Search

Targeted school funding is a potentially valuable policy lever to increase educational equality by race, ethnicity, and income, but it remains unclear how to target funds most effectively. We use a regression discontinuity approach to compare districts that narrowly passed or failed a school funding election. We use close tax elections in 9 states to identify effects of operating funds and close bond elections in 8 states to identify effects of capital funds. Results indicate positive achievement returns to spending, especially for math achievement and for operating funds. We find similar returns to spending by race, ethnicity, and income (not statistically different), but we find significantly larger returns for students in low-resource districts than in high-resource districts, including larger returns for Black, Latinx, and low-income students. Mediation analyses suggest spending on teacher salaries and counselors may be particularly effective mechanisms to increase achievement among Black and low-income students. [Additional funding for this report was provided by the Gilead Foundation Creating Possible Fund and the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University.]

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).

The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) fiscal year (FY) 2023 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to advance the mission of the Department to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. As evidenced by the information contained in this AFR, the Department has demonstrated that it is a good steward of financial resources and has put in place well-controlled and well-managed business and financial management systems, processes, and practices. The AFR also provides high-level financial and performance highlights, assessments of controls, a summary of challenges, and a demonstration of the Department's stewardship. The AFR is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, management assurances regarding internal controls, and forward-looking information. The Financial Section provides a message from the chief financial officer, the Consolidated Balance Sheet and related notes, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides the unaudited financial statements and related notes, required supplementary information, the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2024, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, "Payment Integrity Information Act" reporting details, civil monetary penalty adjustment for inflation, Climate Related Financial Risk, and the "Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act of 2016" and grant closeout process reporting. The Appendices section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations.

A.C.A. §6-61-234 (Act 148 of 2017) directs the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB) to adopt polices developed by the Arkansas Division of Higher Education (ADHE) necessary to implement a productivity-based funding model for state-supported institutions of higher education. At its October 27, 2017 meeting, the AHECB approved the productivity funding model policies for the two-year colleges and universities. The policies were developed in conjunction with presidents and chancellors after meetings and revisions. The AHECB shall use the productivity-based funding model as the mechanism for recommending funding for applicable state-supported institutions of higher education. The operating recommendations are based upon the productivity funding formula policies approved by the AHECB in October 2017 as well as requests submitted by the non-formula entities. The following data tables are included in this year's report: (1) Summary of Operating Recommendations for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year; (2) 2023-24 Four-Year Universities Recommendations; (3) 2023-24 Two Year Colleges Recommendations; and (4) 2023-24 Non-Formula Entities Recommendations. [For the 2022-2023 Operating Recommendations, see ED621522.]

Operating revenue for public higher education is derived from several sources, such as state appropriations, tuition, room and board, and contracts. State funding in particular constitutes a large share of revenue and is consequently critical for improving enrollment, completion, and labor market outcomes. However, states differ in how institutions are funded, and some approaches may be more effective than others. This report examines the ways in which 12 Midwestern states provide operating funding for public colleges and universities. An overview of possible tradeoffs and outcomes research on these approaches is provided to help policymakers craft more effective funding formulas. Although the level of state funding is important for improving student outcomes, a summary of research on funding models indicated that there is little research on policies other than performance-based funding. The research on performance funding shows generally no effects, modest positive effects, or modest negative effects on student outcomes.

This report, submitted in compliance with 105 ILCS 5/1A-4E, provides a discussion of the overall condition of education in Illinois. Information is included concerning student and teacher demographics; data on teacher and administrator licensure; federal, state, and local resources; and other data on Illinois education. The 2021 Condition of Education finds: (1) The fiscal year 2022 General Funds budget for preK-12 education was $9.2 billion, of which $7.6 billion was appropriated for Evidence-Based Funding (EBF)--an increase of $362.1 million over FY 2021. FY 2022 marked the fifth year of implementation of EBF, which directs increases in state funding to the districts in the greatest financial need; (2) The 2020-21 school year started at the height of the pandemic, and fewer than 10 percent of Illinois students had access to fully in-person learning. While more and more students returned to in-person learning as the school year progressed, the wholly or partially remote environment had a significant impact on student enrollment; (3) The COVID-19 pandemic has affected almost every aspect of education in Illinois--temporarily in some ways and lasting in others. ISBE's Strategic Plan, adopted in November 2020, provides a roadmap for Illinois public schools through 2023 and defines the steps the agency will take to provide each and every child in the state with safe and engaging schools, excellent teachers, and equitable learning opportunities; and (4) Remote learning took a serious toll on student performance and academic achievement. One in five Illinois students was chronically absent last year, missing 10 percent or more of the school year (with or without a valid excuse)--a 21 percent increase over 2019. [For the "Illinois State Board of Education 2020 Annual Report," see ED618647.]

