Search

The Annual Service Plan Report is designed to meet the requirements of the "Budget Transparency and Accountability Act" (BTAA), which sets out the legislative framework for planning, reporting and accountability for Government organizations. Under the BTAA, the Minister is required to report on the actual results of the ministry's performance related to the forecasted targets documented in the previous year's Service Plan. This year's Annual Service Plan is organized into the following sections: (1) Minister's Accountability Statement; (2) Letter from the Minister; (3) Purpose of the Annual Service Plan Report; (4) Purpose of the Ministry; (5) Strategic Direction; (6) Operating Environment; (7) Report on Performance: Goals, Objectives, Measures and Targets; and (8) Financial Report. [For the 2019-2020 report, see ED608457.]

Graduate student enrollment has become increasingly important for universities. At the same time, competition for graduate students has increased, and the way those students search for programs of study has changed dramatically in the digital era. How can your program adapt and reach its graduate enrollment goals? This benchmark survey report provides data to showcase best practices and trends in graduate student marketing and recruitment. Ruffalo Noel Levitz (RNL) polled almost 100 institutions about their marketing practices and recruitment tactics for graduate students. This report summarizes and analyzes the findings while also highlighting opportunities for programs to elevate and evolve their enrollment efforts. This report contains 26 findings on key topics in graduate student recruitment and marketing, including: (1) graduate-level marketing and recruitment planning; (2) budget amounts and allocations for graduate student recruitment; (3) most used and effective marketing channels; (4) typical response timing to inquiries and applications; (5) frequency of communications and channels used; (6) most offered types of programs and formats offered; and (7) offices responsible for marketing, recruitment, and cultivation. [For "2020 Marketing and Recruitment Practices for Graduate Students Report: Effective Practices for Graduate Enrollment as Rated by Campus Officials," see ED618026.]

The Pathways for Academic Career and Employment (PACE) program is established to provide funding to community colleges for the development of programs that will lead to gainful, quality, in-state employment for members of target populations by providing them with both effective academic and employment training to ensure gainful employment and customized support services. This is the eighth year for Pathways for Academic, Career and Employment (PACE) reporting. PACE funds are allocated pursuant to the community college state general aid distribution formula established in Iowa Code and are eligible to be carried forward to the next year. The figures noted in this report were obtained from each of Iowa's 15 community colleges. Each college has committed to building career pathway frameworks and structuring programs to ensure increased employment success of the identified target populations. This is achieved by refocusing program activities around collaboration with core partners and adult basic education programs, balancing services and engaging sector partnerships. [For the Fiscal Year 2020 Report, see ED617842.]

The 2022 Biennial AHEAD Survey is the eighth survey in AHEAD's ongoing work to provide information and benchmarking about college disability resource professionals and the offices and programs they lead on college campuses. The report contains in-depth findings related to disability resource office structures, staffing, budgets, and campus-wide access. For a quick overview, the following are some selected findings in each area.

A.C.A. §6-61-234 (Act 148 of 2017) directs the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB) to adopt polices developed by the Arkansas Division of Higher Education (ADHE) necessary to implement a productivity-based funding model for state-supported institutions of higher education. Productivity-based funding is a mechanism to align institutional funding with statewide priorities for higher education by incentivizing progress toward statewide goals. At the same time, such models encourage accountability to students and policymakers by focusing on the success of students through the achievement of their educational goals. At its October 27, 2017 meeting, the AHECB approved the productivity funding model policies for the two-year colleges and universities. The policies were developed in conjunction with presidents and chancellors after meetings and revisions. The AHECB shall use the productivity-based funding model as the mechanism for recommending funding for applicable state-supported institutions of higher education. Among this year's recommendations presented in this report: (1) For the universities, an increase in funding is recommended for those institutions with productivity increases for a total change in university funding of $8,376,594; (2) For the two-year colleges, an increase in funding is recommended for those institutions with productivity increases for a total change in two-year college funding of $2,884,237; (3) For the non-formula entities, the recommendation is for a 2.5% increase based on the HEPI index and a recommendation of full funding of Operations and Program Enhancement requests which combined would require an additional $21.8 million, of which $2.4 million would be for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS); and (4) The total funding recommendation for 2021-22 for Colleges and Universities is $11,260,831 in new revenue with $3,546,645 of that being redistributed from one time incentive funds. The total recommendation for 2021-2022 for the Non-Formula Entities is $21,760,579 in new revenue. [For the 2020-21 Operating Recommendations, see ED613770.]

