Search

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 requires states to use a variety of indicators, including standardized tests and attendance records, to designate schools for support and improvement based on schoolwide performance and the performance of groups of students within schools. Schoolwide and group-level performance indicators are also diagnostically relevant for district-level and school-level decisionmaking outside the formal accountability context. Like all measurements, performance indicators are subject to measurement error, with some having more random error than others. Measurement error can have an outsized effect for smaller groups of students, rendering their measured performance unreliable, which can lead to misidentification of groups with the greatest needs. Many states address the reliability problem by excluding from accountability student groups smaller than an established threshold, but this approach sacrifices equity, which requires counting students in all relevant groups. With the aim of improving reliability, particularly for small groups of students, this study applied a stabilization model called Bayesian hierarchical modeling to group-level data (with groups assigned according to demographic designations) within schools in New Jersey. Stabilization substantially improved the reliability of test -based indicators, including proficiency rates and median student growth percentiles. The stabilization model used in this study was less effective for non test based indictors, such as chronic absenteeism and graduation rate, for several reasons related to their statistical properties. When stabilization is applied to the indicators best suited for it (such as proficiency and growth), it leads to substantial changes in the lists of schools designated for support and improvement. These results indicate that, applied correctly, stabilization can increase the reliability of performance indicators for processes using these indicators, simultaneously improving accuracy and equity.

The focus of this report is on mental health interventions delivered in K-12 neighborhood public schools. A vast array of commercially available programs, conceptual frameworks, and approaches to school-based mental health are not unanimously recommended, applied, or agreed upon. This poses a challenge to any comprehensive description or evaluation of school-based mental health. Key findings include: (1) There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support school-based mental health initiatives. Rigorous evaluations of universal programs on mental health literacy, awareness, prevention, and screening--and of many social-emotional learning programs--find neither reduced rates of mental health conditions nor improved academic outcomes; (2) The concept of school-based mental health, as currently delivered in typical neighborhood public schools, is incoherent because it primarily serves youth who are not specifically in need of mental health treatment, while insufficiently serving those with mental disorders; (3) While some youth can benefit from high-quality mental health services, universal mental health programs carry underestimated potential harms: directly, through poor-quality care, overdiagnosis, and misallocated spending; and indirectly, through wasted class time and reduced accountability in the mental health and education systems; and (4) Federal agencies responsible for school-based mental health programs provide no meaningful or coordinated guidance on essential questions such as what it means for a program to be effective, what expectations exist in "mental health deserts," and how schools should sort through numerous overlapping initiatives.

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

This First Look report presents data on public elementary and secondary education revenues and expenditures at the local education agency (LEA) or school district level for fiscal year (FY) 2022. Specifically, this report includes the following types of school district finance data: (1) revenue, current expenditure, and capital outlay expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) current expenditures by function and object; (4) revenues and current expenditures per pupil; and (5) revenues and expenditures from COVID-19 Federal Assistance Funds. This First Look report focuses on education revenues and expenditures at the school district level. The finance data used in this report are from the School District Finance Survey (F-33), 2F 3 a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is a group of annual public elementary/secondary data collections administered by NCES. The F-33 survey consists of LEA-level finance data submitted annually to the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. SEAs report financial data covering services that provide or support prekindergarten through high school for public education for a variety of types of LEAs. These LEAs include regular school districts, independent charter school districts, as well as a substantial number of administrative and operating LEAs that are unlike typical school districts (e.g., education service agencies that provide specialized education services for school districts, such as vocational and other specialized education services for school districts). The purpose of this 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 F-33 data files and are not intended to emphasize any particular issue(s).

California is home to the fifth-largest population of Black people in the United States, approximately 2.8 million individuals. However, when Black Californians seek access to the state's colleges and universities, they face undue bureaucratic and financial barriers. This Equity Alert explores a legislative proposal to create a California Black-Serving Institutions (BSI) Program intended to improve how Black Californians experience and succeed in higher education. The proposal and the potential benefits are discussed, followed by critical considerations to strengthen the effectiveness of the designation and improve the ways colleges and universities in California support Black student success.