This report shares data on college resources in Ontario as they relate to: (1) College system revenues and expenses; (2) Trends in college funding; (3) Human resources trends; and (4) Student financial aid. Like many organizations around the world, Ontario's colleges had to adapt to a challenging and unpredictable environment during the pandemic. Among the report highlights are: (1) Colleges have continued to deliver quality programs, supported by fees from international students. If international enrolment trends should change, many colleges would face significant fiscal challenges; (2) At $5,068, the real operating grants per full-time equivalent (FTE) student in 2020-21 were approximately six per cent higher than in 2004-05 ($4,801) and 11 per cent lower than the peak of $5,673 in 2007-08; (3) Colleges employ almost 44,000 full-time and part-time people. From 2004-05 to 2020-21, the number of full-time staff employed at colleges increased by 33 per cent; and (4) In 2020-21, about 131,000 college students were OSAP recipients. This represents 74 per cent of the total full-time post-secondary enrolment. [For the 2021 report, see ED614190.]

A.C.A. §6-61-234 (Act 148 of 2017) directs the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB) to adopt polices developed by the Arkansas Division of Higher Education (ADHE) necessary to implement a productivity-based funding model for state-supported institutions of higher education. At its October 27, 2017 meeting, the AHECB approved the productivity funding model policies for the two-year colleges and universities. The policies were developed in conjunction with presidents and chancellors after meetings and revisions. The AHECB shall use the productivity-based funding model as the mechanism for recommending funding for applicable state-supported institutions of higher education. The operating recommendations are based upon the productivity funding formula policies approved by the AHECB in October 2017 as well as requests submitted by the non-formula entities. The following data tables are included in this year's report: (1) Summary of Operating Recommendations for the 2022-2023 Fiscal Year; (2) 2022-23 Four-Year Universities Recommendations; (3) 2022-23 Two Year Colleges Recommendations; and (4) 2022-23 Non-Formula Entities Recommendations. [For the 2020-2021 Operating Recommendations, see ED613770.]

The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) fiscal year (FY) 2021 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to advance the mission of the Department to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. As evidenced by the information contained in this AFR, the Department has demonstrated that it is a good steward of financial resources and has put in place well-controlled and well-managed business and financial management systems, processes, and practices. The AFR is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, management assurances regarding internal controls, and forward-looking information. The Financial Section provides a message from the chief financial officer, the financial statements and notes, required supplementary information, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2022, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, "Payment Integrity Information Act" reporting details, civil monetary penalty adjustment for inflation, and "Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act of 2016" and grant closeout process reporting. Finally, the Appendices section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations. [For the 2020 Agency Financial Report, see ED611653.]

This report shares data on college resources in Ontario as they relate to: (1) College system revenues and expenses; (2) Trends in college funding; (3) Human resources trends; and (4) Student financial aid. Among the highlights are: (1) In 2019-20, college system revenues totaled $5.5 billion. Grant revenue from all sources accounted for only 34 per cent of college system revenue; (2) In 2019-20, real operating grants per full-time equivalent (FTE) student were about five per cent lower than in 2004-05 and 19 per cent lower than during the peak in 2007-08; (3) Colleges employ almost 52,000 people. From 2004-05 to 2019-20, the number of full-time staff employed at colleges increased by 35 per cent; and (4) In 2019-20, about 140,000 college students were OSAP recipients. This represents 74 per cent of the total full-time post-secondary enrolment. [For the 2020 report, see ED610776.]

This past year has been unlike any in recent history. In March, the global COVID-19 pandemic forced Illinois to shift suddenly to remote learning for all students. This adjustment exposed the digital divide as a stark reality. One bright spot in the year occurred in May, when the Illinois' plan for career and technical education (CTE) received federal approval. This plan, which focuses on equity and inclusion, raises the bar for CTE in Illinois and sets up students for success in the post-pandemic economy. Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has been an exercise in equity and how to truly make decisions in the best interests of students. Informed by this experience, the agency's new strategic plan was finalized. The plan provides a roadmap for Illinois public schools through 2023 and defines the steps the agency will take to offer all Illinois students safe and engaging schools, excellent teachers, and equitable learning opportunities. It also incorporates a stand-alone Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan that introduces new tools to guide the agency's internal decision-making and improve its external supports for schools. This annual report provides updates in the following categories: (1) 2020 Illinois Teacher of the Year; (2) 2020 Condition of Education; (3) State, Local, and Federal Resources; (4) Schools and Districts; (5) Students; (6) Student Performance; (7) Educators; and (8) Special Education. [This report was published by the Illinois State Board of Education's Internal Communication Department.]

