Education Budget

Friday News Roundup: Week of November 16-20

Emilie Deans — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:26:00 -0500

At Ed Money Watch, we discuss and analyze major issues affecting education funding. In our Friday News Roundup, we try to highlight interesting stories that might otherwise get overlooked. These stories emphasize how federal and state policy changes can affect local schools and districts.

Alabama Considers Charter Schools in Pursuit of Federal Race to the Top Funds

New York Plans to Reform Teacher Preparation Efforts

Missouri Freezes Higher Education Tuition

Florida Will Request $1 Billion in Federal Race to the Top Funds

Alabama Considers Charter Schools in Pursuit of Federal Race to the Top Funds
As Alabama grapples with a recession that continues to eat away at its education budget, the state is contemplating charter school legislation to increase the state's chances of receiving a slice of the federal Race to the Top (RttT) pie. In the past, Democratic state legislators, backed by the Alabama Education Association, have opposed charter schools. State Representative Max Gipson, a Republican, introduced charter school legislation a few years ago, but the bill never made it out of committee after opponents accused him of trying to re-segregate schools and take money away from traditional public schools. However, with a potential $175 million in federal RttT funds for Alabama, many legislators are re-thinking their stances on charter schools. By enacting charter school legislation, they hope to improve their chances of receiving a large chunk of the competitively awarded RttT funds, which will help them finance K-12 schools overall. More here...

New York Plans to Reform Teacher Preparation Efforts
The New York state Board of Regents this week approved a plan to change the way the state prepares new teachers. The reforms would place more emphasis on classroom experience and streamline the process for professionals in other fields that want to become teachers. Under the new plan, cultural institutions, research centers, and nonprofits would be allowed to certify teachers - a job currently dominated by universities. Bonuses of up to $30,000 would be awarded to teachers in high-demand fields who agree to teach in high-needs schools. The Board of Regents plans to include colleges, teachers unions, and community groups in the planning and implementation of the new plan. More here...

Missouri Freezes Higher Education Tuition
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon this week announced that the state's public four-year colleges and universities will freeze in-state tuition for the second year in a row. The agreement must still be passed by Missouri lawmakers and college and university governing boards, which appears likely. Lawmakers and higher education officials seem to agree that keeping higher education affordable is a priority. The freeze came in response to a decade of annual tuition hikes - averaging 7.5 percent - in Missouri. Though Governor Nixon and higher education officials don't yet know where the 5.2 percent in spending cuts to higher education will come from, they agree that improvements must continue to be made even while cutting costs. Ultimately, Governor Nixon says, keeping higher education affordable will be one step to turning the economy around. More here...

Florida Will Request $1 Billion in Federal Race to the Top Funds
Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith this week announced that the state will likely apply for $1 billion in federal Race to the Top (RttT) funds - nearly one quarter of the overall budget for the competitive grant program. According to guidelines released by the U.S. Department of Education, Florida and two other states are eligible to receive between $350 million and $700 million if they are awarded grants. But states may apply for higher amounts if they believe their proposals warrant it. Union and school district officials are working together on plans to align Florida's system with each of the four reform areas given priority in RttT awards. The reforms will likely include proposing teacher merit pay systems, getting involved in a consortium with other states on student achievement standards and testing, developing more rigorous teacher certification exams, and establishing school reforms like extended school days or year, or expanded full-day pre-K. Because of these plans and existing reforms, the state appears to be well positioned to win a large chunk of federal RttT funds. More here...

Briefly Noted

Kansas regents hold meeting to outline higher education budget issues.

The Proliferation of Federal High School Intervention Programs

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:58:00 -0500

The dismal state of America's high school graduation rates - less than 75 percent nationally and below 50 percent in some areas - has become a key federal public policy issue in the last decade. Existing federal programs, including TRIO and GEAR UP, already seek to improve high school graduation and college going rates in underserved populations. But recent developments, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, and President Obama's 2010 Budget Request, have brought new high school intervention programs to the table. Are these programs really all that different? And what resources could the federal government commit to these efforts?

TRIO/GEAR UP
TRIO Talent Search, TRIO Upward Bound, and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) are three existing federal programs that attempt to increase high school graduation and college going rates in low-income students through small programs aimed at individual students or groups of students. These programs include out-of-school programs or pull-out sessions during the regular school day, after-school and weekend instruction, tutoring support for core academic subjects and college and financial aid applications, and counseling, mentoring, academic support, and college outreach services.

