Category Archives: School Funding

Four Questions About the Biden Administration’s Title I Equity Grants Program

Photo courtesy of Aaron Kittredge for Pexels

President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2022 budget proposes $20 billion in funding for a new Title I Equity Grants program that has the potential to incentivize changes to school funding systems, with a primary goal of improving equity and driving resources to support students with the greatest needs. Eligible school districts and charter schools (local education agencies, or LEAs) receiving these funds can use them to address four priority areas:

  • Address long-standing disparities between under-resourced school districts and their wealthier counterparts by providing meaningful incentives to examine and address inequalities in school funding systems.
  • Ensure that teachers at Title I schools are paid competitively.
  • Increase preparation for, access to, and success in rigorous coursework. 
  • Expand access to high-quality preschool for underserved children and families.

The first priority area focuses on funding equity, which means ensuring that districts and schools direct more resources to the students who need them the most. The Biden administration is looking to use the relatively small pot of federal education funds (as a share of total school funding) to push greater equity in the much larger pot of state and local school funding systems (which generate and distribute about 90% of total money for schools). Just as a small lever can move a large object, a targeted funding program could have an outsized impact with the right incentives. And that’s the potential of this ambitious proposal. But there’s still a lot to figure out, if and when this new program comes to fruition. 

Title I is one of the largest federal funding streams for K-12 education and is primarily directed by a formula for schools and districts serving high proportions of low-income students to provide supplemental educational supports. Biden’s proposal would not change the structure or formula for Title I. Instead, it would create a new grant program on top of current Title I structures. This new grant would rely on a different allocation formula that targets a greater share of funds to LEAs with the greatest concentrations of poverty. This is significant, because it might signal a step towards changing the Title I formula as a whole. 

The FY22 budget proposal is still in its early stages and requires congressional approval and a lot more work to iron out details. If this proposal is ultimately implemented, four key questions that advocates nationwide should be asking include:

1. Will recipients of these funds need to address all four priorities, or can they pick and choose? 

School funding reform is challenging work that often requires a significant investment of political and financial capital. If states can opt to apply funds to other priorities that may be relatively easier to implement, what’s the incentive to engage in broad, meaningful funding reform?

2. What are the expectations for the state-level School Funding Equity Commissions and the plans they develop?

The proposal includes allocating $50 million to voluntary School Funding Equity Commissions. These state commissions would measure gaps in funding equity and adequacy, develop plans to address those gaps, and report progress on the milestones and metrics set forth in those plans. However, it’s not clear if the commissions are focused on allocations of funding through state funding formulas or the allocation of funds from districts out to schools at the local level, or both? These two processes are typically separate and have different equity challenges and potential remedies. Both allocation structures can force equity, and both can be politically and practically complex.  

3. How do the school-level reporting requirements relate to similar requirements under current federal law? Does the Title I Equity Grants program represent a change to those provisions? If not, what does this FY22 proposal intend to achieve?

The process of defining a common definition of per pupil expenditure at the LEA or school level is more complex than it may sound on its face. Given that a similar provision aimed at promoting transparency regarding school-level spending already exists in law, it’s not clear what this proposal aims to achieve that’s different. Transparency can be a powerful tool for equity, but not if adding a new calculation muddies an already poorly understood concept.

4. Finally, how will the Title I Equity Grants program ensure that state plans for funding equity are effective for students with the greatest needs?

Some reporting language indicates that states will need to, “Demonstrate progress in improving the equity and adequacy of their funding systems to be eligible for future increases in funding.” Does that mean that future Title I allocations will include incentives for demonstrated progress toward equity (and adequacy) goals? Is this a carrot or a stick, how much funding might be somehow contingent, and how will “progress” be defined especially to ensure that more funding is directed to student groups who need additional resources, including students with disabilities and English language learners? 

The Biden administration’s Title I Equity Grants program brings welcome attention to a foundational issue for educational equity — ensuring that students who need the most resources receive them. While the FY22 proposal faces significant congressional and administrative hurdles, it highlights the need to address funding inequities in state and school district spending plans. Ultimately, the proposal has the potential to be an effective lever for change if it can set up meaningful incentives for states and districts and define success through prioritizing the needs of our most marginalized students. 

Rethinking School Safety for Students of Color: A Note on Nuance in COVID-19 Recovery Efforts

Photo courtesy of Allison Shelley for EDUimages

Public education has historically been framed as an equalizing force in American society, as many students and families rely on schools for necessities and opportunities for social mobility. COVID-19 brought into stark relief just how much schools serve as community hubs that provide families with much-needed resources.

Now, as the pandemic begins to ebb, some schools are grappling with the question of when and how to reopen. Proponents of prioritizing live instruction for all students point out that many students particularly systemically marginalized children experienced greater difficulty accessing necessities such as food and health care during the pandemic. Mental health concerns were also exacerbated amid school closures. 

At the same time, these realities coexist with another, less comfortable truth: American educational institutions are a deep well of trauma and a central source of exposure to institutional racism, particularly for Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students of color.

