Your search found 234843 results.

Descriptors:
Expertise; Educational Finance; State Surveys; Educational Change; State Departments of Education; State Agencies; Educational Policy; Change Agents; Financial Support; State Federal Aid; Elementary Secondary Education; Operating Expenses; Human Resources; Program Budgeting; Institutional Survival

Abstract:
Cuts in state funding for elementary and secondary education in recent years have taken a toll in many vital areas, including teaching jobs and student services. State budget cuts have also affected a less visible target--state education agencies (SEAs), which are responsible for supervising elementary and secondary education in each state and which play a crucial role in advancing education reform. Many SEAs are being asked to do more with less. While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided much-needed economic stimulus money to save or create teaching jobs and continue momentum on education reform, it also placed new demands on SEAs at a time when their own operating budgets were often shrinking. Now that the stimulus funds are coming to an end, SEAs must still follow through on a series of education reform-related assurances in their ARRA applications. What is the status of SEAs' operating budgets, staffing, and expertise in the wake of ARRA? And do SEAs have the capacity to support key education reforms? This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) seeks to answer these questions with data from a survey of state deputy superintendents of education or their designees conducted in October through December of 2011. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia, which is counted as a state in the tallies in this report, responded. The 2011 survey was the second CEP survey on these topics, including state capacity. Findings from the first survey, conducted in fall 2010, are described in the 2011 report, "More to Do But Less Capacity to Do It: States' Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act Education Reforms" (CEP, 2011a). In general, that report concluded that as a result of shrinking or stagnant operating budgets for SEAs, states could have insufficient capacity in 2011 to fully and effectively implement a range of activities critical to the ARRA reform agenda. This current report focuses specifically on state funding for SEA "operations," as opposed to general state funding for public elementary and secondary education, which is discussed in a companion CEP report (2012b). In addition, this report deals only with SEA operational funding from "state" sources. This analysis of state funding for SEA operations revealed several key findings: (1) Although the state funding outlook for SEA operations appears slightly better in school year 2012-13 than in school year 2011-12, very few states expect increases in their SEA funding for 2012-13; (2) Many states are looking at two consecutive years of decreases in state funds for SEA operations; (3) State cuts in SEA operating budgets projected for school year 2012-13 tend to be somewhat smaller than those made in school year 2011-12; (4) Most of the 26 survey states that cut their SEA operating budgets for school year 2011-12 are compensating by reducing SEA staffing costs in various ways; fewer states are cutting services to school districts; (5) States appear to be making an effort to maintain, and in some cases increase, SEA staff assigned to carry out key education reforms; and (6) More states reported having adequate SEA expertise to carry out key reforms than had adequate staffing levels or fiscal resources for these activities. Study methods for reports based on CEP's Fall 2011 State Survey are appended. (Contains 1 figure and 6 tables.) [For related report, "More to Do, But Less Capacity to Do It: States' Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act Education Reforms," see ED516577.] 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 (511K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Finance; Financial Support; Federal Aid; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Grants; Educational Change; Funding Formulas; School Districts; Poverty; Academic Achievement; Special Education; National Competency Tests; Graduation Rate; Enrollment; Suburban Schools; Rural Schools; Urban Schools

Abstract:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Recovery Act) of 2009 provided an unprecedented level of funding designed to "stimulate the economy in the short-term and invest wisely, using these funds to improve schools, raise achievement, drive reforms and produce better results for children and young people for the long-term health of our nation." The distribution of Recovery Act funds was intended to reflect these multiple goals. Nearly $97.4 billion were allocated to the U.S. Department of Education (ED), of which $70.6 billion were awarded by ED for primary and secondary (K-12) education through existing and new federal programs. These funds were distributed to states and districts using formulas based primarily on population and student poverty and through competitive grants. Consistent with its emphasis on transparency, the Recovery Act also included extensive reporting requirements for the receipt and use of Recovery Act funds. This report brings together publicly available information about Recovery Act education grants--all awarded by September 30, 2010--and the sub-grants made by grant recipients as of December 31, 2010. It examines (1) how much states and districts received from the Recovery Act and its different programs; and (2) whether and how the distribution of funds varied by selected characteristics of the recipient states and districts. This information lays the groundwork for ED's multi-year evaluation, "Charting the Progress of Education Reform: An Evaluation of the Recovery Act's Role." The evaluation examines the implementation of K-12 education reforms promoted by the Act across states, school districts, and schools. Key findings from this examination reveal that: (1) the Recovery Act provided an average of $1,396 per pupil for K-12 programs; (2) the Recovery Act K-12 funding to individual states ranged from $1,063 to $3,632 per pupil; (3) on average, 81 percent of Recovery Act K-12 funding was awarded to local education agencies (LEAs), either through sub-grants from states or through direct grants from ED. In total, 93 percent of all school districts in the nation received Recovery Act funds from at least one program; and (4) high-need school districts--defined as those with the highest rates of child poverty as well as those with the lowest student achievement--received considerably more funding per pupil than did districts with less need. Appended are: (1) Data Sources; (2) Methods; and (3) Supplementary Data Tables. (Contains 15 figures, 13 tables, and 45 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 (1088K)