Research suggests that TRIO/GEAR UP are inadequately funded and contain significant overlap and redundancies. While evaluations favor GEAR UP somewhat, neither program has shown significant benefits. In fiscal year 2009, GEAR UP received just over $313 million and the TRIO programs received $905 million in federal funds. The President's 2010 budget request funded both programs at 2009 levels.

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) Proposed Programs
The House passed its version of the SAFRA bill in September including a College Access and Completion Innovation Fund and an American Graduation Initiative, both aimed at increasing college going and graduation rates, but not through interventions in high schools. Although the Senate has taken no action on companion legislation, an unofficial Senate version of SAFRA has circulated within the education policy community that contains a new high school program called the Pipeline to College Initiative.

This five-year, $2.5 billion program ($500 million annually) would provide competitive grants to states to improve student achievement and graduation rates and implement various high school reform and improvement systems in schools with particularly low graduation rates. This proposed reform program requires states that receive awards to annually evaluate high schools based on a series of benchmarks to determine whether they are making continuous and substantial progress toward academic goals.

Additionally, under the proposed Pipeline to College Initiative participating states must create early warning indicator and intervention systems for struggling students and distribute grants to local education agencies to implement school improvement programs in failing high schools.

Unlike the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, which are small programs aimed at select students within schools, the Senate Pipeline to College Initiative would use a whole-school approach to high school interventions, seeking to improve the system in which struggling students receive their educations rather than supporting them individually.

President's Budget Request
The President's 2010 Budget Request, and House and Senate 2010 Appropriations bills pending in Congress, all include a new $50 million program called the High School Graduation Initiative that would provide grants directly to local education agencies to run intervention programs for schools and students. Much like the Senate's Pipeline to College Initiative, it would provide funds for the creation of early warning indicators for struggling students and allow for partnerships with outside organizations. The funds could also be used to create comprehensive plans for keeping at-risk students in school or bringing students have dropped out back into the system. The program is meant to provide opportunities to evaluate and learn from new innovative programs at the local level that could later be expanded.

Should Programs Focus on Schools or Students?
The existing and proposed high school programs vary widely in cost ($50 million for the High School Graduation Initiative versus $905 million for TRIO) and more importantly on whether they focus on groups of students or entire schools. While TRIO and GEAR UP provide assistance to groups of students from low income families, the Pipeline to College and High School Graduation Initiative involve reforms at the school level and extensive use of data. Conflicting evidence exists on the successes of GEAR UP and TRIO, so it is unclear if programs directed at groups of students are enough to propel America's high school graduation rates above 75 percent. The new approach envisioned in the Pipeline to College Initiative and the High School Graduation initiative will provide a glimpse into the potential for programs directed at entire schools, not just a handful of students.

Comparing House and Senate School Facilities Programs in the Student Loan Bill

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:31:00 -0500

In July we analyzed funding for K-12 school facilities in the student loan reform bill, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, as passed by the House Education and Labor Committee. The full House passed the bill in September and preserved the $2.0 billion per year school repair program. Although the Senate has not yet acted on a similar student loan reform bill, a version drafted by the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee was leaked a couple of months ago. The leaked bill suggests the Senate is headed in a different direction than the House when it comes to funding school facilities construction.

Both of these pieces of legislation provide a glimpse into the federal government's first major foray into directly funding K-12 school facilities and neither propose an insignificant amount of money. The most striking difference between the two versions is that the House includes a two-year, formula-based investment in K-12 school facilities, and the Senate bill creates a five year competitive program for K-12 school repair, renovation, and construction.

The House bill distributes funds for repair, renovation, and modernization among states and school districts according to each state and district's share of total federal Title I dollars. This means that every school district in the nation that receives Title I funds will receive some share of its state's school facilities funds after the state withholds up to 1 percent for administrative purposes.

Unfortunately, the House bill spreads just over $2.0 billion in each year over more than 13,000 eligible school districts. In the end, it's likely to amount to a drop in the bucket relative to the total expense of modernizing schools. Additionally, the House bill prohibits spending on new school construction, with the exception of $30 million each year for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

The leaked version of the Senate bill, however, avoids the danger of spreading the funds too thin by creating a competitive program administrated by the states but funded by the federal government. Essentially, the program distributes $500 million each year from 2010 to 2014 to states according to their share of Title I funds, much like the House program. However, once states receive their funds, they must create a competitive grant program through which they will award funds to selected school districts and charter schools within the state.

