Challenging Education to Meet the Changing Face of Indiana

Report
Understanding the History of Indiana
School Finance and the Current
Funding Formula
2011 ISBA/IPASS Annual Fall Conference
Terry Spradlin, Director for Education Policy & HSSSE
Hallie Robbins, Joseph Popely, Lindsi Lara
September 27, 2011
About the Center for
Evaluation & Education Policy
•The Center for Evaluation & Education Policy (CEEP) is a
client-focused, self-funded research center associated with the
School of Education at Indiana University
•CEEP provides a wide range of evaluation and nonpartisan policy
research services to policymakers, governmental entities, and
non-profit organizations
•CEEP research continually informs, influences, and helps shape
the development of P-16 education policy not only in Indiana, but
across the nation
2
CEEP Associates focus their broad spectrum of
experience and capabilities to produce high impact
within the following "Areas of Excellence":
•Educational Evaluation
oEarly Childhood Education Evaluation
oLiteracy Evaluation
oMath, Science and Technology Evaluation
•Education Policy Research & Technical Assistance
•Health, Human Services & Community Development
Evaluation
3
Table of Contents
I. Indiana’s Funding Formula History and Issues
II. 2011-2013 School Funding Formula Changes
III. Federal Funds Update
IV. Implications of the School Funding Formula Changes
4
Indiana’s Funding Formula History and
Issues
i.) Development of the Foundation Program
ii.) Vertical and Horizontal Equity Issues
iii.) Evolution of the Complexity Index
iv.) Categorical Grants and Overlay Provisions
v.) Minimum Guarantee
vi.) Educational Adequacy
5
Indiana’s Foundation Program
• Implemented in 1949
• State guarantees school corporations per-pupil base tuition
known as the ‘foundation level’
• Foundation formula: each student receives the same base
funding
 ADM × Foundation Level × Complexity Index = Basic
Tuition Support
 Foundation level is established by the Indiana General
Assembly during each biennial budget session
6
Indiana’s Foundation Program, cont’d
• Prior to 2008, several changes were made over time to the foundation
program and school funding formula — many of them produced a
significant reduction in the proportion of dollars that were raised through
property taxes and increased the proportion of dollars that were from
state-level sources
• These changes were designed to:
 Eliminate the traditional dependence of per-pupil funding on property
wealth per pupil
 Reduce variability in per-pupil funding across school corps
 Increase per-pupil funding
 Reduce variability in property tax rates across school corps
7
Horizontal Equity: 1993 Changes
Following Lake Central v Indiana, filed in 1987 and settled out of
court in 1993, state lawmakers changed the foundation
formula:
 Continued the bottom-up equalization of setting a
minimum expenditure per-pupil target for corporations
 Specified the local property tax rates should be the same
for school corporations with similar levels of expenditures
 Mandated that property tax rates could not exceed
specified ceilings
 Allowed per-pupil funding to be adjusted upward for
school corporations with lower SES
8
Indiana School Funding Model
9
Vertical and Horizontal Equity Issues
• Vertical Equity:
– School districts in lower wealth communities should receive more
state money to support students (“unequal treatment of unequals”) - otherwise would need much higher tax rates to meet target revenue;
also supports paradigm that school corps with more complex student
populations require more funding to obtain the same level of student
performance (close achievement gaps) as that of school corps with
high SES and less complex student populations
• Horizontal Equity:
– Similarly situated school districts should receive the same amount of
money from local and state sources; “equal treatment of equals”
10
Vertical Equity: At-Risk Index
• The At-Risk Grant/Index, used from 1987-2003, addressed
differences in community wealth and socio-economic status
 The Coleman Report in 1966 found a statistical
relationship between a student’s academic achievement
and the community’s socio-economic status
 These results have been replicated since, including
research conducted by CEEP for the Indiana General
Assembly
• The At-Risk Index was implemented as a state law in 1993 and
sent additional dollars to districts with certain socio-economic
