Low-Income Students

The Proliferation of Federal High School Intervention Programs

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:58:00 -0500

The dismal state of America's high school graduation rates - less than 75 percent nationally and below 50 percent in some areas - has become a key federal public policy issue in the last decade. Existing federal programs, including TRIO and GEAR UP, already seek to improve high school graduation and college going rates in underserved populations. But recent developments, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, and President Obama's 2010 Budget Request, have brought new high school intervention programs to the table. Are these programs really all that different? And what resources could the federal government commit to these efforts?

TRIO/GEAR UP
TRIO Talent Search, TRIO Upward Bound, and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) are three existing federal programs that attempt to increase high school graduation and college going rates in low-income students through small programs aimed at individual students or groups of students. These programs include out-of-school programs or pull-out sessions during the regular school day, after-school and weekend instruction, tutoring support for core academic subjects and college and financial aid applications, and counseling, mentoring, academic support, and college outreach services.

Research suggests that TRIO/GEAR UP are inadequately funded and contain significant overlap and redundancies. While evaluations favor GEAR UP somewhat, neither program has shown significant benefits. In fiscal year 2009, GEAR UP received just over $313 million and the TRIO programs received $905 million in federal funds. The President's 2010 budget request funded both programs at 2009 levels.

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) Proposed Programs
The House passed its version of the SAFRA bill in September including a College Access and Completion Innovation Fund and an American Graduation Initiative, both aimed at increasing college going and graduation rates, but not through interventions in high schools. Although the Senate has taken no action on companion legislation, an unofficial Senate version of SAFRA has circulated within the education policy community that contains a new high school program called the Pipeline to College Initiative.

This five-year, $2.5 billion program ($500 million annually) would provide competitive grants to states to improve student achievement and graduation rates and implement various high school reform and improvement systems in schools with particularly low graduation rates. This proposed reform program requires states that receive awards to annually evaluate high schools based on a series of benchmarks to determine whether they are making continuous and substantial progress toward academic goals.

Additionally, under the proposed Pipeline to College Initiative participating states must create early warning indicator and intervention systems for struggling students and distribute grants to local education agencies to implement school improvement programs in failing high schools.

Unlike the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, which are small programs aimed at select students within schools, the Senate Pipeline to College Initiative would use a whole-school approach to high school interventions, seeking to improve the system in which struggling students receive their educations rather than supporting them individually.

President's Budget Request
The President's 2010 Budget Request, and House and Senate 2010 Appropriations bills pending in Congress, all include a new $50 million program called the High School Graduation Initiative that would provide grants directly to local education agencies to run intervention programs for schools and students. Much like the Senate's Pipeline to College Initiative, it would provide funds for the creation of early warning indicators for struggling students and allow for partnerships with outside organizations. The funds could also be used to create comprehensive plans for keeping at-risk students in school or bringing students have dropped out back into the system. The program is meant to provide opportunities to evaluate and learn from new innovative programs at the local level that could later be expanded.

Should Programs Focus on Schools or Students?
The existing and proposed high school programs vary widely in cost ($50 million for the High School Graduation Initiative versus $905 million for TRIO) and more importantly on whether they focus on groups of students or entire schools. While TRIO and GEAR UP provide assistance to groups of students from low income families, the Pipeline to College and High School Graduation Initiative involve reforms at the school level and extensive use of data. Conflicting evidence exists on the successes of GEAR UP and TRIO, so it is unclear if programs directed at groups of students are enough to propel America's high school graduation rates above 75 percent. The new approach envisioned in the Pipeline to College Initiative and the High School Graduation initiative will provide a glimpse into the potential for programs directed at entire schools, not just a handful of students.

Comparing House and Senate School Facilities Programs in the Student Loan Bill

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:31:00 -0500

In July we analyzed funding for K-12 school facilities in the student loan reform bill, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, as passed by the House Education and Labor Committee. The full House passed the bill in September and preserved the $2.0 billion per year school repair program. Although the Senate has not yet acted on a similar student loan reform bill, a version drafted by the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee was leaked a couple of months ago. The leaked bill suggests the Senate is headed in a different direction than the House when it comes to funding school facilities construction.

Both of these pieces of legislation provide a glimpse into the federal government's first major foray into directly funding K-12 school facilities and neither propose an insignificant amount of money. The most striking difference between the two versions is that the House includes a two-year, formula-based investment in K-12 school facilities, and the Senate bill creates a five year competitive program for K-12 school repair, renovation, and construction.

The House bill distributes funds for repair, renovation, and modernization among states and school districts according to each state and district's share of total federal Title I dollars. This means that every school district in the nation that receives Title I funds will receive some share of its state's school facilities funds after the state withholds up to 1 percent for administrative purposes.

