Your search found 1554 results.

Descriptors:
Museums; Theaters; Private Sector; Financial Support; State Federal Aid; Donors; Incentives; Philanthropic Foundations; Art; Arts Centers; Public Agencies; Public Support; Cultural Centers; Tax Credits

Abstract:
The infrastructure for arts and cultural support in the United States is complex and adaptive. Citizens who enjoy the arts can choose from a wide array of drama, visual and media arts, dance, music, and literature available in formal and informal settings--theaters, museums, and concert halls, but also libraries, schools, places of worship, open-air venues, restaurants or nightclubs, and, via technology, at home or on the move. In the last two decades, the number of arts and cultural organizations has grown, even as revenues from sales and attendance have risen to all-time high levels. In the following chapters, this monograph identifies three basic types of financial support for the arts: (1) direct public funds awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and by state, regional, and local arts agencies; (2) funding from federal departments and agencies other than the NEA; and (3) private sector contributions, which make up the lion's share of contributed income for arts organizations. This third revenue stream flows from individual and corporate donors and from charity foundations, and it flows more smoothly because of incentives in the U.S. tax system. 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 (4621K)

Descriptors:
Economic Development; Early Childhood Education; Young Children; Educational Policy; Human Capital; Textbook Content; Community Benefits; Educational Benefits; Education Work Relationship; Government Role; Economic Impact; State Federal Aid; Educational Finance

Abstract:
This article presents a review of "Investing in Kids: Early Childhood Programs and Local Economic Development" by Timothy J. Bartik. Timothy Bartik's timely book contributes to an important conversation about the role of government in promoting investments in children in the years before traditional public schooling typically begins. Until recently, public funding of preschool programs appeared to be the fastest growing category of education spending, but recent economic woes have caused some of the 38 U.S. states that offer state-funded preschool to reexamine their commitments to early education for 3- to 5-year-olds. The authors contend that it is an important book for both academics and policy makers to consider, but more work is required to turn Bartik's approach to economic development and early childhood education into reliable policy recommendations. 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:
State Programs; Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Change; Politics of Education; Grants; Program Implementation; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Educational Policy; State Surveys; Administrator Attitudes; Transcripts (Written Records); State Action; State Federal Aid; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Change Strategies

Abstract:
To learn more about states' experiences with implementing school improvement grants (SIGs) funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Center on Education Policy (CEP) administered a survey to state Title I directors. (Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides federal funds to schools in low-income areas to educate academically struggling students.) These ARRA SIG funds are targeted on the "persistently lowest-achieving schools" within each state; these schools must implement one of four school improvement models outlined in U.S. Department of Education guidance. The survey, which was conducted from November 2011 through early January 2012, focused on state processes for renewing the ARRA SIG grants made for school year 2010-11, state assistance to school districts and schools to implement the ARRA SIG reforms, and general perceptions of the ARRA SIG program. A total of 46 states responded, including the District of Columbia. The major findings from this survey are described in the 2012 CEP report, "State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One Year Later." A last question in the survey asked respondents to share any additional thoughts about their state's experiences with the ARRA SIG program. This appendix shares excerpts from direct quotations from all the responses of state Title I directors to this open-ended question. Responses have been grouped into three categories: positive remarks, frustrations with ARRA SIG, and suggestions for improvement. [For the main report, "State Implementation and Perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One Year Later," see ED532794.] 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 (122K)

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:
Higher Education; Costs; Educational Finance; Paying for College; Financial Support; State Federal Aid; Resource Allocation; Tax Allocation; Dropouts; Context Effect; Cost Effectiveness

Abstract:
Many more factors figure into the cost of a bachelor's degree than just tuition. Depending on the type of college or university, as well as its level of selectivity, taxpayers may contribute a substantial tax subsidy or, in rare cases, receive a moderate net "profit" per bachelor's degree. It is important to consider all of the costs and returns involved in higher education when considering dropout prevention and retention efforts, as well as how government subsidies are or should be distributed among colleges and universities. This "Outlook" is designed to fuel a discussion about the true costs of higher education and who pays for them. (Contains 2 figures, 4 tables and 31 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

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Educational Finance; Case Studies; Institutional Characteristics; Budgeting; Expenditures; Funding Formulas; Audits (Verification); Operations Research; State Federal Aid; Trend Analysis; State Officials; State Surveys; Interviews; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Economic Impact; Budgets; Resource Allocation; Elementary Secondary Education