characteristics
11
Vertical Equity: At-Risk Index, cont’d
•
The first At-Risk Grant calculation included:
 Percentages of families in poverty
 Percentage children living in single-parent households (weighted most
heavily)
 Percentage community members over 19 without a high school diploma
•
In 2003, ARI became the Complexity Index and included five factors:
 Residents 25+ without a 12th grade education (up from 20+ in years prior)
 Students in the school corporation eligible for free lunch
 Students classified as limited English proficient
 Single-parent households
 Families below the poverty level
12
How to Select Complexity Index Components
Choice of factors to include in CI have implications associated
with funding and the state’s ability to narrow the achievement
gap:
• The first criterion is that the factors should have a theoretical
connection between the SES of students and/or their need for
educational services
• Second criterion is that factors have to be measurable
• A third criterion is that the factor should be correlated with
student outcomes
13
Complexity Index
•
CEEP submitted a (2006) report, “Effects of Background and Policy Variables on
School Performance in Indiana,” for the K-12 Education Subcommittee of the
Government Efficiency Commission
•
The report found that free lunch status is by far the most significant variable (R2)
of 0.68, suggesting 68% of variation in academic performance can be explained by
income status, best represented by free lunch status data
•
Per CEEP’s recommendation, the CI was simplified in the 2007 session for 2008
funding to include only the percentage of students eligible for F/R lunch
•
A school’s funding per pupil is now increased in proportion to its percentage of
free or reduced lunch students (addresses vertical equity)
14
Categorical Grants and Overlay Provisions
• Categorical Grants
• Overlay Provisions
(Funds student needs):
(Supplement funding for
school corps.):
– Career/technical
education
– Academic Honors
Diploma
– Special education
– Prime Time grant
– Re/Deghoster/Adjusted
ADM
– Small schools grant
– Restoration grant
– Minimum guarantee
– ADA Flat Grant
15
Minimum Guarantee
• Before 2005, three calculations were made to determine the amount of
funding a school corporation would receive: the Foundation Program
calculation, Variable Grant calculation, and Minimum Guarantee
calculation; school corporation would receive highest amount yielded by
the calculations
• The Minimum Guarantee (MG) calculation started with the previous year
dollars received by the school corporation and added a percentage
increase as specified by the General Assembly
• Some district leaders argued these funds helped cover under-funded
mandates like free textbooks and ESL programs and fixed costs that don’t
decrease proportionately with loss of a few students per school and grade
level
16
Minimum Guarantee, cont’d
• By 2004, 81% of school corporations were calculating their
funding via the Minimum Guarantee calculation
• Funding ‘followed’ school corporations – not students
• Changes in enrollment were irrelevant
• Horizontal equity was unachievable
• Effects may still be felt today, even though MG was abolished
in 2005
– Since the MG was based on revenue received during the
previous year and was larger than the Foundation Program
calculation, many school districts are now facing a
downward, multi-year transition to the Foundation Level
17
Educational Adequacy
•
The contemporary issue in education finance is determining how to allocate
resources to increase student achievement
– The guiding question then becomes, “How much spending is needed to
educate students adequately?”
•
Joseph and LaTanya Bonner, et al v. Mitch Daniels, et al
– Plaintiffs contended that state’s school funding formula was insufficient to
provide an adequate education to all students
– Indiana Supreme Court reviewed constitutionality of the state’s legislativelyestablished public school funding formula
– Court ruled Indiana Constitution does not outline quality education, thus
leaving education to legislative decision-making
– No violation of Equal Privileges or Due Course of Law Clauses; not sufficient
evidence to establish an enforceable duty on the state and grant relief
requested
18
Hamilton Southeastern Schools, et al. v. Daniels
• On February 23, 2010, three suburban corporations and
parents of students attending these corporations filed a