Long before the pandemic, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students were deeply affected by racism in education spaces through racial bias in student discipline, surveillance and policing associated with the school-to-prison-pipeline, and lack of access to high-quality teachers, curriculum, and gifted programs. Now, thanks to virtual instruction, students of color no longer have to go into a school building to be exposed to racial bias and academic violence. Instead, well-intentioned educators and schools can harm, police, and surveil these students and their families in the privacy of their homes. For example, a Black male student with ADHD was suspended for “bringing a facsimile of a firearm” to school, even though he was at home using a video conferencing platform for online instruction. Black students have consistently been disproportionately suspended and expelled at higher rates than their white counterparts, even during remote instruction.

So, while it is true that schools play a critical role in serving communities, it is also true that sending students of color back into those same environments without working to dismantle institutional racism can actively harm them. What does the American education system owe students of color? And what opportunities has the pandemic created to ensure that they not only survive, but thrive

COVID-19 relief plans are a promising start. The American Rescue Plan Act is the latest of three federal relief funds, after the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, dedicated to education. With $123 billion allocated to K-12 schools through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund, and $39 billion for higher education, ARP provides an opportunity for state education officials and school leaders to fundamentally reshape the U.S. education landscape in three key ways:

1. Direct federal funds to address inequities in K-12 school building conditions

Local education agencies should use ESSER funds to address operational needs, such as facility repairs to improve ventilation and school air quality. Researchers have long documented that inequities in school building conditions contribute to the environmental racism and health disparities communities of color experience (e.g., poor ventilation, higher rates of asthma). Due to racial inequities in housing and school funding, students of color disproportionately attend underfunded schools with poor building conditions that are located near sources of pollution, which can negatively impact their health and educational outcomes.

2. Fund mental health services to students of color

Students of color are disproportionately exposed to mental health risk factors such as racism, poverty, food insecurity, and lack of access to health care. These risk factors have only been heightened during the pandemic and are a pressing issue for Black students in particular. According to a report from the Congressional Black Caucus, suicide is the third leading cause of death for Black youth aged 15 to 19, and Black youth under age 13 are twice as likely to die by suicide than their white counterparts. Research also indicates that the rate of suicide death among Black youth is increasing faster than that of any other racial/ethnic group. ESSER funds provide a clear path forward to better support mental health services to students of color.

3. Upend the status quo

In addition to ESSER funds, the Biden administration has requested a $20 billion increase in its FY2022 budget to invest in grants for Title I schools, promoting equity more broadly. Given the deep history of inequitable funding and spending in K-12 education, states should channel broad applicability into targeted funds for underserved communities of color. If states revert to the status quo funding dissemination mechanisms, or focus spending on the urgency of the present without regard for the broader socio-historical context of educational inequity, they will waste this once-in-a-lifetime chance to ensure that our public education system equitably serves all students. 

We have a unique opportunity to right inestimable wrongs by using ARP, CRRSA, and CARES Act funds to reimagine education and center voices of the systemically marginalized. These voices hold a wealth of knowledge about what they need to thrive and how to eliminate educational inequity. Will we listen?

We’ve been working closely with federally funded research and technical assistance centers to identify best practices and strategies to promote racial equity in education throughout the COVID-19 crisis. Keep an eye out for additional publications on this topic from Bellwether and the National Comprehensive Center’s Capacity Building Team.

Ebony Lambert, Ph.D., is a senior analyst at Bellwether Education Partners, where her work integrates education, psychology, and health into research, evaluation, and capacity-building. She holds a doctorate in health psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Relief at last? Join Bellwether on March 17 to discuss what Biden’s first major law means for schools.

Last week, the Biden Administration signed its first major law — and it’s a big one: $1.9 trillion in spending with additional stimulus checks going to millions of Americans, child tax credits for families, and funding to pull millions of Americans out of poverty. It also includes a lot of funding for schools that could be transformative — or just absorbed as business as usual. Whether and how America’s students benefit from the aid package is an open question. How should states, cities, and schools use this funding to go from pandemic to progress? How can education leaders use this boost in funding to innovate and support students, especially those who live on the margins? And what are the key lessons from the last big education recovery bill during the Great Recession in 2009.

On Wednesday, March 17, at 2 p.m. ET, join Bellwether’s Andy Rotherham and education leaders to discuss the possibilities for schools.

​Participants:

  • Phil Bredesen, Chairman of the Board and President, Clearloop and former Governor of Tennessee, 2003-2011
  • Lillian Lowery, Vice President of Student and Teacher Assessments, Educational Testing Services and former State Superintendent of Schools, Maryland and Secretary of Education, Delaware
  • Deborah Gist, Superintendent, Tulsa Public Schools
  • Ken Wagner, Senior Advisor for AnLar, NCTQ, and kmkwagner Advisory, and former Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Rhode Island
  • Andy Rotherham, Co-Founder & Partner, Bellwether Education Partners (moderator)

​Registration:

Please click here to register for this event. Live captioning will be available.

Learn More:

To hear about future webinars at Bellwether, sign up for our newsletter here.

Questions? Contact us.

