This document provides an executive summary and highlights from the Rankings of the States 2017 and Estimates of School Statistics 2018 report published by NEA Research in April 2018. It summarizes key findings around student enrollment, staffing, salaries, revenues, and expenditures at the national, state, and 10-year trend level based on data collected primarily from state departments of education. The full report contains additional details and state-by-state comparisons on these education indicators.
Making Vibrant Connections: Higher Education and the Business CommunityMelissa DeFreest
On June 20th, a panel of distinguished higher education leaders highlighted the resources they have available to Somerset County’s business community for student engagement, program support and strategic research.
The panel includes representatives from Raritan Valley Community College, Rutgers University, NJIT and Princeton
University.
EducationNC seeks to expand the educational opportunities for all children in North Carolina, increase their academic attainment, and improve the performance of the state’s public schools. EdNC provides the state with data, research, news, information, and analysis about the major trends, issues, and challenges facing public schools. EdNC is your trusted source of information and the architecture for your participation in a statewide conversation about our schools.
EdNC staff posts nonpartisan news and information online Monday through Friday. We cover breaking news on the weekends and holidays. Columnists and contributors post commentary that may include a point of view. EdNC tries to make it clear to readers the point of view represented. We want you to know the range of perspectives that are influencing the conversation across our state. Through our work, EdNC identifies and invests in the next generation of education leaders.
EdNC was founded by Gerry Hancock and Ferrel Guillory. Mebane Rash serves as the CEO, President, and Editor-in-Chief. The CEO has independent control of all content. Our Board of Directors guides the mission, strategic vision, and financial sustainability of EdNC. EdNC is a 501(c)(3), formerly known as Emerging Tar Heel Leaders, Inc., and our work is supported by foundation grants, corporate contributions, and individual contributions.
You will hear us say that our process is bipartisan. Our Board of Directors includes leaders across the political spectrum. Our contributors include writers and thought leaders across the political spectrum. Our funding comes from sources across the political spectrum. On the other hand, you can count on our news to be nonpartisan. The staff of EdNC are registered as unaffiliated voters.
Making Vibrant Connections: Higher Education and the Business CommunityMelissa DeFreest
On June 20th, a panel of distinguished higher education leaders highlighted the resources they have available to Somerset County’s business community for student engagement, program support and strategic research.
The panel includes representatives from Raritan Valley Community College, Rutgers University, NJIT and Princeton
University.
EducationNC seeks to expand the educational opportunities for all children in North Carolina, increase their academic attainment, and improve the performance of the state’s public schools. EdNC provides the state with data, research, news, information, and analysis about the major trends, issues, and challenges facing public schools. EdNC is your trusted source of information and the architecture for your participation in a statewide conversation about our schools.
EdNC staff posts nonpartisan news and information online Monday through Friday. We cover breaking news on the weekends and holidays. Columnists and contributors post commentary that may include a point of view. EdNC tries to make it clear to readers the point of view represented. We want you to know the range of perspectives that are influencing the conversation across our state. Through our work, EdNC identifies and invests in the next generation of education leaders.
EdNC was founded by Gerry Hancock and Ferrel Guillory. Mebane Rash serves as the CEO, President, and Editor-in-Chief. The CEO has independent control of all content. Our Board of Directors guides the mission, strategic vision, and financial sustainability of EdNC. EdNC is a 501(c)(3), formerly known as Emerging Tar Heel Leaders, Inc., and our work is supported by foundation grants, corporate contributions, and individual contributions.
You will hear us say that our process is bipartisan. Our Board of Directors includes leaders across the political spectrum. Our contributors include writers and thought leaders across the political spectrum. Our funding comes from sources across the political spectrum. On the other hand, you can count on our news to be nonpartisan. The staff of EdNC are registered as unaffiliated voters.
This report explores the specific contributions made by Michigan’s higher education sector and
discusses the strong and growing need for quality postsecondary options. It builds on recent
recommendations for performance-based funding and provides a multi-pronged approach for
accelerating the pace toward Top Ten educational attainment. This report also details how higher education can help create more jobs in Michigan.
A Guide for School Districts: Exploring Alternative Measures of Student Learn...Tanya Paperny
Districts across the country play a crucial role in ensuring schools effectively serve students and families. Beyond federal requirements in the Every Student Succeeds Act and state-level accountability systems, locally developed school performance frameworks are a key lever for holding schools accountable, particularly for student learning and wellness.
Today — with unfamiliar school configurations and unknown impacts on student outcomes — it is more important than ever that districts are diligent about assessing schools’ impact on students. But the ways that districts have done so in the past may no longer be appropriate. And districts that previously did not engage in school-level performance assessments now have a new incentive to do so.
This toolkit is a resource to help districts adapt existing school performance frameworks to the current moment or create new ones. These slides identify and walk through the fundamental questions districts need to consider in designing school performance frameworks that acknowledge the challenges that schools and students are facing, as well as a continued need to monitor performance and continuously improve.
In 2012-2013, a total of $58 billion in federal, state and local resources was spent to support our almost 700 public school districts, or $21,118 per pupil for approximately three million students. Of this support, $8,563 per pupil came from the state. Over the past decade the local share (mostly property taxes) of school district revenue has grown five percent, while the state share has declined four percent and federal aid has declined by almost two percent.