The Senate version does place some restrictions on how the funds must be divided among schools. For example, the proportion of each state's facilities funds distributed to charter schools must reflect the proportion of funds that charter schools receive under Title I. For example, if charter schools received 30 percent of a state's Title I allocation, then 30 percent of the state's facilities funds must also be awarded to selected charter schools. Similarly, the Senate legislation states that the competitive grants must be awarded to both selected high-need and rural school districts in proportion to the amount of Title I funds each type of school receives. Any remaining funds can be distributed to regular, high-need, and rural districts or charter schools as the state sees fit.

Additionally, the Senate bill outlines some priorities for the competitive grants including districts with large impoverished populations, high need for school repair and construction, plans to support "green" practices, or a lack of fiscal capacity to fund construction or repair activities.

The Senate bill also requires that school districts provide matching funds for the federal grants for facilities they receive. However, the required match amounts can be determined on a sliding scale based on the relative size of the impoverished population in each district in a state. Charter schools are not required to supply matching funds.

In all, the Senate program for school facilities is much more likely to have a lasting impact on the condition of school buildings in America. It provides consistent funding over five years, rather than two, for select districts and charters identified through a competitive grant process. As a result, it will provide an infusion of funds in particularly needy schools rather than a small amount of money across the board. It also targets high-need, rural, and charter schools which typically require the most assistance with facilities. Additionally, it requires matching funds, assuring that districts and charters are committed to the facilities investments they are making and that the federal dollars go as far as possible.

The student loan legislation represents a major shift in the federal government's role in K-12 school facilities. Past efforts have mainly involved tax credit bonds and programs for schools with large populations of students that live on military bases or Indian reservations. Although we don't know whether the Senate version of the student loan bill has changed since it was leaked over the summer, we hope that it maintains the targeted and competitive aspects that are likely to make it more effective.

Friday News Roundup: Week of November 9-13

Emilie Deans — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:57:00 -0500

New Mexico Lawmaker Proposes Budget Fix Using Endowment Fund

Colorado Cuts to Education Bigger than Expected

More Cuts for South Carolina Schools

New Mexico Lawmaker Proposes Budget Fix Using Endowment Fund
New Mexico State Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez this week laid out a proposal to tap into the state's $9 billion Land Grant Permanent Fund to help balance the state's budget. The fund makes yearly payments to school districts, universities, hospitals, and other public institutions. Sanchez's plan would take $2 billion from the fund to pay for these and other critical government operations and minimize tax hikes over the coming years. Sanchez also seeks to bolster state finances for projected state deficits for next year and potentially slow economic growth over the next few years. The state already needs $400 million to fill a hole in the fiscal year 2011 budget. Opponents to the proposal claim that removing the money will slow the fund's growth and result in smaller payments to schools and the other beneficiaries later. If Sanchez's proposal passes the state legislature, voters will have to approve it in November because it includes a change to the state's constitution. More here...

Colorado Cuts to Education Bigger than Expected
Cuts to spending on K-12 education in Colorado for fiscal year 2011 will total 6.1 percent despite Governor Bill Ritter's claims that it is only 4.6 percent. According to a calculation by the Colorado Department of Education, cuts to spending on education in the fiscal year 2011 budget total $374.1 million, or 6.1 percent of what schools would have normally expected for that fiscal year. Governor Ritter's calculation, they say, made cuts appear smaller because it was done using the current fiscal year 2010 budget as a baseline. The cuts to spending on schools will likely mean increasing class sizes, teacher and staff layoffs, salary cuts or freezes, and possible service reductions. However, categorical funding for transportation, special education, and some other programs will not be affected by the proposed cuts. Funding for full-day kindergarten programs is also expected to hold steady. For higher education, Governor Ritter's plan includes a modest $1.98 million growth in spending despite a projected decline in support from federal stimulus funds. The spending growth would come from a proposed 9 percent tuition increase. More here...