Unfortunately, the House bill spreads just over $2.0 billion in each year over more than 13,000 eligible school districts. In the end, it's likely to amount to a drop in the bucket relative to the total expense of modernizing schools. Additionally, the House bill prohibits spending on new school construction, with the exception of $30 million each year for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

The leaked version of the Senate bill, however, avoids the danger of spreading the funds too thin by creating a competitive program administrated by the states but funded by the federal government. Essentially, the program distributes $500 million each year from 2010 to 2014 to states according to their share of Title I funds, much like the House program. However, once states receive their funds, they must create a competitive grant program through which they will award funds to selected school districts and charter schools within the state.

The Senate version does place some restrictions on how the funds must be divided among schools. For example, the proportion of each state's facilities funds distributed to charter schools must reflect the proportion of funds that charter schools receive under Title I. For example, if charter schools received 30 percent of a state's Title I allocation, then 30 percent of the state's facilities funds must also be awarded to selected charter schools. Similarly, the Senate legislation states that the competitive grants must be awarded to both selected high-need and rural school districts in proportion to the amount of Title I funds each type of school receives. Any remaining funds can be distributed to regular, high-need, and rural districts or charter schools as the state sees fit.

Additionally, the Senate bill outlines some priorities for the competitive grants including districts with large impoverished populations, high need for school repair and construction, plans to support "green" practices, or a lack of fiscal capacity to fund construction or repair activities.

The Senate bill also requires that school districts provide matching funds for the federal grants for facilities they receive. However, the required match amounts can be determined on a sliding scale based on the relative size of the impoverished population in each district in a state. Charter schools are not required to supply matching funds.

In all, the Senate program for school facilities is much more likely to have a lasting impact on the condition of school buildings in America. It provides consistent funding over five years, rather than two, for select districts and charters identified through a competitive grant process. As a result, it will provide an infusion of funds in particularly needy schools rather than a small amount of money across the board. It also targets high-need, rural, and charter schools which typically require the most assistance with facilities. Additionally, it requires matching funds, assuring that districts and charters are committed to the facilities investments they are making and that the federal dollars go as far as possible.

The student loan legislation represents a major shift in the federal government's role in K-12 school facilities. Past efforts have mainly involved tax credit bonds and programs for schools with large populations of students that live on military bases or Indian reservations. Although we don't know whether the Senate version of the student loan bill has changed since it was leaked over the summer, we hope that it maintains the targeted and competitive aspects that are likely to make it more effective.

ARRA Reporting Soon to Include School-Level State and Local Expenditures

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:17:00 -0400

State education agencies across the country just completed the first round of reporting for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) programs, an onerous and massive undertaking. Unfortunately, the quarterly reporting process is not likely to get any easier for states from here - on December 1^st, 2009 the Department of Education (ED) will require districts to report local and state expenditures at school-level for the 2008-09 school year, the first time such data has ever been required for any program. Rather than tracking federal funds like the majority of ARRA reporting, the school-level data will show baseline state and local funding at schools in districts that receive federal Title I Part A funds. As a result, this data could help determine whether districts and schools are using federal funds to supplement, rather than supplant, state and local funding.

Draft Department of Education guidance for the new school-level reporting indicates that any districts receiving Title I Part A funds will have to report school by school expenditures for the 2008-09 school year on:

All personnel salaries including instructional and support staff;
Personnel salaries for instructional staff only;
Personnel salaries for teachers only; and
Non-personnel expenditures.

Districts and state education agencies fear that these new requirements will present overwhelming burdens for staff. Given the current state of district accounting systems, this reaction isn't surprising. Few accounting systems in use break out salary expenditures by school and even fewer can calculate non-personnel expenditures by school. In fact, many school districts can only calculate school-level salary expenditures by multiplying the number of full time equivalent employees employed at each school by the average staff salary in the district. Non-personnel expenditures are even more complicated because most districts purchase materials and services on a district-wide basis, rather than school-by-school.

Districts will have to work double-time to produce the data required for the December 1^st reporting, and state agencies will have to implement quality assurance systems to make sure the data are good. At the district level this could include implementing entirely new accounting systems or hiring consultants to mine last year's expenditure data for the information needed. At the state level this likely means putting even more work on the plates of overwhelmed employees. Regardless, the rapidly approaching deadline and lack of finalized guidance from ED has state and local officials nervous.

But the value of this new data cannot be overstated - it's availability has important implications for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently known as the No Child Left Behind Act). This data could be used to strengthen the "supplement not supplant" provision of Title I by determining baseline funding from state and local sources among Title I and non-Title I schools in Title I districts. While even funding distributions among schools would suggest that federal funds are being used to provide additional services for disadvantaged students, disproportionate distributions can be used to identify districts that use federal funds to replace state and local funds in schools with large disadvantaged populations.

Further, the availability of school-level teacher salary data could be used to strengthen the "comparability" provision of Title I which requires districts to spend equal amounts on instructional staff salaries in Title I and non-Title I schools. Rather than use full time equivalent average salaries or student-teacher ratios to approximate school-level expenditures, as districts are currently allowed to do, districts could use actual spending on teacher salaries in each school to demonstrate comparability.

