Prior to the passage of the 1997 Kentucky Postsecondary Education Reform Act, postsecondary education in Kentucky was governed by the Council on Higher Education. The council was responsible for overseeing the educational activities of the University of Kentucky, the University of Louisville, Morehead State University, Northern Kentucky University, Eastern Kentucky University, Western Kentucky University, Murray State University, and Kentucky State University. At that time, 2-year postsecondary education was segmented among 14 public community colleges under the control of the University of Kentucky’s Community College System and 15 state vocational–technical schools known as Kentucky Tech, under the administration of the Workforce Development Cabinet. With the passage of HB 1, the Council on Higher Education was replaced by the Council on Postsecondary Education, and the Kentucky Community and Technical College System was created, combining the 14 community colleges and 15 vocational– technical schools. This research examines the development and implementation of a funding model for the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS), from its inception in 1998 through its 10th anniversary in 2008. This examination reviews and analyzes the funding of KCTCS from its formation in 1997, until a new funding model was implemented at the beginning of the 2003–2004 fiscal year. The study then compares the funding of the 16 colleges of KCTCS prior to and after the implementation of the new equity funding model, to determine if the model was successful in providing a more equitable method of public funds allocation. This study utilizes two methodological approaches, the first being a comparative analysis of KCTCS and its 16 colleges’ funding for a period of 10 years and the second being a qualitative analysis of historical data interviews obtained from 8 key individuals who were directly affected by the passage of the 1997 Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act. The findings of this study detail the development of a new KCTCS equity funding model and show that when new appropriations were distributed utilizing the new model, the gap in funding inequities between the highest funded and the lowest funded colleges showed significant compression.

Doctor of Education / Department of Educational Leadership / David C. Thompson / The purpose of this study was to determine what school leaders believe is a suitable funding level for Kansas school districts and to simulate the effect and cost of selected findings. More specifically, three questions were examined: How much money do top leaders in each school district in Kansas believe is needed to provide a suitable education for all students in their school district? What would be a suitable per-pupil funding level for districts when examined by varying enrollment sizes if based on the perceived needs of school district leaders in Kansas? And, what would be the statewide cost to implement a suitable per-pupil funding level for districts of varying sizes based on the expressed needs of school district leaders in Kansas? To accomplish its purpose, the study was carried out in three phases. First, it examined research in the areas of school finance equity and adequacy, both of which influence how much money is distributed to schools. Second, this study surveyed top school district leaders in Kansas in search of their opinions regarding how much money is needed to provide an adequate and suitable education. Third, survey data provided the basis for selected simulations designed to estimate the effect and cost of proposed changes on individual school districts and the state of Kansas. The results of this study show that school district leaders widely believe more money is needed to meet performance mandates for regular education students, at-risk students, and bilingual students. When considering only regular education students, this study found that school leaders believe the state of Kansas is underfunding schools by $577 million. In addition, this study shows that at-risk students need an additional $246.6 million to be provided an adequate education, while bilingual student show nearly another $18 million of need. Some school districts in Kansas have managed to offset the perceived under-funding by utilizing local tax options beyond base state funding. These local options, however, are subject to voter approval and lead to concern by some over equitable and adequate funding for all school districts in Kansas.

No description available.

This was a study of the development of an objective funding method for public higher education institutions in Tennessee. The review covers the history of higher education funding from the early 1800s through the beginning of the twenty-first century with emphasis on the early 1960s through the year 2000. The study describes and analyzes the efforts made in Tennessee to provide adequate and equitable funding to public higher education institutions. Minutes of meetings of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, reports on studies commissioned by state officials, accountability reports prepared by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, the Tennessee Board of Regents and the University of Tennessee, and official budget-related documents and annual financial reports of the colleges and universities were examined for this study. Fifteen personal interviews were conducted with individuals identified on the basis of their longevity in Tennessee higher education and/or the timeframe of their service, and because they represented a cross-section of state officials, officials of governing boards, and university and community college officials. A financial analysis of state appropriations, revenues and expenditures is included for 1993 through 2002. This study found that Tennessee’s formula contains most of the elements that have been brought forward in the literature over the years as indications of a good formula, and it addresses several of the disadvantages of formula funding. The funding formula has moved Tennessee higher education institutions closer to “equitable and fair” funding among the institutions since its application in the early 1970s. A provision for performance funding and implementation of Centers of Excellence and Centers of Emphasis programs addressed quality issues relative to funding. However, use of a formula has not solved the problem of insufficient funding. The complexity of college and university financial reporting has contributed to misunderstandings and distrust between higher education and state officials. This study combines lessons from the past with recommendations for future modifications to the funding formula used by Tennessee’s higher education institutions.

Thesis (M.G.S.)--Miami University, Dept. of Sociology and Gerontology, 2006. / Title from first page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 104-110).

