abstract:In response to growing concerns over school violence, crime, and safety, schools continue to implement school crime prevention and reduction policies and programs. Aside from the increased demands on school budgets imposed by new and enhanced school safety programs, two additional factors further complicate matters. First, just as schools vary in terms of their violence and crime prevention programmatic needs, schools (and districts) also vary in terms of their financial needs and health. Second, schools similarly vary in the magnitude of financial tradeoffs incident to school administrators’ reconciling competing claims for school crime prevention programs and other demands on an exhaustible supply of school funds. Exploiting the nation’s leading data set on public school crime and safety, the U.S. Department of Education’s 2017–18 School Survey on Crime and Safety (“SSOCS”), supplemented by district-level current per pupil spending data, we explore variation in school administrators’ views about the nature of the compromise between school safety and other budgetary claims. Our core findings imply that variation in student per pupil spending as well as perceived litigation exposure persistently informed administrators’ reports about the inadequacy of school funding and how it limits school crime prevention and reduction efforts. That school finance trade-offs implicate school crime prevention programs reinforce the broader point that school finance issues implicate a suite of factors that extend beyond student academic achievement and other traditional outcomes and into school crime, violence, and safety domains.
{"title":"Per Pupil and School Safety Spending: An Empirical Perspective","authors":"Michael Heise, Jason P. Nance","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3902834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3902834","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:In response to growing concerns over school violence, crime, and safety, schools continue to implement school crime prevention and reduction policies and programs. Aside from the increased demands on school budgets imposed by new and enhanced school safety programs, two additional factors further complicate matters. First, just as schools vary in terms of their violence and crime prevention programmatic needs, schools (and districts) also vary in terms of their financial needs and health. Second, schools similarly vary in the magnitude of financial tradeoffs incident to school administrators’ reconciling competing claims for school crime prevention programs and other demands on an exhaustible supply of school funds. Exploiting the nation’s leading data set on public school crime and safety, the U.S. Department of Education’s 2017–18 School Survey on Crime and Safety (“SSOCS”), supplemented by district-level current per pupil spending data, we explore variation in school administrators’ views about the nature of the compromise between school safety and other budgetary claims. Our core findings imply that variation in student per pupil spending as well as perceived litigation exposure persistently informed administrators’ reports about the inadequacy of school funding and how it limits school crime prevention and reduction efforts. That school finance trade-offs implicate school crime prevention programs reinforce the broader point that school finance issues implicate a suite of factors that extend beyond student academic achievement and other traditional outcomes and into school crime, violence, and safety domains.","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"47 1","pages":"225 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46610972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.4135/9781071825174.n33
Joshua A. Money, Spencer D. Stone
{"title":"Mississippi","authors":"Joshua A. Money, Spencer D. Stone","doi":"10.4135/9781071825174.n33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071825174.n33","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"46 1","pages":"305 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43939746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.4135/9781071825174.n51
Lisa G. Driscoll
{"title":"Tennessee","authors":"Lisa G. Driscoll","doi":"10.4135/9781071825174.n51","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071825174.n51","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"46 1","pages":"357 - 359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41424662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.4324/9781003238713-28
N. Alexander
Minnesota’s active legislative efforts aimed to increase healthcare price transparency and cost containment demonstrate the state’s commitment to improve its health care system. A leader in price transparency, the state has an active AllPayer Claims Database (APCD), which has been expanded to study cost, quality, and utilization. The state mandates that the Minnesota Hospital Association provide a hospital-specific performance and charge database for the 50 most common inpatient diagnosis-related groups. Minnesota also earns top grades for protecting patients from surprise and balance billing. In both emergency and non-emergency situations, a network provider is prohibited from billing an enrollee for any amount in excess of the allowable amount the health carrier has contracted for with the provider as total payment for the health care service. In recent terms, the state has introduced legislation that would require health plan companies to develop and implement a right to shop/shared savings incentive program.