The purpose of the United States Department of Education's (Department) fiscal year (FY) 2020 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to advance the mission of the Department to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. As evidenced by the information contained in this AFR, the Department has demonstrated that it is a good steward of financial resources and has put in place well-controlled and well-managed business and financial management systems, processes, and practices. The AFR is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, management assurances regarding internal controls, and forward-looking information. The Financial Section provides a message from the Chief Financial Officer, the financial statements and notes, required supplementary information, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2021, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, Payment Integrity Information Act reporting details, civil monetary penalty adjustment for inflation, "GONE Act" and grant closeout process reporting, and Real Property information. Finally, the Appendices section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations. [For the 2019 Agency Financial Report, see ED607185.]

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to add a new Part E to Title I entitled "Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Spending." Under Title I-E, the Secretary of Education (the Secretary) has the authority to provide local educational agencies (LEAs) with flexibility to consolidate eligible federal funds with state and local funding to create a "single school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students." The ESEA Title I-E authority is applicable to LEAs that are using or agree to implement "weighted student funding" systems to establish budgets for, and allocate funds to, individual public schools. These funding systems base school funding on the number of pupils in each school in specified categories. Under these funding systems, weights are assigned to a variety of pupil characteristics that are deemed to be related to the costs of educating such pupils--such as being from a low-income family, being an English Learner (EL), or having a disability. Weights are also assigned on the basis of students' educational program (grade level, career-technical education, gifted and talented, or others). School budgets are based on these weighted pupil counts, in contrast to treating all pupils in the same manner. To provide context for the Title I-E authority, this report begins with a brief discussion of how public elementary and secondary education is financed at the state and local levels. It focuses on the primary types of state school finance programs and school finance "equalization," including an overview of weighted student funding systems. Building on this background, the remainder of the report focuses on the Title I-E authority. First, there is an examination of the Title I-E statutory authority and related non-regulatory guidance provided by U.S. Department of Education (ED). This is followed by a discussion of current Title I-E implementation issues. The next section considers possible interactions between the Title I-E authority and other ESEA programs, particularly Title I-A. The report concludes with discussion of some issues that may arise related to the Title I-E authority.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the global and U.S. economy more profoundly than any other event since World War II. Just as the subprime mortgage crisis ushered in an 18-month economic decline and an ensuing state budget crisis, the current economic slide threatens to leave us in an even larger fiscal hole. Since COVID-19 hit, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, with low-income, Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans hardest hit. Recognizing the urgency of the moment, the authors have solicited advice from leading experts in higher education policy and finance and developed a framework to help a wide range of state leaders face the crisis. Reductions in state support to postsecondary education may be unavoidable, and they will cause harm. However, by rejecting the customary "across-the-board" approach and prioritizing what works, states can implement longer-term solutions that create equitable, accessible, affordable paths to postsecondary credentials that provide upward economic mobility for the most vulnerable populations. This report is a detailed framework to help policymakers make strategic budget decisions. This framework includes an assessment of states' economic and policy contexts and applies the following principles: (1) Principle 1: Prioritize funding for institutions that can best serve Black, Hispanic, Native American, and low-income students and those institutions that provide timely opportunities for unemployed or underemployed individuals to reskill; (2) Principle 2: Protect and expand need-based financial aid through increased or reallocated investment; (3) Principle 3: Support programs and strategies that advance students' ability to complete credentials; (4) Principle 4: Expand resources and invest differently to drive economic growth; and (5) Principle 5: Evaluate and improve system and institutional cost structures. Each of the principles is described in more detail in this report and is accompanied by a recommended framework for how states can examine current practices against these principles and make strategic decisions over the long run.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the economic recession have disrupted the health and economic wellbeing of postsecondary students, families, and the nation's colleges and universities. A college degree can lead to good jobs with benefits--now and during the economic recovery--for students with low incomes, particularly students of color, opportunity youth, immigrants, first-generation college students, parenting students, adult learners, and individuals impacted by the criminal legal system. The outbreak and spread of COVID-19 has thrown higher education into disarray. Students are facing one of the worst recessions and job markets in a lifetime--and they are doing so while continuing their education either remotely or in person, both of which carry risks and heighten inequities. This report presents recommendations to promote racial and economic justice in postsecondary education.