More Cuts for South Carolina Schools
The South Carolina Board of Economic Advisors this week released a reduced estimate of state revenue, citing concerns over the nearly half million people in the state who are unemployed. Given this new estimate, Governor Mark Sanford told the state's K-12 schools, colleges, and prisons to prepare to cut another $120 million from their fiscal year 2010 budgets. This comes on top of a $328 million cut from the current budget to these services over the summer. It is not yet clear where exactly cuts will come from at the state level, so school districts are waiting for more information before they make any final decisions on where to trim their budgets. More here...

Briefly Noted

Alabama Board of Education endorses proposed "plan of survival" for K-12 schools.
Illinois budget cuts squeeze the state's universities.

Department of Education Releases Phase 2 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Application

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:47:00 -0500

Yesterday the Department of Education released the finalized applications for Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). The SFSF, a major component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), provides $48.6 billion in federal funds to states so that they can fill gaps in their education budgets. States that successfully complete the Phase 2 application process will receive the remaining 33 percent of their SFSF monies (unless the state was eligible to receive more than 67 percent during Phase 1). Much like the Phase 1 applications, the Phase 2 applications require state governors to sign off on a series of promises surrounding four areas of reform outlined in the ARRA. The Phase 2 promises center on the collection and public availability of data and information on each state's progress towards the reform areas.

The Phase 2 application that states must submit to the U.S. Department of Education outlines various data or information of interest pertaining to each of the four reform areas and requires governors to state whether they currently collect this data and whether it is currently publically accessible. If a state does not collect the data or make it publically accessible, governors must outline a plan and timeline for collecting the data and making it publically accessibly on the internet by September 30^th, 2011. In some cases, the application also cites existing data and asks each governor to verify whether that data is correct.

The number of indicators required for each reform area varies. The application describes seven indicators pertaining to improving teacher distribution, three indicators pertaining to improving the collection and use of data, and twelve indicators for both improving standards and assessments and supporting struggling schools.

While some of the indicators appear somewhat basic, such as the number of academic courses taught by highly qualified teachers, other indicators require states to collect and make public very complex information. For example, under improving teacher distribution, the application asks whether states currently collect and make available data on the number and percent of principals rated at each performance level under the principal rating system. This data is likely unavailable in the majority of states because principal rating systems are often locally controlled and not reported at the state level.

The application also asks states whether they collect and report the number and percentage of high school graduates who enroll in and complete at least one year's worth of college credit. This data is also unlikely to be available in most states because few have the ability to track students as they graduate high school and enter higher education, let alone whether they complete a year's worth of credit once they get there. No doubt, this data could provide much needed information on the status of college readiness in America. Unfortunately, the applications do not require states to implement the means to collect and publish this data. Instead, it only requires states to develop such means.

With respect to supporting struggling schools, the application asks states whether they collect and report data on the number and identity of low-achieving high schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, federal Title I funds. This data would illuminate the degree to which Title I funds primarily support elementary schools at the expense of struggling high schools in every state. Because Title I distributions to schools are decided at the district, rather than the state, level, this data is unlikely to be currently available in most states.

While the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Phase 2 application will likely compel many states to collect and publically report important data that are currently unavailable like those described above, it does not require governors to get down to the nitty gritty of how they will actually further the four reform areas. In fact, governors have almost no control over how the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds are used at the local level and must hope that school district administrators try to use the funds in the most reform-focused ways possible. Without specific plans on how each state will improve teacher distribution, data collection and use, standards and assessments, and support for struggling schools it is unclear how states will bring any of these goals to fruition under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

Comprehensive Literacy Legislation Introduced in Senate

Sara Mead — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:25:00 -0500

Last week, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced the Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (LEARN) Act, a comprehensive literacy bill designed to overhaul the federal role in supporting literacy from preschool through high school. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)

This bill addresses the important need to reestablish a federal role in supporting early literacy, following the elimination of funding for the Reading First program. It also takes important steps to support adolescent literacy. But we worry that it shifts the focus of federal literacy efforts too much towards the middle and high school years, at the expense of critical PreK-3^rd years, which build a foundation for all of children’s later literacy learning.

The LEARN act authorizes new federal literacy programs to replace both existing federal literacy investments—Even Start, Early Reading First, and Striving Readers—and the Reading First program, which Congress defunded last year. In that respect, it’s much needed. Supporting literacy development has been an important federal education priority, backed up with dollars, through the previous two administrations. The elimination of Reading First funding in fiscal year 2009, following large cuts in 2008, cut off an important source of funds for reading programs in low-income elementary schools, leaving many scrambling to figure out how to continue this important work during tight economic times.