While reporting school-level expenditures will be an onerous task for school districts and states, it will provide an important source of information on education spending as long as the guidance is published quickly and clearly. Ed Money Watch will continue to follow these new reporting requirements as guidance is finalized.

Examining the Data: Understanding Title I Funding Distributions

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:55:00 -0400

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED.

The Federal Education Budget Project (FEBP), Ed Money Watch's parent initiative, provides a wealth of state and school district level data on federal funding, demographics, and achievement through its website www.edbudgetproject.org. These data can tell important stories about how federal education funding interacts with student demographics and achievement. Moreover, the data often reveal rarely-discussed idiosyncrasies in federal funding and education. From time to time, Ed Money Watch will take a close look at one aspect of the data available through FEBP to highlight the value of this information.

This week, we'll take a look at federal Title I grants to local school districts and student poverty data available through the FEBP database. Title I Part A is the largest federal K-12 education program, providing more than $14 billion annually to local education agencies (LEAs) for supplemental education services for students from low income families. Title I funding data reveal formula flaws that significantly skew the relationship between poverty and funds received. In fact, the Title I formulas are considered a relatively opaque and inaccessible process that few education stakeholders understand.

Title I funds are distributed via four funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants. All four formulas take into account the number or percent of students living in poverty in each district and other factors such as the cost of providing an education (as measured by per pupil expenditures) and the size of the state receiving funds. In many cases, the inclusion of these additional factors blurs the direct relationship between student poverty and funds received in districts across the country resulting in seemingly random fund allocations.

We used the custom data comparisons tool on the FEBP website to produce a table that demonstrates how these additional factors cause Title I distributions to vary widely by district. Specifically, we performed a comparison of districts in New York with student poverty rates and student populations within 10 percent of that in Vestal Central School District. Vestal Central School District is an average size district in the state of New York. Additionally, we asked the comparison tool to produce data on 2009 Title I funding (including economic stimulus funds), enrollment, and student poverty. The output of this comparison is below.

Although the student poverty rates and populations in these six New York districts are very similar, their Title I allocations vary dramatically. For example, Long Beach City School District received $1.03 million for Title I in 2009. In the same year, Spencerport Central School District received only $419,300 for Title I even though it has the same student poverty rate as Long Beach City and slightly more students. This results in a significantly different Title I allocation per poor pupil in each district - $3,116 per poor pupil in Long Beach City versus $1,250 in Spencerport Central.

It is not immediately obvious what is causing this funding disparity. When we use FEBP data to more closely examine each district we discover that although both Spencerport Central and Long Beach City are average size suburban districts, Long Beach City's per pupil expenditure (which includes all federal, state, and local spending) is significantly higher than Spencerport Central's - $23,656 in 2007 versus $14,163. However, state per pupil expenditure, not district per pupil expenditure is used as a proxy for the cost of providing an education in the Title I formulas. There must be other factors at play that significantly skew the Title I allocations for these two districts that cannot be illuminated with the data such as hold harmless provisions that guarantee districts continuous funding levels.

However, state average per pupil expenditures explain at least some of the variation in Title I allocations in districts across states. This can be seen when we expand the comparison to include districts in other states. For example, we asked the comparison tool to include districts in California in our previous search. The output is below.

The Title I allocations for the California districts are predominantly lower than those in New York, ranging between $214,000 and $449,000, even though the size and student poverty rates are very similar. This can be again attributed in some part to the perceived cost of educating students in each state. While New York's average per pupil expenditure was over $15,000 in 2007, California's was just under $9,000. By this measure, it appears that educating students in New York is more expensive than in California and so the formulas allocate funding accordingly.

The FEBP comparison tool allows us to drill down into the Title I funding to see how the formulas blur the relationship between federal funding and student poverty, even though the central purpose of Title I is to increase funding for school districts with large low income populations. At first glance, it almost appears as though the funds are distributed randomly, an issue that can only be partially explained away with a closer examination of the data.

The discussion surrounding Title I funding formulas will surely heat up as Congress and the Obama Administration begins to consider the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act -- currently the No Child Left Behind Act. Ideally, the next version of the law will include more logical and accessible methods of distributing these funds.

Examining the Data: Assessing Poverty Through School Nutrition Funding and Participation

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:39:00 -0400

This week, we'll take a look at the free and reduced price lunch related data available through the FEBP database. These data reveal important details about student populations in states and school districts and how these details affect federal reimbursement rates. Data include federal funding for school nutrition programs including meals and commodities, the percent of students enrolled in free and reduced price meals, and the percent of students living in poverty.

The School Nutrition Program is the second largest federal program for schools (after Title I Part A - Education for the Disadvantaged), contributing more than $13 billion annually to schools to provide breakfast, lunch and snack to low-income students across the country. Additionally, while student poverty data are used to distribute Title I funds among school districts within a state, free and reduced price lunch participation data are used to distribute these funds among schools within a district.