Descriptors:
Self Efficacy; Academic Achievement; Minority Group Children; Family Environment; Home Instruction; Hispanic American Culture; Low Income Groups; Family Programs; Parent Education; Parents as Teachers; Program Effectiveness; Early Intervention; Home Programs; Home Visits

Abstract:
This study investigated effects of Home Instruction of Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY), a paraprofessional home visiting program, on parents and children. The program site served low-income, Spanish-speaking families. On average, mothers were 31 years old (SD = 4.78) and children were 3 or 4 years old (M = 3.92, SD = 0.92). Participants (n = 54) had more parenting self-efficacy and more enriched home environments than families on a waiting list (n = 54). In a regression on home environment, participation in the intervention was a stronger predictor than maternal education, depression, and stress. A third-grade follow-up of children in the program showed significantly higher math achievement when compared to low-income Latino third graders in the same school district. These findings appear to validate the HIPPY model, which suggests that parents gain confidence as their children's teachers through their experiences in the program. HIPPY successfully addresses the need for culturally sensitive programming aimed at improving educational achievement among minority children. 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 |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Federal Programs; Family Programs; Low Income Groups; Infants; Toddlers; Child Development; Pregnancy; Enrollment; Health Services; Immunization Programs; Health Insurance; Participant Characteristics; Teacher Qualifications; Teacher Salaries; Cultural Differences

Abstract:
Since 1965, Head Start has provided high quality early education and comprehensive support services to the nation's poorest children from ages 3 through school age. In 1994, the federal Early Head Start (EHS) program was created to address the comprehensive needs of poor children under age 3 and pregnant women. Head Start and Early Head Start'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. Programs emphasize the importance of parental involvement and staff work to cultivate parents' abilities as their children's first teachers. Research demonstrates that Head Start and Early Head Start have had positive impacts on the lives of children and families. All Head Start programs are required to complete the Program Information Report (PIR) on an annual basis. Based on information reported through the PIR by grantees, this analysis describes the characteristics of Early Head Start children, families, and staff, and the services provided to them from the 2002 through 2010 program years. Specifically, this brief looks at program years 2002, 2006 (when the last CLASP brief was written), 2009, and 2010. (Contains 10 figures and 38 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 (171K)

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)

Descriptors:
Student Records; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Pilot Projects; American Indians; Alaska Natives; American Indian Education; Disadvantaged Youth; Educational Opportunities; Educational Legislation; Poverty; Educational Finance; Budgets; Federal Aid; Public Agencies; Grants; Federal Programs; School Construction; School Maintenance; Educational Facilities Improvement; Tribally Controlled Education; Early Childhood Education; Financial Support; College Readiness; Academic Standards; Higher Education

Abstract:
This volume contains advocacy briefing papers presented at the 15th Annual National Indian Education Association (NIEA) Legislative Summit held February 15-15, 2012 in Washington, DC. The following papers are included: (1) Become a Powerful Advocate; (2) NIEA Legislative Priority for 2012: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind Act; (3) NIEA Summary of the Native CLASS Act (S.1262); (4) Preserving Native Languages; (5) Encouraging Tribal-State Partnerships and Collaboration in Education through Consultation; (6) Tribal Education Agencies Pilot Project; (7) Provide Indian Tribes Access to Tribal Member Student Records; (8) Technical Amendments to ESEA/NCLB; (9) Fiscal Year 2012 BIE, Department of Education, and Head Start Funding Levels; (10) Bureau of Indian Education Schools; (11) The Johnson O'Malley Program; (12) Funding Indian Education Through Impact Aid; (13) Insufficient Funding for Construction and Repair of BIA Schools; (14) Funding for Tribal Education Departments; (15) Funding American Indian - Alaska Native Head Start and Early Head Start Programs; (16) Establishing Higher Education Priorities for Native Students; (17) NIEA Urban Native Education Council Positions; (18) Executive Order 13592: Improving American Indian and Alaska Native Educational Opportunities; (19) NIEA Summary of Executive Order 13592; (20) White House Memorandum on Tribal Consultation; (21) Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; and (22) Condition of Indian Education 2011. Individual papers contain footnotes. (Contains 1 figure.) [For the 14th Annual Legislative Summit Briefing Papers, see ED523542.] 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 (1752K)