The LEARN act would provide grants to states to develop and implement comprehensive state literacy plans, from early childhood through high school. The act authorizes both one-year planning grants, to support states in developing their literacy plans, and five-year implementation grants. States that receive implementation grants would be required to spend 90 percent of those funds on subgrants to local entities—school districts, early childhood programs and nonprofits. Funds would be awarded on a competitive basis, with priority for grantees serving high numbers of poor children, children who are struggling in reading, and school districts with high numbers of schools identified for school improvement under ESEA. States would have to direct 10 percent of the subgrant funds to early childhood (birth to 5) literacy initiatives, 40 percent to literacy programs in kindergarten through fifth grade, and 40 percent to programs in middle and high school. States could use the remaining 10 percent to conduct statewide activities to support literacy.

While Early Ed Watch is pleased to see legislation promoting a federal role and funding for literacy programs, and there are a number of things we like about this bill, there are also aspects we feel could be improved.

First, what we like: We especially like that the LEARN Act places a strong emphasis on writing as an important component of literacy alongside reading. The ability to write well is increasingly important in our information-based economy, yet too many of our students fail to master that skill. Schools should integrate writing into the curriculum from an early age—even before children can truly “write.” Many of the schools that are most effective at promoting literacy across the PreK-3^rd spectrum have adopted this practice.

The bill emphasizes integrating literacy across the content areas and using diverse and varied texts. That we like too.

We also think it’s important that the bill maintains a focus on things that were working well in Reading First—the five essential components of literacy instruction identified by the National Reading Panel (phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension); the use of appropriate screening, diagnostic, and formative assessments to track students’ reading progress and inform instruction; high-quality professional development; and additional support for struggling students.

And we are particularly pleased with provisions requiring states to conduct an audit of pre-service teacher coursework to ensure that future teachers are getting the training they need to provide effective literacy instruction to children—something all too many teacher training programs still do not do, despite the strong body of evidence that exists on effective reading instruction.

That said, we have some concerns as well. It’s unfortunate that, even as a growing number of school districts and states are building seamless PreK-3^rd early literacy experiences for young children, this bill still resorts to the same old silos—separate grants for birth to age five, K-5, and middle/high school literacy initiatives—rather than encouraging PreK-3^rd integration. That said, there are a number of simple ways that Congress could strengthen the bill to better support PreK-3^rd alignment, and abundant opportunities to do so before this bill becomes law. Even in its current form, states and school districts could use the LEARN Act’s programs and funding to promote Prek-3^rd alignment—they’d just have to think a bit creatively about how to do so.

While we recognize the need to invest more in adolescent literacy, we also question the wisdom of devoting the same amount of funding to middle and high school literacy as to elementary schools. The PreK-3^rd years are the crucial time when children develop foundational early literacy skills on which all their future learning rests, and it’s far cheaper to provide the support students need to achieve reading proficiency by third grade than it is to provide remediation later. Given the critical importance of those years for reading, we would argue for investing a larger share of the resources in early childhood and elementary literacy efforts.

Of course, how much literacy funding will be available for any grade level depends on how much Congress decides to appropriate for the LEARN Act’s programs. The bill would authorize $2.35 billion in funding annually for literacy. But that doesn’t mean that much money will actually materialize. Authorizations only provide a ceiling on how much Congress can spend for a program. The actual funding levels will be determined each year by the Congressional appropriations committees. And right now the total appropriation for literacy programs in both the House and Senate appropriations bills is an order of magnitude lower than the LEARN Act’s authorization levels--$274 million in the House and $263 million in the Senate. In many ways, the real proof of Congress’ commitment to literacy is not this bill, but how much they spend on it going forward.

Congress, with health care reform and the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act already on its plate, will probably not act on the LEARN Act this year. Rather, the legislation will probably be incorporated into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also known as No Child Left Behind), which Congress is expected to take up next year. Stay tuned for more in the months ahead.