We used the custom data comparisons tool on the FEBP website to produce a data table that paints an interesting picture of how these three data points interact within a state. Specifically, we performed a comparison of districts with student poverty rates within 10 percent of that in Cook County, IL and limited the districts to those with a total student population within 20 percent. Additionally, we asked the comparison tool to produce data on school nutrition funding, enrollment, free and reduced price participation, and student poverty. The output of this comparison is below.

Although the student poverty rates in these six districts are very similar, their free and reduced price lunch participation (FRPL) rates vary dramatically. This is because the student poverty rate includes students living at or below the poverty level while the FRPL rate captures students living at or below 185 percent of poverty.

Thus, while Burbank School District has a FRPL rate close to its student poverty rate, Cook County's FRPL rate is nearly 55 percentage points higher than its poverty rate. This means that Cook County has a significant number of students living between 100 percent and 185 percent of poverty, while only a few of Burbank's students live within that margin of poverty.

This distinction also affects the rate of reimbursement districts receive for providing school meals. While students who live at or below 130 percent of poverty receive a fully subsidized lunch ($2.57 per meal), students living between 130 percent and 185 percent receive only a partial subsidy ($2.17). Because the majority of their eligible students live below 100 percent of poverty, a district like Burbank may receive a higher subsidy per eligible student than Cook County, where the majority of eligible students are somewhere between 100 percent and 185 percent of poverty.

However, that does not appear to be the case in these two districts. Using the data to estimate the number of FRPL eligible students and dividing the total federal reimbursement by that number, we can approximate the federal subsidy per eligible student in each district: $521 in Cook County and $375 in Burbank. This is possible for a couple of reasons.

The majority of eligible students in Burbank live below 100 percent of poverty, ensuring them the fully subsidy, while the vast majority of eligible Cook County students live above 100 percent of poverty. However, these Cook County students could live between 100 percent and 130 percent of poverty, as opposed to between 130 percent and 185 percent of poverty, similarly ensuring them the same subsidy as those living at or below 100 percent of poverty.

Additionally, districts receive a $.24 subsidy for every full-priced meal they sell to cover administrative costs. Districts that have managed to lessen the stigma attached to school lunch may benefit substantially from this subsidy because more high-income students may choose to purchase lunches. This would also result in a higher subsidy per eligible student.

While we can't determine which of these two (or a combination) situations is at play in Cook County and Burbank, we have been able to derive a significant amount of information about the student population in these two districts by examining just four data points. Additionally, the FEBP comparison tool allows us to see what other districts in Illinois and across the country have large populations living at the margin of poverty between 100 percent and 185 percent and how that affects the subsidies they receive for school nutrition programs. As Congress considers reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act in 2010, these data can be used to give insight into how proposed significant changes in the program, such as eliminating the reduced price subsidy, may affect school districts and their low-income students.

Further Targeting School Meal Programs But Missing the Bull's Eye

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:21:00 -0400

In mid-August the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its 2009 Budget Options, a bi-annual publication estimating the cost or savings associated with numerous possible changes to federal programs. Last November Ed Money Watch discussed problems with a proposal to change the Child Nutrition Program (CNP) analyzed in previous Budget Options (2003, 2005, and 2007). While the Child Nutrition Program proposal analyzed in this year's publication differs significantly from the one included in the past, it still misses out on an important improvement to the program - including Medicaid data as a method of identifying eligible students.

The National Child Nutrition Program provides free and reduced priced meals to low-income children through a per-meal federal subsidy based on family income. Students from families with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line receive free meals, students from families with incomes below 185 percent of poverty receive reduced-price meals, and all other students receive full-price meals. Student income levels are established either through TANF (the federal welfare program) or food stamp data or paper application.

Schools are reimbursed by the federal government according to a federal formula that updates each year. The rates for lunch are as follows: $2.57 for free lunches, $2.17 for reduced-price lunches, and $0.24 for full-price lunches, which are available to all students regardless of income.

Past CBO Budget Options estimated the cost of eliminating federal reimbursement to school districts for full-price breakfasts and lunches for students whose family incomes are more than 350 percent of poverty. At the same time, they would have increased the reduced-price breakfast and lunch subsidy by $0.20. As the previous analysis described, these changes would present significant administrative and bureaucratic obstacle for schools and districts that would have to identify students above 350 percent of poverty through paper applications. At the same time, the cost of full-price lunches would likely increase, reducing the number of those meals purchased and the revenues brought in as a result.

This year's Budget Options analyzes a proposal to eliminate the full-priced lunch and breakfast subsidy entirely and expand eligibility for free meals to students between 130 and 185 percent of poverty. While not explicitly stated, we assume that this would eliminate the reduced-price meal category and subsidy because all students previously receiving reduced-price meals would now be eligible for free meals. In other words, the policy change would both expand and simplify the program by creating one category of eligible students. CBO estimates this change would save $1.2 billion between 2010 and 2014 due to the elimination of the full-price meal subsidy.