Charter schools currently serve 3 million students in more than 7,000 schools across 44 states and Washington, D.C. And their reach continues to grow: Since 2005, the number of charter schools in the U.S. has nearly doubled, and the number of charter students has nearly tripled.
Despite being an enduring presence in the nation’s education space, charter schools remain a topic of ongoing debate. The State of the Charter Sector provides the latest available information on charter schools across the country, including updated data on growth, performance, and geographic trends. It also includes analyses of the challenges that charter schools face and how the sector is trying to address them.
This comprehensive slide deck updates our 2015 State of the Charter School Movement, and together, these resources serve as a fact base to cut through the rhetoric that often accompanies conversations about charter schools.
The goal of this analysis is not to persuade, but to inform. As the charter sector continues to grow and improve, it needs a rigorous, evidence-based debate around its weaknesses and strengths. Accurate information is crucial for thoughtful policymaking and, ultimately, to ensuring all students have access to a high-quality education.
North Carolina Should Focus on Early Childhood Learning in Order to Raise Ach...EducationNC
NC General Assembly Program Evaluation Division Report on commonalities in predominantly disadvantaged school districts that perform at or above grade-level
Our new way of telling the story of what we do and how we do it. This presentation also unveils our updated framework: The Strategic System for Strong Schools, formerly known as School System 20/20.
Putting aside the detail of the findings for one moment, one of the very interesting aspects of this year’s survey is that, unlike in previous years, there is far less divergence of opinions between academy and maintained school respondents. This perhaps reflects the fact that we are now entering into the sixth year of the expanded academies programme and all schools are feeling the continued effects of the changing accountability measures, frailties of the examination system as well as financial restraint in the public sector.
Two clear themes struck me when looking at the survey findings. The Government’s education programme heavily relies on school leaders and it is clear more needs to be done to support current leaders as well as identifying and developing the leaders of the future.With continuation of the academy programme at pace and the emergence of more local school groups this will be a critical part of succession planning at both a local and national level.
This Government also needs to follow through on its manifesto commitments on schools funding. The Conservative manifesto made a commitment to provide‘proper funding’ to every school and to ‘make schools funding fairer’. However, Nicky Morgan has said the new funding formula will not be ready until September 2017 at the very earliest. Many will remember the last Education Secretary of State started consultation on fair funding in 2012 but progress soon stalled.
Whilst 2017 will feel too late for many, it is important to ensure that this time real progress will be delivered for our worst funded schools and their pupils. The Prime Minister’s announcement in July this year that the additional £390m previously confirmed for 2015-16 would be base-lined in budgets for future years was a welcome start. Any additional measures the Chancellor can facilitate in the comprehensive spending review to help narrow the gap pending the full implementation of fair funding will be very welcome.
https://www.brownejacobson.com/education/training-and-resources/guides/2015/11/school-leaders-survey-2015
ERS analysis of the budget and resource use in a small, urban California district. Includes recommendations for teacher professional learning, school redesign, teacher compensation, school planning support, and more.
Toward Equitable Access and Affordability: How Private Schools and Microschoo...Jeremy Knight
In recent decades, tuition increases in independent schools have outpaced inflation and wage growth, while thousands of Catholic parochial schools — which historically have provided private education at a much lower cost — have closed, leaving middle- and low-income families with few affordable options.
Meanwhile, families across socioeconomic groups express interest in private schooling. While private schools consistently serve about 10% of U.S. students, 40% of parents say they would prefer private schools. These trends suggest a need to look more closely at efforts to increase affordability in private schools and ensure that all families have equitable access to the schools of their choice.
In “Toward Equitable Access and Affordability: How Private Schools and Microschools Seek to Serve Middle- and Low-Income Students,” we sought to understand the landscape of private schools working to provide an affordable education by looking at the approaches they are taking and how they are revisiting traditional operating models. We profile a variety of strategies used by schools to improve access for middle- and low-income families. Some schools rely on reducing the costs to families (i.e., tuition) by providing significant financial aid or partnering with scholarship programs, some have found inventive new revenue streams, and some have streamlined operations and leveraged technology to reduce their per-pupil expenditures.
One category of private schools, the microschool, merited a closer look due to its profoundly different operational and financial model. Through surveys and interviews with microschool leaders and experts around the country, this report seeks to further define this emerging sector of intentionally small, educationally innovative schools and to explore their potential as an affordable independent school option.
Ultimately, this overview of low-cost private schools and microschools surfaced questions about improving equity in private education. The profiles of schools aiming to serve middle- and low-income families highlight unsolved puzzles about how to balance that mission with financial sustainability. The analysis also raises questions about the role of private schools in serving families with more limited means, and about the potential of low-cost models to scale and innovate. Further exploration of these questions is essential to ensuring that in the private sector as well as the public sector, all families have equal access to high-quality options.
This presentation was given by Karen Hawley Miles, President and CEO of Education Resource Strategies, to the National Association of State Boards of Education on March 6, 2018. It was presented in partnership with The Education Trust.