Funding of services to residents in publicly funded long-term care (LTC) facilities has historically rested upon a list of physical needs. However, more than 60% of residents in nursing homes have dementia; a condition in which physical needs are only a part of the overall clinical picture. Since past funding formulas focused primarily on the physical characteristics of residents, the Ontario government has adopted the RUG (Resource Utilization Groups)-III (34 Group) for use in LTC facilities which follows the adoption of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0 assessment instrument. Some still question whether the newer formula adequately reflects the care needs of residents with dementia despite its validation in many countries. The purpose of this study was to determine the comprehensiveness of the RUG-III (34 Group) in addressing the needs of residents with dementia living in LTC. First, a critical systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the needs of residents with dementia. Numerous electronic databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and September 2010, and later cross-referenced. Second, needs identified from the literature were matched to the items of the RUG-III which are selected variables of the MDS 2.0. Third, the priority of the items in the RUG-III was analysed in accordance with the importance of the identified needs. The documented needs were taken from 68 studies and classified into 19 main categories. The needs most supported by the literature were the management of behavioural problems, social needs, the need for daily individualized activities/care and emotional needs/personhood. Among the needs identified, activities of daily living (ADLs), cognitive needs and general overall physical health met the most RUG-III items. These needs were found to be well represented within the system. Other needs of importance such as social needs are not thoroughly considered in the grouping methodology though matched to MDS variables. The fact that these needs are not well addressed in the RUG-III poses concerns. Future research is needed to validate the significance of these needs. Considerations should be made as to the adequacy of the funding system and the allocation of funding.

Funding of services to residents in publicly funded long-term care (LTC) facilities has historically rested upon a list of physical needs. However, more than 60% of residents in nursing homes have dementia; a condition in which physical needs are only a part of the overall clinical picture. Since past funding formulas focused primarily on the physical characteristics of residents, the Ontario government has adopted the RUG (Resource Utilization Groups)-III (34 Group) for use in LTC facilities which follows the adoption of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0 assessment instrument. Some still question whether the newer formula adequately reflects the care needs of residents with dementia despite its validation in many countries. The purpose of this study was to determine the comprehensiveness of the RUG-III (34 Group) in addressing the needs of residents with dementia living in LTC. First, a critical systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the needs of residents with dementia. Numerous electronic databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and September 2010, and later cross-referenced. Second, needs identified from the literature were matched to the items of the RUG-III which are selected variables of the MDS 2.0. Third, the priority of the items in the RUG-III was analysed in accordance with the importance of the identified needs. The documented needs were taken from 68 studies and classified into 19 main categories. The needs most supported by the literature were the management of behavioural problems, social needs, the need for daily individualized activities/care and emotional needs/personhood. Among the needs identified, activities of daily living (ADLs), cognitive needs and general overall physical health met the most RUG-III items. These needs were found to be well represented within the system. Other needs of importance such as social needs are not thoroughly considered in the grouping methodology though matched to MDS variables. The fact that these needs are not well addressed in the RUG-III poses concerns. Future research is needed to validate the significance of these needs. Considerations should be made as to the adequacy of the funding system and the allocation of funding.

Funding of services to residents in publicly funded long-term care (LTC) facilities has historically rested upon a list of physical needs. However, more than 60% of residents in nursing homes have dementia; a condition in which physical needs are only a part of the overall clinical picture. Since past funding formulas focused primarily on the physical characteristics of residents, the Ontario government has adopted the RUG (Resource Utilization Groups)-III (34 Group) for use in LTC facilities which follows the adoption of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0 assessment instrument. Some still question whether the newer formula adequately reflects the care needs of residents with dementia despite its validation in many countries. The purpose of this study was to determine the comprehensiveness of the RUG-III (34 Group) in addressing the needs of residents with dementia living in LTC. First, a critical systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the needs of residents with dementia. Numerous electronic databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and September 2010, and later cross-referenced. Second, needs identified from the literature were matched to the items of the RUG-III which are selected variables of the MDS 2.0. Third, the priority of the items in the RUG-III was analysed in accordance with the importance of the identified needs. The documented needs were taken from 68 studies and classified into 19 main categories. The needs most supported by the literature were the management of behavioural problems, social needs, the need for daily individualized activities/care and emotional needs/personhood. Among the needs identified, activities of daily living (ADLs), cognitive needs and general overall physical health met the most RUG-III items. These needs were found to be well represented within the system. Other needs of importance such as social needs are not thoroughly considered in the grouping methodology though matched to MDS variables. The fact that these needs are not well addressed in the RUG-III poses concerns. Future research is needed to validate the significance of these needs. Considerations should be made as to the adequacy of the funding system and the allocation of funding.

In 2013 the California Legislation passed a new K-12 School accountability mandate. The Local Control Accountability Plan was sought to increase the educational equity for targeted student groups in addition to allowing school districts to mine a diverse set of local school data to develop goals in the 8 priority areas that speak to the needs of their local students. A requirement of the LCAP was that school districts include a diverse set of stakeholders to work in a collaborative manner to develop, critique, and refine local goals. Stakeholder groups are required to consist of district-level administrators, teachers, staff, students, parents, and community stakeholders. This qualitative study focused on the experiences and insights of district and community stakeholders as they participated in the development of LCAPs. To answer the questions and understand the experience of stakeholders interviews, document analysis, and observations were used. The results of the study revealed that while the intent of bringing a diverse set of stakeholders is noble there is a need to build trust amongst stakeholders. Findings also show the need to build community stakeholder understanding of the purpose, promises, and limits of the LCAP. The study revealed the need for school districts to examine and dismantle historic practices in order to fully embrace and implement the LCAP mandates.