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.

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.

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

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

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

The 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.

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?

A 50-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products has been endorsed by California voters to fund early childhood services under Proposition 10, California Children and Families First Act of 1998. In compliance with the legislative requirement of Result-Based Accountability (RBA) on revenue spending, this report delineates evaluation findings from 39 programs that received over $7.7 million of the annual state investment in Kern County, the third largest county in California by land area. Following the RBA model, this report incorporates qualitative and quantitative analyses of the program's effectiveness and service integration. A five-chapter structure is adopted to support the dissemination of the multilevel findings in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 -- Built on the description of the Commission leadership in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 contains assessment findings to address the program impact on Child Health, Family Functioning, and Child Development. Chapter 3 clarifies service partnership building in Systems of Care. Improvement of child well-being and family functioning is summarized in Chapter 4 to document the turning-the-curve process on important indicators of child well-being and parent support. The report concludes in Chapter 5 with a review of past recommendations and an introduction to new recommendations for next year. Netdraw, Quanteda in R, SAS and SPSS packages are employed to support data visualization, text analytics, and statistical computing. [For "First 5 Kern Annual Report 2021-2022," see ED626036.]

In the context of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021, 'academic integrity' describes a provider's responsibility to ensure its staff and students act with honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility as they engage in learning and teaching in courses and units of study. (See TEQSA's resources on academic integrity). Similarly, 'research integrity' describes a provider's responsibility to ensure research is conducted ethically and responsibly and to promote a culture of ethical and responsible research. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018 (Responsible Conduct of Research Code) sets out a number of responsibilities and principles that apply to providers and researchers. Responsibilities relevant to providers include: (1) the development and maintenance of current and readily available policies and procedures, which ensure institutional practices are consistent with the principles and responsibilities of the Responsible Conduct of Research Code; (2) providing mechanisms to receive concerns or complaints about potential breaches of the Responsible Conduct of Research Code and investigate and resolve potential breaches; and (3) ensuring breaches are investigated in an effective way in accordance with procedural fairness and the welfare of all parties to an investigation. The purpose and intent of the guidance note about academic and research integrity is to support providers in ensuring they have the relevant policies, processes, training, oversight, and culture to protect and maintain the integrity of their academia and research

In 2021-2022, Head Start served nearly 790,000 young children, primarily from low-income families. However, the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) estimates that far more children are eligible than can be served due to limited resources, heightening the importance of targeting services effectively. House Report 117-96 includes a provision for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the nationwide distribution of Head Start resources and what could help better align funding with need. This report examines the extent to which: (1) Head Start resources align geographically with child poverty; (2) statutory provisions support aligning resources with need; and (3) Office of Head Start (OHS), uses its grantmaking authority to align resources with need. GAO analyzed Head Start enrollment data from 2022 and Head Start funding and Census child poverty data from 2006 and 2021 (most recent available comparable data), interviewed OHS officials and stakeholder organizations, such as the National Head Start Association; and reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents.

The provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) include (1) the requirement for states to periodically review resource allocation in local education agencies (LEAs) serving a significant number of schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement (CSI), targeted support and improvement (TSI), and additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI) and (2) the requirement that CSI and ATSI plans both identify and address local resource inequities. ESSA requires states to periodically review resource allocation to support school improvement in schools that qualify for comprehensive and targeted support. In 2019, the Resource Allocation Review Community of Practice (RAR CoP) of the United States Department of Education (the Department) provided a useful foundation. The RAR CoP calls upon state agencies to connect the additional resource inequity provisions outlined in ESSA and align resource allocation reviews with the comprehensive school improvement. Building on the guidance offered by the RAR CoP, Utah, with the support of WestEd's Region 15 Comprehensive Center (R15CC), was among the first states to design and implement an RAR process. This report shares some discoveries and lessons learned during the design and implementation process.

