School Resource Officers: Law Enforcement Officers in Schools

Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy

Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy

Some policymakers have expressed renewed interest in school resource officers (SROs) as a result of the December 2012 mass shooting that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. SROs are sworn law enforcement officers who are assigned to work in schools.

For FY2014, the Administration requested $150 million in funding for a Comprehensive Schools Safety Program under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. The proposed program would provide funding for hiring school safety personnel, including SROs, civilian public safety personnel, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. Funding would also be available for purchasing school safety equipment, developing and updating public safety plans, conducting threat assessments, and training crisis intervention teams.

Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that the number of full-time law enforcement officers employed by local police departments or sheriff’s offices who were assigned to work as SROs increased between 1997 and 2003 before decreasing slightly in 2007 (the most recent year for which data are available). Data show that a greater proportion of high schools, schools in cities, and schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more report having SROs.

Two federal grant programs promoted SRO programs: the COPS in Schools (CIS) program, which was funded until FY2005, and State Formula Grants under the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), which was funded until FY2009. The CIS program provided grants for hiring new, additional school resource officers to conduct community policing services in and around primary and secondary schools. Local educational agencies could use funds they received under the SDFSCA State Formula Grant program for, among other things, hiring and training school security personnel.

The body of research on the effectiveness of SRO programs is limited, both in terms of the number of studies published and the methodological rigor of the studies conducted. The research that is available draws conflicting conclusions about whether SRO programs are effective at reducing school violence. Also, the research does not address whether SRO programs deter school shootings, one of the key reasons for renewed congressional interest in these programs.

There are several questions Congress might consider in the context of grant funding specifically for SRO programs.

• Does the current level of school violence warrant congressional efforts to expand the number of SROs in schools across the country? Data suggest that schools are, generally speaking, safe places for children. During the 2010-2011 school year there were 11 reported homicides of children at school. The number of youth homicides that occurred at school remained less than 2% of the total number of homicides of school aged children for each school year going back to the 1992-1993 school year. In 2010, fewer children reported being the victim of a serious violent crime or a simple assault while at school compared to 1994. However, data also show that some schools—namely middle schools, city schools, and schools with a higher proportion of low-income students—have higher rates of reported violent incidents, and schools with a higher proportion of low-income students had higher rates of reported serious violent incidents.
• Is funding for a wide-scale expansion of SRO programs financially sustainable? If Congress expanded the number of SROs through additional federal funding, it is likely that many of those officers would go to law enforcement agencies serving jurisdictions of fewer than 25,000 people (data show that nearly 88% of police departments and almost half of sheriff’s offices serve jurisdictions of fewer than 25,000 people). Traditionally, COPS grants have provided “seed” money for local law enforcement agencies to hire new officers, but it is the responsibility of the recipient agency to retain the officer(s) after the grant expires. Since smaller law enforcement agencies tend to have smaller operating budgets and smaller sworn forces, retaining even one or two additional officers after a grant expired might pose a significant financial burden. 
• Would additional SROs result in more children being placed in the criminal justice system? Research in this area is limited to a small number of studies, but these suggest that children in schools with SROs might be more likely to be arrested for low-level offenses. On the other hand, some studies indicate that SROs can deter students from committing assaults on campus as well as bringing weapons to school. Schools with SROs may also be more likely to report nonserious violent crimes (i.e., physical attack or fights without a weapon and threat of physical attack without a weapon) to the police than schools lacking SROs.

Date of Report: June 26, 2013
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: R43126
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43126.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer

Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy

The primary source of federal aid to K-12 education is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), particularly its Title I, Part A program of Education for the Disadvantaged. The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110). The NCLB authorized virtually all ESEA programs through FY2008. It is widely expected that the 113th Congress will consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA.

The NCLB initiated a major expansion of federal influence upon several aspects of public K-12 education, primarily with the aim of increasing the accountability of public school systems and individual public schools for improving achievement outcomes of all students, especially the disadvantaged. States must implement in all public schools and school districts a variety of standards-based assessments in reading, math and science; make complex annual adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations for each public school and district; and require virtually all public school teachers and aides to meet a variety of qualification requirements. State AYP policies must incorporate an ultimate goal of all public school students reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Further, participating states must enforce a series of increasingly substantial consequences for most of their schools and almost all school districts that fail to meet the AYP standards for two consecutive years or more. All of these requirements are associated with state participation in the ESEA Title I-A program.