In addition to abandoning the possibility of requiring school districts to identify students above 350 percent of poverty, these changes would eliminate the administrative burden involved in the CNP in key ways. The eligibility application process would no longer require a distinction between students below 130 percent of poverty for free meals and those below 185 percent of poverty for reduced-price meals, easing paper work for school administrators and parents. Similarly, cafeteria personnel would no longer need to keep records of free, reduced-price, or full-price meals for reimbursement purposes. Instead, all meals would either be free with the full subsidy or paid for entirely by the student. If streamlining the administration of CNP is Congress' only goal, then this proposal certainly fits the bill.

But if policymakers aim to improve both the efficiency of and access to the school meal program in the upcoming reauthorization, CBO missed an important opportunity to estimate the cost of a more beneficial improvement to the program: using Medicaid data (in addition to TANF and food stamp data) to identify students eligible for school meals. The current paper application process is cumbersome and imperfect, leaving many eligible students without meals and needlessly increasing administrative costs for local schools. This change would increase the number of eligible students automatically identified for meals, lessening the burden of the paper application process on schools and districts, and lowering administrative costs in the long run.

School Facilities Funding in the Student Loan Bill

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:04:00 -0400

Much has been said about the recent student loan bill authored by Congressman George Miller (D-CA). The bill makes some major changes to the existing federal student loan program and provides significant funds for early learning programs. But little has been said about the $5.0 billion the bill provides for modernization, renovation and repair of public school facilities including early learning facilities.

The bill provides school facilities funding through two separate pots. One funding pot, $2.5 billion in both 2010 and 2011, will be distributed to states based on their share of total Title I funding (after reserving 7 percent of funds for outlying and disaster areas). States will then distribute those funds - minus a 1 percent set-aside for administration - directly to local education agencies (LEAs) based on their share of total state Title I funds.

The second pot consists of an additional $35 million in both 2010 and 2011 for LEAs in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to address damage incurred during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These funds will be distributed based on each LEA's share of the total cost of damage to public school infrastructure.

In both cases, funds can be used to support any repairs, replacements, and modifications necessary to ensure that facilities are safe, healthy, high-performing, and technologically up-to-date. This can include installation of new roofs and heating systems, improvements to energy efficiency and noise insulation, compliance with fire, health, and disabled access requirements, and other modernizations that can improve instruction and the learning environment. The legislation notes, however, that priority should be given to projects that involve abatement and removal of asbestos and other proven carcinogens.

Funds cannot be used to pay for maintenance costs, improvements to facilities that are used for athletic events that generate income or are for non-instructional purposes, or for the purchase of carbon offsets. Additionally, the funds must be used to supplement, not supplant state and local funds that otherwise would have been used for facilities improvements and cannot affect the amount of state funds an LEA receives.

The bill also sets out two very specific requirements for the funds. The first is a maintenance of effort (MOE) provision which states that in order to receive the funds, each LEA must have maintained education spending (total or per pupil) in the previous year at no less than 90 percent of the second previous year's level. For example, if an LEA spent $10,000 per pupil in 2008, it must have spent at least $9,000 per pupil in 2009 to receive funds in 2010. If an LEA fails to maintain these spending levels, their allocation of funds will be reduced by the proportion by which they did not meet the MOE provision.

The second requirement states that each LEA must spend 50 percent of funds allocated in 2010 and 75 percent of funds allocated in 2011 on green building efforts. In order to qualify as "green" any funded efforts must comply with standard sets out by the LEED Green Building Rating System; Energy Star; the CHPS Criteria; Green Globes; or another state-identified program.

LEAs that receive funds must also ensure that charter schools within their jurisdiction receive funds in accordance with their facility needs, complete detailed reporting requirements, ensure that all materials are American-made, and provide employment opportunities to participants in YouthBuild, the Job Corps, and local community college construction programs.

This legislation represents the largest up-front federal investment in public school facilities. But it is plagued by one flaw that could threaten its effectiveness in the long run: the funds will be distributed to LEAs through federal Title I formulas. As we've discussed before, Title I formulas often fail to provide the greatest benefit to those LEAs with the most need. Similarly, the Title I formulas do not take into account actual need for facilities improvements. Instead, they distribute funds based on four complicated and seemingly-random calculations based on factors including student poverty rates and population levels that are the result of years of political bargaining.

$5.0 billion over two years is not an insignificant amount of money. It seems like Congress could devise a more appropriate method, which takes into account actual need for facilities improvements, by which to distribute these funds.

In Urban Classrooms, the Least Experienced Teach the Neediest Kids

MaryEllen McGuire — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:08:00 -0400

The following op-ed originally appeared in U.S. News & World Report on Friday, June 12^thand can be accessed here. The full report, Equitable Resources in Low Income Schools: Teacher Equity and the Federal Title I Comparability Requirement, can be read here.

Imagine for a moment that you are driving your child to the hospital. She has a high fever and is suffering from severe abdominal pain. It's unclear what's wrong but she is in definite need of medical attention.