Friday News Roundup: Week of November 2-6

Emilie Deans — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:43:00 -0500

As Enrollment Grows in Utah, Budget Shrinks

Arizona Budget Shortfall Forces Cuts

Pennsylvania Universities Anxiously Await Decision on Gambling Taxes

Nebraska Legislators Propose Cuts to School Aid

Kentucky Higher Education Council to Vote on Budget Plan

As Enrollment Grows in Utah, Budget Shrinks
Utah's State Office of Education this week released data showing that enrollment in the state's public K-12 schools increased by 12,260 students since last fall. This growth came at the same time the state's education budget decreased by 5.2 percent from the previous year, thanks to the economic downturn. These numbers mean that schools will have to cut services for students, and per pupil expenditures will go down. And the forecast for next year doesn't look much better - the State Office of Education predicts a similar increase in K-12 enrollment with no increase to the budget. The state may need to dip into its rainy day fund just to maintain spending levels from the current fiscal year. More here...

Arizona Budget Shortfall Forces Cuts
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is planning a mid-November special legislative session to address the state's $2 billion budget shortfall. Governor Brewer has been working with House and Senate leaders to come up with a package of spending cuts to make up for a $500 million revenue shortfall. Most of the cuts will reflect those proposed in a package previously vetoed by Governor Brewer, including much of the annual inflation adjustment for K-12 public schools and funding for purchases of computers, textbooks, and other equipment. Additional cuts will be made during a second special legislative session and during the 2010 regular session, which begins in January. More here...

Pennsylvania Universities Anxiously Await Decision on Gambling Taxes
Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have reached a stalemate over details of a bill to legalize and tax gambling table games, like poker, at the state's existing slot-machine casinos. Last month's budget agreement between Governor Ed Rendell and state legislators assumed passage of the bill to raise $200 million in tax revenues. This revenue would contribute to university funding, without which the universities could have to raise tuition for the 2010 spring semester. The universities are pressing the legislature to ensure that they will receive the full amount they've been promised as tuition bills will go out on November 13^th. More here...

Nebraska Legislators Propose School Aid Cut
In a special budget cutting session of the Nebraska state legislature, the State Senate Education Committee proposed cuts totaling about $47 million to schools for fiscal year 2011. About half of the savings would come from limiting to 1 percent the annual funding increase for most school districts. An additional $24 million in cuts would be made by reducing state aid to school districts based on the number of teachers with graduate degrees. The Education Committee's proposal—one of seven introduced on the first day of the special budget-cutting session—came as part of Governor Dave Heineman's plan to cut about $336 million from the state's current two-year budget plan. More here...

Kentucky Higher Education Council to Vote on Budget Plan
The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, the state's coordinating agency for higher education, was scheduled to vote this week on a budget recommendation calling for a $2.1 billion increase in state spending on higher education in the 2011-2012 two-year budget. The increase includes $70 million in each fiscal year to replace federal economic stimulus funding included in the current fiscal year 2010 budget. It also includes a request for a $50 million fund for higher education institutions to promote student retention and graduation rates. This request comes as state officials brace for a difficult budget session - revenue to the state's General Fund is expected to fall about $1 billion short of the $9 billion required for the current fiscal year. Governor Steve Beshear told higher education officials that the upcoming budget will be difficult, but that access to higher education for all Kentuckians is a priority. More here...

Comparing Department of Education and Recipient Reported Stimulus Data

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:40:00 -0500

When Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), they included extensive data reporting requirements so that the public could closely track expenditures. Now that the recipient reported data on expenditures is publically available, tracking education funds should be easy. But as we discussed earlier this week, data reported by school districts and institutions of higher education is lacking in comprehensive information and is difficult to decipher. Unfortunately, state-level recipient reported data does not match previously available Department of Education (ED) reported data for many states, further undermining the value of the data. If the point of the data collection process was to provide accessible data on the progress of the stimulus, this data falls short of that goal.

ARRA recipients reported the total amount of federal stimulus funds they had received as of September 30^th, 2009 for all stimulus programs (except Pell Grants). This data can be compared to data ED reported on the amount of funds disbursed for the same programs. To do this comparison, we aggregated the recipient reported data on total ARRA funds received by state and compared it to ED's reports on funds it disbursed after subtracting any disbursements related to Pell Grants. We found a fair number of discrepancies between the recipient and agency reported data.