This article is a follow-up to a recent ROPS [Research & Occasional Paper Series] article on strategic budgeting at colleges and universities. In recent years, several colleges and universities have explored alternative strategies for developing operating budgets. In part, this exploration was driven by the desire for transparency among various constituent groups and the need to tie budgeting to campus strategic planning. While developing a new budgeting process can be a very intense and involved process, the ability to implement a new budget process requires the same level of commitment and involvement. A successful implementation process involves an effective communication process combined with training and the commitment of senior campus leadership.

The 2020 General Assembly adjourned its regular session by providing over $390 million in additional general fund support for Virginia higher education institutions in the 2020-22 biennium. However, in March, the nation experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to address the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on state revenues, Governor Northam and the General Assembly unallocated (the budget language uses the term "unallotted") nearly all new spending in the state budget for the 2020-22 biennium. The vast majority of funding for higher education remains unallotted for FY 2022. In addition to the pandemic and the economic impact on state revenues, recent events related to racial justice also raised short- and long-term questions regarding how higher education's budgets, policies and practices support equity at a state and institution level. These changes impact Virginia's objective to be the best-educated state by 2030 and raise concerns that gaps in attainment by race and income could widen and that costs could increase. As a result, higher education at a state and institution level will need to assess its current structure to avoid impacts on equity and affordability. This report provides State Council of Higher Education in Virginia's (SCHEV's) overview and assessment of the impact of events that have occurred over the last nine months, additional funding provided to higher education in 2020, and budget and policy recommendations for the Governor and General Assembly consideration in the upcoming 2021 session. [For "FY 2020 Budget and Policy Recommendations for Higher Education in Virginia," see ED610207.]

When Governor Jay Inslee (D) closed the public and private schools of Washington State's 1.1 million students on March 13, 2020, state education leaders made several key decisions that influenced the state's attempt to deliver education services during the COVID-19 crisis. These decisions reflected the political priorities of the large, unwieldy, and inflexible bureaucracies and unions that run the public schools, not the needs of the parents whose children saw one-third of their 2019-2020 school year cancelled. This "Backgrounder" is a case study of Washington State's response to COVID-19, and maps an alternative path forward that would serve students and parents better. Providing direct aid to parents would help to shift control over public funding to families, and increase the capacity and the flexibility of the state to respond to emergencies, such as COVID-19. Such a change would loosen the control that school bureaucracies and unions enjoy over public school funding. Providing parents with direct aid would also help children to maintain their learning progress after COVID-19 by enabling them to access learning environments that are the right fit for them.

New America and the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) partnered to track responses of state higher education agencies and systems on how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected state funding for public higher education. The pandemic has depressed economic activity and led to increased costs for states, both of which can affect the availability of funding for public higher education. We will periodically update the tracker as situations change within states.

Nebraska's constitution and state statutes require Nebraska's Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education (the Commission) to review the budget requests of the University of Nebraska, the Nebraska State College System, and the community colleges in light of specific criteria set forth in the statutes. The Commission also makes recommendations on major statewide funding issues and initiatives, as suggested by statute. The Commission's recommendations begin with a discussion of statewide funding issues and initiatives. This biennium, the Commission recommends that the state continue to concentrate on two statewide issues: making postsecondary education more affordable and responding to identified educational and workforce development needs in Nebraska. After considering statewide issues, the recommendations turn to the institutional requests. In the process of developing the public postsecondary education budget recommendations for the 2021-23 biennium, the Commission reviewed 15 requests as part of the continuation budget requests, one request for a new and expanded program, and the community college state aid request. As shown on page 4 of this report, the total increase requested for the biennium by public postsecondary institutions is $45,090,733, a 5.81% increase over the current base funding of $776,521,329. In its recommendations, the Commission recognizes that financing higher education is a shared responsibility between the state and students, but believes that the preponderance of the responsibility for affordable public higher education rests with the state. [For the 2019-21 biennium report, see ED604767.]

