Search

The Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education provides funding and priority recommendations for Nebraska State College, University of Nebraska, and Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture at Curtis (NCTA) capital construction budget requests, as outlined in Nebraska's Constitution and Statutes. The overarching principle used in this process is to provide safe, functional, well-utilized, and well-maintained facilities that support institutional efforts to provide exemplary programs. Section I of this report outlines the Commission's recommendations to continue reaffirmation funding of all partially funded capital construction projects. Section II outlines the State College, University, and NCTA capital construction budget requests as submitted by their respective governing board. These requests include Task Force for Building Renewal requests and individual capital construction budget requests from the State Colleges and University. Funding recommendations are provided in Section III of the report. The Commission prioritized one sector initiative, thirteen individual capital construction projects, and LB309 funding requests for the 2025-2027 biennium as outlined in Section IV. The Commission's prioritized list is aimed at identifying from a statewide perspective the most urgent capital construction needs for the coming biennium. The prioritization is designed to assist the Governor and Legislature in developing a strategy to address the most critical institutional facility needs from a statewide perspective.

This First Look report introduces new National Household Education Survey data that provides estimates for children in the United States from birth through the age of 5 who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten by 2023 on early childhood care and education arrangements. The report also presents data on parents' ratings of factors that affected their choice of child care arrangements, degree of difficulty finding care, reported reasons for difficulty finding the desired care arrangement, and on their participation in various learning activities at home with their children.

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).

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

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

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

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 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.]

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.

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.]

In the 2022-23 school year, Arizona began implementation of a "universal voucher" program through which all school-age students are eligible for a voucher, and families can use public funding to underwrite private or homeschool education for their children. Universal vouchers in Arizona are an expansion of the existing Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, which was targeted to students with special education needs or in specific circumstances. To better understand this program's impact on Arizona public schools, this report undertook a financial review of the expanded Arizona ESA program using publicly available data from the state budget, which details total state expenditures and student enrollment; Arizona Department of Education (ADE) quarterly reports to the State Board of Education, which detail the number of ESA applications received, approved, and denied; and ADE enrollment figures. The authors analyzed student enrollment in the program, the combined cost of the earlier enacted ESA program and the new universal voucher program, and their effects on education funding in the state. This report outlines the cost estimates and calculations in detail.

Multilingual learners (MLs) are students whose primary language is not English and are eligible for English language development services through the Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program (TBIP). Eligible MLs receive TBIP services until they become proficient in English. During the 2022-23 school year, 149,357 students were identified as multilingual learners.

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.

Throughout this report, we will investigate trends for administrators overall and provide further analyses on three key administrator positions: presidents, provosts, and chief human resources officers (CHROs). This report starts with an investigation of trends in representation and pay equity by gender (women, men) among administrators over the past 20 years (from 2001-02 to 2021-22). We will then cover intersectional trends in composition and pay equity by race/ethnicity (Native American or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latina/o, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, two or more races, White) and gender within the administrator workforce over the past 10 years (i.e., from 2011-12 to 2021-22). We will also investigate whether diversity and pay equity among administrators differs by total operating expense quartile. We will then investigate trends in diversity and pay equity for three key positions: presidents, provosts, and CHROs. Finally, we will discuss conclusions and recommendations for higher ed institutions based on these results.

Rising college prices and student debt, the growth and collapse of online for-profit colleges, and expansions of federal grant, loan, and loan forgiveness policies have increased calls for more accountability in our higher education system. And there is significant consensus among lawmakers that the existing set of quality assurance policies for federal aid programs are not protecting students and taxpayers. But although these conditions have generated many proposals for policies to hold colleges accountable, none have won broad support among lawmakers. To help advance the reform debate, we review and compare recent proposed policies that address accountability and, drawing on interviews we conducted with former congressional staff members and higher education advocates, what factors have prevented policymakers from enacting reforms, and what conditions may be necessary to bring about policy changes. The report reveals that lawmakers, researchers, and advocates have put forth a wide range of reform proposals to strengthen quality assurance rules for federal aid programs. This variety implies that there is considerable disagreement over what reforms are needed and disagreement over the underlying problem. Some proposals focus on graduation rates, while others assess how colleges spend money. The most common approach among the proposals is to judge colleges on how their students fare in repaying their student loans, suggesting a possible place for consensus. The report also shows there are many political and design roadblocks to reform despite broad support for more accountability. The current political environment makes bipartisan policymaking difficult. Additionally, higher education is an open-access and diverse system of institutions, making policymakers reluctant to pass policies that might reduce access, particularly for low-income students and students from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups. Still, the individuals we interviewed all discussed several major design issues that will further frustrate reform efforts, such as whether students who do not receive federal aid should be included in the policies and whether some fields and institutions should be exempt. Regardless, many of the recent reform proposals illustrate the need to improve assurance for aid programs and should ultimately encourage lawmakers to work toward reforms that strengthen our higher education system and federal aid programs.

