Search

Adequate funding for the nation's schools to meet the call for higher student achievement has been a litigious issue. Spending on schools is a political choice. The choices made by state legislatures, in some cases, have failed to fund schools adequately and have incited school finance lawsuits in almost all states. These proceedings are generally brought to compel state legislatures to fulfill their state constitutional responsibilities to children and their families for the appropriation of fiscal resources to fund public education. Furthermore, student and school accountability measures that carry sanctions enforced by the states can be said to set up a reciprocation of duties. This reciprocal duty is where schools have the responsibility of providing effective instructional environments and the states have the responsibility of allocating sufficient resources to schools to provide educational opportunities for students to meet state achievement goals (Schrag, 2003). Examining the relationship of funding to levels of student achievement can reveal deficits in state school finance policy that will require redress if states and their public school districts are to attain commonly acknowledged goals of increased student achievement indicating improves readiness for college and future careers.

In February 2015 a large group of scholars, researchers, and practitioners interested in P-20 finance issues gathered in St. Louis, Missouri, for the National Education Finance Academy's annual conference, on February 25-27, 2015 to discuss, among multiple topics, the state of P-20 finance in all 50 states. There were 35 states represented in the round table session and representatives of 30 of those states submitted their manuscripts to the "Journal of Education Finance" for publication. This is the third year that JEF has published the State of the States manuscripts as a service to those interested in trends around P-20 finance and the 28 states represents the highest number of states included in the report to date. However, it is the intention to have all 50 states represented by 2016 and individuals interested in representing currently unrepresented states should contact Drs. Weiler and Hartman. Presenters at the 2015 National Education Finance Academy's State of the States Round table session were directed to address the following topics: (1) Funding priorities/trends for P-12 and/or higher education (2) Changes to the funding formula for P-12 and/or higher education; (3) Pressing issues affecting P-12 and/or higher education funding; (4) Exclusive to P-12: Diverting funds from public school districts; and (5) Exclusive to Higher Education: Trends in state funding for public institutions. The following information summarizes some of the more prevalent trends observed in the submissions. The following manuscripts are presented here listed alphabetically by state: (1) Alabama (Brenda Mendiola and Philip Westbrook); (2) Arizona (Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and David Martinez); (3) Arkansas (Dongfang Liu and Chao Liu); (4) California (Henry Tran); (5) Florida (Megan Lane, Jolande Morgan, and R. Craig Wood); (6) Georgia (Brittany Larkin); (7) Hawaii (Christine Kiracofe); (8) Illinois (Kelly H. Summers and Christine Kiracofe); (9) Kansas (Thomas A. DeLuca); (10) Kentucky (Tyrone Bynoe); (11) Louisiana (David G. Buckman); (12) Maryland (Sarah Irvine Belson and Thomas Husted); (13) Michigan (Brett Geier and Dennis McCrumb ); (14) Minnesota (Nicola A. Alexander); (15) Montana (Lou L. Sabina); (16) Nebraska (Barbara Y. LaCost); (17) Nevada (Deborah A. Verstegen); (18) New Jersey (Luke J. Stedrak and Robert Kelchen); (19) New Mexico (Joshua M. Cohen); (20) New York (Osnat Zaken); (21) North Carolina (Lisa G. Driscoll and Jim R. Watson ); (22) Ohio (Carlee Escue Simon); (23) Pennsylvania (Tim Shrom and William Hartman); (24) South Carolina (Misty B. Soles and Robert C. Knoeppel); (25) Tennessee (Betty Cox); (26) Texas (Ken Helvey); (27) Virginia (William Owings, Leslie S. Kaplan, and Richard G. Salmon); (28) Wisconsin (Faith E. Crampton); and (29) Wyoming (Kelly H. Summers). References are provided with each individual paper.

Research suggests that institutional commitment to community engagement can be understood by examining levels of student, faculty, and community involvement in engagement; organizational structure, rewards, and campus publications supporting engagement; and compatibility of an institution's mission with this work (Holland, 1997). Underlying all of these factors is campus financial commitment to engagement and whether engagement is reflected as a budget priority and key component in resource development campaigns. This chapter examines ways in which engaged institutions allocate internal resources to support engagement and how these campuses have reshaped their institutional advancement programs (marketing, branding, and fundraising activities) to leverage financial support for engagement. The authors begin with a brief literature review discussing the relationship between advancement and engagement, followed by a formal investigation of how engaged institutions have approached resource development to support engagement programs. All colleges and universities discussed as engaged institutions in this chapter are recipients of the Carnegie Foundation's elective classification in curricular engagement and outreach and partnerships (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2008). (Contains 1 table.)

A handful of recession-ravaged states have kicked off a new fiscal year without balanced budgets, leaving public school educators in limbo as they struggled to manage spending amid dwindling resources and political bickering over unprecedented budget gaps. The crisis remains most severe in California, which, as of last week, faced a $26.3 billion deficit that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and the Democratic-controlled legislature have been tussling over. The standoff came to a head over education spending when the governor proposed that lawmakers suspend Proposition 98, the minimum-funding guarantee for public schools that has largely been sacrosanct since voters approved it in 1988. But California is hardly alone in its fiscal woes. From North Carolina, which remained in budget deadlock last week, to Arizona, where leaders finally sweated out a compromise that preserved K-12 spending, the forecast remains grim, according to Todd Haggerty, a research analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures, based in Denver.

Patient engagement in primary care leadership is an important means to involve community voices at community health centers. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to have patient representation within their governing boards, while practices seeking patient-centered medical home certification receive credit for implementing patient advisory councils (PACs). Our objective was to compare and contrast how community health centers engage patients in clinic management, decision-making and planning within governing boards versus PACs. Qualitative study conducted from August 2016 to June 2017 at community health centers in California, Arizona and Hawaii. We interviewed practice leaders of patient engagement programs at their site. Eligible clinics had patient representatives within their governing board, PAC, or both. We assessed patient demographics, roles and responsibilities of patients participating, and extent of involvement in quality improvement among governing boards versus PACs. We interviewed 19 sites, of which 17 were FQHCs that had governing boards. Of the 17 FQHCs, 11 had also implemented PACs. Two non-FQHC safety-net sites had PACs but did not have governing boards. Governing board members had formal, structured membership responsibilities such as finances and hiring personnel. PAC roles were more flexible, focusing on day-to-day clinic operations. Clinics tended to recruit governing board patient members for their skill set and professional experience; PAC member recruitment focused more on demographic representation of the clinic’s patient population. Both groups worked on quality improvement, but governing boards tended to review clinic performance metrics, while PAC members were involved in specific project planning and implementation to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience. Patient involvement in clinic improvement in CHCs includes higher-level decision-making and governance through mechanisms such as governing boards, as well as engagement in day-to-day practice improvement through PACs. These roles offer differing, but valuable insights to clinic programs and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innovative therapeutic initiatives for the treatment of persons with substance abuse problems have been implemented in the criminal justice systems of California and Arizona. Judicial perspectives and reflections on these programs reveal the multiple issues inherent in innovation and day-to-day operations, from collaboration to implementation, including attitudinal shifts, resource allocation, client issues, and the changing role of judges who practice therapeutic jurisprudence. A pioneering program of treatment for dual disorders among male offenders addresses multiple issues in the provision of psychological services in a forensic setting in California.