Of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, only 27 states or territories reported grant amounts received that were anywhere near the amount that ED reported it had disbursed. The majority of these states reported slightly higher amounts of funds received than the ED agency reported data.

Of the 25 states or territories that reported data that differed from data that ED reported by more than 5 percent, 20 reported receiving higher amounts. For example, the District of Columbia reported that it had received $3.6 million in federal stimulus grants as of September 30^th. However, the ED reported data suggests that only $271,095 had been disbursed to DC as of that date, a discrepancy of 92.5 percent. Similarly, there is a discrepancy of 87.6 percent and 67.6 percent between Alaska's and Delaware's recipient and ED reported data, respectively.

Five states reported lower amounts of federal stimulus funds received than the ED reported data suggests. For example, Kansas reported that it received $42.2 million less than the ED agency reported $203.2 million, a 25.4 percent difference. North Carolina also reported that it had received $391.2 million, $61.9 million less than ED reported it had disbursed.

Without further information on how the states reported the amount they had received, it is impossible to understand why the recipient reported data differs from the agency reported data so greatly. However, these discrepancies call into question the value and validity of the recipient reported data in general. It seems that the states were either ill equipped to collect this data in such a short time span or the school districts and institutions or higher education are doing a poor job of tracking the funds as they come in. Either way, these data suggest that the current recipient reported data system will require significant refinement to become completely useful.

Complete data for all 50 states, Puerto Rico and DC is available here.

Recipient Reported Education Stimulus Data a Challenge to Decipher

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:41:00 -0500

Last Friday, the first round of recipient reported Recovery Act grant and loan data was made available on the Recovery.gov website. Much like the previously released federal contract data, this wave of data lacks the comprehensive information needed to truly determine how the funds are being spent and from what source. The data are both difficult to decipher and include several instances of human error.

While working with the data we discovered several issues that make the data difficult to understand. For example, less than half of all education-related data are tagged with the funding agency name "Department of Education." Other possible funding agencies include "Federal Student Aid," "Impact Aid Programs," "Office of Elementary and Secondary Education," "Office of Higher Education Programs," "Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services," "Office of Postsecondary Education," and "Office of Vocational and Adult Education."

Additionally, data that should be education-related are tagged with TAS codes that are not for education programs. As we've discussed before, the Treasury Accounting Symbol (TAS) is used to identify funding sources in each record. Of the 15 TAS codes in the education-related data, only nine of those codes pertain to education programs. The remaining six appear to be the result of erroneously entered codes. These erroneous codes account for 17 education-related records.

While helpful to a certain extent, the TAS code does not always identify specific programs. For example, the TAS code for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund does not distinguish between Education Stabilization and Government Services Funds. Similarly, the School Improvement TAS code does not distinguish between McKinney Vento Homeless Education and Education Technology grant funds. This further information is included in the qualitative variables in the data which are impossible to categorize systematically, making it difficult to determine exactly what funding sources each record is referring to.

Significant information is missing in the sub recipient data as well (in this case, school districts or institutions of higher education are considered sub recipients). None of the sub recipient data contain information on funding agency or TAS codes, making it impossible to determine the funding sources or programs referenced in any of the sub recipient data. (We hope to receive this data with all the proper information in the near future.)

However, using the prime recipient data, we were able to extrapolate data on jobs created or saved and funds awarded, received, and expended by TAS code and by state. For example, the data we have show that a total of $58.8 billion in education related stimulus funds have been awarded. Of that amount, $14.2 billion has been received and $14.0 billion has been expended. Nearly 398,000 jobs were created or saved by the stimulus.

The amount of received funds that have been expended varies widely by state, as does the number of jobs saved. For example, Alaska has expended only 2.2 percent of its received funds, while Connecticut has expended 188.0 percent of its received funds. It is possible for a state to expend funds before they have received them because some states receive federal funds on a reimbursement basis after the expenditures have been made. It is very likely that Connecticut, and the 16 other states that have expended more than 100 percent of their received funds are on reimbursement plans for the education funds. Wyoming reported that it saved 15 jobs through the education stimulus funds, while California claims to have saved nearly 81,000.

The percent of funds expended also varies widely by program. For example, the data suggests that 108.7 percent of the received School Improvement funds have been expended while only 38.2 percent of the received Impact Aid funds have been expended. More than 100 percent of received Higher Education Program, Special Education, Title I, and School Improvement funds have been expended. The data also suggest that State Fiscal Stabilization Funds were used to save more than 316,000 jobs and special education funds were used to save more than 35,500.

