Suchergebnisse

Description based on: 1987-88. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Continued by an online resource. ; Earlier years included in: United States. Bureau of the Census. Government finances.

The 2001 Yearbook of the AEFA reaffirms the connections between the field of education finance and the wider education community. Among the topics it examines are curricula reform, outcome assessment, accountability, community control, and privatization. 2001

section 1. Perspectives on education finance and policy / Margaret E. Goertz and Helen F. Ladd, section editors -- section 2. Making money matter / Jennifer King Rice, section editor -- section 3. Promoting equity and adequacy / Leanna Stiefel, section editor -- section 4. Changing patterns of governance and finance / Andrew Reschovsky, section editor -- section 5. Educational markets and decentralization / Henry M. Levin and Ron Zimmer, section editors -- section 6. Race, SES, and achievement gaps / Susanna Loeb, section editor -- section 7. Special circumstances / David H. Monk, section editor.

"The past decade has seen a steady flow of important and innovative papers documenting the short- and long-term effects of finance reforms and the heterogeneity of the effects of reforms, exemplified by papers like Jackson, Johnson, & Persico (2016), Lafortune, Rothstein, & Schanzenbach (2018), Hyman (2017), and Candelaria and Shores (2019). Those papers have reinvigorated research on the effects of finance reforms, while raising important questions about how to best design a finance system and generate necessary revenues. The papers mentioned above, along with other papers too numerous to mention, have taken advantage of better data and better methods to address long-standing questions and generate provocative new answers. Since the landscape has changed quickly, policy makers and prospective researchers require a summary of the current state of the research on the effects of school finance reforms. The book aims to bridge a space between comprehensive textbooks and journal articles in the field of education finance and policy. There are two main target audiences. The book is meant to serve professionals like school district administrators and education policy practitioners that desire a contemporary update to their previous study of education finance and policy issues. These audiences often have limited access to peer reviewed journals and knowledge of pertinent government and related policy reports in the field. The book is also meant to serve students and faculty from programs in public administration, public policy, community development and applied economics, education administration, educational leadership and policy studies that are studying content related to education policy, the economics of education, state and local public finance, and taxation. Some upper-level undergraduate students may also benefit from this resource"--

We study voting over higher education finance in an economy with risk averse households who are heterogeneous in income. We compare four different systems and analyse voters' choices among them: a traditional subsidy scheme, a pure loan scheme, income contingent loans and graduate taxes. Using numerical simulations, we find that majorities for income contingent loans or graduate taxes become more likely as the income distribution gets more equal. We also perform sensitivity analyses with respect to risk aversion and the elasticity of substitution between high skilled and low skilled workers.

We study voting over higher education finance in an economy with risk averse households who are heterogeneous in income. We compare four different systems and analyse voters' choices among them: a traditional subsidy scheme, a pure loan scheme, income contingent loans and graduate taxes. Using numerical simulations, we find that majorities for income contingent loans or graduate taxes become more likely as the income distribution gets more equal. We also perform sensitivity analyses with respect to risk aversion and the elasticity of substitution between high skilled and low skilled workers.

THE AUTHORS USE A DYNAMIC TIEBOUT MODEL TO ANALYZE THE CONSEQUENCES OF MOVING FROM A PURELY LOCAL SYSTEM OF EDUCATIONAL FINANCE TO A PURELY STATE SYSTEM IN WHICH EACH STUDENT RECEIVES THE SAME RESOURCES. WHILE MUCH OF THE EDUCATION FINANCE LITERATURE FOCUSES ON THE STATIC OR IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF SUCH A CHANGE, THIS ANALYSIS STUDIES THE DYNAMIC EFFECTS. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS FOR A CALIBRATED VERSION OF THIS MODEL INDICATE THAT THESE DYNAMIC EFFECTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. COMPARING STEADY STATES, THE AUTHORS FIND THAT AGGREGATE WELFARE INCREASES ON THE ORDER OF 10 PERCENT FOLLOWING THE CONVERSION TO A STATE SYSTEM. THE KEY TO THIS WELFARE GAIN IS THAT A LOCAL SYSTEM YIELDS INEFFICIENTLY LOW INVESTMENT IN HUMAN CAPITAL OF CHILDREN FROM LOW-INCOME FAMILIES.

In view of the inconclusive statistical results associated with democracy's impact on economic performance, this article unpacks the dependent variable (economic development) by examining democratisation's impact on education policy. To determine whether democracy compels politicians to provide higher levels of educational opportunity, it traces the process of repression and democratisation in Brazil along with government spending on education. It finds that democratisation has observable effects on education spending on three different levels: 1) the percentage of government spending allocated to education; 2) the distribution of federal funding among different levels of education; and 3) the distribution of funds within primary education among state and local actors.