{"title":"Colorado","authors":"Spencer C. Weiler","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvwh8dsp.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvwh8dsp.8","url":null,"abstract":"This is a datasheet on Colorado.","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"44 1","pages":"253 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43721895","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 : 2019-04-24DOI: 10.4135/9781544354453.n39
Osnat Zaken
funding priorities • Increases Education Aid by approximately $1 billion (3.9%), to a record total of $26.7 billion. • Requires school districts to increase transparency. For the 2018-19 school year, 76 large school districts that receive significant state aid must report school level funding allocation data to the public, State Education Department and Department of Budget. • New York State spends more money per pupil than any state in the nation.3 New York surpassed all states with per-pupil elementary and secondary school spending of $22,366 per pupil as of 2016, according to the latest U.S. Census data.4 • Expand prekindergarten and after school programs, investing $25 million. • State support for higher education in New York is $7.6 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion or 25% since FY 2012. • Excelsior Scholarship: $118 million to continue the scholarship program which includes $1.2 billion to make college more affordable.5
{"title":"New York","authors":"Osnat Zaken","doi":"10.4135/9781544354453.n39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544354453.n39","url":null,"abstract":"funding priorities • Increases Education Aid by approximately $1 billion (3.9%), to a record total of $26.7 billion. • Requires school districts to increase transparency. For the 2018-19 school year, 76 large school districts that receive significant state aid must report school level funding allocation data to the public, State Education Department and Department of Budget. • New York State spends more money per pupil than any state in the nation.3 New York surpassed all states with per-pupil elementary and secondary school spending of $22,366 per pupil as of 2016, according to the latest U.S. Census data.4 • Expand prekindergarten and after school programs, investing $25 million. • State support for higher education in New York is $7.6 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion or 25% since FY 2012. • Excelsior Scholarship: $118 million to continue the scholarship program which includes $1.2 billion to make college more affordable.5","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"44 1","pages":"306 - 308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45215027","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":"Arizona","authors":"Davíd G. Martínez","doi":"10.5749/j.ctv15kxgjn.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv15kxgjn.21","url":null,"abstract":"This is a datasheet on Arizona.","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"44 1","pages":"244 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42656222","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}
The state of New Mexico has legislation in place that requires the assessment of multiple student learning outcomes. Student learning across these multiple outcomes are assessed via End of Course exams. These state-authored exams are requirements for all teachers to complete, and the results are shared through different channels to various stakeholders. The data is used within the state to document student growth. Visit the New Mexico Department of Education’s website to acquire more information on the physical education accountability system.
{"title":"New Mexico","authors":"Davíd G. Martínez","doi":"10.32388/uufski","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32388/uufski","url":null,"abstract":"The state of New Mexico has legislation in place that requires the assessment of multiple student learning outcomes. Student learning across these multiple outcomes are assessed via End of Course exams. These state-authored exams are requirements for all teachers to complete, and the results are shared through different channels to various stakeholders. The data is used within the state to document student growth. Visit the New Mexico Department of Education’s website to acquire more information on the physical education accountability system.","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"44 1","pages":"304 - 305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48267007","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:We examine the correlates of district spending and revenue losses following the onset of the Great Recession and the role of fiscal federalism in mitigating these losses. We estimate whether spending and revenue declines were driven primarily by local labor market conditions or the degree of state fiscal centralization. Utilizing population level data for all public-school districts in the continental United States and a difference-in-differences strategy that models pre-recession resource trends, we find that local labor market conditions explain district spending loss in the wake of the Great Recession; in contrast, the degree of centralization in a state's education finance system is uncorrelated with declines in total district spending. Resource poor districts located in states with greater state fiscal centralization were ill-equipped to offset district spending loss, and federal fiscal stimulus did little to mitigate—and, in some cases, exacerbated—differential declines in spending resulting from local labor market shocks. These findings highlight the potentially unintended role that fiscal federalism might play in widening district spending inequality in the wake of recessionary events.