{"title":"Minnesota","authors":"N. Alexander","doi":"10.4324/9781003238713-28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238713-28","url":null,"abstract":"Minnesota’s active legislative efforts aimed to increase healthcare price transparency and cost containment demonstrate the state’s commitment to improve its health care system. A leader in price transparency, the state has an active AllPayer Claims Database (APCD), which has been expanded to study cost, quality, and utilization. The state mandates that the Minnesota Hospital Association provide a hospital-specific performance and charge database for the 50 most common inpatient diagnosis-related groups. Minnesota also earns top grades for protecting patients from surprise and balance billing. In both emergency and non-emergency situations, a network provider is prohibited from billing an enrollee for any amount in excess of the allowable amount the health carrier has contracted for with the provider as total payment for the health care service. In recent terms, the state has introduced legislation that would require health plan companies to develop and implement a right to shop/shared savings incentive program.","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"46 1","pages":"302 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42509643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.4135/9781071825174.n50
Before entering into a compact with an Indian tribe on any class III gaming under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Governor or his designee shall hold one or more public hearings in the affected area to allow any interested persons to state their views. agent of the state vested with the authority to exercise any portion of the state's sovereignty. The term does not include the Legislature, the Unified Judicial System, any unit of local government, or any agency under the jurisdiction of such exempt departments and units unless the department, unit, or agency is specifically made subject to this chapter by statute; (2) "Contested case," a proceeding, including rate-making and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing but the term does not include the proceedings relating to rule making other than rate-making or student academic or disciplinary proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents or complaints brought by students attending institutions controlled by the Board of Regents about their residency classification under § § 13-53-23 to 13-53-41, inclusive; (3) "Emergency rule," a temporary rule that is adopted without a hearing or which becomes effective less than twenty days after filing with the secretary of state, or both; (4) "License," the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter, or similar form of permission required by law; (5) "Licensing," the agency process respecting the grant, denial, renewal, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, or amendment of a license; (6) "Party," each person or agency named or admitted as a party, or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party; (7) "Person," all political subdivisions and agencies of the state; (8) "Rule," each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law, policy, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency. The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule, but does not include: (a) Statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights or procedure available to the public; (b) Declaratory rules issued pursuant to § 1-26-15; (c) Official opinions issued by the attorney general pursuant to § 1-11-1; (d) Executive orders issued by the Governor; (e) Student matters under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents; (f) Actions of the railroad …
{"title":"South Dakota","authors":"","doi":"10.4135/9781071825174.n50","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071825174.n50","url":null,"abstract":"Before entering into a compact with an Indian tribe on any class III gaming under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Governor or his designee shall hold one or more public hearings in the affected area to allow any interested persons to state their views. agent of the state vested with the authority to exercise any portion of the state's sovereignty. The term does not include the Legislature, the Unified Judicial System, any unit of local government, or any agency under the jurisdiction of such exempt departments and units unless the department, unit, or agency is specifically made subject to this chapter by statute; (2) \"Contested case,\" a proceeding, including rate-making and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing but the term does not include the proceedings relating to rule making other than rate-making or student academic or disciplinary proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents or complaints brought by students attending institutions controlled by the Board of Regents about their residency classification under § § 13-53-23 to 13-53-41, inclusive; (3) \"Emergency rule,\" a temporary rule that is adopted without a hearing or which becomes effective less than twenty days after filing with the secretary of state, or both; (4) \"License,\" the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter, or similar form of permission required by law; (5) \"Licensing,\" the agency process respecting the grant, denial, renewal, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, or amendment of a license; (6) \"Party,\" each person or agency named or admitted as a party, or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party; (7) \"Person,\" all political subdivisions and agencies of the state; (8) \"Rule,\" each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law, policy, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency. The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule, but does not include: (a) Statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights or procedure available to the public; (b) Declaratory rules issued pursuant to § 1-26-15; (c) Official opinions issued by the attorney general pursuant to § 1-11-1; (d) Executive orders issued by the Governor; (e) Student matters under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents; (f) Actions of the railroad …","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70516539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Delaware","authors":"T. L. Morgan, Michael I. Cohen","doi":"10.2307/1855073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1855073","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"45 1","pages":"276 - 278"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1855073","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43534387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:It remains largely uncontested that students from low-income households—as well as the schools they attend—require additional resources to offset the challenges low-income students typically confront relating to access to equal educational opportunity. Federal elementary and secondary education programs, including Title I, supplement financial resources for students in poverty and schools that serve high concentrations of low-income students. Because federal programs operate within a complex, multi-level school finance system, however, tests of their ability to offset student poverty's "penalty" require empirical approaches that reflect the school finance system's multiple layers. Results from this study—which draw from 2016 school district-level data, focus on three common per pupil spending metrics, and exploit multilevel regression models—suggest that a student poverty penalty persists and is robust to multiple per pupil spending approaches. While these findings generally comport with prior and related empirical research, less clear, however, is what can be plausibly inferred from these findings. To some degree a persistent student poverty penalty is one, perhaps inevitable, artifact of the nation's traditional reliance on local property tax revenues for elementary and secondary public school funding. Alternative explanations include inconsistencies in how various states and school districts implement Title I. Whatever the cause (or causes), the persistence of a student poverty penalty—and the discomforting challenges it poses to the equal educational opportunity doctrine more generally—warrants similarly persistent careful study and policy attention.
{"title":"Per Pupil Spending and Poverty's Persistent Penalty: An Empirical Analysis of 2016 District-Level NCES Data","authors":"Michael Heise","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3506301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3506301","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:It remains largely uncontested that students from low-income households—as well as the schools they attend—require additional resources to offset the challenges low-income students typically confront relating to access to equal educational opportunity. Federal elementary and secondary education programs, including Title I, supplement financial resources for students in poverty and schools that serve high concentrations of low-income students. Because federal programs operate within a complex, multi-level school finance system, however, tests of their ability to offset student poverty's \"penalty\" require empirical approaches that reflect the school finance system's multiple layers. Results from this study—which draw from 2016 school district-level data, focus on three common per pupil spending metrics, and exploit multilevel regression models—suggest that a student poverty penalty persists and is robust to multiple per pupil spending approaches. While these findings generally comport with prior and related empirical research, less clear, however, is what can be plausibly inferred from these findings. To some degree a persistent student poverty penalty is one, perhaps inevitable, artifact of the nation's traditional reliance on local property tax revenues for elementary and secondary public school funding. Alternative explanations include inconsistencies in how various states and school districts implement Title I. Whatever the cause (or causes), the persistence of a student poverty penalty—and the discomforting challenges it poses to the equal educational opportunity doctrine more generally—warrants similarly persistent careful study and policy attention.","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"45 1","pages":"149 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43646983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：