State and District Receipt of Recovery Act Funds. A Report from Charting the Progress of Education Reform PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download State and District Receipt of Recovery Act Funds. A Report from Charting the Progress of Education Reform PDF full book. Access full book title State and District Receipt of Recovery Act Funds. A Report from Charting the Progress of Education Reform by Roberta Garrison-Mogren. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Roberta Garrison-Mogren
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 71
Get Book Here
Book Description
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.).
Author: Roberta Garrison-Mogren
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 71
Get Book Here
Book Description
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.).
Author: Ann Webber
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 125
Get Book Here
Book Description
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Recovery Act) of 2009 provided an unprecedented level of funding for K-12 education. The program created a "historic opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of jobs, support states and school districts, and advance reforms and improvements that will create long-lasting results for our students and our nation." Specifically, the Recovery Act allocated $70.6 billion in funding for K-12 education, of which $6.8 billion was awarded to states through a combination of newly created and existing grant programs, including the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) formula grants, Race to the Top (RTT) discretionary grants, and additional funding for the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. In return for Recovery Act grants, recipients were required to commit to four specific core reforms or assurances: (1) Adopting rigorous college-ready and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments; (2) Establishing data systems and using data to improve performance; (3) Increasing teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of effective teachers; and (4) Turning around the lowest performing schools. By linking a commitment to the four assurances with receipt of funding, the Recovery Act signaled federal priorities; provided states, districts, and schools with incentives to initiate or intensify reforms in each of these areas; and encouraged states to pursue a combination of mutually supporting reform strategies. This report is part of the multi-year U.S. Department of Education (ED) evaluation "Charting the Progress of Education Reform: An Evaluation of the Recovery Act's Role." ED seeks to understand through this evaluation how states, districts, and schools are working to implement the education reforms promoted by the Recovery Act. The current report focuses on whether, and how, state education agencies (SEAs) were implementing the reforms that the Recovery Act emphasized one year after the act was passed, and sets the stage for examination of implementation at the local level. It provides a picture of the prevalence and progress of the reform agenda promoted by the Recovery Act. A primary focus is SEA implementation of reforms in 2010-11, the first full school year after all Recovery Act funds were awarded. The education policies embedded in the Recovery Act were introduced into an ongoing stream of federal and state reform activity and states had undertaken some reforms before the act's passage. Therefore, the report also examines SEA implementation of reforms in 2009-10, and explores the extent to which 2010-11 reform activities represented progress. Specifically, this report addresses the following questions: (1) To what extent did SEAs report implementing key reform strategies promoted by the Recovery Act in the 2010-11 school year? (2) How much of the 2010-11 school year implementation reflects progress since the Recovery Act? and (3) What were the greatest reform implementation challenges for SEAs in the 2010-11 school year? Eight appendices include: (1) The Survey Development Process; (2) State-Level Indicators, Components, and Recovery Act Program Requirements; (3) SEA Implementation Progress from 2009-10 to 2010-11: Standards and Assessments; (4) Required Components of a Statewide P-16 Education Data System: America COMPETES Act of 2007; (5) SEA Implementation Progress From 2009-10 to 2010-11: Data Systems; (6) SEA Implementation Progress From 2009-10 to 2010-11: Educator Workforce Development; (7) SEA Implementation Progress From 2009-10 to 2010-11: Support for Improving Low-Performing Schools; and (8) Indicators by State. (Contains 59 tables, 15 footnotes, and 13 figures.).
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 52
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: George A. Scott
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 82
Get Book Here
Book Description
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $70.3 billion for three education programs--the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF); Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Title I); and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B. One goal of the Recovery Act was to save and create jobs, and SFSF also requires states to report information expected to increase transparency and advance educational reform. This report responds to two ongoing US Government Accountability Office (GAO) mandates under the Recovery Act. It examines (1) how selected states and local recipients used the funds; (2) what plans the Department of Education (Education) and selected states have to assess the impact of the funds; (3) what approaches are being used to ensure accountability of the funds; and (4) how Education and states ensure the accuracy of recipient reported data. To conduct this review, GAO gathered information from 14 states and the District of Columbia, conducted a nationally representative survey of local educational agencies (LEA), interviewed Education officials, examined recipient reports, and reviewed relevant policy documents. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education establish mechanisms to improve the consistency of communicating SFSF monitoring feedback to states. Education agreed with our recommendation. Appended are: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Drawdown Rates by Program; (3) Comments from the Department of Education; (4) Status of Prior Open Recommendations and Matters for Congressional Consideration; (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 5 tables, 8 figures and 71 footnotes.).