Abstract:
By late 2008, the United States was in the midst of its most severe economic recession since the 1930s, brought on by a collapse in real estate prices and exacerbated by the failure of many large banks and financial institutions. Heeding calls from economists, Congress and the Obama administration passed an historic law in early 2009 to stimulate the economy with $862 billion in new spending and tax cuts. This law, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), included nearly $100 billion in one-time funding for new and existing education programs, an historic sum given that annual appropriations for federal education programs at the time were approximately $60 billion. The largest single education program included in the law was the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, a new $48.6 billion program that provided direct grant aid to state governments in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The program was designed to help states maintain support for both public K-12 and higher education funding that they might have otherwise cut in response to budget shortfalls brought on by the economic downturn. This paper examines how eight states and their public institutions of higher education used the funds to support higher education and what will happen to these institutions' budgets in fiscal year 2012 when the funds are no longer available. It uses information collected through phone interviews with officials in state higher education offices and at public institutions of higher education to determine how states distributed the funds and how institutions actually used them. Using this information, some general conclusions can be made about how the ARRA funds actually affected higher education in America and what is likely to happen once the funds are no longer available. While every state used the funds differently, the author and her colleagues find that the states they studied used the vast majority of their funds to support salaries and benefits for instructional staff. And while these funds played an important part in keeping these institutions of higher education financially solvent in 2009, 2010, and 2011, many institutions will face budgetary challenges in 2012 and beyond. This paper is the third in a three-part series examining these trends. (Contains 17 notes.) [For related reports, see "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending in the States: Part 1 of 4. Issue Brief" (ED540794); and "The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Higher Education Spending: Part 2 of 4" (ED540795).] 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 (947K)

Descriptors:
Early Childhood Education; Young Children; Public Policy; Low Income Groups; Child Care; Educational Finance; State Federal Aid; Summer Programs; Resource Allocation; Finance Reform; Economic Impact; Financial Policy; Politics of Education; Barriers

Abstract:
As a new school year begins across the country, many are looking back on a long, hot summer and wondering where did all that time go? For early childhood public policy, three developments over the summer are likely to shape the field for quite some time. By July, many states had wound up their budgets for the coming year. In addition to cuts to subsidy funding, many states reduced their investments in child care quality or cut access to state-funded prekindergarten programs. In Washington, the Obama Administration launched a high-priority initiative, the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC), the second significant development of the summer. The goal of RTT-ELC is to help states increase the number of children from birth through age five from low-income families with access to high-quality early learning and development programs. Few "Exchange" readers missed the third development of the summer, the debt ceiling deal, but some may be wondering how it affects child care specifically. While early childhood was nowhere mentioned in the deal--in fact, no specific program cut is identified in it--the outlines of the agreement will cast a shadow over federal spending that could affect early childhood education programs. 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:
Higher Education; Scientific Research; Universities; State Aid; Values; Public Agencies; State Federal Aid; Funding Formulas; Resource Allocation; Educational Finance; Private Financial Support; Educational Trends; Research and Development; Institutional Mission; Financial Problems

Abstract:
When "crisis" and "extramural funding" are mentioned, most academics think about problems such as the low percentage of proposals funded by federal agencies (now approaching single digits in many fields) or inadequate indirect-cost recovery rates that fail to reimburse universities for all costs of research. These are great problems draining resources away from public universities in an era of severe budget cuts, but they are merely the symptoms, not the underlying malady. The real problem is that for several decades the quest for outside funding has come to play a central role in an increasing number of colleges and universities. The current system of federal research programs cannot sustain the demands put upon it, however, and the pressure to increase extramural funding is threatening to supplant the core values of the public university. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with extramurally funded research. Indeed, the system of competitively awarded funding has greatly benefited the American research enterprise and accelerated technological innovation. Funding from federal agencies has enabled universities to accomplish much more research than would have otherwise been possible. The practice of peer review and awards conferred according to merit has generally given resources to those with the best ideas rather than the best personal connections. Yet this system is now failing as cutbacks to state support for higher education drive universities to use extramural funding to replace rather than enhance their own resources. In this article, the author contends that if state support continues to decline, public research universities will be forced to abandon their historic mission and scientific research for the common good will suffer. 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:
Private Schools; Foreign Countries; Educational Vouchers; Fees; Audits (Verification); Tuition Grants; Financial Policy; Economic Impact; Educational Discrimination; Predictor Variables; Institutional Characteristics; Private School Aid; State Federal Aid; Student Financial Aid; School Choice

Abstract:
The level of fee remissions offered by private schools bears upon the scope for relying on private schools to provide public benefit. Analyses of education voucher systems have generally ignored the possibility that they will partially crowd out school-financed fee remissions. Moreover, variation in fee remissions between private schools may be directed more strongly by either market pressures or by a school's sense of charitable mission. These possibilities are addressed in this study using data gathered from audited school accounts and websites of private schools in England. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables and 10 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 |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Educational Finance; State Federal Aid; Public Policy; Financial Policy; Resource Allocation; Funding Formulas; Budgeting; Data Analysis; Statistical Data; Politics of Education; Effect Size

Abstract:
This study considers the relationship between federal academic earmarks and state appropriations for higher education. Often referred to as "pork," federal academic earmarks are both controversial and understudied. Using a unique panel dataset which spans 1990-2006, this study conducts a panel analysis with two-way state and year-fixed effects. It finds a positive, significant relationship between federal spending on academic earmarks and state spending on higher education appropriations. The effect is large in magnitude. For every dollar increase in federal earmarks received by institutions within a state, state appropriations for higher education increase by $1.98 to $4.75, depending on the measure of appropriations used. Additional analyses show that the relationship is a recent phenomenon, appearing most strongly after 1997. (Contains 5 tables, 3 figures, and 10 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website