|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-06-13 |
Pub Type(s): |
Guides - Non-Classroom |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Financial Support; State Aid; Disabilities; Related Services (Special Education); Technical Assistance; School Districts; Special Education; Special Needs Students; Educational Policy; Educational Finance; Federal Aid; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Federal Regulation; Federal State Relationship; State Programs; Guidelines; Elementary Secondary Education; State Policy; State Regulation
Abstract:
This Quick Reference Document has been prepared by the Regional Resource Center Program Fiscal Priority Team to aid RRCP State liaisons and other Technical Assistance (TA) providers in understanding the general context of State questions surrounding Maintenance of State Financial Support (MFS) and Local Educational Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE). In addition to the regulations cited in this paper, there is additional information about MFS in the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Memo 10-05: Maintenance of State Financial Support under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, December 2, 2009 and an additional information about LEA MOE contained in OSEP Letter to Boundy, April 4, 2012. As a "first-stop" for TA providers in investigating MFS and MOE questions on behalf of their States, this document is intentionally brief. For additional clarification or detail on a specific MFS or MOE issue, TA providers are encouraged to contact the member of the Fiscal Priority Team in their respective RRCP region or the Fiscal Convener for additional information and resources. Attached are: (1) OSEP Memorandum, Dec. 2, 2009; and (2) OSEP Letter to Boundy, April 4, 2012.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (897K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Federal Programs; State Programs; Family Programs; Low Income Groups; Infants; Toddlers; At Risk Persons; Child Development; Pregnancy; Access to Education; Access to Health Care; Home Visits; State Policy; Child Care; State Aid; Federal Aid; Private Financial Support
Abstract:
The federal Early Head Start (EHS) program was created in 1994 to address the comprehensive needs of children under age 3 in low-income families and vulnerable low-income pregnant women. In addition to early learning opportunities, EHS's comprehensive early childhood development programs provide children and families with access to a range of services such as health screenings, referrals and follow-up support, parenting resources, and social services. Despite the program's proven ability to lessen the negative effects of poverty, consistently low levels of federal funding and increasing child poverty have kept the program's capacity low. Even the $1.1 billion increase in federal funding from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)--which increased the total number of children and pregnant women served from 93,287 in 2009 to 133,971 in 2010--failed to significantly change the percentage of those eligible who were served because poverty also increased over the same period. Using innovative funding, policies, and partnerships, states can expand the critically important EHS program and better meet the needs of more low-income children and pregnant women living in their state. In 2008, ZERO TO THREE and CLASP released "Building on the Promise: State Initiatives to Expand Access to Early Head Start for Young Children and their Families," which outlined the diverse ways states expanded upon or enhanced EHS services for infants, toddlers, and their families. At that time, the researchers found 20 states with some efforts to expand or enhance EHS services at the state level. This report provides updated information on how states are supplementing EHS four years later. Initiatives that extend the day or year of existing services are appended. (Contains 14 endnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (985K)
|
Author(s): |
N/A |
Source: |
Regional Resource Center Program |
|
Pub Date: |
2011-09-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Guides - Non-Classroom |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Special Education; Technical Assistance; Educational Policy; Educational Finance; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Federal Regulation; Federal State Relationship; State Programs; Guidelines; Program Administration; Accountability; Audits (Verification)
Abstract:
This Quick Reference Document is being distributed by the Regional Resource Center Program ARRA/Fiscal Priority Team to provide RRCP state liaisons and other (Technical Assistance) TA providers with a summary of critical fiscal monitoring and support activities they may be involved in during calendar years 2011 and 2012. Like other documents in the developing ARRA/Fiscal Priority Team's Quick Reference Document series, this guide to current Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) fiscal activities is intended as a "first-stop" for TA providers in investigating fiscal questions on behalf of their states. It is intentionally brief. For additional clarification or detail, TA providers are encouraged to contact the member of the ARRA/Fiscal Priority Team in their respective RRCP region or the ARRA/Fiscal Convener for additional information and resources.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (172K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2011-07-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Federal Programs; Educational Policy; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Compliance (Legal); Federal Regulation; Federal State Relationship; Federal Aid; Problems
Abstract:
While the federal government spends billions of dollars every year on federal education programs, federal policymakers and education advocates often lament that these programs do not achieve their intended results--specifically, increasing student academic achievement. To address this problem, policymakers and advocates typically debate the merits and drawbacks of broad federal education policies and various educational approaches, without examining the underlying federal compliance framework that directly impacts whether and how these policies can be carried out by states and school districts. Reforming little-known and little-understood federal compliance rules could lead to far better educational outcomes than broad changes in federal policy alone. Addressing these rules will improve conditions so schools and school districts can successfully implement programs that will raise student achievement. In this "Outlook," the authors provide examples of how the current compliance framework is often disconnected from larger federal policy goals and--perhaps more importantly--can get in the way of states and districts trying to implement solutions that would lead to improved educational outcomes. Three key points in this Outlook include: (1) Federal fiscal compliance rules can stifle innovation and hinder federal education programs from achieving their goals; (2) States have authority and responsibility over how federal education programs are implemented and must repay federal money if districts spend funds incorrectly; thus, states often impose more restrictive rules than federal law requires; and (3) Congress and education policymakers should clarify and streamline these compliance requirements so schools can focus less on compliance and more on raising student achievement. (Contains 14 notes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2011-06-02 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Federal Aid; Federal Programs; Educational Change; Politics of Education; Accountability; Government Role; Public Agencies; Federal Government; State Government; Educational Finance; Financial Support; Federal State Relationship; Partnerships in Education
Abstract:
Increasing federal intervention and the resulting burden of complying with federal programs, rules, and regulations has caused a significant growth in state bureaucracy, much of which has a parasitic relationship with federal education programs, straining the time and resources of local schools. Instead of responding first to students, parents, and taxpayers, federal education funding has encouraged state education systems and local school districts to orient their focus to the demands of Washington. Instead of building on the failed policies of the past and continuing top-down education reform from Washington, a drastically different approach should be taken to significantly limit the federal role in education and empower state and local leaders. The proposed Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) Act directs educational accountability to those with the most at stake in student and school success: parents and taxpayers. At the same time, policymakers should downsize the Department of Education by drastically reducing program count and putting an end to the education spending spree. Heritage Foundation education policy expert Lindsey Burke explains how the A-PLUS approach, combined with measures to eliminate and consolidate the majority of federal education programs, could decrease the failed federal role, and return appropriate control of education to states and localities. (Contains 26 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (537K)
|
|