This paper is the first to investigate the costs of institution-wide reforms at community colleges. Drawing on data from 12 community colleges implementing comprehensive guided pathways reforms, I use the ingredients method to analyze the resources required to implement such reforms and examine their feasibility and affordability, as well as their value for students. For a typical college with 4,000 full-time equivalent students (FTEs) that implements guided pathways over four years, the total implementation cost beyond business-as-usual operations is estimated at $450 per student each year, or $7.1 million in total, which amounts to 12% of the college's annual budget, or approximately 3% per year. Around one third of this cost is for enhanced student advisement. Extra investments in information technology are also significant. Ongoing operating costs, primarily for student advisement and student success courses, are around $350 per FTE each year. Cost estimates vary depending on how colleges implement guided pathways, but the results are robust to alternative input prices and college characteristics. There is also some evidence of economies of scale. To finance guided pathways, colleges relied mainly on resource reallocation and efficiency gains, extra public funding, and external grants and funds. Increases in tuition/fees were modest, temporary, or delayed until after implementation; increases of just under 1% per year would suffice to support guided pathways reforms. From the student perspective, guided pathways increases the affordability and value for money of community college. With enhanced advising, students take fewer unnecessary courses. Program mapping leads students to take the right courses both at the community college and at any transfer college. Improved advising help students access grants and in-kind services; they also assist with financial plans to pay for college. Overall, the savings these reforms allow for are likely to exceed the modest increase in tuition/fees from guided pathways. [For the companion paper "Funding Guided Pathways: A Guide for Community College Leaders. Report," see ED609234.]

This guide is intended to help community college leaders understand the costs involved in implementing guided pathways reforms and develop plans for funding and sustaining them. It is based on research at six institutions that have implemented large-scale changes based on the guided pathways model, which focuses on supporting students to enter and complete programs of study that lead to good jobs and transfer to four-year college programs. The guide explores the following questions: (1) What are the up-front and recurring costs of guided pathways reforms? (2) How are colleges funding these costs? (3) How are colleges sustaining support for guided pathways practices? and (4) How can college leaders contemplating guided pathways reforms estimate the costs involved and develop a viable plan for funding and sustaining the reforms? All six case study institutions incurred costs above and beyond the status quo, with the largest costs related to hiring, training, and maintaining an adequate number of advisors for case management advising by field. Significant start-up costs also included purchasing or upgrading information systems to support websites with user-friendly program maps, educational planning, case-management advising, and class scheduling. However, college leaders reported that they do not intend to return to old practices--even in response to a crisis of the magnitude of COVID-19--because guided pathways reforms have led to improved outcomes for students and benefited the colleges as businesses. Four colleges reported increased Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) retention and graduation rates and reductions in non-degree-applicable credits. Moreover, leaders at every college indicated that they were better positioned to respond to the COVID-19 crisis because of changes they made as part of their pathways reforms. This guide outlines steps that college leaders can take to estimate the costs involved in implementing guided pathways and develop a plan for funding and sustaining these reforms. A companion technical paper estimates the overall costs of implementing guided pathways for colleges of various sizes. [For the companion paper, "The Economics of Guided Pathways: Cost, Funding, and Value," see ED609232.]

More than 725,000, nearly 12 percent, of California's public school students receive special education and related services. Although more than half of those students spend 80 percent or more of the school day in a general education classroom, California's special education funding system may not be as inclusive as California's classrooms. This report provides a history and detailed description of California's special education funding system, setting the foundation for refinement of the current system through exploration of other funding systems and examination of California's special education population and funding structure. This study focuses on how current levels of funding can be used most effectively, including through better coordination and by differentiating special education funding to match the wide variety in student need and cost of implementing IEPs for students with disabilities. This study will be followed with a report on potential options to refine the system, supported by research, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of each option. [For Part 2, see ED616106.]