Other major ESEA programs provide grants to support the education of migrant students; recruitment of and professional development for teachers; language instruction for limited English proficient students; drug abuse prevention programs; after-school instruction and care; expansion of charter schools and other forms of public school choice; education services for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students; Impact Aid to compensate local educational agencies for taxes foregone due to certain federal activities; and a wide variety of innovative educational approaches or instruction to meet particular student needs.

While Congress has not enacted legislation to reauthorize the ESEA, the Administration has made available an ESEA flexibility package that waives various academic accountability requirements, teacher qualification-related requirements, and funding flexibility requirements that were enacted through NCLB. In exchange for these waivers, states must agree to meet four principles established by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for “improving student academic achievement and increasing the quality of instruction.” The four principles, as stated by ED, are as follows: (1) college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) state-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; (3) supporting effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reducing duplication and unnecessary burden.

Taken collectively, the waivers and principles included in the ESEA flexibility package amount to a fundamental redesign by the Administration of many of the accountability and teacher-related requirements included in current law. As of May 2013, ED had approved ESEA flexibility package applications for 37 states and the District of Columbia and was reviewing applications from several other states. If Congress considers ESEA reauthorization during the 113th Congress, it is possible that provisions included in any final bill may be similar to or override the waivers and principles established by the Administration.


Date of Report: June 6, 2013
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: RL33960
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL33960.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Student Loans Made Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Terms and Conditions for Borrowers

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

The William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, authorized under Title IV, Part D of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, is the primary federal student loan program administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The program makes available loans to undergraduate and graduate students and the parents of dependent undergraduate students to help them finance their postsecondary education expenses. Four types of loans are offered: Subsidized Stafford Loans for undergraduate students; Unsubsidized Stafford Loans for undergraduate and graduate students; PLUS Loans for graduate students and the parents of dependent undergraduate students; and Consolidation Loans through which borrowers may combine multiple loans into a single loan. For FY2014, ED estimates that 21.9 million loans (not including Consolidation Loans) totaling $112.1 billion will be made to students and their parents through the DL program. FFEL program loans are no longer being made; however, approximately $294 billion in outstanding FFEL program loans are due to be repaid over the coming years.

FFEL and DL program loans are low-interest loans, with maximum interest rates for each type of loan established by statute. Subsidized Stafford Loans are unique in that they are only available to undergraduate students demonstrating financial need. With certain exceptions, the federal government pays the interest that accrues on Subsidized Stafford Loans while the borrower is enrolled in school on at least a half-time basis, during a six-month grace period thereafter, and during periods of authorized deferment. Unsubsidized Stafford Loans and PLUS Loans are available to borrowers irrespective of their financial need; and borrowers are responsible for paying all the interest that accrues on these loans. FFEL and DL program loans have terms and conditions that may be more favorable to borrowers than private and other non-federal loans. These beneficial terms and conditions include interest rates that are often lower than rates that might be obtained from other lenders, opportunities for repayment relief through deferment and forbearance, loan consolidation, and several loan forgiveness programs.

This report discusses major provisions of federal student loans made available through the DL program and previously made through the FFEL program. It focuses on provisions related to borrower eligibility, loan terms and conditions, borrower repayment relief, and loan default and its consequences for borrowers. These topics are principally discussed with regard to loans currently being made through the DL program, or made in the recent past through either program. The report also provides detailed historical information on annual and aggregate borrowing limits, loan fees, and student loan interest rates.


Date of Report: June 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 70
Order Number: R40122
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40122.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

An Examination of Student Loan Interest Rate Proposals in the 113th Congress

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

The interest rates that borrowers pay on federal student loans made through the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan program are specified in statutory language of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. Numerous proposals have been made during the 113th Congress that would affect the interest rates that borrowers pay on student loans made through the Direct Loan program. These include long-term proposals to establish a new interest rate structure for all Direct Loans made during future years, and short-term proposals to temporarily extend the authority to make Direct Loans at the rates currently in effect.

For the past two years, one type of loan—Direct Subsidized Loans—have been made with a fixed interest rate of 3.4%. Absent congressional action, Direct Subsidized Loans made on or after July 1, 2013, will be made with a fixed interest rate of 6.8%.