The purpose of the United States Department of Education's (Department) fiscal year (FY) 2020 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to advance the mission of the Department to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. As evidenced by the information contained in this AFR, the Department has demonstrated that it is a good steward of financial resources and has put in place well-controlled and well-managed business and financial management systems, processes, and practices. The AFR is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, management assurances regarding internal controls, and forward-looking information. The Financial Section provides a message from the Chief Financial Officer, the financial statements and notes, required supplementary information, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2021, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, Payment Integrity Information Act reporting details, civil monetary penalty adjustment for inflation, "GONE Act" and grant closeout process reporting, and Real Property information. Finally, the Appendices section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations. [For the 2019 Agency Financial Report, see ED607185.]

Nebraska's constitution and state statutes require Nebraska's Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education (the Commission) to review the budget requests of the University of Nebraska, the Nebraska State College System, and the community colleges in light of specific criteria set forth in the statutes. The Commission also makes recommendations on major statewide funding issues and initiatives, as suggested by statute. The Commission's recommendations begin with a discussion of statewide funding issues and initiatives. This biennium, the Commission recommends that the state continue to concentrate on two statewide issues: making postsecondary education more affordable and responding to identified educational and workforce development needs in Nebraska. After considering statewide issues, the recommendations turn to the institutional requests. In the process of developing the public postsecondary education budget recommendations for the 2021-23 biennium, the Commission reviewed 15 requests as part of the continuation budget requests, one request for a new and expanded program, and the community college state aid request. As shown on page 4 of this report, the total increase requested for the biennium by public postsecondary institutions is $45,090,733, a 5.81% increase over the current base funding of $776,521,329. In its recommendations, the Commission recognizes that financing higher education is a shared responsibility between the state and students, but believes that the preponderance of the responsibility for affordable public higher education rests with the state. [For the 2019-21 biennium report, see ED604767.]

The purpose of the United States Department of Education's (the Department) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. The AFR provides high-level financial and performance highlights, assessments of controls, a summary of challenges, and a demonstration of the Department's stewardship. It is designed to focus on use of federal resources provided to or distributed by the Department to support its mission, with an emphasis on the challenges ahead. The AFR is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, management assurances regarding internal controls, and forward-looking information. The Financial Section provides a message from the Chief Financial Officer, the financial statements and notes, required supplementary information and supplementary stewardship information, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2020, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, payment integrity reporting details, a fraud reduction report, a summary of the Department's efforts to implement the reduce the footprint policy, and the civil monetary penalty adjustment for inflation. Finally, the Appendices section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations. [For the 2018 Agency Financial Report, see ED607160.]

For decades, state disinvestment in public higher education, paired with inequitable funding across institution types, has undermined states' ability to provide accessible and affordable higher education opportunities. In recent years, varied higher education stakeholders began calling for an end to state disinvestment through a reimagined federal-state partnership to better support public colleges. The authors of this report are specifically proposing a framework for a new federal-state partnership that will equip states to maintain their investment in public colleges across economic cycles. The framework in this report outlines three key design principles that a federal-state partnership must include to be effective: (1) providing strong incentives to maintain and increase state investment; (2) ensuring stable funding across economic cycles; and (3) making headway in closing racial and economic equity gaps in access and attainment. To account for changing budget realities, the report outlines several adjustable policy levers that Congress could scale up or down depending on available funding, as opposed to proposing a minimum or recommended dollar amount for federal spending. The authors also provide illustrated examples at several levels of funding.

The "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts" is an annual publication providing a meaningful perspective to staff in the Division of the Budget, the Legislature, the Education Department, and school officials concerning school expenditures, State Aid, and local support. This edition of the Analysis summarizes the finances of the 674 major school districts in school year 2016-17, as well as public school expenditures and State Aid since 1998-99. In summarizing school district expenditures, the Analysis compares various percentiles of operating expenditures per pupil and describes the magnitude of the disparity in approved operating expenditures per pupil between districts in the 10th and 90th percentiles for each year. Decile tables ranked by wealth, expenditure per pupil, and need/resource index are also included. These decile tables provide comparisons of school districts' expenditures per pupil, tax rates, and wealth per pupil. Another feature of the Analysis is its presentation of five-year trend data on full value, expenditures, State Aid, tax rates, and local revenue. These items are displayed on a per pupil basis for the entire State, New York City, and the rest of State (school districts outside New York City). [This report was produced by the New York State Education Department's Fiscal Analysis and Research Unit. For the 2015-16 report, see ED595357.]