Now imagine that the only doctor on call is a recently graduated medical student. It's her first day on the job and there is no experienced physician or surgeon available for consultation. Are you satisfied with this level of care for your child? I wouldn't be. I'd want to benefit from the knowledge of a more experienced physician. Wouldn't you?

Unfortunately, a similar scenario is playing out in America's urban classrooms with shocking regularity. Teachers with the least experience are educating the most disadvantaged students in the highest poverty, most challenging schools. Low-income kids are being "triaged" not by experienced teachers, but by those with fewer than three years of teaching to go on.

Does it matter? Absolutely. According to the research, teacher experience is at least a partial predictor of success in the classroom and, at present, one of the only approximations for teacher quality widely available. Experienced teachers tend to have better classroom management skills and a stronger command of curricular materials. Novice teachers on the other hand struggle during their initial years in any classroom.

Why are our least experienced professionals consistently being handed the most challenging teaching assignments? Because of the way seniority is rewarded in teacher contracts. More often that not, union contracts dictate that veteran teachers get first dibs on available positions within a school system. As a result, when given the chance, teachers often choose to transfer to more desirable, low-poverty schools. As a result of these transfers, students with the greatest educational need are time and time again taught by the least experienced teachers.

How bad is the problem? According to the National Center for Education Statistics, schools with the most low-income and minority students employ almost twice the proportion of teachers with fewer than three years of experience as higher-income and low-minority schools.

Disparities also exist in the distribution of teachers who are highly qualified in their subject areas as defined by No Child Left Behind. According to an Ohio study, one of every eight teachers in schools within the highest poverty and minority levels was not highly qualified, compared with only one of every 50 teachers in the lowest-poverty schools, and one of every 67 teachers in the lowest-minority schools.

Ultimately, disparities in teacher experience and credentials put low-income students at a disadvantage and perpetuate the achievement gap.

You may question whether policymakers are wholly insensitive to these inequities. They are not. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was originally passed in 1965, lawmakers inserted specific provisions to ensure that low-income students were provided services "comparable" to those provided to their more wealthy peers. These services included the equitable distribution of teachers.

Unfortunately, language subsequently inserted into law has rendered the provision almost meaningless. Since initial passage, lawmakers have decided to exempt teacher seniority from figuring into school comparability calculations. This has allowed school districts across America to hide the fact-under cover of federal law-that their poorest students in their poorest schools are being taught by their least experienced, least expensive teachers. After all, one of the primary determinants of a teacher's salary is years of experience. If this experience is not figured into comparability calculations, a teacher of 10 years and a teacher of 10 days can appear to have the same qualifications. Multiply this several times over and to compliance officers, the schools filled with experienced teachers look "comparable" to those filled with novices.

But there is hope. Recently published guidance related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act clearly says that if states want to receive the second half of their stimulus funds and be eligible for a portion of Education Secretary Arne Duncan's $5 billion Race to the Top Funds, they must make reforms in four areas-including making improvements in "the equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all students, particularly students who are most in need."

One can assume that those five little words, "equitable distribution of qualified teachers," should translate, at the very least, into the equitable distribution of experienced teachers. Only time will tell how "qualified teachers" is further defined.

What else has got to give? Congress must amend current law. It must remove the seniority exception from federal calculations meant to ensure comparable resources across low-poverty and high-poverty schools. As long as teachers are paid more based on seniority versus other measures of demonstrated success, districts will mask the inequitable distribution of experienced, better paid teachers across their schools. If we truly care about raising student achievement, the truth about teacher qualifications at individual schools has to come out.

Once we can wrap our heads around the true extent of the problem we can start taking down the second obstacle: figuring out a way to entice more experienced teachers to teach in high need schools. This will require a long-term commitment to systemic reform including investing in low-poverty schools to make them more attractive teaching placements and funding incentives to initially attract experienced and, we hope, higher quality teachers to low-income schools.

Will this require dollars beyond what we have? Not necessarily.

Federal law already provides schools with money to pay for this. It's just that the funds typically go to reduce class sizes or provide professional development for teachers instead - strategies that have mixed results. Some of these funds should be redirected to pay for incentives drawing teachers into high-poverty schools. This is also a great use of stimulus money.

Secretary Duncan has said that the top priority for stimulus dollars "is to do right by our schools and our kids." A first step in this process is advancing reforms so that the most experienced teachers are matched with the children who need them most. To do otherwise is unfair not only to the next generation of teachers but to those who should be of primary concern: our students.

Using Stimulus Funds at the School District Level

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:56:00 -0400

News reports suggest that some schools and school districts have started receiving at least the beginning of the $44 billion in stimulus funding made available on April 1^st. This money flows through three programs in particular - No Child Left Behind Title I Part A, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). While all 50 states and the District of Columbia have received at least 50 percent of their Title I and IDEA allocations, only the 13 states whose SFSF applications have been approved have received any of that available money. Below we discuss how some school districts have decided to use the funds.