As the early education coordinator for Prince George's County Public Schools, Judith P. Hoyer lamented the gaps in available services for low-income families. In the 1990s, she created a central location in Adelphi, Maryland, for important early childhood services, thus fostering cooperation of governmental and private agencies around the needs of local families. After her untimely death in 1997, her husband, Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD), in partnership with then Governor Parris N. Glendening, led a successful movement to bring her model of collaboration to other areas of Maryland. As a result, the Maryland State Legislature enacted the Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Program in May of 2000. That legislation addressed three important principles in Maryland's early childhood care and education programs: (1) Judy Centers -- The need for greater coordination among the providers of early childhood education and support services was essential in focusing the services and resources of the various programs and providers on families with high needs in designated Title I school zones. This type of collaboration provides a greater opportunity for positive outcomes for children and greater school readiness; (2) Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) -- the need for a uniform assessment of success in early childhood education. This allows the State to better measure progress with some definition of success, and a means to assess that success; and (3) Program Accreditation and Preschool for All -- the need to ensure that all preschool age children receive quality care and education by promoting professional development for the early education workforce and accreditation for childcare providers. This report provides a current review of accomplishments and challenges that took place during State Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. [For the 2019 report, see ED615901.]

This report is based on a rapid survey of recently published materials, guidance documents and media commentary. It summarises what is known and understood about the impacts of the prolonged school closures that followed the spread of COVID-19 and the context of school reopening and plans for learning recovery. In March 2020, schools around the world began closing their doors and governments, jurisdictions, educators and a range of connected stakeholders moved rapidly to support educational continuity through remote models of provision. Education Development Trust has been following these developments from the beginning, mapping the response, the challenges that have arisen and the concerns expressed by many educators across the globe. The first chapter of this report updates what is known about student and teacher wellbeing, the time spent on learning for pupils during the period of school closure and the experience of lockdown for teachers. In the second chapter, the status of school reopening planning around the world is considered, alongside the measures being taken to ensure that students and teachers can return to school safely. Emerging plans to tackle learning loss and to structure and support recovery are discussed. Finally, the report assesses the conditions for long-term educational recovery with a focus on funding and financial support for governments in low-income contexts, where fragile and unequal learning environments had already persisted prior to COVID-19 school closures. Throughout the report, the key findings are illustrated with country examples of both challenges and promising solutions. The report concludes with a list of recommendations for policymakers.

Funding for California schools had improved rapidly in recent years but is still insufficient to meet educational goals and address the needs of students. Now, schools and districts face three major challenges: precipitous declines in student academic achievement and social-emotional wellbeing; increased costs associated with distance learning and school reconfiguration to comply with public health orders; and the need to tighten budgets. State leaders have temporarily shielded school districts from budget cuts by spending state reserves and promising but deferring payments to schools. That debt will eventually have to be repaid but could be reduced if California receives more federal stimulus dollars. Districts can also weather the deferrals by borrowing from banks and utilizing their local reserves. Longer term, the picture is more bleak as the state economy remains severely depressed. Even if upcoming state ballot measures to increase revenues pass, the new taxes may not be enough to prevent reductions to schools, much less to fully fund them. Nonetheless, investments in education and other children's services will be critical to strengthening the economic and social future of the state and its citizens. This report examines how California might secure and protect revenues for schools in sustainable and responsible ways. Drawing from interviews with 23 education stakeholders and an extensive literature review, the authors outline how education is currently funded and discuss the ways in which California could increase revenue, including: (1) making full and better use of available funds by reexamining state spending priorities and braiding funding across education and children's services areas; (2) raising new revenues from broader and more stable sources, including property and services taxes, and making it easier for local governments to levy taxes so long as equity is safeguarded; and (3) reducing tax expenditures by eliminating tax breaks and incentives. [For the summary brief, see ED609212.]

This report highlights successes and lessons learned from Austin Independent School District's 2020 virtual learning summer school programs. More than 13,000 AISD students in prekindergarten through grade 12 participated in these programs, which offered academic enrichment or acceleration, course credit recovery, and grade level transition. Recommendations are made for future virtual learning opportunities.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program provides cash benefits to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers; firefighters; employees of emergency management agencies; and members of emergency medical services agencies who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers' Educational Assistance (PSOEA) program, a component of the PSOB program, provides higher-education assistance to the children and spouses of public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. The PSOB and PSOEA programs are administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). This report discusses: (1) the PSOB program; (2) the PSOEA program; (3) the PSOB and PSOEA appeals process; (4) budget and appropriations; and (5) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) issues (evidence of causation and the Safeguarding of America's First Responders Act).