Since its inception in 1993, the National Guard Youth Challenge Program has produced over 200,000 graduates across dozens of sites located in the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Currently, the program operates 39 sites. House Report 117-88, accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2022, included a provision for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the National Guard Youth Challenge Program, including its implementation and oversight. This report describes (1) how selected sites implemented core program components, and examines the extent to which the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the National Guard Bureau (NGB) have (2) conducted oversight of the Challenge Program and (3) assessed its performance, among other objectives. GAO reviewed program policies, inspections, and audits; surveyed program officials at a nongeneralizable sample of 13 sites; and interviewed OSD, NGB, and site officials.

Since 2020, the federal government has distributed almost $2 billion to American school districts to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 pandemic school closures. Released in three separate tranches through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) fund, the Trump and Biden administrations outlined parameters for spending this unprecedented amount of money and ensured that most of it went directly to local school districts, with a comparative sliver going to state education agencies. This report gives an overview of the most common ESSER expenditures to date and assesses the factors that might influence whether district ESSER investments will make a difference for students. It also provides recommendations for how stakeholders should evaluate the ESSER experiment once it officially ends.

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Kentucky Department of Education (Kentucky) had an adequate oversight process in place to ensure that (1) local educational agencies' (LEA) American Rescue Plan (ARP) Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) plans met applicable requirements and (2) LEAs use ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable requirements and their approved LEA ARP ESSER plans. The review covered Kentucky's processes for reviewing and approving LEA ARP ESSER plans and overseeing LEAs' use of ARP ESSER funds from March 24, 2021, through July 31, 2022. For the first objective, the authors reviewed the summary results of Kentucky's review of LEA ARP ESSER plan narrative submissions to verify that Kentucky approved the plan narratives for all 171 LEAs and gain an understanding of how often and why plan reviewers did not approve plans. For the second objective, the authors reviewed samples of ARP ESSER expenditures at Warren County and Jefferson County to determine whether they used ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable requirements and their approved LEA ARP ESSER plans. It was determined that the ARP ESSER plans for Warren County and Jefferson County met applicable requirements and that Kentucky was consistent in how it reviewed and approved the two plans. Kentucky also designed a process to annually review and approve updated LEA ARP ESSER plans that, if implemented properly, is adequate to ensure that updated plans meet applicable requirements.

This report presents an overview of research and development (R&D) in science and engineering (S&E) fields performed at institutions of higher education in the United States, including historical trends and recent patterns. The report first examines the financing and performance of R&D at universities based on patterns in funding and spending, then discusses the physical infrastructure required to enable and sustain academic R&D. The final section addresses the human resources engaged in academic R&D, particularly the graduate students and postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) who perform academic R&D under the supervision of faculty and full-time research personnel. [For "Academic Research and Development. Science & Engineering Indicators 2022. NSB-2021-3," see ED615448.]

Construction and maintenance of school facilities are big cost drivers for schools, and the quality of school facilities can make a difference in student learning and health. Notably, school building construction is the second-highest capital expenditure of state and local funds, trailing only investments in infrastructure like roads. Ensuring access to safe, modern learning environments for all students is a critical and often overlooked aspect of school funding policy at the state level. A 2021 analysis estimates an annual shortfall of $85 billion in school facilities funding and recommends districts nearly double their spending on maintenance, operations, and capital construction. This brief discusses: (1) the importance of school facilities for student equity; (2) local roles in capital funding; (3) states' differing approaches to facilities funding; and (4) funding charter school facilities.

This 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) 2021. 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; and (4) revenues and current expenditures per pupil. The finance data used in this report are from the School District Finance Survey (F-33), a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is the primary National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) database on public elementary and secondary education in the United States. 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. [For "Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: FY 20. Finance Tables. NCES 2022-303," see ED624445.]