Descriptors:
Parents; Teaching Methods; Content Analysis; Early Intervention; Semi Structured Interviews; Parent Attitudes; Expectation; Educational Resources; Change Strategies; Family Programs; Program Descriptions; Participation; Community Programs; Home Programs; Early Childhood Education

Abstract:
The authors examined the extent to which parent expectations, perceptions about resource availability and supports, and strategies used to promote participation in home and community activities varied by setting and activity type. Sixteen 90-min semistructured interviews were completed with families receiving Part C early intervention services in three states. Interviews were analyzed in descriptive and interpretive phases using content analysis to identify patterns across cases and logical analysis to cross-classify data and identify patterns by setting and activity type. Parents described how often and how much their children participated but had different ways of describing their expectations depending on the activity setting and/or its purpose. Parent-reported strategies to promote participation provided a direct way of understanding how environments were perceived to impact participation. Implications for tailoring interventions to address the needs of immigrant and nonimmigrant families receiving Part C services are discussed. (Contains 3 tables.) 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 |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Child Safety; Mental Health Programs; Educational Finance; Family Programs; Mental Health; Parents; Advocacy; Health Services; Observation; Surveys; Audio Equipment; Peer Groups; Services

Abstract:
Professional family peer advocates are increasingly employed by public mental health systems to deliver family-to-family support that reduces barriers families face in accessing children's mental health care. These services, however, are neither uniformly available nor standardized. This pilot study describes the process, content and context of family-to-family support services. Simulating a parent seeking services, a trained standardized parent participated as a client in meetings with advocates in four programs and collected data through structured observations, a structured survey, and session audiotapes. The "walk-through" process was determined to be feasible and acceptable to family peer advocates as a way of evaluating services. Four family peer advocates provided an average of 25 services during each 2-session simulation with the standardized parent, including the following: information and educational support, instruction and skills development, emotional and affirmational support, instrumental support, and advocacy. Findings also revealed variability in the range of services provided and identified challenges in aspects of service provision, such as boundaries of advocate roles, availability of confidential service environments, and addressing crises and parent concerns about child safety. This paper provides the first in-depth look at services provided by this emerging workforce. (Contains 3 tables.) 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 |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Competition; Grants; Financial Support; Cooperation; Educational Environment; Faculty Development; Teacher Evaluation; Educational Research; Educational Finance; Federal Programs; Federal Aid; Educational Improvement

Abstract:
In this article, the author talks about the Race to the Top-District (RttT-D) grant competition. People need to pay attention to RttT-D because the priorities expressed in its requirements are very likely to be harbingers for other competition requirements. If one thinks he/she might apply for any type of competitive federal funding in the future, knowing about RttT-D could help one prepare in advance. The author discusses how the latest Race to the Top competition will have a long-lasting impact on federal funding. 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 |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Integrated Services; Obesity; Elementary Secondary Education; Child Health; Educational Change; Well Being; Health Insurance; Early Childhood Education; Dental Health; After School Programs; Child Development; Academic Achievement; Budgets; Educational Finance; Adolescents; Children; Public Officials; Child Safety; Access to Health Care; Access to Education; Accountability; Child Welfare; Welfare Services; Educational Improvement; Mental Health; Physical Health; Public Policy; Federal Aid; State Aid; Poverty; Cognitive Development; Decision Making; Economic Climate; Emotional Development; Federal Legislation; Financial Support; Social Development; State Legislation

Abstract:
This year's "Report Card" breaks new ground by providing "The Children's Agenda", which details the top ten high-priority, high-impact actions California policymakers should take to reverse the declining status of children. It's clear any sound plan to revitalize the state must prioritize children's development. California's history backs this up, as do countless examples from across the nation and around the world. And yet, for decades, the state has failed to do so. Topics covered in the "Agenda" include a comprehensive P-to-12th-grade education reform and revenue package, coordinating and streamlining the delivery of children's services, effectively implementing federal health care reform and reducing childhood obesity rates, among others. All of which reflect deep documentation and the collective expertise of the children's policy field. As in previous years, the "Report Card" analyzes and grades the key domains of children's well-being. This year's grades range from Ds for K-12, Oral Health and Integrated Services to the only B achieved, a B+ for Afterschool, giving the state an overall grade point average of C- (or 1.69). (Contains 485 endnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Samuel Chun, Alexandria Ludlow, Tim Morrison and Krista Olson. For the 2010 report, see ED509740.] 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 (1931K)