Several of the long-term proposals would amend the Direct Loan program to index student loan interest rates to market indices, such as the rate on 10-year Treasury notes. Some policy options would establish a market-indexed, fixed interest rate structure, while others would establish a market-indexed, variable interest rate structure. In his FY2014 budget, President Obama proposed a market-indexed, fixed interest rate structure that would apply to Direct Loans made in future years. On May 23, 2013, the House passed H.R. 1911, which would establish a market-indexed, variable interest rate structure for new Direct Loans. S. 1003 would establish a new marketindexed, fixed interest rate structure for Direct Loans made in future years.

Other bills would make short-term changes to student loan interest rates and would affect only Direct Subsidized Loans. S. 953 would extend for two years the authority to make Direct Subsidized Loans with a fixed interest rate of 3.4%. S. 897 would set the borrower interest rate on new Direct Subsidized Loans made only during the upcoming federal student aid award year at the Federal Reserve discount window primary credit rate.

This report describes and analyzes student loan interest rate proposals that have been made in the 113th Congress to establish new policies for setting the interest rates that borrowers will pay on loans made through the Direct Loan program. The report compares and contrasts selected loan interest rate policy options and provides information on proposed student loan interest rate structures, projections of future interest rates, and estimates of future costs to the government. The report also presents estimates of borrower repayment amounts associated with the different interest rate proposals based on case simulations for three types of typical borrowers: undergraduate dependent students, undergraduate independent students, and parent borrowers.

Finally, the report highlights some of the perennial tensions that often arise when student loan interest rates are debated. Should federal student loan programs provide below-market or fairmarket interest rates to borrowers? What value is ascribed with providing borrowers predictable fixed monthly payments as opposed to payments that may vary in accordance with market conditions? To what extent should the federal government seek to subsidize loans or borrower repayment and for what subset of borrowers should subsidies be available?


Date of Report: June 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 40
Order Number: R43094
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43094.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Elementary and Secondary School Teachers: Policy Context, Federal Programs, and ESEA Reauthorization Issues

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) is the primary legislative vehicle for federal policymaking regarding teachers and instructional quality in the nation’s elementary and secondary schools. Authorization for ESEA programs and policies, enacted through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), expired at the end of FY2008 and the 113th Congress is likely to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA. Notable ESEA provisions concerning K-12 teaching include requirements for minimum teacher qualifications and authority for a teacher training and class size reduction program funded at roughly $3 billion.

The size of the teaching workforce and diversity of the teaching workplace present many challenges to federal policymakers. The workforce of roughly 4 million teachers in the U.S. are both aging and “greening”—with well over one-third (37%) on the job for over 15 years and an equal share (36%) having taught less than four years in their current school. The teaching workplace of about 14,000 school districts nationwide is a highly dynamic one—with certain schools experiencing high rates of staff turnover each year and many schools instituting major reforms of teacher evaluation procedures.

The federal role in K-12 teacher policy has evolved rapidly since passage of NCLB. Federal policy has historically focused mainly on in-service training (or professional development). This focus began to change as the 105th Congress tripled funding for federal teacher programs by enacting a hiring program known as Class Size Reduction. With NCLB, the focus of federal policy moved squarely to the issue of teacher quality. The law mandated that all “core” subjectmatter teachers possess minimum qualifications including a bachelor’s degree, full state certification, and subject-matter knowledge. More recently, the focus of federal policy in this area has shifted to teacher effectiveness, particularly with passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which authorized the Race to the Top program. Legislative action in the 112th Congress, including bills passed by authorizing committees in both chambers, also contained provisions that would continue federal involvement in state and local efforts to evaluate teacher effectiveness.

At the present time, the Department of Education (ED) administers a dozen programs that support elementary and secondary school teachers and instructional quality. By far the largest of these, both in terms of appropriations and number of teachers served, is authorized in Part A of Title II of the ESEA—the Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund. In FY2013, this program provided roughly $3 billion primarily for teacher professional development to support meeting the NCLB highly qualified-teacher requirement. The second and third largest federal teacher programs are Race to the Top ($550 million in FY2013, though not all funds are used to improve teaching) and the Teacher Incentive Fund ($300 million in FY2013). Both of these programs support improved teacher effectiveness, the former through teacher evaluation reform and the latter by providing pay compensation to high-performing teachers.

If the 113th Congress considers reauthorizing the ESEA, teacher effectiveness will likely continue to be central to this discussion. Other issues of importance include compensation and high-stakes school staffing decision-making, distributional equity across schools and districts, teacher preparation programs—both traditional and alternative—and professional development.


Date of Report: May 8, 2013
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R41267
Price: $29.95

To Order:

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.