The objectives of this audit was to determine whether the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (Washington) had an adequate oversight process in place to ensure that (1) local educational agencies' (LEA) American Rescue Plan (ARP) Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) plans met applicable requirements and (2) LEAs use ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable requirements and their approved LEA ARP ESSER plans. The audit covered March 24, 2021, through October 31, 2022. For the first objective, the authors gained an understanding of Washington's process for reviewing and approving LEAs' ARP ESSER plans, which consisted of both their Academic and Student Well-Being Recovery Plan (Academic Plan) and their grant application. For the second objective, the authors gained an understanding of Washington's oversight of LEAs' use of ARP ESSER funds. Washington did not have an adequate review and approval process to ensure that LEA ARP ESSER plans met all applicable requirements. As a result, the public did not have sufficient insight into how the LEAs planned to spend ARP ESSER funds.

Locally-elected school boards have wide discretion over allocating money among the schools in their district, yet we know relatively little about how they decide "which schools get what." I argue that electoral incentives are one factor that can influence the distribution of resources: board members will direct spending toward schools located in neighborhoods of their district where spending will be most electorally beneficial in the next election. I test this argument using data from a discretionary school modernization program in the Los Angeles Unified School District, and find that board members distribute resources primarily to schools in competitive and moderately supportive neighborhoods, especially when running in an on-cycle election where parents make-up a larger share of the electorate and where student performance affects election outcomes. By comparison, schools in overwhelmingly opposed and supportive areas are excluded. These results suggest that local democratic control of school boards can hinder educational equality.

While COVID-19 caused unimaginable disruptions to public education, we saw remarkable examples of innovation and commitment to supporting high school student success. In our New England landscape of learning research, we learned that the boundaries of what it means to "reinvent" high school stretched, and in some systems, the momentum for change accelerated. Students and teachers learned to work in new ways and reached new understandings about each other. Now, building off these lessons and in partnership with the Center for Public Research and Leadership (CPRL), we are engaged in an in-depth look at the American Rescue Plan (ARP), post-pandemic recovery in New England high schools. Our research is designed to reveal whether and how federal dollars are being directed toward supporting a better adolescent experience, how high schools are innovating and adapting to advance equity, and what kinds of choices students are making about their futures after high school. The results from this investigation will equip school and system leaders, state policymakers, and advocates--in New England and beyond--to better understand and support pandemic-era innovations that connect to what students and families need and want from high school.

In June 2023, the Commonfund Institute hosted 36 nonprofit leaders on the campus of Yale University for our premier educational event -- the Investment Stewardship Academy (ISA). Much has changed since the last convening in 2019 -- a global pandemic, a deep racial reckoning, war in Ukraine, inflationary pressures, ongoing and distressing impacts of the climate crisis, and more. At the same time, the need for fiduciaries to shepherd endowment capital into the future to support their institutions has not changed. Throughout the three-day program, external thought leaders gathered with Commonfund experts to present their most insightful thoughts on how to be the most effective stewards of long-term capital. Participants spanned 34 institutions, 3 countries, 19 states, in addition to Washington D.C. and the Virgin Islands. The value of diversity of thought and experience was apparent throughout the program. Participants representing different types of institutions, from community foundations to nonprofit hospital systems, higher education, and holding various positions, from CFO to investment committee member to board chairs, raised questions for enlightening discussion to help all in attendance to understand the nonprofit ecosystem and all its complex, interconnected challenges. Key takeaways are presented in this report.

To provide fast and direct economic aid to the American people negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted a series of laws and injected about $4.6 trillion into the U.S. economy. Of this amount, over $75 billion was directed to institutions of higher education through the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Funds. This brief describes the broad purposes of the funds as indicated by Congress and the U.S. Department of Education, and it provides a first look at how much funding was awarded to and spent by the nation's community colleges between March 2020 and February 28, 2023. Over $25 billion in HEER funding was awarded to community colleges during the COVID-19 pandemic. This brief will be followed by a longer report analyzing HEER funding and spending through the original spending deadline of June 30, 2023. The forthcoming report--scheduled for late 2023--will examine in detail the amounts awarded and spent across all award categories and explore spending patterns by institutional characteristics. The report will incorporate the most recently available spending data and discuss implications for unspent funds. In addition to both this brief and the forthcoming report, the authors will also release an interactive dashboard on the ARCC Network website that allows for further, independent exploration of HEER-related data. [This report was written with the Accelerating Recovery in Community Colleges (ARCC) Network.]