This document provides state education agency (SEA) leaders with a systematized approach to identifying and defining elements, major tasks, and deliverables for conducting a meaningful resource allocation review (RAR). Based on the findings of an intensive four-year design process, field research, and recommendations from the pilot audit of the RAR process conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, this document: (1) offers education leaders at the state and local level with concrete examples of resource inequities; (2) presents considerations for decision-making around resources, and (3) proposes ways to reduce the burden on LEAs and schools by streamlining the RAR completion process.

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.]

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.

In the United States, K-12 school finance is largely controlled by the states. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds are distributed based on 51 different configurations of formulas, rules, and regulations to over 13,000 districts that vary in terms of the students they serve, their ability to raise revenue locally, and many other characteristics. Good school finance systems compensate for factors states cannot control (e.g., student poverty, labor costs) using levers that they can control (e.g., driving funding to districts that need it most). The authors have devised a framework that evaluates states based largely on how well they accomplish this balance. Each state's funding is assessed while accounting directly for the students and communities served by its public schools. In this sixth edition of the annual report, the K-12 school finance systems of all 50 states and the District of Columbia is evaluated. The latest year of data presented is the 2020-21 school year. [This report was co-prepared by University of Miami School of Education and Human Development.]

This brief highlights the equity issues and potential negative consequences related to a lack of access to menstrual products at U.S. institutions of higher education (IHEs). It also describes promising strategies and practices that IHEs can implement to increase access to menstrual products.

The Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) annually submits a report outlining the method used in determining the coefficients for each site characteristic used to establish the transportation allocation for the following year. The Student Transportation Allocation Reporting System (STARS) will determine the 2024-25 school year allocation. The 2024-25 regression analysis will use data elements from spring 2024, fall 2024, and winter 2025 reporting periods.

The Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) program provides academic and cultural supports to meet the specialized and unique educational needs of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students enrolled in public schools and select tribal schools. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), within the Department of the Interior, contracts with Tribes, tribal organizations, states, public school districts and others who provide JOM services to eligible students. Since 1995, BIE has relied on the same count of eligible students who received services that year to determine its budget allocation for the program, according to agency officials. In 2018, Congress passed the Johnson-O'Malley Supplemental Indian Education Program Modernization Act (the JOM Modernization Act or the act) to update and modernize the program. The act includes provisions for BIE to conduct and report on two student counts: a one-time count to estimate the number of AI/AN students potentially eligible for JOM program services and a separate, reoccurring annual count of students currently receiving services. In addition, the act includes a provision for us to review BIE's process for conducting these student counts. This report includes information on the steps BIE took, or plans to take, to estimate the number of students potentially eligible for JOM services, count students currently receiving services, and distribute JOM funds to contractors based on the number of students they serve.

COVID-19 upended schooling across the United States, but with what consequences for the state-level institutions that drive most education policy? This paper reports findings on two related research questions. First, what were the most important ways state government education policymakers changed schools and schooling from the moment they began to reckon with the seriousness of COVID-19 through the first full academic year of the pandemic? Second, how deep did those changes go -- are there indications the pandemic triggered efforts to make lasting changes in states' education policymaking institutions? Using multiple-methods research focused on Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Oregon, we documented policies enacted during the period from March 2020 through June 2021 across states and across sectors (traditional and choice) in three COVID-19-related education policy domains: school closings and reopenings, budgeting and resource allocation, and assessment and accountability systems. We found that states quickly enacted radical changes to policies that had taken generations to develop. They mandated sweeping school closures in Spring 2020, and then a diverse array of school reopening policies in the 2020/2021 school year. States temporarily modified their attendance-based funding systems and allocated massive federal COVID-19 relief funds. Finally, states suspended annual student testing, modified the wide array of accountability policies and programs linked to the results of those tests, and adapted to new assessment methods. These crisis-driven policy changes deeply disrupted long-established patterns and practices in education. Despite this, we found that state education governance systems remained resilient, and that at least during the first 16 months of the pandemic, stakeholders showed little interest in using the crisis to trigger more lasting institutional change. We hope these findings enable state policymakers to better prepare for future crises.