As we've discussed previously, guidance states that the stimulus funds are to be used for two primary, and potentially conflicting, purposes. The first, saving and creating jobs, is an inherent goal of the stimulus bill particularly for states experiencing severe budget deficits. The second, supporting reforms to improve student academic achievement, will likely be sidelined in many districts as they work to keep their schools open and teachers in their classrooms. However, some districts have attempted to do both.

Cleveland Metropolitan School District, for example, has devised a plan that would use stimulus funds to support more than 200 teachers' salaries for two years. Essentially, 200 experienced teachers already working in the system would volunteer to become math and reading substitute teachers and tutors providing support to the less experienced, and therefore less expensive, teachers hired to replace them. The readily available substitute teachers would enable the newly hired, less experienced teachers to participate in extended professional development and training. After the two year program ends, the 200 substitute teachers and tutors would be required to retire or resign. The district estimates that the program would save approximately $40,000 per teacher in salary and benefits, or two-thirds of the budget deficit.

While this plan seems questionable in that it removes 200 experienced teachers from classrooms and replaces them with less experienced ones, it does leverage the experience of those 200 teachers to both assist newer teachers and struggling students. It also lowers the district's teacher salary expenses significantly after 2010. This is particularly important because Cleveland will theoretically avoid the "fund cliffs" - in which districts are no longer able to support new programs once the stimulus funds are gone - the stimulus guidance warns districts to avoid.

Indianapolis Public Schools has also proposed a similar program, hiring back nearly 200 recently fired teachers as substitute teachers. But rather than using experienced, more expensive teachers as substitute teachers like the Cleveland plan, Indianapolis is bringing back younger teachers as substitute teachers to prevent them from losing their jobs immediately. As a result, the more experienced teachers will remain in classrooms. This plan also does not require the substitute teachers to resign after the stimulus money runs out, creating a potential funding cliff after 2010.

Houston Independent School District has also outlined plans to use stimulus funds that focus on literacy and numeracy education. Specifically, the district hopes to expand its existing Literacy Leads the Way initiative to put literacy specialists in elementary as well as high schools. While this plan does create new jobs in schools and aims to improve student reading achievement, it does not provide details on how the district will continue to pay the new specialists after the stimulus money runs out. However, the district does intend to provide existing teachers with three to four day math and literacy training sessions to help improve their instructional skills.

Other districts are opting for more piecemeal uses for their stimulus funds. In some cases, these uses could provide valuable extra services for students. But in others, they maintain business as usual. For example, Moline-Coal Valley School District in Illinois plans to use its IDEA stimulus dollars to provide special education students with a computer program called Compass. Compass tailors instruction to each student's ability and increases in difficulty as each student progresses. Programs like Compass can be important instructional tools for special education teachers.

St. Joseph School District in Missouri has also fleshed out its plans for its IDEA funds. They include building a sensory room for autistic students, installing a new playground for special-needs students, and purchasing new wheelchair buses. While these efforts do address the needs of special education students, they don't immediately appear to affect how the students learn. In the same vein, the majority of St. Joe's stimulus funds will be used to save several teaching jobs rather than institute new programs or resources.

It is clear that many districts are struggling to both save jobs and undergo efforts to improve student achievement. Some, like Cleveland, are constructing out-of-the-box plans that could significantly change instruction while staying true to the stimulus guidance. But others seem to be using the funds to maintain the status quo in the name of saving jobs. We will continue to follow these trends as more districts release their plans for the stimulus funds.

Key Questions on the Obama Administration’s 2010 Education Budget

Ed Policy — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:40:00 -0400

President Barack Obama submitted his first budget request to Congress on Thursday, May 7, 2009. This request follows the initial summary budget request he submitted in February that included only proposed funding levels for federal programs and agencies in aggregate. The detailed budget request includes proposed funding levels for federal programs and agencies in aggregate for the upcoming five to ten fiscal years, and specific fiscal year 2010 funding levels for programs subject to appropriations. The president's 2010 budget request marks the first time the Obama administration has submitted funding recommendations for every federal education program and a comprehensive list of new education policy initiatives.

In an effort to heighten the quality of debate on federal education policy, the New America Foundation's Federal Education Budget Project has reviewed the president's proposals and generated a list of key questions policymakers, the media, stakeholder groups, and the public should ask about the proposals.

Early Education

The 2010 budget request includes a new $300 million Early Learning Challenge Grant program to help states build their early childhood infrastructure and coordinate early childhood care and education services for children from birth through age five. How will this program-one of the four new early education programs included in the president's 2010 budget proposal-fit into the administration's overall vision for improving access to quality early education and its broader K-12 school reform agenda? What will the administration do to ensure that these grants support alignment and coordination not just within the early childhood sector, but also between early childhood programs and K-12 public schools?

