Education

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s budget plan would give more money to schools, but most would go to pensions

Michigan’s 3% proposed funding hike for public universities tied to performance

Florida House approves $69 billion state budget

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon adds $40 million to proposed higher education budget

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s budget plan would give more money to schools, but most would go to pensions
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett this week released his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. The plan would include $10 billion for public schools, 3.4 percent more than K-12 education received in fiscal year 2012. Most of that new funding, though, will be directed to teacher pensions. Funding for school districts and special education programs – $5.4 billion and $1 billion, respectively – is virtually the same as in 2012, and the state pre-K program will lose about $5 million from 2012 levels. In fiscal year 2012, the legislature avoided significant cuts to the K-12 budget by reducing spending increases in other areas, including welfare; legislators said that would not be the case in this year’s budget. In addition to the effective cuts to school districts for public K-12 education, Governor Corbett proposed a 25 percent cut to state colleges and universities. More here…

Michigan’s 3% proposed funding hike for public universities tied to performance
In his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder will include a provision to increase funding for state universities by 3 percent. However, the funds will be divided according to a formula that accounts for growth in college completion rates, number of students graduating in particular fields, number of students receiving Pell Grants, and the degree to which schools are able to avoid tuition hikes. In fiscal year 2012, Governor Snyder’s budget also offered incentives to restrain tuition increases, only cutting state aid by 15 percent for schools that held hold tuition increases to below 7.1 percent as opposed to 22 percent. Michigan’s state aid to public universities has fallen in recent years – per-undergraduate student state support has fallen from $6,869 in fiscal year 2001 to $4,577 in 2012 – but this year’s budget reverses that pattern due to the small increase in spending. More here…

Florida House approves $69 billion state budget
Florida lawmakers advanced the state’s fiscal year 2013 budget process this week with a House vote on a $69.2 billion budget. The bill included a $1 billion increase for public K-12 education – not quite covering last year’s $1.3 billion cut to public schools – paid for with cuts to low-income healthcare programs. It would also raise college tuition by 8 percent and cut the Bright Futures state scholarship program by 9.3 percent. The bill does not include any new taxes to provide additional revenue. The state senate has not yet voted on a budget plan, but one moving through the chamber now would freeze tuition at the state’s public universities and increase it by 3 percent at public colleges. More here…

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon adds $40 million to proposed higher education budget
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s 2013 budget proposal, released last month, originally included a 12.5 percent, or $106 million, cut to higher education. But controversy over the spending reduction from Republican lawmakers and university officials led him to release an amended version of the proposal this week that adds back $40 million for state colleges and universities. College and university officials had warned that the budget cuts may force them to raise tuition, furlough employees, and limit course offerings. The additional funding will come from a state lawsuit with mortgage banks. A settlement in that case is expected to yield $140 million for the state; of that, $100 million will be used to aid homeowners, and the remaining $40 million will be spent on higher education. More here…

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to prevent federal student loan interest rates from doubling later this year. This is the culmination of decades of legislative changes to the federal student loan program. Few people are aware of the policies that led to the pending student loan interest rate increase and many question whether the 6.8 percent fixed interest rate charged on the most widely-available loans provides a real benefit to students.

The Federal Education Budget Project today released an issue brief regarding federal student loan interest rates. This issue brief details the history of interest rates on federal loans, including the decisions that led to today’s fixed rates and the pending rate increase. It also examines the popular argument that current rates are unfavorable for borrowers and disputes the claim that student loans earn revenue for the government. 

The timeline below shows the interest rates on federal student loans taken out in each year, as well as the Congressional action that led to these interest rates. Roll over the points in the graph for more information.

Student loan debt was a problem long before Occupy Wall Street protesters added it to their list of grievances. The recession hit the younger end of the workforce particularly hard: the combination of a jobless recovery, rising tuition bills and mounting debt have become a crushing burden. Total student debt today is approaching one trillion dollars — exceeding the balance due on credit cards — and is second only to mortgage debt in American households. In fact, it's the only class of debt in which defaults are increasing.

President Obama announced this week that 10 states will receive waivers of some of the most punitive provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), kicking off a year of focus on how and if states will start changing their systems to align with the administration’s priorities.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to prevent federal student loan interest rates from doubling later this year. This is the culmination of decades of legislative changes to the federal student loan program. Few people are aware of the policies that led to the pending student loan interest rate increase and many question whether the 6.8 percent fixed interest rate charged on the most widely-available loans provides a real benefit to students.

The Federal Education Budget Project today released an issue brief regarding federal student loan interest rates. This issue brief details the history of interest rates on federal loans, including the decisions that led to today’s fixed rates and the pending rate increase. It also examines the popular argument that current rates are unfavorable for borrowers and disputes the claim that student loans earn revenue for the government. 

The timeline below shows the interest rates on federal student loans taken out in each year, as well as the Congressional action that led to these interest rates. Roll over the points in the graph for more information.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to prevent federal student loan interest rates from doubling later this year. This is the culmination of decades of legislative changes to the federal student loan program. Few people are aware of the policies that led to the pending student loan interest rate increase and many question whether the 6.8 percent fixed interest rate charged on the most widely-available loans provides a real benefit to students.

Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) have featured prominently in the Obama administration’s education policy priorities, most recently as the focus of the third round of Race to the Top funding. And it looks like it will play a big role moving forward: An announcement from President Obama at today’s White House Science Fair offers a peek into the administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, which will apparently include a spotlight on STEM learning. But the real story is buried behind the budget rhetoric – the president also proposes a new STEM focus to the existing Teacher Incentive Fund program, which will require no Congressional action.

The details on the budget request should not be ignored, of course. This year, says the White House, the president’s budget request will include a host of new and revitalized STEM programs. Among them is $80 million for a new competitive grant program to provide funding for STEM teacher preparation programs. The federal funds will be accompanied by private investments from a coalition of companies and organizations called 100Kin10; 14 members will collectively contribute $22 million to a fund dedicated to STEM teacher preparation and support, distributed by the group. These efforts are a follow-up to his 2011 State of the Union address, in which Obama issued a challenge to the education community to prepare 100,000 new STEM teachers.

The president will also propose a $100 million investment in the National Science Foundation to support new and existing programs to improve the quality of postsecondary STEM education. He will resubmit a request for funding for the First in the World program, now with a new STEM priority. The program would reward applicants with innovative ideas for improving college completion rates and lowering the costs of postsecondary education. And the president will recommend a joint Department of Education-National Science Foundation project to support K-16 education reforms through evidence-based approaches to mathematics learning. The project will be jointly funded, with $30 million contributed each from the Department and NSF.

But it is unlikely that Congress will even pass a budget for fiscal year 2013 before the fiscal year begins – many members will be busy running for reelection or consumed by the presidential election – so most of these proposals probably won’t see the light of day on the Hill.

Instead, the real story lies in the proposals that require no Congressional approval.

The Department of Education, promised the announcement, will continue to focus on STEM education in its next Race to the Top (RTT) competition. This refers to the nearly $550 million Congress appropriated for Race to the Top in its fiscal year 2012 budget. The competition, which is open to both states and school districts, is likely to take place later this year.

More significantly, however, the president announced that a portion of funding already appropriated for the Department of Education’s fiscal year 2012 Teacher Incentive Fund – $300 million – will be newly dedicated to improving “compensation, evaluation, and professional development systems for STEM educators.” These types of interventions have the potential to strengthen the STEM teacher force by attracting and retaining STEM professionals in teaching. And because the change will require no legislative changes, the Department can begin to implement it immediately, starting with the next round of TIF grants.

To improve general teacher quality, the president announced that the TEACH Grant program, funded with nearly $24 million in fiscal year 2012 to distribute grants to undergraduate students who plan to teach in schools that serve low-income students, will now target postsecondary students at top schools. The Department will also factor quality into its TEACH Grant distribution.

President Obama’s proposal represents a marked policy shift toward focusing on STEM, adding some weight to his rhetoric on improving STEM readiness. But most of the administration’s proposals are likely to be tossed aside if and when Congress starts its own 2013 appropriations process (as are most White House budget requests), particularly if Congress is weary of increased domestic spending. Given that reality, the president may have to rely on the Department of Education to head up this new STEM charge through programmatic changes to the Teacher Incentive Fund alone.

University of Missouri campuses seek tuition increases

Scene set for an Iowa school financing fight

Washington House GOP’s budget spends $580M more on education

Mississippi universities say financial aid running short

University of Missouri campuses seek tuition increases
A meeting of the University of Missouri Board of Curators held this week yielded difficult news. Facing a proposed 12.5 percent cut to state funding in the 2013 fiscal year, the campuses are proposing tuition hikes that will help make up the shortfall. The smallest increase requested is for three percent at the system’s Kansas City campus; the largest is 8.2 percent at the University of Missouri—St. Louis. The Kansas City Chancellor Leo Morton said that, rather than dramatically increase tuition, the school would try to recruit more students. Under Governor Jay Nixon’s proposed 2013 budget, the state university system will have lost about 25 percent of their state funding over the past three years. The Board did not vote on the proposed tuition hikes, but will meet again to reevaluate the hikes as the state legislature continues its budget process. More here…

Scene set for an Iowa school financing fight
This year, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad asked state lawmakers not to comply with a law requiring them to pass a state cap on public school spending within thirty days of his budget proposal to the legislature. The “allowable growth” limit, as it is known, is intended to provide school districts with a sense of state K-12 education funding for the following year so that they can plan district-wide finances. This year, Governor Branstad has proposed a package of likely high-cost education reforms, and asked lawmakers to focus on those reforms rather than set growth rates. He that the growth rates law should be repealed. At the same time, the Senate Education Committee approved a bill setting the allowable growth rate at 4 percent (one percent of growth costs the state approximately $31 million). The bill, however, must also be approved by the full Senate to take effect. More here…