{"title":"The Great Recession, Fiscal Federalism and the Consequences for Cross-District Spending Inequality","authors":"Kenneth Shores, Matthew P. Steinberg","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3335843","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3335843","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:We examine the correlates of district spending and revenue losses following the onset of the Great Recession and the role of fiscal federalism in mitigating these losses. We estimate whether spending and revenue declines were driven primarily by local labor market conditions or the degree of state fiscal centralization. Utilizing population level data for all public-school districts in the continental United States and a difference-in-differences strategy that models pre-recession resource trends, we find that local labor market conditions explain district spending loss in the wake of the Great Recession; in contrast, the degree of centralization in a state's education finance system is uncorrelated with declines in total district spending. Resource poor districts located in states with greater state fiscal centralization were ill-equipped to offset district spending loss, and federal fiscal stimulus did little to mitigate—and, in some cases, exacerbated—differential declines in spending resulting from local labor market shocks. These findings highlight the potentially unintended role that fiscal federalism might play in widening district spending inequality in the wake of recessionary events.","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"45 1","pages":"123 - 148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/ssrn.3335843","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43711316","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 : 2018-08-28DOI: 10.1017/9781108866941.012
Arvin D. Johnson
priorities and pressing state issues affecting p–12/higher education Utah has the lowest per pupil spending level in the country. During the fiscal year (FY) 2017 – 2018, Utah Governor Gary Herbert touted educational funding as his top priority and proposed that roughly 72% of the approximately $382 million in new state revenue would go to education. This proposal included an increase of approximately $275 million in total funding for education to be distributed to K-12 (approx. $208 million) and higher education (approx. $67 million).1 The 2018 educational budget proved beneficial for K-12 and higher education in Utah. Unprecedented K-12 funding helped resource several initiatives to include critical elementary school educators, restorative justice and trauma-informed practices in schools, increased teacher salaries, and other areas associated with school funding.2 Higher Education yielded increased funding in three areas to include appropriations for the University of Utah Medical Education and Discovery/Rehabilitation Hospital, Dixie State University Human Performance Center, Weber State University Lindquist Hall Renovation, and other major higher education projects.3
{"title":"Utah","authors":"Arvin D. Johnson","doi":"10.1017/9781108866941.012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108866941.012","url":null,"abstract":"priorities and pressing state issues affecting p–12/higher education Utah has the lowest per pupil spending level in the country. During the fiscal year (FY) 2017 – 2018, Utah Governor Gary Herbert touted educational funding as his top priority and proposed that roughly 72% of the approximately $382 million in new state revenue would go to education. This proposal included an increase of approximately $275 million in total funding for education to be distributed to K-12 (approx. $208 million) and higher education (approx. $67 million).1 The 2018 educational budget proved beneficial for K-12 and higher education in Utah. Unprecedented K-12 funding helped resource several initiatives to include critical elementary school educators, restorative justice and trauma-informed practices in schools, increased teacher salaries, and other areas associated with school funding.2 Higher Education yielded increased funding in three areas to include appropriations for the University of Utah Medical Education and Discovery/Rehabilitation Hospital, Dixie State University Human Performance Center, Weber State University Lindquist Hall Renovation, and other major higher education projects.3","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"44 1","pages":"331 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/9781108866941.012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47574049","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":"Arkansas","authors":"Steve M. Bounds","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv1chs6hx.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1chs6hx.10","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"44 1","pages":"247 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47942600","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 : 2018-04-10DOI: 10.4135/9781544354453.n50
Ken Helvey
funding priorities for p-12 By 2016, the system had 5.28 million public and public charter students, 59% of whom are economically disadvantaged, and 18.5% considered to be limited English proficient (Texas Education Agency, n.d.). A substantial Republican majority in the House and the Senate controlled the 85th legislative agenda which convened in the spring of 2017, followed by a special session in summer of 2017. Property tax reform, immigration, and transgender restroom use were major issues on the agenda. Education priorities included funding for early childhood, facility funding for charter schools, vouchers for special needs students, teacher retirement health insurance, and targeted funding to relieve specific formula issues with some districts. Approximately $560 million was added for the biennium which included $60 million for charter school facilities, $212 million for retired teachers’ health insurance, with most of the remainder dedicated to formula issues (TASA, 2017).