Author: Cornelia Ashby
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
ISBN: 1437938965
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 194
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Diane Stark Rentner
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 20
Get Book Here
Book Description
The economic downturn of the past few years has taken a toll on state budgets for elementary and secondary education. The $100 billion for education provided by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), better known as the economic stimulus package, helped to blunt some of the harshest effects, but these funds have been nearly depleted. What is the fiscal condition of states now that the stimulus funding is coming to an end? And what progress have states made in implementing the four reform-related ARRA assurances? This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) addresses these two questions. The information in this report comes from a CEP survey of deputy state 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 state funding, ARRA implementation, and state capacity. Findings from the previous survey, conducted in fall 2010, are described in the 2011 CEP report, "More to Do But Less Capacity to Do It: States' Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act Education Reforms" (CEP, 2011b). This 2012 report focuses on the status of funding from state sources, which accounts for about 48% of total revenues for elementary and secondary education, on average (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). A general finding reveals that state budget cuts for elementary and secondary education appear to have bottomed out in many states although some states remain strapped for funds. In this uncertain fiscal environment, states are nevertheless implementing or planning several reform strategies to address the four ARRA assurances. Other key findings include: (1) Fewer states anticipated decreases in state funding for K-12 education for FY 2012 than had decreases in FY 2011; (2) The cuts in K-12 education funding that states project for FY 2012 are more modest in size than the cuts made in FY 2011; (3) Funding cuts in FY 2011 have adversely affected education reform efforts in school year 2011-12 in some states; (4) The four ARRA reform-related assurances appear to have had a positive impact on education reform in many states;(5) Most of the states surveyed are carrying out numerous strategies to address the four ARRA assurances; and (6) Federal funding to save or create teaching jobs provided through the ARRA and the "EduJobs" program had a positive impact on elementary and secondary education in most states. Study methods for reports based on CEP's Fall 2011 State Survey are appended. (Contains 3 figures and 7 tables.) [For related report, "More to Do, But Less Capacity to Do It: States' Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act Education Reforms," see ED516577.
Author: Patricia Troppe
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 363
Get Book Here
Book Description
This report, based on surveys completed by all 50 State Education Agencies (SEAs) and the District of Columbia (DC) and nationally representative samples of districts and schools during spring 2011 and 2012, examines implementation of the key education reform strategies promoted by the Recovery Act in 2011-12, the extent to which implementation reflected progress since Recovery Act funds were first distributed, and challenges with implementation. Findings showed variation in the prevalence and progress of reform activities across the areas of reform assessed and by state, district, or school level. Implementation progress was most consistent across the areas of reform at the state level. At all levels, implementation challenges related to educator evaluation and compensation were common. The following are appended: (1) Methodology; (2) Indicators, Components, and Recovery Act Program Requirements; (3) Detailed Tables for Standards and Assessments Chapter; (4) Detailed Tables for Data Systems Chapter; (5) Detailed Tables for Educator Workforce Development Chapter; (6) Detailed Tables for Improving Low-Performing Schools Chapter; and (6) Detailed Tables for Reforms Across Assurance Areas Chapter.
Author: J. Christopher Mihm
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
ISBN: 1437934129
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 344
Get Book Here
Book Description
This report responds to two ongoing mandates under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). It is the latest in a series of reports on the uses of and accountability for Recovery Act funds in 16 selected states, certain localities in those jurisdictions, and D.C. These jurisdictions are estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental assistance available through the Recovery Act. This report also responds to a mandate to comment on the jobs estimated in recipient reports. The auditor collected and analyzed documents and interviewed state and local officials and other Recovery Act award recipients. He also analyzed federal agency guidance and spoke with individual federal officials. Illustrations.
Author: United States. General Accounting Office
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 72
Get Book Here
Book Description
Results of a multistate study of a variety of education reforms on academic achievement, dropout rates and enrollment patterns of educationally disadvantaged secondary school students.
Author: U.s. Government Accountability Office
Publisher:
ISBN: 9781974548989
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 82
Get Book Here
Book Description
"The American Recovery andReinvestment Act of 2009 (RecoveryAct) provided $70.3 billion for threeeducation programs-the State FiscalStabilization Fund (SFSF); Title I, PartA of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (Title I); and Individualswith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),Part B. One goal of the Recovery Actwas to save and create jobs, andSFSF also requires states to reportinformation expected to increasetransparency and advance educationalreform.This report responds to two ongoingGAO mandates under the RecoveryAct. It examines (1) how selectedstates and local recipients used thefunds; (2) what plans the Departmentof Education (Education) and selectedstates have to assess the impact of thefunds; (3) what approaches are beingused to ensure accountability of thefunds; and (4) how Education andstates ensure the accuracy of recipientreported data.To conduct this review, GAO gatheredinformation from 14 states and theDistrict of Columbia, conducted anationally representative survey oflocal educational agencies (LEA),interviewed Education officials,examined recipient reports, andreviewed relevant policy documents. "