Benchmarks: WICHE Region 2018 presents information on the West’s progress in improving access to, success in, and financing of higher education. The information is updated annually with the most recent data available, to monitor change over time and encourage its use as a tool for informed discussion in policy and education communities. https://www.wiche.edu/benchmarks
This report explores the specific contributions made by Michigan’s higher education sector and
discusses the strong and growing need for quality postsecondary options. It builds on recent
recommendations for performance-based funding and provides a multi-pronged approach for
accelerating the pace toward Top Ten educational attainment. This report also details how higher education can help create more jobs in Michigan.
A Guide for School Districts: Exploring Alternative Measures of Student Learn...Tanya Paperny
Districts across the country play a crucial role in ensuring schools effectively serve students and families. Beyond federal requirements in the Every Student Succeeds Act and state-level accountability systems, locally developed school performance frameworks are a key lever for holding schools accountable, particularly for student learning and wellness.
Today — with unfamiliar school configurations and unknown impacts on student outcomes — it is more important than ever that districts are diligent about assessing schools’ impact on students. But the ways that districts have done so in the past may no longer be appropriate. And districts that previously did not engage in school-level performance assessments now have a new incentive to do so.
This toolkit is a resource to help districts adapt existing school performance frameworks to the current moment or create new ones. These slides identify and walk through the fundamental questions districts need to consider in designing school performance frameworks that acknowledge the challenges that schools and students are facing, as well as a continued need to monitor performance and continuously improve.
In 2012-2013, a total of $58 billion in federal, state and local resources was spent to support our almost 700 public school districts, or $21,118 per pupil for approximately three million students. Of this support, $8,563 per pupil came from the state. Over the past decade the local share (mostly property taxes) of school district revenue has grown five percent, while the state share has declined four percent and federal aid has declined by almost two percent.
Charter schools currently serve 3 million students in more than 7,000 schools across 44 states and Washington, D.C. And their reach continues to grow: Since 2005, the number of charter schools in the U.S. has nearly doubled, and the number of charter students has nearly tripled.
Despite being an enduring presence in the nation’s education space, charter schools remain a topic of ongoing debate. The State of the Charter Sector provides the latest available information on charter schools across the country, including updated data on growth, performance, and geographic trends. It also includes analyses of the challenges that charter schools face and how the sector is trying to address them.
This comprehensive slide deck updates our 2015 State of the Charter School Movement, and together, these resources serve as a fact base to cut through the rhetoric that often accompanies conversations about charter schools.
The goal of this analysis is not to persuade, but to inform. As the charter sector continues to grow and improve, it needs a rigorous, evidence-based debate around its weaknesses and strengths. Accurate information is crucial for thoughtful policymaking and, ultimately, to ensuring all students have access to a high-quality education.
North Carolina Should Focus on Early Childhood Learning in Order to Raise Ach...EducationNC
NC General Assembly Program Evaluation Division Report on commonalities in predominantly disadvantaged school districts that perform at or above grade-level
Our new way of telling the story of what we do and how we do it. This presentation also unveils our updated framework: The Strategic System for Strong Schools, formerly known as School System 20/20.
Putting aside the detail of the findings for one moment, one of the very interesting aspects of this year’s survey is that, unlike in previous years, there is far less divergence of opinions between academy and maintained school respondents. This perhaps reflects the fact that we are now entering into the sixth year of the expanded academies programme and all schools are feeling the continued effects of the changing accountability measures, frailties of the examination system as well as financial restraint in the public sector.
Two clear themes struck me when looking at the survey findings. The Government’s education programme heavily relies on school leaders and it is clear more needs to be done to support current leaders as well as identifying and developing the leaders of the future.With continuation of the academy programme at pace and the emergence of more local school groups this will be a critical part of succession planning at both a local and national level.
This Government also needs to follow through on its manifesto commitments on schools funding. The Conservative manifesto made a commitment to provide‘proper funding’ to every school and to ‘make schools funding fairer’. However, Nicky Morgan has said the new funding formula will not be ready until September 2017 at the very earliest. Many will remember the last Education Secretary of State started consultation on fair funding in 2012 but progress soon stalled.
Whilst 2017 will feel too late for many, it is important to ensure that this time real progress will be delivered for our worst funded schools and their pupils. The Prime Minister’s announcement in July this year that the additional £390m previously confirmed for 2015-16 would be base-lined in budgets for future years was a welcome start. Any additional measures the Chancellor can facilitate in the comprehensive spending review to help narrow the gap pending the full implementation of fair funding will be very welcome.
https://www.brownejacobson.com/education/training-and-resources/guides/2015/11/school-leaders-survey-2015
ERS analysis of the budget and resource use in a small, urban California district. Includes recommendations for teacher professional learning, school redesign, teacher compensation, school planning support, and more.
Toward Equitable Access and Affordability: How Private Schools and Microschoo...Jeremy Knight
In recent decades, tuition increases in independent schools have outpaced inflation and wage growth, while thousands of Catholic parochial schools — which historically have provided private education at a much lower cost — have closed, leaving middle- and low-income families with few affordable options.
Meanwhile, families across socioeconomic groups express interest in private schooling. While private schools consistently serve about 10% of U.S. students, 40% of parents say they would prefer private schools. These trends suggest a need to look more closely at efforts to increase affordability in private schools and ensure that all families have equitable access to the schools of their choice.