lawsuit in the Hamilton Superior Court:
– Hamilton Southeastern Schools
– Middlebury Community Schools
– Franklin Township Community School Corporation
• On November 29, 2010, Hamilton County Superior Court
Judge Steven Nation rendered a decision to reject the state’s
motion to dismiss
19
Basis of Lawsuit:
Issues in Contention
• Complexity Index
– Plaintiffs argued that the Complexity Index created non-uniformity and
disparate allocation of educational resources
• Adjusted Average Daily Membership (ADM)
– Allowed school corporations to choose between the actual ADM for the
current year or the average ADM of three previous years when calculating
tuition support
– Corporations with increasing enrollments used their actual ADM, while
corporations with declining enrollments used the adjusted (artificially higher)
ADM
– Plaintiffs contended that this is disproportionately shifted state revenue from
corporations with rising enrollments to corporations with declining
enrollments
20
Issues in Contention, cont’d
• Reduction in Per-Pupil Funding
– The state of IN reduced foundation or base per-pupil funding across all
corporations from $4,825 in 2009 to $4,550 in 2010
– Plaintiffs suggest that this reduction impacts students attending some
corporations more so than students in other corporations
• Restoration Grants
– Limits the change in dollars per-pupil a school corporation receives
– Corporations with reductions beyond the specified range are eligible to apply
for grant funding
– Plaintiffs contend that this unjustly shifts funding away from their
corporations
21
Issue in Contention:
Property Tax Caps and Law
• Property Tax Dilemma: As community wealth varies across school
corporations, property tax unevenly distributes tuition to students
• In 1974, General Assembly enacted new system of property tax controls
which eliminated local governments’ autonomy over their own General
Fund tax rates
• But, school spending is likely to still be influenced by revenue generated
before controls were imposed
• In 2008, property tax rates in Indiana were capped at of 1% of value for
residential, 2% of value for rental and farmland, and 3% of value for all
other types
22
Issue in Contention:
Property Tax Caps and Law
• State prohibition on using property tax revenues for general school
expenses (PL 146 – 2008)
o Plaintiffs argue that this provision prohibits their corporations from
using local resources to provide students with the same funding
amount other corporations are receiving under the state formula
• Indiana property taxpayers saved 32% in 2011, but school districts lost
$200 million
• Marion County lost $66 million in 2011 due to the caps – Franklin
Township lost $16 million and was forced to cut busing to and from its
schools
23
II. School Funding Formula Changes
24
Indiana 2011-2013 Biennial Budget
•In April 2011, the Indiana Legislature passed the 2011-2013
biennial budget which called for:
General Fund Expenditures of $28.3 billion
Projected Revenue of $27.99 billion
•General Fund revenues decreased by $719.5 million in FY2010, but
are forecasted to increase by more than $2 billion FY2011-FY2013
•If reserves exceed 10% of the General Fund Appropriations for the
following state fiscal year, 50% of the revenue surplus will be
transferred to the pension stabilization fund and 50% will be
disbursed to taxpayers as an automatic taxpayer refund
25
Indiana State Budget, Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2012
Total Appropriations: $14.0 Billion
Other
9%
Child Services
4%
Human Services
5%
Corrections
5%
K-12 Education
47%
Teacher Pensions
5%
Medicaid
13%
Higher Education
12%
26
Indiana State Budget
K-12 Education Highlights
•
In 2011, the State Budget simplified the school funding formula to ensure that
dollars more closely follow the child by:
 Eliminating the de-ghoster/adjusted ADM
 Eliminating Restoration Grant (-160,111,951)
 Eliminates Small Schools Grant (-16,417,623)
 Eliminates Prime Time Guarantee
 Per-student foundation funding is decreased from $4,505 to $4,280 in CY
2012 and then increased to $4,405 in CY 2013
•
Total Tuition Support increased .5% ($31M) for CY 2012 and 1.0% ($61M) for CY
2013; $6,263,200,000 FY ‘12 appropriation; $6,309,100,000 FY ‘13
27
K-12 Education Highlights, cont’d
• New Target Adjustment based on ADM
 Beginning in 2012, schools may receive a target adjustment based on ADM.