It is clear that stimulus fund recipient reported data, while valuable for understanding how funds effect education and the economy, are being collected in a flawed manner. The data lack comprehensive information on funding sources, and problems with sub recipient data make it impossible to determine what is happening with the funds in school districts and institutions of higher education. Further, human error in data reporting is skewing findings. Hopefully, the Department of Education will work out these kinks as reporting continues. If not, state and local efforts to report this information may be fruitless in the end.

Complete data on recipient reported data by state and by TAS code are available here and here.

Comparing State and Nationally Defined Graduation Rates

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:33:00 -0400

Earlier this month the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released a preliminary report on graduation rates in the 50 states and the District of Columbia for the high school class of 2006-07. The report shows that graduation rates vary widely by state - from as high as 88.6 percent to as low as 52.0 percent - and by student race or ethnicity. Interestingly, the NCES figures differ from the graduation rates most states report under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. In fact, 14 states claim to have graduation rates at least 10 percentage points higher than what the national standard shows. (Data for both nationally and state defined graduation rates can be accessed on the Federal Education Budget Project website at www.edbudgetproject.org.)

NCES calculated graduation rates using a method known as the averaged freshman graduation rate. Under this method, the graduation rate is calculated by dividing the number of diplomas awarded in 2006-07 by the average enrollment of 8^thgraders in 2002-03, 9^th graders in 2003-04, and 10^th graders in 2004-05. Averaging 8^th, 9^th, and 10^th grade enrollment controls for freshman students who may have been held back. This method is not as rigorous as a graduation rate produced using longitudinal student data because it does not track individual students as they go through high school. However, in the absence of longitudinal data in the majority of the states, it was deemed preferable to other alternatives in previous studies.

In contrast to the method used by NCES, states calculated 2007 graduation rates in a variety of ways to meet the accountability requirements for NCLB. States were able to choose how they measured graduation rates for NCLB just as they were able to choose state definitions for proficiency in math and reading. Some may have used the averaged freshman graduation rate while others may have just divided the number of diplomas awarded in 2007 by freshman enrollment four years earlier. Some states may even have divided the number of diplomas awarded in 2007 by the number of seniors entering school at the beginning of that school year.

Most of the time, the graduation rate method selected by a state produces a higher graduation rate than what would be produced by averaged freshman graduation rate. For example, the District of Columbia reports a graduation rate of 75.5 percent for NCLB purposes. The NCES calculation gives DC a graduation rate of 54.9 percent, 20.6 percentage points lower. Similarly, Alabama's NCES graduation rate is 16.0 percentage points lower than its NCLB reported graduation rate of 83.1 percent, and Nevada's NCES graduation rate is 15.4 percentage points lower than its NCLB reported rate of 67.4 percent.

Some states, however, do understate their graduation rates in their NCLB report cards. Minnesota reports a graduation rate of 73.3 percent, 13.2 percentage points lower than its NCES calculated rate. Missouri also reports a graduation rate 9.1 percentage points lower than its NCES rate of 81.9 percent. In total, eight states report a graduation rate lower than the nationally defined rate. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell what is driving these differences without examining each state's NCLB accountability plan.

The Department of Education is working to eliminate the disconnect between nationally and state defined graduation rates. For example, recent federal investments in state longitudinal data systems suggest that states will soon be able to calculate graduation rates using individual student data rather than student enrollment and diploma data. Using student longitudinal data would allow states and schools to track students individually as they move from school to school, ensuring a more accurate graduation rate. Additionally, the Department of Education released guidance last December that would require states to report a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for the high school class of 2012. This method would calculate the graduation rate as follows:

But standardizing the way graduation rates are calculated is only half the battle. No matter how you look at it, at least 25 percent of American high school students fail to graduate in four years. In an economy that requires at least a high school degree to make a living wage, this trend could spell disaster for economic recovery in the near future.

While both pending House and Senate 2010 education funding bills include $50 million for a new high school graduation initiative, this is just a drop in the bucket what is likely needed to improve graduation rates. America is going to have to get much more serious about providing the support students need to graduate from high school.

A spreadsheet containing data on nationally and state defined graduation rates is available here.