Since the Spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has upended the lives of billions of people worldwide. Seemingly overnight, colleges and universities transitioned their entire operations online. There is no playbook for how to best respond to this global pandemic. While it is virtually impossible to predict the lasting impact that COVID-19 will have on students and the state of California, it is imperative to collectively ensure vulnerable students do not fall off their college pathways and that state leaders understand that investing in higher education is critical, especially in times of crisis. This publication provides a summary of higher education in California with specific information on enrollment, tuition/fees and financial aid, governance, and state funding in our public community colleges and universities. Recommendations for how to strengthen college opportunity and student success are also offered. [For the 2018 edition of this report, see ED596519.]

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan families and educators are worried about their students' unfinished learning, while state- and district-level leaders face unprecedented decisions to safely prepare for the fall and address the potentially devastating impact of the public health and economic crises on education. Tragically, Michigan is already among the worst states in the country for equitable funding. For the future prosperity of Michigan and the success of students, Michigan must commit to becoming a more equitable education state, rather than worsening the gaps between Michigan's rich and poor districts --and further limiting opportunities for the most vulnerable children. This report lays out how Michigan can do that in three key ways: (1) Prioritize investment in public education over other areas of the budget, including by reversing decisions to divert money from the School Aid Fund; (2) Protect funding for vulnerable students, including by ensuring any state budget cuts, if necessary, are done fairly and equitably; and (3) Ensure transparency and accountability by making a real commitment to have dollars reach the children for whom they are intended.

Public spending on children is an investment in the nation's future, as it aims to support their healthy development and human potential. To inform policymakers, children's advocates, and the general public about how public funds are spent on children, this 14th edition of the annual "Kids' Share" report provides an updated analysis of federal expenditures on children from 1960 to 2019. This year's "Kids' Share" report also provides a baseline view of public expenditures before the COVID-19 pandemic. Our projections of federal expenditures on children through 2030 give a sense of how budget priorities were scheduled to unfold under the law before the pandemic and related economic and legislative responses. View a single-page formatted version of the report with text and charts side-by-side here (https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2020/07/27/kids_share_2020_chartbook_spread.pdf). A few highlights of the chartbook: (1) Federal expenditures per child were slightly higher in 2019 than in recent years, after adjusting for inflation. In 2019, the federal government spent about $6,700 per child younger than 19. The increase primarily reflects some delayed effects of the temporary expansion of the child tax credit enacted in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017; (2) As a share of federal spending, the $408 billion invested in children in 2019 remained at roughly 9 percent of all federal outlays for the second year in a row; (3) As a share of the economy, federal investments in children represented 1.9 percent of GDP, similar to last year but lower than other years in the past decade; (4) The child tax credit was the largest source of federal support for children in 2019, surpassing Medicaid, which had been the largest program for many years. More than three-fifths of federal expenditures on children are from tax provisions or health spending; (5) The share of federal expenditures on children targeted to families with low incomes has grown over time, reaching 57 percent in 2019; (6) Under prepandemic law, children's programs are projected to receive only two cents of every dollar of the projected $1.6 trillion increase in federal spending over the next decade; (7) Under prepandemic law, children's share of the federal budget is projected to drop from 9.2 percent to 7.3 percent over the next decade, as built-in spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments on the debt consume a growing share of the budget; (8) The federal government spends nearly as much on interest payments on the debt as on children; and (9) Over the next decade, all categories of spending on children except health are projected to decline relative to GDP. Most categories also see declines or remain at similar levels in real dollars. [For the 2019 report, see ED607694.]