In “Toward Equitable Access and Affordability: How Private Schools and Microschools Seek to Serve Middle- and Low-Income Students,” we sought to understand the landscape of private schools working to provide an affordable education by looking at the approaches they are taking and how they are revisiting traditional operating models. We profile a variety of strategies used by schools to improve access for middle- and low-income families. Some schools rely on reducing the costs to families (i.e., tuition) by providing significant financial aid or partnering with scholarship programs, some have found inventive new revenue streams, and some have streamlined operations and leveraged technology to reduce their per-pupil expenditures.
One category of private schools, the microschool, merited a closer look due to its profoundly different operational and financial model. Through surveys and interviews with microschool leaders and experts around the country, this report seeks to further define this emerging sector of intentionally small, educationally innovative schools and to explore their potential as an affordable independent school option.
Ultimately, this overview of low-cost private schools and microschools surfaced questions about improving equity in private education. The profiles of schools aiming to serve middle- and low-income families highlight unsolved puzzles about how to balance that mission with financial sustainability. The analysis also raises questions about the role of private schools in serving families with more limited means, and about the potential of low-cost models to scale and innovate. Further exploration of these questions is essential to ensuring that in the private sector as well as the public sector, all families have equal access to high-quality options.
This presentation was given by Karen Hawley Miles, President and CEO of Education Resource Strategies, to the National Association of State Boards of Education on March 6, 2018. It was presented in partnership with The Education Trust.
Benchmarks: WICHE Region 2018 presents information on the West’s progress in improving access to, success in, and financing of higher education. The information is updated annually with the most recent data available, to monitor change over time and encourage its use as a tool for informed discussion in policy and education communities. https://www.wiche.edu/benchmarks
Report: Marcellus Shale Gas Development and Impacts on Pennsylvania Schools a...Marcellus Drilling News
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a bipartisan, bicameral legislative agency that serves as a resource for rural policy within the Pennsylvania General Assembly, has just published the third report in a series of studies commissioned on the Marcellus Shale and its impact on the state. Titled "Marcellus Shale Gas Development and Impacts on Pennsylvania Schools and Education", the report looks at whether or not the rapid development of shale drilling in the state has stressed local schools in areas with the most Marcellus Shale drilling. It was feared that with an influx of workers, and potentially families, local schools would see a spike in enrollment. The report says that hasn't happened. There was also a concern about dropout rates--perhaps kids leaving school early to work in the gas fields. That hasn't happened either. In fact, if anything, the Marcellus has contributed more money to the coffers of local schools. No negative impacts, lots of positive impacts from northeast shale drilling.
The Community College Role in Access and Success for all Students by Thomas B...EduSkills OECD
This presentation was given by Thomas Bailey of the Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University at the international seminar “Equity and quality on higher education: from the right of access to the challenge of graduation” on 17-18 June 2016 in Santiago, Chile.
First discussion from another student(please respond)What are t.docxAASTHA76
First discussion from another student(please respond)
What are the conclusions about program performance in the report? Are they justified based on the available data or evidence?
Overall, I was able to see that there was a significant amount of increase of students who were actually becoming part of the interactive opportunities provided within the school especially in the school years of 2015 and 2016. Even though there was a significant amount of increase, their involvement within student programs had some level of stability with reference to the retention rates. This is something that I do believe were more likely to be able to participate in even given the amount of recommendations provided with in the report.
What did the evaluators identify as “issues they will need to manage over the next few years” that might conceivably be assessed at a later date? Be prepared to identify two and justify why you would make them a priority (OSU Student Affairs Annual Report, p. 11).
I was able to see that the department and school environment did lack some IT positions. I think that this impacted the level of interactive web experiences in addition to the growing demand of the diverse student population group. Secondly, I do believe that the finances had a significant amount of impact on the way that individuals were able to create some level of revenue increase eventually. Even though this was a primary cause of the impact, not having enough funds was of course a fundamental principle for decrease in quality and accessibility.
Which questions could you not answer? Where could you try to find information that is not in the document?
I think the most important focus area that was not able to be reflected upon was the impact of understanding of the program, especially with reference to the criteria that were selected. This was a reference point that I do believe individuals should take into consideration given the outcomes of how these population groups were divided.
2nd response from another student (please respond)
My responses to the analysis questions for Oregon State University's Division of Student Affairs Annual Report are below.
8. What are the conclusions about program performance in the report? Are they justified based on the available data or evidence?
· After reviewing the report a few times, I found that there was a general increase in performance with the indicators and metrics being measured. For example, from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 school years, there was an increase from 14 to 58 programs that offered a service-learning component (Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 1). In 2017, 72% of students interacted with the student affairs department compared to 96% in 2018 (Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 2).
· The report also showed a decrease in performance for funding during the 2017-2018 year. The Oregon State University Foundation reported that the Division of Student Affairs raised $695,589.45 as opposed to nearly $3,000,000 .
Article one Lethal injection -electronic resource- -.docxnoel23456789
Article one
Lethal injection [electronic resource] : capital punishment in Texas during the modern era / Jon Sorensen and Rocky LeAnn Pilgrim ; foreword by Evan J. Mandery.