{"title":"Texas","authors":"Ken Helvey","doi":"10.4135/9781544354453.n50","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544354453.n50","url":null,"abstract":"funding priorities for p-12 By 2016, the system had 5.28 million public and public charter students, 59% of whom are economically disadvantaged, and 18.5% considered to be limited English proficient (Texas Education Agency, n.d.). A substantial Republican majority in the House and the Senate controlled the 85th legislative agenda which convened in the spring of 2017, followed by a special session in summer of 2017. Property tax reform, immigration, and transgender restroom use were major issues on the agenda. Education priorities included funding for early childhood, facility funding for charter schools, vouchers for special needs students, teacher retirement health insurance, and targeted funding to relieve specific formula issues with some districts. Approximately $560 million was added for the biennium which included $60 million for charter school facilities, $212 million for retired teachers’ health insurance, with most of the remainder dedicated to formula issues (TASA, 2017).","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"43 1","pages":"311 - 313"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41527969","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 : 2018-04-10DOI: 10.4135/9781544354453.n37
Luke J. Stedrak
Statewide P–12 per-pupil cost averages for 2012–13 were $11,037.85 per average daily membership and $11,582.44 per average daily attendance (NDE 2014, website). The percentage of state budget for P–12 education was approximately 37% for 2012–13 (State of Nebraska (a) 2013, p. 27). The percentage of the state general funds operational budget is 43.1% for 2013–14 (this amount does not include revenue for community colleges (State of Nebraska (a) 2013, p. 34).
2012-13学年，全州P-12学生的平均日会费为11037.85美元，日出场费为11582.44美元(NDE 2014，网站)。2012 - 2013年，国家预算中用于p - 12教育的比例约为37% (state of Nebraska (a) 2013，第27页)。2013 - 14年度，州一般基金运营预算的百分比为43.1%(这一数额不包括社区学院的收入(state of Nebraska (a) 2013, p. 34))。
{"title":"New Jersey","authors":"Luke J. Stedrak","doi":"10.4135/9781544354453.n37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544354453.n37","url":null,"abstract":"Statewide P–12 per-pupil cost averages for 2012–13 were $11,037.85 per average daily membership and $11,582.44 per average daily attendance (NDE 2014, website). The percentage of state budget for P–12 education was approximately 37% for 2012–13 (State of Nebraska (a) 2013, p. 27). The percentage of the state general funds operational budget is 43.1% for 2013–14 (this amount does not include revenue for community colleges (State of Nebraska (a) 2013, p. 34).","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"43 1","pages":"283 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47937811","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 : 2018-04-10DOI: 10.4135/9781544354453.n43
Jeffrey A. Maiden, C. Byerly
This past year, the state of Oklahoma experienced two mid-year revenue failures. The first of these forced a 3% cut to state agencies in January, while the second was announced in March forcing an additional 4% cut to all agencies. The legislature reduced the cuts to Common Education from 7% to 3% with supplemental appropriations. The State Department of Education distributed these cuts across many funded line item allocations to lessen the cut to the funding formula. The state board of education distributed $2,426,721,434 to school districts in FY 2017, representing 2.34% less than the FY 2016 appropriation. Higher education was subject to the deepest cut in FY 2017, resulting in a 15.9% reduction from the initial FY 16 funding allocation. State funding for higher education in Oklahoma has fallen 21.7% per student since 2008. 1
{"title":"Oklahoma","authors":"Jeffrey A. Maiden, C. Byerly","doi":"10.4135/9781544354453.n43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544354453.n43","url":null,"abstract":"This past year, the state of Oklahoma experienced two mid-year revenue failures. The first of these forced a 3% cut to state agencies in January, while the second was announced in March forcing an additional 4% cut to all agencies. The legislature reduced the cuts to Common Education from 7% to 3% with supplemental appropriations. The State Department of Education distributed these cuts across many funded line item allocations to lessen the cut to the funding formula. The state board of education distributed $2,426,721,434 to school districts in FY 2017, representing 2.34% less than the FY 2016 appropriation. Higher education was subject to the deepest cut in FY 2017, resulting in a 15.9% reduction from the initial FY 16 funding allocation. State funding for higher education in Oklahoma has fallen 21.7% per student since 2008. 1","PeriodicalId":44075,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Finance","volume":"43 1","pages":"299 - 301"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49073217","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：