Adds 0 if a schools’ ADM is less than 500; adds up to $150 per student for
school corporations with more than 500 students; and $150,000 if ADM is
greater than 1,000
•
Full-Day Kindergarten
 Budget increases funding from $58.5 million annually to $81.9 million annually
(40% increase); with the increase of funding, the state “will make grants
available to the remaining 25% who were not provided full-day kindergarten”
• Excellence in Performance Awards
 Budget creates a new fund ($6 m in FY ‘12 and $9 m in FY ‘13) for the DoE to
make grants to school corporations and charter schools for the funding of
pay-for-performance cash awards/incentives for teachers rated “highly
effective” or “effective”
28
K-12 Education Highlights, cont’d
• Transition to Foundation Revenue
– School corporations who are at or below the foundation level the
previous year will be placed at the foundation level in CY 2012
– Transitioning ‘down’ to Foundation began in 2010 and will continue
through 2019
– Spreads the effects of losing a large percentage of funding over a
longer period of time
• Reauthorization of Inter-Fund Transfers
– Restores the authority for a school corporation to use a portion of its
Capital Projects Fund (CPF) to pay for property insurance and utility
costs. A school could use an amount up to 3.5% of its 2005 tuition
support for both 2012 and 2013
29
“Deghoster”/Adjusted ADM
• First used in 1980-81 as an enrollment change factor
• Adjusts funding for corporations with a large number of students leaving
the district
– Proportionate cost reductions and Reductions in Force (RIFs) may not
be possible since students leaving are from multiple schools within
district and typically not all from the same grade
• Through 2009, the “deghoster” used an adjusted ADM based on five-year
average attendance
30
“Deghoster”, cont’d
• In 2009, the “deghoster” changed to the average ADM for the
last three years (for CY ‘10 and ‘11 funding)
• This adjusted ADM reduced the number of “ghost” students
• All these changes speed districts’ transition to the target
amount, or Foundation calculation
• In 2011, it was eliminated
31
Restoration Grant
• The current funding formula provides mechanisms to move
schools’ funding incrementally toward a target amount based on
the Foundation Level and the Complexity Index (calculated from
free/reduced lunch percentages)
• Until 2005, the Minimum Guarantee portion of the funding
formula guaranteed a basic amount of funding
– Minimum Guarantee was based on the previous year’s funding
level
– The Restoration Grant in the 2010-11 funding formula was a
type of Minimum Guarantee to help schools transition to the
Foundation Calculation and minimize change in funding to:
– +/- $25/student in 2010; +/- $75/student in 2011
– Adversely impacted horizontal equity
32
Small Schools Grant
• Like the Restoration Grant, this grant supplemented small
corporations through funding formula transition.
• Schools with an Average Daily Membership (ADM) of 1,700 or
less received additional dollars per pupil if their Complexity
Index was above a set amount




Up to $192 per pupil if the Complexity Index was 1.2 or above
Up to $91 per pupil if the Complexity Index was 1.1 to 1.2
Dollar amounts have decreased from 2009 levels
Added about $16 million to the formula
33
III. Federal Funds Update
34
Federal Stimulus and Indiana
Category
Funding Received
Expiration Date
State Fiscal Stabilization
Funds
$1,006,920,810
06-30-11 ; Education Part
Title I, Part A- Supporting
Low Income Schools
$168,676,901
09-30-11
IDEA Grants, Parts B &CImproving Special Education
Programs
$272,485,196
Education Technology
Grants
$10,921,523
09-30-11
Vocational Rehabilitation
Funds
$12,335,350
09-30-11
09-30-11 Part B
35
Federal Stimulus and Indiana, cont’d
Category
Funding Received
Expiration Date
Independent Living Services Fund
$2,793,788
09-30-11
McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance
Funds
$959,295
09-30-11
Pell Grant Funds
$417,157,426
Unknown
Work Study Funds
$4,401,573
Unknown
Total Funding
$1,896,651,862
36
U.S. DoE Funding Update 2011-12
Student Aid Program
2011
2012
Funding Percent
Change Change
College and Career Ready Students
256,458,543
256,831,181
372,638
0.1%
Title I Rewards
0
5,287,363
5,287,363
100%
School Turnaround Grants
9,347,606
10,547,245
1,199,639
12.8%
Migrant Student Education
5,705,872
5,717,604
11,732
0.2%
Assessing Achievement
7,729,895
8,085,387
355,492
4.6%
Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants
0
45,477,863
45,477,863
100%
Rural and Low-Income Schools Program
1,075,757
1,099,684
23,927
2.2%
English Learner Education
7,438,411
7,607,035
168,624
2.3%
Homeless Children and Youth Education
1,129,858
1,132,569
2,711
0.2%