The 2019 Local School Finance Study examines data from the 2016-17 school year. The purpose of this annual study is to isolate local spending from state and federal spending to examine the capacity and actual effort of counties to support public schools. The Local School Finance Study focuses not only on the amount that counties spend on schools, but also on each county's investment in relation to their taxable resources. The Public School Forum of North Carolina's research has identified two key trends in local school finance that have led to deepened educational inequality across districts over time: (1) There is a widening gap between wealthier counties and those with lower levels of wealth; and (2) Wealthier counties are able to allocate more local dollars to public schools while simultaneously making less taxing effort. These funding disparities have tangible impacts in North Carolina classrooms. In 2016-17, counties spent approximately $3.1 billion to fund instructional expenses, accounting for 24 percent of the combined federal, state, and local total. This year, the Local School Finance Study includes new additions in the expanded "Gaps and Trends" section of the report. The authors conducted interviews with local school finance officers and administrators to gain a deeper understanding of the needs of different districts and the impact of local finance inequities in different contexts. Three segments highlight the voices of experts from several rural and urban districts across the state. [For the 2018 Local School Finance Study, see ED585762.]

The purpose of the United States Department of Education's (the Department) Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. The AFR is designed to focus on use of federal resources provided to or distributed by the Department to support its mission, with a particular emphasis on the challenges ahead. It is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, and management assurances regarding internal controls. The Financial Section provides a message from the Chief Financial Officer, the financial statements and notes, required supplementary information and supplementary stewardship information, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides a message from the Chief Financial Officer, the financial statements and notes, required supplementary information and supplementary stewardship information, and the report from the independent auditors. Finally, the Appendixes section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations. [For the 2017 Agency Financial Report, see ED607163.]

Despite massive cuts in state funding over the past thirty years, the University of California has managed to keep enrollment on pace with growth in population. With California's population projected to grow 22.5 percent (from 40 to 49 million by 2040), that will no longer be the case, unless UC is able to find a new funding model. Informed by the historical analysis in the report "Approaching a Tipping Point: A History and Prospectus of Funding for the University of California", this essay revisits the options for funding UC from that report, including: reinvestment by California lawmakers and a proposed general bond measure for capital construction; increasing research funding to help subsidize teaching and public service programs; revising the indirect-cost agreement with the State of California; raising undergraduate tuition and fees for upper income students and establishing tuition pricing model tiered by student family income; explore differential fees by major; and reducing the percentage of UC undergraduate tuition income that is "returned-to-aid" in favor of increased fundraising for financial aid. All relate to two central questions: a) can UC afford to grow in its enrollment and academic programs with the state's population and needs? and b) how to identify new sources of revenue and pursue management efficiencies to reduce operating and capital costs? Without a substantial boost in income from the state or other sources, UC may be approaching a crossroads, where it continues to grow in enrollment without adequate funding, or where it instead chooses to halt or limit growth to focus on maintaining quality and productivity, but with serious consequences for California. Any significant state reinvestment will depend on the new California governor. Governors in the past have been key players in creating and building California's pioneering higher education system. A new governor should have ambitions for higher education that match those of Californians.

The State constitution and state statutes require Nebraska's Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education to review the budget requests of the University of Nebraska, the Nebraska State College System, and the community colleges in light of specific criteria set forth in the statutes. The Commission also makes recommendations on major statewide funding issues and initiatives, as suggested by statute. The Commission's recommendations begin with a discussion of statewide funding issues and initiatives. This biennium, the Commission recommends that the state concentrate on two statewide issues: financial aid for low-income students, including the Access College Early (ACE) program for high school students from low-income families, and continued state support for public postsecondary institutions. After considering statewide issues, the recommendations turn to the institutional requests. In the process of developing the public postsecondary education budget recommendations for the 2019-21 biennium, the Commission reviewed 11 requests as part of the continuation budget requests, one request for a new and expanded program, and the community college state aid request. In its recommendations, the Commission recognizes that financing higher education is a shared responsibility between the state and students, but believes that the preponderance of the responsibility for affordable public higher education rests with the state.

