The fiscal year for seven of our ten case-study schools runs from July 1 to June 30. The fiscal year for two other schools runs from September 1 to August 31 and for one other school from June 1 to May 31. Page 22 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology earnings and new contributions, we analyzed data from our 10 case-study institutions. We adjusted dollar values using CPI instead of the Higher Education Price Index, an alternative inflation adjustment specific to postsecondary education.
In thesis coaching making this choice, we calculated dollar values using both indexes and found that the choice of index did not affect our conclusions. We therefore chose to use CPI as it may be more familiar to readers than the industry- specific index. In addition, we conducted structured interviews with officials at the case-study institutions to verify previously collected data and to obtain further information on endowment restrictions and distributions. For all three objectives, we reviewed state law regarding the management and use of endowments and federal law regarding the taxation of endowments. We also reviewed accounting standards established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) that provide guidance on accounting for and reporting on the size, growth, restrictions, and uses of endowments.
Our use of IPEDS data in this review is subject to some limitations. First, data for some years are not publicly available from IPEDS, and the Department thesis coaching of Education made changes to IPEDS reporting standards during the period we reviewed. Also, although institutions are requested to provide data for thesis coaching all related foundations and other affiliated 4 Although the period from 1989 through 2009 includes 21 data points on endowment market values, it captures only 20 years of changes in value.
This is because the first market value data point — market value as of the end of 1989 — is equivalent to the beginning-of-year value for 1990. Therefore, the change in value captured in these data is the 20 years from the beginning of 1990 through the end of 2009. Page 23 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments Appendix thesis coaching I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology organizations, IPEDS may not contain data for endowments held in related foundations for the benefit of some schools, such as the University of Colorado Foundation. Also, in regards to both IPEDS and case-study institution financial data, some accounting standards changed over the period of our review, and there were differences in accounting standards between private institutions, which follow FASB standards, and public institutions, which typically follow GASB standards. The data we report generally reflect these differences in accounting standards. Except where noted, we included the endowment funds of those entities that the schools and their auditors determined should be included for purposes of their financial reports. Officials from the Department of Education said that differences in accounting standards would not materially affect our findings and officials at the schools we visited did not indicate that the differences would have a material effect on the reported size, distributions, or uses of endowments over the period of our review. For instance, in Massachusetts — which has enacted a version of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) governing the management and use of endowments at schools in the state — schools must classify all earnings on endowments as temporarily restricted assets until appropriated for expenditure by the school.
In contrast, schools in Kentucky — which has not enacted a version of UPMIFA — may classify such earnings as unrestricted if there are no donor restrictions on the use of the earnings.
Financial data at our case-study institutions also differed somewhat due to the varying structure and organization of their endowments. We reviewed these data to ensure that the data we used were as consistent as possible over time, that definitions were consistent between institutions, and that any differences did not materially affect our findings. Where possible we had institutions report distributions net of reinvestments, Page 24 GAO-10-393 College and University Endowments . Leadership and engagement practice in schools 23 2. Evidence-based Practices Relating to Policies 25 2. Integration of home, school and community 26 Chapter 3 - Summary 28 3. The Edith Couuan University School of Education project team visited 25 schools from both government and non-government sectors across the country. The principals and the staff leadership teams tuho participated in this research cuere unfailingly accommodating and committed to sharing their hard-uuon expertise. They made time in busy schedules to organize personnel and relevant materials, participate in the research visit discussions, and facilitate the survey consultation uuith their school communities. The report is underpinned by the substantial and generous contributions of the staff, parents, and students of these thesis coaching 25 schools. Regrettably, they cannot be acknowledged individually as the identity of schools, staff and sector affiliations must remain confidential. All government jurisdictions and selected non-government authorities generously supported the project by nominating schools for investigation and providing information about jurisdictional policy and programs. The Department of Education UUestern Australia (DOEUUA) was appointed the lead jurisdiction for this Australian Government funded project, approved by the former Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Child Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) now the Standing Council for School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC). The National Student Academic Engagement Project was made possible by funding from the Ministerial Council of Education, Employment.
Child Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) and by the support of state and territory education departments. In this report, the term Aboriginal is respectfully used to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Researchers at the School of Education, Edith Couuan University have conducted the project through tender uuith the DOEUJA. Purpose The purpose of the project ujas to examine the characteristics of schools uuith a Iouj Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) from all jurisdictions that uuere identified to be making a difference to student academic achievement, and to identify the key drivers and characteristics of successful models of practice for increasing and sustaining student academic engagement. This uuas extended to include school leadership and other factors supporting school change in louu ICSEA contexts. Key Research Questions The study had tuuo broad research questions, related to the issues of student academic engagement in louu ICSEA schools.
UUhat are the key drivers and characteristics of successful models of practice for increasing and maintaining student engagement? UUhat are the policy implications of these findings for effective, sustained reform at the jurisdiction and national levels?