Special Education Grants to State
255,685,980
260,155,382
4,469,402
1.7%
Education Jobs Fund (207,058,122)
--
--
-
37
U.S. DoE Funding Update 2011-12
Student Aid Program
2011
2012
Funding
Change
Percent
Change
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
41,674,012
0
-41,674,012
-100.0%
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
3,251,776
0
-3,251,776
-100.0%
21st Century Community Learning Centers
18,854,670
0
-18,854,670
-100.0%
Small, Rural School Achievement Grant
368,021
316,645
-51,376
-14.0%
Career and Technical Education State Grants
25,437,242
23,074471
-2,362,771
-9.3%
Subtotal, All Programs
652,216,552
644,288,666
-7,927,886
-1.2%
38
Education Jobs/“Edujobs”
• Indiana received $207 million in one-time funds during the summer of
2010; schools could begin making draws in November of 2010
• A school may use funds to pay salaries and benefits for teachers and other
employees who provide school-level services. The statute prohibits funds
from being spent on administrative services
• Schools are not allowed to hold or accumulate excess cash reserves of
federal money
• All Educational Jobs funds must be expended by September 30, 2012
39
EduJobs, cont’d
• As of September 2011, 346 school corporations and individual
schools have received EduJobs funds
• $202,916,960 is available, $65,386,367.52 has been received
• Net Amount Remaining: $137,530,592.48
• On September 16, 2011, IN was awarded about $3 million in
additional supplementary EduJobs funds
• Through Q2 of 2011, 2,733 jobs have been funded
• Funds have been used in various ways:
– Fund teacher salaries and retain current certified teachers
– To add additional, specialty staff such as literacy coaches
– Fund benefits
40
IV. Implications of the
School Funding Formula Changes:
“Winners” and “Losers”
41
Lowest Target Revenue Per-Pupil
School
Target Funding per
Pupil
Montessori Academy @ Geist
4303.11
Hoosier Academy - Muncie
4339.06
International School of Columbus
4404.12
Zionsville Community Schools
4414.01
Signature School Inc
4470.03
Carmel Clay Schools
4489.84
Hamilton Southeastern Schools
4593.25
M S D Southwest Allen County
4601.25
Northwest Allen County Schools
4611.28
West Lafayette Com School Corp
4630.96
42
Highest Target Revenue Per-Pupil
School
Target Revenue per
Pupil
East Chicago Lighthouse Charter
7019.2
School City of East Chicago
7022.17
Imagine Life Sciences Acad - West
7033.1
Aspire Charter Academy
7048.5
Christel House Academy
7058.78
Imagine MASTer on Broadway
7066.28
Galileo Charter School
7073.13
KIPP Indpls College Preparatory
7097.95
Imagine Life Sciences Acad - East
7155.5
Timothy L Johnson Academy
7247.75
43
Who “Lost”?
• In Southern Indiana:
– New Harmony suffers funding losses from the removal of overlay provisions—such
as the small schools grant.
• In Metropolitan Indiana:
– Indianapolis Public Schools and Gary Community School Corporation consistently
depended on funding that supplemented declining enrollments. Gary lost more
funding than IPS, approximately 16 percent.
– Despite many charter schools receiving additional funding, South East
Neighborhood School for Excellence, located on Indianapolis’ Southeast side, saw a
13.4% decrease in funding.
• In Northern Indiana:
– Dewey Prairie and Cass Township are also hit hard by the abolishment of the small
schools grant. Currently, the districts are trying to consolidate.
– East Allen County Schools, citing unequal funding across districts, proposed a
referendum that was voted down in May.
44
Who “Won”?
• Charter Schools:
– The top 15 increases in total state funding are charter schools,
which have benefitted from recent legislation increasing their
funding from FY2011 to FY2012. Below are the top 5:
• The Excel Center: $1,990,161 to $3,618,102 (+81.8%)
• Imagine Indiana Life Sciences Academy West: $3,337,499 to
$4,237,654 (+27%)
• Anderson Preparatory Academy: $2,507,246 to $3,129,984
(+24.8%)
• Indiana Connection : $1,290,037 to $1,604,691 (+24.4%)
• Stonegate Early College High School: $1,310,846 to
$1,623,862 (+23.9%)
45
Key Legislation for Charter Schools
• The most recent biennial budget provides approximately $5
million annually to assist new charter schools with start-up
costs
• Increased ADM means higher per-pupil funding
– Ex: Northwest Indiana
– While some public school districts’ enrollments decreased,
Thea Bowman Leadership Academy (Gary) and Discovery
Charter School (Porter) saw large increases and more
funding
46
Who Won? (continued)
• In East Central Indiana:
– Cowan Community School Corporation:
• One of Delaware County’s smaller districts, saw an
enrollment increase as the county’s bigger districts lost
students.
– MSD Bluffton
• Reflective of district growth, Bluffton saw a 4.5%
increase in funding.