Washington House GOP’s budget spends $580M more on education
A $13.7 billion budget produced by Washington state House Republicans this week included $580 million more for K-12 education than Governor Chris Gregoire’s budget proposal – at least, according to the lawmakers who introduced it. Democratic lawmakers in the state question that pronouncement, pointing out that Republican leaders didn’t specify whether the cost would be offset by cuts to social services, higher education, or other programs.  The bill runs counter to some of Governor Gregoire’s proposed cuts; it would maintain the 180-day school year, provide full funding at 2012 levels for tax-poor districts, and submit $340 million in state payments on schedule. The proposed budget is controversial, and the Democratic Chairwoman of the House Education Appropriations and Oversight Committee, Kathy Haigh, planned to kill the bill in committee. House Democrats and a bipartisan coalition in the Senate are currently preparing their own budget proposals, expected to be released later this month. More here…

Mississippi universities say financial aid running short
According to Mississippi Higher Education Commissioner Hank Bounds, state scholarship funds proposed by Governor Phil Bryant in his fiscal year 2013 budget are insufficient to cover the state’s financial aid needs. Affected students will include more than 20,000 recipients of the Mississippi Tuition Assistance Grant program. In fiscal year 2012, the state provided $31 million in student financial aid, including $26.9 million in state appropriations, which was supplemented by funds collected from student loan repayments. Governor Bryant’s proposed fiscal year 2013 budget would hold state appropriations steady at nearly $27 million. But according to the state College Board, between the ongoing needs of the program and increased state aid eligibility following changes to the federal Pell Grant program, the state’s financial aid fund will be short by almost 14 percent in fiscal year 2013. More here…

Several new projects and papers have emerged lately that emphasize the need for building continuous systems of high-quality education from pre-k through the third grade. Because PreK-3^rd reform ideas are so comprehensive and multi-faceted, they can be challenging to grasp at first; it’s not always easy to know where to begin. So we’re glad to see a host of different organizations pulling resources together to help. 

Here are some of the latest:

At Ed Money Watch we talk a lot about funding formulas for various federal grant programs. We’ve written about proposed changes to the ESEA Title II funding formula in the House Students Success Act, the need for improvements to the Title I formula, and even idiosyncrasies in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act formula. Congress has designed each of these formulas to account for factors such as population size and poverty rates or numbers when distributing federal funds to states and school districts. But another factor – something known as “small state minimums” – always seems to run roughshod over the intended target populations.

Small state minimums are intended to ensure that small states receive a basic level of funding under each federal grant. Often, the formula sets the minimum at a certain percentage of the total appropriation that Congress provides that year – like the 0.5 percent minimum in the Title II formula. The idea behind small state minimums has merit: just because some students live in small states doesn’t mean they are less deserving of equitable shares of federal funding. But do small state minimums always work as lawmakers intended? Or do they overcompensate and provide small states with disproportionate amounts of funding per student?

To answer this question, we compiled data on total student enrollment and total state Title I, IDEA, and Improving Teacher Quality State Grant allocations in 2010. We then computed the allocation per pupil for each state and ranked them. This analysis suggests that existing federal funding formulas for those programs do disproportionately benefit small states, though some formulas do so more than others.

The ten smallest states in the nation are the District of Columbia, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Alaska, Montana, Rhode Island, and Hawaii, in that order. Their total enrollments range from a little over 69,000 to just over 180,000 in 2010. As expected, many of these states receive more in federal funding on a per pupil basis than their larger peers.

This is most consistently the case with Title II Improving Teacher Quality State Grants where the first nine smallest states receive nine largest allocations per pupil, in exact order of enrollment. This is because the formula ensures each state 0.5 percent of the total allocation, or just over $14 million in 2010. If the formula did not include small state minimums, each of these states would have received closer to $3 or $4 million under the program.  In fact, each of the small states receive dramatically more than the average allocation per pupil of $60. The District of Columbia received $202 per pupil, almost four times the national average.

Small states also fare well under the Title I formula, which should theoretically be driven by student poverty. DC, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Rhode Island all rank in the top 10 in terms of Title I allocation per pupil. Of these states, only DC has a particularly high particularly high census poverty rate at 30.8 percent. The rest all fall in the bottom half of states in terms of poverty rates. These states received over $348 per pupil in Title I, and as much as $686, compared to the national average of $294.

IDEA Part B allocations are least influenced by the small state minimum provisions, but some effect is not all-together absent either. Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, and Rhode Island each rank in the top 10 in allocations per pupil. Rhode Island has the highest rate of students participating in special education at 18.1 percent, so the high allocation it receives may be justifiable. But the rest of the states don’t fall among the top ten states with special education participants, even though they receive nearly $300 per pupil or more in IDEA funds compared to the national average of $233. Interestingly, DC, which is a small state and has a high percentage of special education students (16.3 percent) ranks only 21st in terms of IDEA Part B allocation.   

Clearly, small state minimums have a significant influence over how federal education funds are allocated to each state to the point where these small states are disproportionately benefiting from federal funds. This is not to say that Congress should eliminate the minimums entirely. But this analysis suggests that Congress should consider the implications of the minimums and perhaps readjust the formulas produce a more equitable distribution of funds. Just as students in small states deserve their fair share, so do students in large states.

Click here to view these data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.