Language:
English
Authors:
(Jonathan Roger), 1965-
Publication Information:
Austin, TX : University of Texas Press, 2006.
Edition:
1st ed.
Publication Date:
2006
Physical Description:
xi, 222 p. : ill.
Publication Type:
Book; eBook
Document Type:
Bibliographies; Electronic; Non-fiction; Government documents; Electronic document
Subject Terms:
Content Notes:
The modern era -- Deterrence : does it prevent others from committing murder? -- Incapacitation : does it keep them from killing again? -- Retribution : do they deserve to die? -- Administration : is the death penalty carried out impartially, reliably, and efficiently? -- Conclusion.
Notes:
Includes bibliographical references (p. [203]-214) and index. Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, MI : ProQuest, 2015. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest affiliated libraries.
Other Authors:
, 1978-
OCLC:
614534999
URL:
Note: Click to View
Accession Number:
wal.EBC3443247
Database:
Walden University Library Catalog
______________________________________________________________________________
Article two
STUCK BETWEEN GROWING UP AND GROWN UP: DELAYING THE SENTENCING PHASE FOR YOUNG ADULTS FACING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN TEXAS
Authors:
Source:
Texas Tech Law Review. Summer, 2021, Vol. 53 Issue 4, p843, 870 p.
Publisher Information:
Texas Tech University School of Law, 2021.
Publication Year:
2021
Subject Terms:
Subject Geographic:
Language:
English
ISSN:
0564-6197
Rights:
Copyright 2021 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT 2021 Texas Tech University School of Law
Accession Number:
edsgcl.674607828
Database:
Gale OneFile: LegalTrac
2
“THE PROGRAM AND EVALUATION TOOL PLANNINGâ€
Angel Winslow
EDSD 7900
Module 3 Assignment
COURSE PROJECT PARTS 1 AND 2
Date Due: January 8, 2023
Part 1: The Program
Early childhood education is one of the specialization areas that had its issues presented in Mayo Keller’s taskforce. As a member of the taskforce specializing in early childhood education, I will present to the taskforce programs that need improvement for the ultimate goal of advancing the sector. One program that need to be evaluated and improved for change is the enrollment program into early childhood education. The goal of the program is to increase enrollment and improve participation of young learners in early childhood education. The enrollment of children aged 3 to 5 years into early childhood education has significantly been declining in the Grand City area. The situation therefore calls for the stakeholders to look into the causes and solutions (Walden University, 2016). Parents, district education officers, mayor’s office, and early childhood educators are some of the stakeholders concerned with the program.
Data
Within a span of 5 years the number of children aged 3 to 5 years .
Advocating for Inclusive Education: Latine Parents Navigating the Special Edu...Molly Osborne
The Padres Investigadores program was tasked with the mission to understand the experience of Latine families in NC when seeking access to equitable special education for diverse learners.
North Carolina Community College System 2022 Performance ReportMolly Osborne
The State Board of Community Colleges unanimously approved the 2022 performance measures for student success. Those measures act as an annual accountability report for the system.
ApprenticeshipNC served 15,657 North Carolinians during fiscal year 2019-2020, the most in the past 10 years. The number is 37% higher than last year’s total.
Allocation for Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) FundMolly Osborne
The State Board of Community Colleges is asked to approve the allocation of $15,000,000 from the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund with $14,549,996 for scholarships for eligible community college students pursuing high-demand workforce training programs within ten workforce pathways leading to a State or industry recognized credential and $450,004 for communication/program success.
CARES Act funding letter for higher education institutional costsMolly Osborne
Letter sent to college and university presidents by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announcing the release of additional $6.2 billion in funding for institutions.
Bridge 2019: A gathering for North Carolina's futureMolly Osborne
From April 28-30, 2019, philanthropists, educators, policymakers, and community leaders gathered in Greensboro to understand the work to be done and the work being done to orient all of our students, educators, and leaders towards readiness and attainment. This program outlines the agenda for Bridge.
Wake Technical Community College plans to train 450 people for information technology (IT) jobs in healthcare, cybersecurity, manufacturing, and financial services through Project SECURE — Supporting and Enhancing Cybersecurity through Upwardly Mobile Retraining and Education.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
3. 1
Contents
Foreword....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 5
Part I. Rankings 2017 Highlights............................................................................................................. 5
Part II. Estimates 2018 Highlights........................................................................................................... 6
Part III. National Trends 2009‒18 Highlights.......................................................................................... 7
Technical Notes........................................................................................................................................... 10
RANKINGS 2017..........................................................................................................................11
Series A—Enrollment and Attendance......................................................................................................... 13
Series B—Faculty........................................................................................................................................ 19
Series C—School Revenues......................................................................................................................... 27
Series D—School Expenditures ................................................................................................................... 35
ESTIMATES 2018 ........................................................................................................................39
Series E—Students and Faculty ................................................................................................................... 41
Series F—School Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................. 51
NATIONAL TRENDS 2009‒18....................................................................................................63
Series G—Students and Faculty................................................................................................................... 65
Series H—School Revenues and Expenditures............................................................................................. 73
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................... 83
State Notes for Rankings and Estimates ....................................................................................................... 87
5. 3
Foreword
The data presented in this report provide facts about the extent to which local, state, and national
governments commit resources to public education. As one might expect in a nation as diverse as
the United States—with respect to economics, geography, and politics—the level of commitment
to education varies on a state-by-state basis. Thus, NEA Research offers this report to its state and
local affiliates as well as to researchers, policy makers, and the public as a tool to examine public
education programs and services.