The "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts" is an annual publication providing a meaningful perspective to staff in the Division of the Budget, the Legislature, the Education Department, and school officials concerning school expenditures, State Aid, and local support. This edition of the Analysis summarizes the finances of the 674 major school districts in school year 2015-16, as well as public school expenditures and State Aid since 1997-98. In summarizing school district expenditures, the Analysis compares various percentiles of operating expenditures per pupil and describes the magnitude of the disparity in approved operating expenditures per pupil between districts in the 10th and 90th percentiles for each year. Decile tables ranked by wealth, expenditure per pupil, and need/resource index are also included. These decile tables provide comparisons of school districts' expenditures per pupil, tax rates, and wealth per pupil. Another feature of the Analysis is its presentation of five-year trend data on full value, expenditures, State Aid, tax rates, and local revenue. These items are displayed on a per pupil basis for the entire State, New York City and the rest of State (school districts outside New York City). [This report was produced by the New York State Education Department's Fiscal Analysis and Research Unit. For the 2014-15 report, see ED579674.]

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

The purpose of the United States Department of Education's (the Department) Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. The AFR is designed to focus on use of federal resources provided to or distributed by the Department to support its mission, with a particular emphasis on the challenges ahead. It is made up of four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, and management assurances regarding internal controls. The Financial Section provides a message from the Chief Financial Officer, the financial statements and notes, required supplementary information and supplementary stewardship information, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides payment integrity reporting details, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, and the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2018 Executive Summary. Finally, the Appendixes section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations. [For the 2016 Agency Financial Report, see ED607151.]

Data for the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources "CUPA-HR's" "Administrators in Higher Education Salary Survey" were collected November 1, 2016-February 5, 2017. The survey was conducted entirely online through Surveys Online, CUPA-HR's data collection and reporting system. For this year's survey, data for 49,619 incumbents were collected on 191 administrative positions. In addition to the salaries collected for each position, data were collected on gender, race/ethnicity, year the incumbent entered the position, and the incumbent's birth year. Except for salary information, provision of the other demographic information was voluntary. Participants could either enter this data manually or upload a file containing salary and demographic data. In addition, data about institutional characteristics (operating expenses; student, faculty, and staff size; collective bargaining availability for certain groups; and number of separations in the past year) were collected. This report presents key findings, trends, and comprehensive tables for the 2016-17 academic year "Administrators in Higher Education Salary Report."

The "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts" is an annual publication providing a meaningful perspective to staff in the Division of the Budget, the Legislature, the Education Department, and school officials concerning school expenditures, State Aid, and local support. This edition of the Analysis summarizes the finances of major school districts in school year 2014-15, as well as public school expenditures and State Aid since 1996-97. In summarizing school district expenditures, the Analysis compares various percentiles of operating expenditures per pupil and describes the magnitude of the disparity in approved operating expenditures per pupil between districts in the 10th and 90th percentiles for each year. Decile tables ranked by wealth, expenditure per pupil and a need/resource index are also included. These decile tables provide comparisons of school districts' expenditures per pupil, tax rates, and wealth per pupil. Another feature of the Analysis is its presentation of five-year trend data on full value, expenditures, State Aid, tax rates, and local revenue. These items are displayed on a per pupil basis for the entire State, New York City and the rest of State (school districts outside New York City). In terms of data collection, the total revenue from State sources displayed in the tables from 1996-97 through 2014-15 is the State Aid reported in the Annual Financial Report (Form ST-3) submitted by school districts. It should be noted that this data item may include prior year State Aid adjustment payments. Data for 2015-16 is based on State Aid payments to school districts and does not include some grants, prior year adjustments, and miscellaneous revenues from State sources. Total expenditures for 2015-16 are based on estimates provided by school districts. The 2014 Income data are as of October 2016. Other items contained in the Analysis are as of May 2016. School Tax Relief (STAR) revenue is also addressed in the report. [For the previous report, "Analysis of School Finances in New York State School Districts, 2013-14," see ED579673.]

This publication provides financial information on the government-funded vocational education and training (VET) system in Australia. Reporting includes VET funds transacted through government accounts of the Australian and state and territory government departments and their controlled training organisation entities such as TAFE institutes and colleges. In 2016, compared with 2015: (1) operating revenues for the government--funded VET system were $8144.4 million, a decrease in nominal terms of $1642.0 million (16.8%); (2) revenue from the Australian Government decreased by $1246.7 million (27.3%); (3) revenue from state and territory governments decreased by $424.7 million (12.8%); (4) revenue from fee-for-service activities increased by $33.0 million (2.9%); and (5) total operating expenditures were $7071.9 million, a decrease of $52.3 million (0.7%).