Higher Education Issue Paper Jacob De Weerd University of Florida EDHD 6066 December 1, 2016 Abstract: The topic of this paper is the states’ decreasing financial support of higher education, the reaction and response from institutions who have lost funding, and the creative ways public institutions are locating additional streams of revenue. States have been
The Texas Constitution guarantees an "efficient system of public free schools," but schools have recently found themselves unable to provide an adequate education to the more than 5 million students in Texas because of the many problems within the education policy in the state. Such issues involve school financing, lack
According to the U.S. Department of Education, the Title I funding program is depicted as a policy that “provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards” (“Title I, Part A Program”). The program was intended to close the gap between low income students and others with sufficient income. The policy was introduced January 12, 1965 and passed on April 9, 1965. Throughout time, Title I funding has been thought to be efficient ad successful, however, there is new evidence and data contradicting this statement. Title I funding negatively affected students because it
Abstract: This paper will discuss the Federal Pell Grant and the legislation behind it as well as the Higher Education Act of 1965 and it’s reforms since then. This appears purpose is to show the faults within these programs and to then show possible ways people have tried to reform
Although 2010 was not by definition, a recession year, it certainly felt like one. The growth of the economy was stifled, unemployment was stagnated at a little less than ten percent and interest rates and inflation were at near depression levels by year’s end. The state of the economy unequivocally influences tax collections and budgets, which in turn determines the financial prosperity of higher education, especially in the public sector. The two main sources of revenue for public colleges and universities are state appropriations and tuition. Generally, as cuts to higher education appropriations occur, campuses respond by boosting tuitions even higher. Yet, regardless of the size of the budget cuts, college and university tuitions
Why to shut down: Sweet Briar College, the historic perspective. John R. Thelin called the period from 1970 to 1980 “turbulent waters” for all institutions (Thelin, 2011, p. 317). After the golden age, the industry of Higher Education in the U.S. faced the not-so-bright future with a lot of colleges and universities being shut down. Thelin (2011, p. 337) points out that the institutions could have been prepared to handle the steadily declining enrollment, decreased revenues, decline in funding, stagflation, and rising campus maintenance costs if only they picked on the first signs of upcoming financial crisis when in 1970, the share price of the NSMC fell from $140 to $7 over the short period of time (Thelin, 2011, p. 317). However, the universities and colleges of that time were so confident and relied on “the public image of higher education as a “growth industry” (Thelin, 2011, p. 318) so much, that they were not monitoring the changing situation and thus, were not fast enough in adopting to new conditions. It does not mean that there were many college closings; vice a versa, some colleges grew, opened new programs and applied for research grants. These colleges adopted the enterprise thinking (Thelin, 2011, p. 337).
In 1965, the United States legislature passed a historical legislation called the Higher Education Act of 1965. This was an important legislation intended to strengthen the resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance to students in postsecondary and higher education. Today, this act remains the foundation for most postsecondary education subsidies, including the Federal Pell Grant program. Since its inception, the federal government has continued to provide varying amounts of funding for higher education in hopes of encouraging college enrollment by reducing college costs. Yet, according to the Department of Education, the United States, once ranked a global leader in postsecondary education, has
During this time of exponential growth in the private for-profit sector, the industry benefited from changes in Federal government policies. The U.S. government saw private colleges as a way to expand the choices in the education market. It also saw them as a way to meet demand for education and to develop a more skilled workforce in the United States (Harkin, 2012). To assist in the expansion of this sector of education, constraints on Federal financial aid were loosened, and accredited for-profits enjoyed increased access to Federal student aid funds (Loonin, 2011).
The heightened focus on education equity and adequacy has garnered substantial attention from both policy makers and media outlets. As a result of the spotlight, school finance litigation has forced states to not only change the way they fund schools but to improve and update their states’ assessment and accountability systems. (Griffith, 2005).
A surging $1.2 trillion in student debt and rising rapidly in tuition is the critical issue America public universities face today. These student debts and rising tuitions are caused mainly by administrative hiring and pay or expensive building projects on campuses. When public universities are spending money toward expensive building projects, this does not help with making tuition cheap to attend a certain university, instead it’s high.
Enhancing Performance while Reducing Risk A performance-funded plan is an effective way to make sure that monies will be available to recognize employee achievement. This kind of funding mechanism can serve as an operational self-fulfilling prophecy
1. Parties: Grove City College, individually and on behalf of its students; Marianne Sickafuse; Kenneth J. Hockenberry; Jennifer S. Smith and Victor E. Vouga v. Terrel Bell, Secretary of Education 2. Court Where Decided: Supreme Court of the United States 3. Cause of Action Causes of action in this case included: discrimination, gender & sex discrimination and
The main concern with the support provided by the United States Department of Education is represented by the limitation of the funds. In such a setting, the school districts across the country are presented with the need to compete against each other in order to receive this support. The competition is unfolded at the level of the grant requests written and sent in by the various districts, which are then assessed by the assigned committee.
According to Section 1001 of Public Law 107, ‘‘The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.” The NCLB act sought to create a structure that all States could base their public education system off of. This structure included the confirmation that all the public schools teaching materials, including teachers, were challenging students in a way that could be measured. Also, calling for an evaluation of the achievement gap between high and low performing children, especially between the disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers, would be necessary so that schools could use the acts resources to eventually close the gap. This act allows States to set a standard based on obligations given and requires them to accomplish those standards. NCLB holds schools, local education agencies, and States accountable for academic achievement for all public schools, this also means that they will be responsible for improving schools that do not meet the educational standards set by that State. The act requires there be a flexible budget set aside for the needed improvements, specifically to aid the needs of
Results taken from the executive summary of the Education Law Center in New Jersey show that a small percentage of states who have funding systems put in place and provide greater funding to high poverty districts remain the most progressive states yearly. Whereas a larger percentage of states have funding systems where districts with higher poverty rates receive less funding, these states remain the most regressive. (School funding disparities persist, analysis shows).