Part I of this report—Rankings 2017—provides state-level data on an array of topics relevant to
the complex enterprise of public education. Since the 1960s, Rankings has presented facts and
figures useful in determining how states differ from one another—and from national averages—on
important school statistics such as student attendance, teacher employment and average salary, and
school revenues and expenditures. Of course, no set of tables tells the entire story of a state’s
education offerings. Consideration of factors such as a state’s tax system, provisions for other
public services, and population characteristics also are needed. Therefore, it is unwise to draw
conclusions based solely on individual statistics in this report.
Part II of this report—Estimates 2018—is in its 73rd year of production. Estimates provides data
tables projecting public school enrollment, employment and compensation of personnel, and
finances, as reported by individual state departments of education. Not surprisingly, interest in the
improvement and renewal of public education continues to capture the attention of the nation.
Part III of this report—National Trends 2009‒18—presents summary data of national trends in
student enrollment and attendance, staff salaries, sources of school funding, and levels of
educational expenditures in the previous ten years. Such trends at the national level have been
based on data reported state by state.
Public education in the United States is a joint enterprise between local, state, and federal
governments. Yet, progress in improving public education stems primarily from the efforts of state
education agencies, local districts, and individual schools. These public organizations deserve
credit for recognizing that spending for education needs to be acknowledged as an investment in
our nation’s most valuable resource—students. Similarly, this publication represents a collective
effort that goes well beyond the staff of the National Education Association. Individual state
departments of education and the NEA’s state affiliates participate in collecting and assembling
the data presented in this report. As a result, the NEA appreciates and acknowledges the
cooperation it receives from all those whose efforts make this publication possible.
NEA Research
April 2018
7. 5
Executive Summary
NEA Research collects, maintains, and analyzes data on issues and trends affecting the
nation’s public education systems and their employees. This report, Rankings of the States
2017 and Estimates of School Statistics 2018, contains data primarily based on information
from state departments of education. Significant highlights of the report are below.
Part I. Rankings 2017 Highlights
Enrollment and Attendance
In fall 2016, U.S. public school enrollment was 49,753,306, down 0.1 percent over fall 2015.
The largest percentage enrollment changes from fall 2015 to fall 2016 were in the District of
Columbia (2%), Virginia (2%), and Utah (1.9%).
Nineteen states experienced declines in student enrollment from 2015 to 2016. The greatest
declines were in New York (-5.3%), Indiana (-2.3%), and New Jersey (-2.1%).
The number of students in average daily attendance (ADA) increased by 0.1 percent nationwide,
from 46,457,525 in 2015‒16 to 46,524,270 in 2016‒17.
High School Graduates
A total of 3,240,592 students graduated from high school in 2016‒17, up 0.1 percent from
3,238,440 in 2015‒16.
Classroom Teachers
There were 3,116,588 teachers in 2016‒17. Texas (352,809), California (277,585), and New
York (210,791) represented the largest numbers of teachers, while the District of Columbia
(4,958) and Wyoming (7,461) accounted for the smallest numbers.
The average number of students enrolled per teacher decreased slightly (-0.4%) from 16.03 in
2015‒16 to 15.96 in 2016‒17. States with the highest number of students enrolled per teacher in
fall 2016 were Nevada (25.86), Arizona (23.51), and Utah (22.50).
States with the lowest student-teacher ratios in fall 2016 were Vermont (9.49), New Jersey
(11.79), and Missouri (11.83).
Teacher Salary
The U.S. average public school teacher salary for 2016–17 was 59,660. State average teacher
salaries ranged from those in New York ($81,902), California ($79,128), and Massachusetts
($78,100) at the high end to Mississippi ($42,925), Oklahoma ($45,292) and West Virginia
($45,555) at the low end.
8. 6
The U.S. average one-year change in public school teacher salaries from 2015–16 to 2016–17
was 2.0 percent. The largest one-year decrease was in West Virginia (-0.1%), and the largest
one-year increase was in South Dakota (11.8%).
School Revenue
School funding continues to be state and local oriented. In 2015–16, 45.9 percent of public
school revenue came from state funds, whereas 45.6% percent came from state funds in 2016–
17. Local funds contributed similar percentages in both 2015‒16 (45.6%) and 2016‒17
(46.1%). In those two years, federal funds constituted 8.5 percent and 8.3 percent,
respectively, of K‒12 education revenue.
Expenditures per Student
The U.S. average per-student expenditure in 2016‒17 based on fall enrollment was $11,642.
The following states had the highest per-student expenditures: the District of Columbia
($25,025), New York ($23,265), and Alaska (21,261). Idaho ($6,761), Utah ($6,906), and
Indiana ($7,267) had the lowest per-student expenditures.
Part II. Estimates 2018 Highlights
Enrollment
Public school enrollment is expected to increase by 0.3 percent from 2016‒17 (49,753,306) to
2017‒18 (49,878,713). Public school enrollment anticipated during the 2017‒18 school year
represents the 33rd
consecutive increase since 1985–86.