The West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) Office of Federal Programs conducted a routine monitoring of Upshur County in December of 2022. This resulted in a report of findings which was completed February 10, 2023. Per Federal Program protocols, counties are provided 60 days to respond to findings; establishing Upshur County's deadline for response as May 8, 2023. The State Superintendent of Schools notified the Office of Accountability the week of May 8, 2023, of his intent to commence a Special Circumstance Review of Upshur County Schools. This put into motion planning phases inclusive of team members from the Offices of Accountability, Federal Programs, and Finance. The team began its Special Circumstance Review of Upshur County Schools on May 22, 2023. The review process, consisting of interviews and document review, is being conducted as outlined in West Virginia Board of Education (WVBE) Policy 2322: West Virginia System of Support and Accountability. The review team compiled the information gathered thus far during the onsite review. This report will be presented to the West Virginia Board of Education (WVBE) at the June 2023 meeting. The Review is on-going.

This report presents changes in educator and student outcomes for HISD, Achieve 180 Program schools, and non-Achieve 180 comparison schools which were Title I, Part A campuses for the fifth year of the program. Positive effects of the Achieve 180 Program were observed although there were still challenges which Achieve 180 Program schools needed to overcome. Within the Achieve 180 Program, five treatment groups (tiers) were formed according to their Texas Education Agency (TEA) accountability ratings, the number of years with their ratings, their level of support needed, and the specific school office assigned to address their needs. In Year 5, most Achieve 180 Program schools had remained in the same tier group since Year 4. Summary results are provided that detail: (1) Characteristics of Achieve 180 Program Students; (2) Years of Achieve 180 Program Participation; (3) Achieve 180 Program Total Budget Expenditures; (4) School Leader Appraisal System (SLAS) Ratings; (5) Teacher Appraisal and Development System (TADS) Ratings; (6) State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Grades 3-8 Performance; (7) State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) End-of-Course Performance; and (8) Texas Education Agency (TEA) Accountability Ratings.

The Charter Schools Program (CSP) is the nation's only source of dedicated federal funding to support the creation, expansion, and replication of public charter schools. Since FY2019, the CSP has been flat funded at $440 million. The CSP amounts to less than 1% of federal spending on K-12 education, however, it has a substantial impact on the communities where charter schools operate. Our 2023 CSP annual report breaks down how the program works and ways school leaders are using the funds. [For the 2022 report, see ED625565.]

This set of tables introduces new data for national and state-level public elementary and secondary revenues and expenditures for fiscal year (FY) 2021. Specifically, these tables include the following school finance data: (1) revenue and expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) expenditures by function 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 tables chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS). [For "Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: FY 20. Finance Tables. NCES 2022-301," see ED619372.]

For more than 37 years, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) has advocated on behalf of Hispanic higher education in the U.S. and around the world. The mission of the association is to Champion Hispanic Success in Higher Education. HACU fulfills its mission by: promoting the development of member colleges and universities; improving access to and the quality of postsecondary educational opportunities for Hispanic students; and meeting the needs of business, industry and government through the development and sharing of resources, information and expertise. The Annual Report highlights advocacy efforts, HACU's membership, conferences and events, financials, leadership programs, student services and activities supported by HACU's staff at its National Headquarters in San Antonio, Texas and regional offices in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California. [For the 2021 report, see ED620469.]

TransferBOOST (Bachelor's Opportunity Options that are Straightforward and Transparent) is a multi-year state-level initiative developed to provide students with affordable, quality, well-supported two- to four-year pathways. Affordability matters a great deal for transfer students, but it has typically not been understood or prioritized. The IHEP and HCM teams joined forces with rpk GROUP to offer technical assistance to TransferBOOST institutions and state partners to make strategic finance and college affordability a signature feature of the initiative. The second brief in the series outlines the steps partnerships took and offers guidance on how institutions can use the Transfer Affordability Financial Tool. It also provides clear steps for how states can support institutions in improving transfer affordability. [This report was written with contributions from Katie Hagan. For "BOOSTing Student Success through Equitable and Affordable Transfer Pathways: Lessons Learned for Higher Education Policymakers and Practitioners from the TransferBOOST Initiative," see ED628654. For "BOOSTing Transfer Partnerships to Promote Equitable and Affordable Transfer Pathways," see ED628655.]