awarded under the program; and (7) resources for additional information.

Student-parents face unique postsecondary persistence and completion challenges as they balance raising children with the demands of coursework and possibly employment. To help low-income student-parents earn degrees and credentials, the federal government provides Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) grants to institutions of higher educations (IHEs). CCAMPIS grants support or establish campus-based child care services that primarily serve the needs of low-income students. CCAMPIS was first funded in FY1999 after enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244). This report briefly describes the postsecondary undergraduate student-parent population and their dependent care costs. It then provides an explanation of CCAMPIS eligibility and program requirements. This is followed by a summary of program appropriations trends, program outcome data, and recent congressional proposals to reauthorize and modify the program. [For Version 2 of this report, see ED629780.]

Since 2003, the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) has produced the annual State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report to broaden understanding and enable analysis of state-level and national funding and enrollment trends over time. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state funding for higher education for the most recently completed fiscal year. SHEEO developed the SHEF report building directly on a 25-year effort by Kent Halstead, an analyst and scholar of state policy for higher education. As a result, SHEF includes a robust dataset for fiscal years 1980-2023 with detailed data on state and local funding, tuition revenue, and enrollment. This year's report focuses on fiscal year 2023, which for most states ran from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.