K-12 Education

The president's request includes $1.5 billion for the No Child Left Behind Title I school improvement program, a $1 billion increase over the fiscal year 2009 level. Included in the proposal is a new requirement that states use 40 percent of program funds for middle schools and high schools. Will the administration provide guidance and recommendations for how the funds should be used at the middle school and high school level? In general, is this new set-aside an indication that the administration supports a new and separate funding stream for high schools in the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act?

The president's 2010 budget proposal would increase funding for the Striving Readers program to $370 million from $35 million in 2009. Does the president intend to use Striving Readers as a replacement for the Reading First program, which received $448 million in fiscal year 2008 but did not receive funding in fiscal year 2009 and is not included in the president's 2010 request? Both programs promote scientifically-based reading instruction. If so, how will the administration ensure that Striving Readers overcomes the criticisms that have been targeted at the Reading First program-mainly that it did not significantly improve student reading and comprehension skills? In addition, how will the administration ensure that Striving Readers is not vulnerable to the same management problems encountered with Reading First?

The president's budget request proposes an increase in the Institute for Education Sciences allocation for research, development, and dissemination from $167 million in 2009 to $224 million in 2010 specifically for a new federal initiative called Reading for Understanding and other efforts to improve student achievement. Does the administration have details on this new initiative? To what extent will it overlap with other reading programs, such as Striving Readers? Besides the new Reading for Understanding program, has the administration identified certain innovations it is particularly interested in studying and expanding?

The president requests an increase in funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund from $97 million in 2009 to $517 million for 2010. These funds support the creation of teacher compensation systems that include performance-based incentives for hard-to-staff schools and subject areas. The proposal requires that local education agencies (LEAs), states, and other organizations that receive grants under the program establish compensation systems that include consideration of student academic achievement gains and teacher evaluations. However, many states and LEAs have passed legislation or signed teacher union contracts that prevent teacher compensation systems from taking student performance into account. Will these states and LEAs be ineligible for Teacher Incentive Fund grants? If so, how does the administration plan to encourage these states and LEAs to develop and use innovative teacher compensation systems? To what extent will these activities overlap with other federal programs that focus on teacher compensation and distribution, including funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?

In general, to what extent has the administration considered the interaction between American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds and fiscal year 2010 funds included in the president's budget request in the identified reform areas concerning data collection, standards and assessments, school improvement, and improving teacher quality?

Higher Education

The president's budget request proposes an increase in funding for the Perkins Loan program from $1.1 billion in available loan assistance in 2009 to $5.8 billion in 2010. Yet the 2010 funding allocated for this change is negative $498 million. Furthermore, the administration shows that the proposal saves $3.2 billion over five years. How does the $4.7 billion increase in available loan funds achieve savings? Is this accomplished by recalling the federal share of the revolving fund that colleges use to make Perkins Loans?

The campus-based aid programs-Federal Work Study, Perkins Loans, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG)-are intended to assist low-income students. The federal government provides campus-based aid funds to postsecondary institutions, which then award them to their students. However, the formula the government uses to distribute the aid overwhelmingly benefits elite public and private colleges and universities, even though these institutions serve a relatively small proportion of low-income students. The administration has criticized this formula and proposes changing it for the Perkins Loan program. However, the president's 2010 budget request would leave the formula unchanged for the SEOG and work study programs. Does the administration plan to address this discrepancy in the future?

The 2010 budget request proposes to cancel $511 million in surplus funds for the Academic Competitiveness/SMART Grant (ACG/SMART) programs. The programs provide grant aid to Pell Grant-eligible students who meet additional requirements. We already know that many first-year ACG recipients are unable to meet the 3.0 grade point average required to receive a second-year grant worth $1,300. Has the administration considered, instead of cancelling the unused funds, that the second-year ACG award be increased to provide a greater financial reward for strong academic achievement? Furthermore, the president's budget proposal seems to suggest that the administration will allow the ACG/SMART grant programs to expire after fiscal year 2010 under current law. Does the administration support an extension or reforms for the programs?

The budget request includes $500 million in 2010 and $2.5 billion over five years to fund national and state efforts to improve degree attainment rates in higher education and identify and promote what works in helping needy students get a degree. It also discusses granting states considerable flexibility in the types of programs that can be funded, and allowing states to set aside a portion of their funding to continue college outreach and information activities now undertaken by the guaranty agencies in the FFEL program. Given this last allowance, will these dollars will be distributed to the states by formula or will states be required to compete for funds? If it is a formula program, can one assume that dollars could be sub-granted out to institutions? If the program is competitive, will allowances be made to allow institutions of higher education, perhaps in partnerships with local educational agencies, to apply directly for these funds?

The president's 2010 budget proposal would end the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program and use the savings to finance the Pell Grant program as an entitlement. This proposal has been controversial in Congress, as some lawmakers oppose creating a new entitlement program. Would the administration support using any FFEL program savings to fund the Pell Grant program without making it an entitlement? Would the administration support using FFEL savings to fund other student aid programs that support its higher education agenda?

A downloadable version of these questions can be accessed here.