Average Daily Attendance
The number of students in average daily attendance is also projected to grow by 0.3 percent from
46,524,270 in 2016‒17 to 46,666,517 in 2017‒18.
High School Graduates
A total of 3,263,223 students are expected to graduate from high school in 2017‒18, up 0.7
percent from 3,240,592 in 2016-17.
Instructional Staff
The total number of instructional staff should increase by 0.4 percent from 3,628,753 in 2016‒17
to 3,642,198 in 2017‒18.
9. 7
Classroom Teachers
The number of public school classroom teachers is predicted to grow by 0.3 percent from
3,116,588 in 2016‒17 to 3,126,790 in 2017‒18.
Instructional Staff and Classroom Teacher Salaries
Based on trends, the NEA estimates that the average salary of instructional staff will increase
from $61,386 in 2016‒17 to $62,329 in 2017‒18, a gain of 1.5 percent.
The average classroom teacher salary for 2017‒18 will increase by 1.4 percent over 2016‒17,
from $59,660 to $60,483.
School Revenue
State governments are estimated to provide 45.8 percent of public school financial support for
2017‒18, up 0.2 percent from 2016‒17. For 2017‒18, the federal government’s contribution to
public elementary and secondary school revenues is expected to be 7.8 percent, versus 8.3
percent in 2016‒17.
Student Expenditures
Expenditures per student in fall enrollment should increase by 2.5 percent to $11,934 in
2017‒18, up from $11,642 in 2016‒17. This compares with a 2.8 percent increase in total current
expenditures.
Part III. National Trends 2009-18 Highlights
School Districts
The number of school districts has increased by 1.4 percent, from 16,271 in 2008‒09 to an
estimated 16,501 in 2017‒18. Of the 16,501 school districts estimated for 2017‒18, 16,309
(98.8%) are operating school districts.
Fall Enrollment
Public school enrollment has registered a 1.9 percent increase from 2008‒09 (48,954,071 ) to
2017‒18 (49,878,713). Enrollment in elementary schools has increased by 2.4 percent, whereas
enrollment in secondary schools has increased by 1.0 percent during the 10-year period.
Average Daily Attendance
The total number of students measured by average daily attendance has increased by 1.8 percent
over the past decade, from 45,863,233 in 2008‒09 to 46,666,517 in 2017‒18.
10. 8
High School Graduates
An estimated 3,263,223 high school students will graduate in 2017‒18, representing an increase
of 7.7 percent from 3,029,312 graduates in 2008-09.
Instructional Staff
The total instructional staff in 2017‒18 is estimated at 3,642,198, a decrease of 0.8 percent, com-
pared to 3,671,227 in 2008‒09.
Classroom Teachers
The number of K‒12 classroom teachers is estimated to be 3,126,790 in 2017‒18, a decrease of
2.2 percent compared to 3,196,987 in 2008‒09. The number of elementary school classroom
teaching staff has increased 2.3 percent since 2008‒09, while the number of secondary school
teachers has decreased 8.6 percent.
Instructional Staff and Classroom Teacher Salaries
The national average instructional staff salary for 2017‒18 is estimated to be $62,329, represent-
ing a gain of 10.8 percent since 2008-09 ($56,261).
The average classroom teacher salary is estimated to be $60,483 for the 2017‒18 school year, an
increase of 11.2 percent over $54,368 in 2008-09.
Inflation-adjusted Salaries
There are significant differences between the average salaries in current versus constant dollars.
The current-dollar increases over the years since 2008‒09 appear substantial for both
instructional staff and classroom teachers.
But, when the effects of price inflation are taken into account, the average classroom teacher
salary has actually decreased by 4.0 percent from 2008‒09 to 2017‒18, while the average salary
for instructional staff has decreased by 4.4 percent.
Total Receipts
Total revenue and nonrevenue receipts for 2017‒18 are estimated to be $708.2 billion, an in-
crease of 14.4 percent since 2008‒09. When adjusted for inflation, total receipts have decreased
an estimated 1.2 percent over the decade.
Revenue Receipts
From 2008‒09 to 2017‒18, school revenue receipts have increased 13.4 percent. Adjusting for
inflation, public school revenues have decreased 2.1 percent over the decade.
11. 9
During this 10-year period, the percentage of state funding has ranged between 44.1 and 47.3
percent of total revenue receipts. Local governments have contributed similar shares of school
revenue receipts.
State education resources have increased by 9.8 percent from 2009 to 2018, but have decreased
5.2 percent when adjusted for inflation.
Total Expenditures
The total amount to be spent for current expenditures, capital outlay, and interest payments is
expected to increase 14.9 percent from 2008‒09 to 2017‒18. Adjusting for the effects of price
inflation, total expenditures are estimated to decrease by 0.8 percent over the decade.
Current Expenditures
Current expenditures for public schools are expected to increase from $516.4 billion in 2008‒09
to $595.3 billion in 2017‒18, a 15.3 percent increase. Current expenditures have slightly de-
creased by 0.5 percent during the 10 years in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Current Expenditure per Student in Enrollment
Over the last decade, the average per-student expenditure has risen by 13.1 percent from
$10,548 to $11,934. After inflation adjustment, the expenditure per student in enrollment has
decreased by 2.3 percent.