The coronavirus pandemic has led to the most difficult semester in generations on college campuses across the United States. With that semester now wrapping up, public colleges and universities are facing costs that already dwarf the $7.6 billion in federal stimulus funds that are on their way to these institutions. Absent dramatic new action from Congress, many of the public colleges that support social mobility will confront an existential threat. As dramatic as colleges' losses already are, a much bigger threat is in the offing: the potential for multiple years of severe state budget cuts. Forty-six states and Washington, D.C., have constitutional or statutory requirements to balance their budgets. States are already reporting record deficits in revenue during the pandemic as lost wages, low sales, and people staying home translate into less tax revenue. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that states will face a $765 billion shortfall over the next three years. Therefore, Congress must act now to protect higher education by distributing the necessary additional funds for public colleges and universities. This includes investing at least $46 billion in states for higher education, including funding a strong a maintenance of effort (MOE) provision to ensure that state funding per student remains at levels comparable to before the pandemic, as well as requiring institutional reporting on factors such as enrollment and withdrawals by income and race to not deepen existing societal disparities.

At $14 billion, the investment in operating support for higher education institutions from the coronavirus relief bill, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, is the largest one-year federal infusion of funds going straight to colleges since the Great Recession. Yet it's nowhere close to enough. Many states have already announced higher education funding cuts for this fiscal year that exceed what their public colleges and universities will receive through the CARES Act, to say nothing of the costs colleges have incurred refunding student room and board and shifting programs online because of the novel coronavirus pandemic. And the state budget crisis next fiscal year will undoubtedly be even bigger. With further cuts sure to come, Congress will have to allocate additional funding for higher education if it wants to stave off a devastating crisis across America's postsecondary education system. These funds need to increase by tens of billions of dollars; the Center for American Progress and many other partner organizations have called for at least $46 billion in additional spending for public colleges based on state cuts during the Great Recession and how much worse this situation appears to be. As Congress works to secure more money for colleges, it must provide public colleges with their own dedicated fund that can run through states. In the absence of that, it must make the current formula more effective. Otherwise, precious dollars will not get to those who need them most.

The purpose of this handbook is to provide detailed information regarding school-based decision making (SBDM) processes, laws, and best practices. Topics covered include the following: (1) School-based Decision Making Statute: KRS 160.345; (2) Achievement Gaps and Planning Requirements; (3) Other Kentucky Statutes Related to School Council Work; (4) Bylaws and Policies; (5) Open Record and Open Meetings; (6) Consensus Decision Making; (7) School Council Elections and Requirements for School Council Member Annual Training; (8) Roles for School-based Decision Making Shareholders; (9) School Councils and Committees; (10) School Councils and Boards of Education; (11) Personnel, Staffing Allocations, and Budgets; (12) Principal Selection Overview; (13) Minority Educator Recruitment and Retention; and (14) Communicating with Families, the Community, and the Media.

The Innovation Schools Act of 2008, § 22-32.5-102, et seq. C.R.S, was designed to provide a pathway for schools and districts to develop and implement innovative practices in a wide variety of areas and contexts to improve student outcomes. The Act provides a formal process that allows schools or groups of schools to request to their local school boards for waivers from district-level policies and for school boards to request the Colorado State Board of Education for waivers from certain state-level laws and regulations. The Act enables schools to better provide educational services tailored to meet the needs of their student populations. Innovation schools are required to articulate a vision around the autonomies they are seeking, as well as to gain support from a variety of stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, and School Accountability Committee members, before receiving the innovation school designation. The innovation application process requires schools to think through the common goal and vision that will be made possible by receiving greater autonomy, as well as the policies and documents that will need to change when these innovations are implemented. In compliance with the requirements of § 22-32.5-111, C.R.S., the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) has prepared this annual report divided into the following parts: (1) Overview of Innovation Schools Act of 2008; (2) Current Demographics of Innovation Schools; (3) Description of Innovations Implemented; (4) Summary of the Academic Performance of Innovation Schools and Innovation School Zones; and (5) Recommendations for Legislative Changes. [This report was prepared by CDE's School Quality and Support Division/Schools of Choice Unit. For the 2019 report, see ED597820.]

In recent years a number of colleges and universities have explored alternative strategies for developing operating budgets. In part this exploration was driven by the desire for transparency among various constituent groups and the need to tie budgeting to campus strategic planning. With the advent of declining federal and state support, along with changing student demand, the need for a more strategic approach to budgeting has gained momentum. This paper highlights the various budgetary approaches currently in use and provides examples of their application in a variety of university settings. Particular emphasis is given to the process by which universities develop new models.

