Title I

Many low-income parents with children in low-performing schools are not taking advantage of free tutoring available to them under No Child Left Behind. Under NCLB's "Supplemental Educational Services" (SES) provision, school districts that fail to meet academic benchmarks for three years must set aside part of their federal Title I grant to provide outside tutoring—but only a fraction of eligible students are using the program.

The Department of Education is trying to figure out how to increase take-up rates for the SES program. As part of a package of new NCLB regulations, the Department proposed this week that districts should be able to use part of their SES funding set-aside to conduct outreach activites to educate parents about the program (this currently isn't allowed). This is a logical, beneficial addition to the SES provision that hopefully will encourage districts to implement more intensive, effective ways to inform parents about SES.

Low Levels of SES Participation...

On Tuesday, the Department of Education unveiled a new set of proposed regulations on No Child Left Behind. The major announcement was details about the new, uniform graduation rate formula that all states will have to use for NCLB accountability purposes going forward. In addition, the Department outlined new requirements for district implementation of the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) provision.

In general, the proposed regulations focus on greater transparency for what's already happening in each state. At a briefing in Washington D.C., U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education Ray Simon said that the Department wants to make sure states and districts can justify what they are doing on assessment and accountability. He also raised concerns that districts are not adequately implementing NCLB's restructuring and SES requirements, and said that the Department wants to detail and reinforce what is already required by the law.

Here's a quick summary of the new proposed regulations, which were published today in the Federal Register and will be open for comment for 90 days:

Pope Benedict XVI's first visit to the United States is spurring supporters of Catholic schools and the media to highlight the decline of and obstacles facing Catholic schools. Demographic changes, a reduced supply of priests and nuns to serve as teachers, and the aftermath of sex abuse scandals have acted to undermine Catholic schooling in many places. This attention to the crisis in Catholic education has also highlighted a little known fact: federal education programs provide support to educate low-income students not just in public schools, but also in private schools.

When spending federal money, school districts are required to provide equitable services to private school students and teachers. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act—Title IX, Part E, Subpart 1—enshrines this right to equitable services. Ed Money Watch will use the Pope's visit as an opportunity to clarify how federal funds are distributed to and spent on private school students and teachers (not private schools).

Title I Funds for Supplemental Instruction

As the number of schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring under the No Child Left Behind Act continues to increase, states are under increasing pressure to improve student performance in these schools. Yet a new report from the Government Accountability Office finds that a little-known funding provision in NCLB is undermining state efforts to turn around low-performing schools.

The 4% Set-Aside vs. the Hold Harmless Provision

Under NCLB, schools that fail to meet state achievement benchmarks—otherwise known as Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP—for two consecutive years enter "school improvement" status. NCLB requires states to set aside four percent of their Title I funds to support school improvement activities—such as professional development, new curriculum, extended learning time, or full-scale restructuring—in these schools.

When the federal government started distributing compensatory education (i.e. Title I) funding in 1965, it wanted to ensure that federal money was supplementing, not supplanting, support to schools educating disadvantaged children. Thus, the government added fiscal requirements to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that require communities to establish an even state and local school finance playing field within district — before supplemental Title I money is given to the highest-poverty schools.

For a school district to be eligible for federal funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it has to fulfill three fiscal requirements:

Ed Money Watch has some questions for the Bush administration on its fiscal year 2009 budget request for education.

K-12 EDUCATION

1) The administration proposes increasing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Title I grants to school districts by 2.9 percent, essentially an increase matching inflation. It also proposes redirecting a greater proportion of Title I funds to high schools. Does this mean that school districts will have to cut Title I funding for K-8 schools, since districts will effectively receive the same level of funding as in the previous year? How will this affect student achievement in grades 3 through 8?

[slideshow] 2) The administration’s budget proposes shifting $100 million from the NCLB’s Title II "Improving Teacher Quality State Grants" program to a "Teacher Incentive Fund" program that supports state and local performance-based compensation initiatives and incentives for teachers to serve in challenging schools. These activities already are allowed under the large and flexible Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program. Why, when the administration is generally trying to consolidate programs and get rid of duplicative ones, does the budget slice off funding for this smaller duplicative program?

Durham, North Carolina. It's a medium-sized, old tobacco and textile city best known for housing Duke University. Most national media coverage of Durham focuses on the ivory tower that is Duke, its highly-ranked undergraduate and graduate programs, and of course Duke's basketball team. Rarely does anyone outside North Carolina get an accurate (or any) picture of the city itself and its own educational issues.

In the shadow of an elite institution of higher education, Durham’s K-12 public education system is struggling and often failing to educate its students. Only six schools out of 45 made Adequate Yearly Progress (met No Child Left Behind achievement goals) last year. Some 19 of Durham’s 26 Title I elementary schools are in school improvement status, meaning they have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress for at least two consecutive years. Only 56 percent of Durham students graduate from high school.

There are obviously a lot of factors contributing to Durham’s poor achievement levels and high drop-out rate. But let’s take a closer look at the money going into Durham’s schools and see how its funding compares to similar districts in North Carolina.

Durham is spending $8,269 per pupil, which ranks 29th out of 115 school districts in North Carolina. About $519 of that spending comes from the federal government in the form of a NCLB Title I grant and IDEA special education grant.

Little known is that since the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed, the federal government has prioritized "school finance equity" as a goal for states to achieve. In fiscal year 2008, 21 percent of NCLB Title I funds will be distributed based on an Education Finance Incentive Grant formula, a funding stream that has been increasing since NCLB first passed. But few people understand why certain states are deemed more "equitable" than others. You hear a lot of praise and criticism about equitable school funding, but little explanation of what it means or what produced it.

School finance equity typically measures how much per-pupil expenditures vary across districts within a given state. Greater equity means less variation. Sounds simple, but there are many different formulas used to calculate it, and their specifics can be quite complicated (remember statistics and weighted coefficients of variation?). The federal government has its own definition of school finance equity, which you can read more about here from www.EdBudgetProject.org.

Some states are more equitable than others for two basic reasons: (1) decisions made at the state level about how to distribute funding, and (2) the size and number of school districts within a state.