47
*But, some numbers are improving
• 2009 data from the US Census Bureau’s Public Education
Finances report issued May 2011 shows that Indiana spends
more per pupil now than in 2008:
– Increase in funding: from 38th ($9,036) to 35th ($9,369)
– National average = $10,499 per pupil
– Indiana ranked 20th in Elementary/Secondary revenue,
which is a vast improvement from their prior ranking of
35th
48
US Census Bureau data:
Improvements in Revenue
• Indiana ranked 14th for amount of revenue from federal sources ($1,365
per pupil)
– Up from a rank of 40th
– They are now above the national average ($1,159 per pupil)
• 24th for amount of revenue from state sources ($5,645)
– Up from 32nd ($5,194)
• 19th for amount from local sources ($5,350)
– Up from 25th for amount from local sources ($4,731)
• Indiana ranked 31st (up from 36th) and 35th for amount spent on general
administration and school administration, respectively
• These ranking reflect absolute value, not percentage of overall spending
dedicated to these functions
49
Resources
•
•
•
•
•
Carden, Dan. “School leaders from Crown Point , Merrillville seek funding reforms.” Lake
County News 31 Aug 2011. Available at: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/crownpoint/article_a0c326f2-fef1-5bfa-9aab-ac73a51e4884.html
Fact Sheet: Litigation in Indiana. (April 2010). National Access Network, Teachers College,
Columbia University. Available at: http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/in/lit_in.php3
Hamilton County Courts. Hamilton Southeastern Schools, et al. v. Daniels Petition to the
Hamilton Superior Court. Filed February 23, 2010. Available at:
http://www.schoolfunding.info/news/litigation/IndianaComplaint.pdf
Hayden, Maureen. “Fight still looms over school funding formula.” The Herald Bulletin 11
Mar 2011. Available at: http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x814634232/Fight-still-looms-overschool-funding-formula
Hiller, Stephen, Spradlin, Terry. (2011). Update on Indiana School District Referenda:
Legislative Changes and Primary Election Outcomes of 2011 . Education Policy Brief, Vol. 9,
No. 1. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
50
Resources, cont’d
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inside INdiana Business. (July, 16, 2010). State Revenues Drop 12 Percent in Two Years.
Available at: http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=42680
Indiana State Board of Education. (June 1, 2011). “School Consolidation Approval Request.”
Cass Township Schools and Dewey Prairie Consolidated School Corporation. Available at:
http://www.doe.in.gov/super/2011/05May/20/documents/ProposalforJune12011IndianaStateBoardofEducation.pdf
Indiana State Budget Agency. 2011-2013 Revenue Forecast and Updates. Available at:
http://www.in.gov/sba/2563.htm
Indiana State Budget Agency. FY 2012 Monthly Revenue Reports. Available at:
http://www.in.gov/sba/2584.htm
Indiana State Budget Agency. FY 2010-11 Close-Out Statement. Available at:
http://www.in.gov/sba/2583.htm
Indiana State Budget Agency. 2011-2013 Budget. Available at:
http://www.in.gov/sba/2558.htm
Kinsey, Michelle. “Local schools release enrollment figures.” The Star Press 19 Sep 2011.
Available at: http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20110920/NEWS01/109200311/Localschools-release-enrollment-figures
Michael, R.S., Toutkoushian, Robert K. (2005). Demistifying School Funding in Indiana.
Education Policy Brief, Vol. 3, No. 2. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education
Policy.
51
Resources, cont’d
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Michael, R.S., Toutkoushian, Robert K. (2007). What is the Complexity Index? Education
Policy Brief, Vol. 5, No. 2. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
Michael, R.S., Spradlin, T., & Carson, F. (2009). Changes in Indiana School Funding. Education
Policy Brief, Vol. 7, No. 2. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
Available at: http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V7N2_Summer_2009_EPB.pdf
Michael, R.S., Spradlin, T., Carson, F.R. (2010). Study of Educational Adequacy: How Much
Money is Enough? Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (April 14, 2010). States Keep a Close Watch on
April Tax Collections. Available at:
http://www.ncsl.org/PressRoom/StateBudgetUpdateMarch2010/tabid/20151/Default.aspx
U.S Census Bureau. (May 2011). Public Education Finances Report. Available at:
http://www.census.gov/govs/school/
U.S. Department of Education. (March 30, 2010). America Recovery and Reinvestment Act
State Fact Sheets. Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/state-factsheets/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (September 12, 2011). FY10-FY12 President’s Budget State
Tables. Available at:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update
52
CEEP Contact Information
Terry E. Spradlin, MPA
Director for Education Policy & HSSSE
1900 East Tenth Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47406-7512
812-855-4438
Fax: 812-856-5890
http://ceep.indiana.edu
53

similar documents