With the economic halt precipitated by the COVID-19 virus, states are starting to prepare for and beginning to address the budgetary squeeze that is sure to come absent of massive federal stimulus dollars. At the end of March, New York State was the first state to come out with a post-COVID-19 state budget (the Legislative Budget). In early April, Governor Cuomo signed the Legislative Budget into law to make it the Enacted Budget. Because of the early release of the budget, the author used New York's Enacted Budget as one example of how states are cutting education budgets as a result of COVID-19. In January, New York State released its Executive Budget prior to any understanding of how devastating COVID-19 would be. In this report, the author compares district-by-district estimates of state aid per pupil under the Executive and Enacted Budgets to understand the impacts of COVID-19 across districts in relation to the level of economic disadvantage of students served and the racial composition of students in districts. Next, longitudinal analysis is conducted looking at education revenue per pupil over time in New York State by district poverty rates to understand what might occur during the current budgetary crisis if the state enacts cuts similarly to those that occurred during the Great Recession.

The COVID-19 pandemic has ushered in an unprecedented level of uncertainty in all aspects of life as most states and communities operate under stay-at-home directives. There is little doubt that these directives will have economic implications that will affect school budgets for years to come. Identifying and understanding these effects and possible ways to mitigate their impact is important as schools look ahead to the budget for next year and the years that follow. This brief provides an initial assessment of what we have learned from previous economic downturns, different ways that states and charter schools may be affected, and some things that charter school leaders can do now to prepare for the impending fiscal downturn.

In February 2020, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on the budgetary effects of student loans repaid through income-driven plans. This paper provides additional information on the analysis the agency conducted on the characteristics of borrowers in those plans and the methods the agency used to project borrowers' earnings, repayment, and resulting forgiveness. The results show that income-driven repayment plans are heavily used by borrowers with large balances and low earnings. The typical borrower in income-driven repayment is negatively amortizing, and substantial forgiveness is projected for low-income borrowers in such plans. Overall, increased take-up of income-driven repayment and the negative amortization in those plans explain much of the decline in student loan repayment rates between 2008 and 2017. [This technical paper complements the report "Income Driven Repayment Plans for Student Loans: Budgetary Costs and Policy Options" (ED607182).]

The COVID-19 health crisis has laid bare the structural inequity in the financial aid system. The pandemic has hit the lowest-income students hardest, with many struggling to afford the basic technology for online learning on top of new or exacerbated food and housing insecurity. Federal and state dollars predicated on Pell Grant eligibility, time out of high school, or other criteria, means California's neediest students, most often California Community College students, are ineligible for the aid they need to study and survive. College affordability is a critical subject of national, state, and local interest. While student debt has understandably become a focus in many of these conversations, this analysis has been centered around the potential expansion of grant aid that can help more students better afford college without overreliance on loans or credit cards. The time to complete a program is also a major factor in the costs borne by students to earn a certificate or degree. The Campaign has previously published research on how unclear, inconsistent pathways and excess course-taking translates into additional costs for transfer students seeking baccalaureate degrees and unpacked those issues in a 2017 report, "The Transfer Maze" (ED582668). In this brief, the aim is to provide California policymakers with a picture of the gaps in the state's efforts on college affordability and inform the work ahead so the state can better serve all its students and so that money is not a barrier for students to earn their degrees.

The most terrible and lasting effects of the coronavirus pandemic will of course be measured in loss of life. But a parallel tragedy will also be unfolding in the coming months and years, this one affecting those at the beginning of their lives: an unprecedented school funding crisis that threatens to disadvantage a generation of children. School districts in many states have yet to recover from the last recession, the so-called Great Recession, which officially began in late 2007 and devastated state and local education budgets. That is, many jurisdictions will be facing a possibly unprecedented funding crisis while they are still digging out from the last one. In this report, using data from multiple sources, the authors describe the effects of previous recessions, particularly the Great Recession, on K-12 education finance, as well as the federal, state, and local policies and trends that mediated--for better or worse--the impact of these downturns on public school budgets. The authors then use these lessons to offer recommendations for short- and long-term responses to our current crisis.