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.

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.

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:

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The following op-ed originally appeared in U.S. News & World Report on Friday, June 12^th and 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.

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.

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