Current Expenditure per Student in Average Daily Attendance
The average expenditure per student in average daily attendance has increased 13.3 percent
since 2009. Nonetheless, the average expenditure has decreased by 2.2 percent over the
decade after being adjusted for inflaction.
12. 10
Technical Notes
The first part, Rankings 2017, of this publication contains ranking statistics of public
elementary and secondary schools for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The education
data are the most recent actual or estimated data collected primarily from state departments of
education. All tables on schools and students, teachers and instructional staff, school revenues,
and education expenditures have been updated from the previous edition.
The second part, Estimates 2018, presents public school data for the 50 states and the District
of Columbia based on survey responses from state education agencies. State department of
education contacts are asked to provide estimated data for the current year (2017–18) and
revisions to four years of historical data, as necessary. Therefore, data for school years
2013‒14 through 2016‒17 were subject to revision as a result of the 2017 surveys. The
estimated data featured in this report are for the current school year (2017‒18) and the previous
school year (2016‒17). These data are provided on a state-by-state basis. All figures represent
projections by state education agencies—or NEA Research—as of September 2017.
NEA Research submits current-year estimates of educational statistics to each state’s
Department of Education for verification or revision each year. The figures are generated
primarily using regression analyses, which are standard statistical techniques designed to make
predictions for the current year using numerical data from prior years. Only if an education
department does not replace these projections with its own estimated data does the NEA use
regression-generated figures in this report.
The last part, National Trends 2009‒18, highlights summary public school statistics for the
United States over the last decade on students, teachers and instructional staff, school
revenues, and education expenditures.
NEA Research has calculated salaray estimates using American Community Survey data for
several states that have not reported such data for some years.
Note that throughout this publication school years may be indicated in several equivalent ways.
More specifically, the school year from September 2016 through June 2017 may be shown as
“2016–17,” or it may be indicated by shorthand as “2017,” or “17.”
Also note that some totals in certain tables may not sum exactly because of rounding. Dollar
values are expressed in “current dollars” unless otherwise noted.
The Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers is applied for computation of constant-
dollar salary, revenue, and expenditure data.
NEA Reseach has made changes in this report in terms of its table format in order to faciliate
understanding of both current and historical school statistics. The report has als been simplied
through the removal of tables containing data publicly available elsewhere.
15. A-1. OPERATING PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
A-2. FALL ENROLLMENT
A-3. AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
A-4. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES
SERIES A ─ ENROLLMENT AND ATTENDANCE
13
21. SERIES B ─ FACULTY
B-6. AVERAGE SALARY OF TEACHERS
B-1. NUMBER OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
B-2. NUMBER OF TEACHERS
B-3. STUDENTS ENROLLED PER TEACHER
B-4. STUDENTS IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE PER TEACHER
B-5. AVERAGE SALARY OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
19
29. SERIES C ─ SCHOOL REVENUES
C-6. LOCAL REVENUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF COMBINED STATE & LOCAL REVENUE
C-1. PUBLIC SCHOOL REVENUE PER STUDENT IN FALL ENROLLMENT
C-2. PUBLIC SCHOOL REVENUE PER STUDENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
C-3. PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT
C-4. PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE FROM STATE GOVERNMENT
C-5. PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
27
37. SERIES D ─ SCHOOL EXPENDITURES
D-1. CURRENT EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT IN FALL ENROLLMENT
D-2. CURRENT EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
35
43. SERIES E ─ STUDENTS AND FACULTY
E-7. AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY
E-8. AVERAGE INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF SALARY
E-1. PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
E-2. FALL ENROLLMENT
E-3. AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
E-4. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES
E-5. NUMBER OF TEACHERS
E-6. NUMBER OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
41
53. SERIES F - SCHOOL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
F-7. CHANGES IN EXPENDITURES 2017-18 (%)
F-8. CURRENT EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT IN FALL ENROLLMENT
F-9. CURRENT EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
F-1. REVENUE AND NON-REVENUE RECEIPTS 2017 ($ THOUSANDS)
F-2. REVENUE AND NON-REVENUE RECEIPTS 2018 ($ THOUSANDS)
F-3. CHANGES IN REVENUE AND NON-REVENUE RECEIPTS 2017-18 (%)
F-4. REVENUE RECEIPTS (%)
F-5. EXPENDITURES 2017 ($ THOUSANDS)
F-6. EXPENDITURES 2018 ($ THOUSANDS)
51
67. SERIES G - STUDENTS AND FACULTY
G-6. AVERAGE SALARY OF TEACHERS AND INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
G-1. PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
G-2. FALL ENROLLMENT
G-3. AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
G-4. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES
G-5. TEACHERS AND INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
65
75. SERIES H ─SCHOOL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
H-6. CURRENT EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT IN FALL ENROLLMENT
H-7. CURRENT EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
H-1. RECEIPTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ($ THOUSANDS)
H-2. CHANGES OF RECEIPTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (%)
H-3. REVENUE RECEIPTS (%)
H-4. EXPENITURES ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS ($ THOUSANDS)
H-5. CHANGES OF EXPENDITURES ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS (%)
73