From Pandemic to Progress: Eight Bellwether briefs set long-term visions for education policy and practice

Today, we and several of our Bellwether colleagues released From Pandemic to Progress: Eight Education Pathways for COVID-19 Recovery, making the case for the the education sector to recenter and rebuild after the disruptions caused by COVID-19. At some point — hopefully soon — vaccines will become broadly available and students and teachers everywhere will return to full-time, in-person learning. School, system, and sector leaders will pause and take a breath. Then they quickly will turn their attention back to many of the questions that have simmered in the background for the past year, but that are quickly coming back to a boil.

In the wake of COVID-19, leaders and policymakers will need ambitious but achievable pathways to re-engage in complex policy questions and rebuild education. From Pandemic to Progress draws on the breadth of Bellwether’s expertise and a diversity of viewpoints across our team in a series of briefs — each with a take on what we will need in the years ahead to create a sector that can provide students with the high-quality education and supports they need and deserve to be successful.

Here are the issues and areas where we believe the sector should not go back to normal:

Redesigning Accountability: Bonnie O’Keefe grounds the debates on assessment and accountability back in core principles and practicalities. She doubles down on the need for transparent data and subgroup reporting, but also challenges policymakers to create systems that are aligned to the realities of classroom instruction and school-based decision making.

Supporting a Diverse Choice Ecosystem From the Bottom Up: Alex Spurrier lays out a vision for fostering choice and enabling a diversity of educational approaches, by seeding consortia of assessments, similar to Advanced Placement, that ensure the quality but not the homogeneity of options.

Prioritizing Equity in School Funding: Jennifer O’Neal Schiess pinpoints the inequities in school funding and explains why it should be decoupled from the real estate market, with local property taxes playing a minimal or vastly different role in the funding of schools.

Establishing Coherent Systems for Vulnerable Students: Hailly T.N. Korman and Melissa Steel King stay laser-focused on students who have experienced homelessness, foster care, pregnancy, or other disruptions to their education and call on public agencies to address the confusing fragmentation of social services so students can receive comprehensive and streamlined support.

Creating an Institute for Education Improvement: Allison Crean Davis makes a case for changing the way we change, calling for a standalone entity that can champion and support the education sector in rigorous, data-driven approaches to continuous improvement.

Diversifying the Teacher Workforce: Indira Dammu reminds us of the research that links a diverse teacher workforce to improved student outcomes, and makes recommendations for how policymakers can support the recruitment and retention of teachers of color.

Building on the Charter Sector’s Many Paths to Impact: Juliet Squire acknowledges headwinds facing charter school growth, but reminds policymakers and practitioners of the many ways — beyond increasing enrollment — that charter schools can expand their impact.

Bringing Home-Based Child Care Providers Into the Fold: Ashley LiBetti shines a spotlight on the critical role that home-based child care providers play in caring for the country’s youngest children, a role that the pandemic further dramatized; she makes the case for policies that address the important role that home-based child care plays in the early childhood ecosystem.

Whether addressing a long-standing issue that has shaped the education reform debates for decades, or an issue that has yet to garner the attention it deserves, each brief lays out a long-term vision for success and pathways to get there.

The education sector is far too familiar with the cycle of faddish policies and knee-jerk reactions when reforms don’t immediately produce increases in student proficiency. And certainly the last year has rightfully concentrated attention and resources on addressing the most urgent and basic student needs. But when the crisis subsides, education policymakers and practitioners will need a point on the horizon to aim for. We hope these briefs inspire and inform long-term visions for serving America’s kids.

 

 

Ballot Initiative Results in CA, WA, and Other States — and Implications for Education

On Election Day, Bellwether shared a roundup of key races and issues we are closely watching due their potential impact on education,. While the nation nervously waits for clarity in the Presidential race, the results from several important and expensive ballot initiatives have rolled in. Here are four that I’m paying attention to:

California’s Proposition 16

This ballot measure, which would have reversed the state’s longstanding ban on affirmative action in government hiring and in public university admissions, failed. After a summer marked by activism and calls for racial justice, 56% of voters in arguably the most progressive state rejected the measure. As a result of the state’s 1997 ban on affirmative action, the percent of Black students in the state’s university system has dropped in half, even as the state has produced more Black high school graduates. The ban also negatively affected the enrollment of Latino and Native American students in California’s public universities. In all, eight states have affirmative action bans similar to California’s and this loss is likely to have a chilling effect on activists looking to overturn bans in their states. 

California’s Proposition 15

The union-backed initiative that would result in higher property taxes for commercial and industry property to provide additional funding for local governments, schools, and community colleges is trailing as of this writing. Were it to pass, Proposition 15 would be the largest tax increase in California history, resulting in a net increase in tax revenues of up to $12 billion, 40% of which would go to K-12 schools and community colleges. At the time of writing, it appears that the majority of California voters will reject this tax hike and, along with it, potentially billions of additional revenue for schools.

Washington State’s Referendum 90

Washington became the first state this week to pass a comprehensive sex education mandate with nearly 60% support. The mandate requires public schools to offer families the option of age-appropriate curriculum focused on issues including human development and consent. Opponents of the measure argued inaccurately that the legislation would impede on local administrators’ ability to control the curriculum, but it appears voters were not swayed by these arguments. Washington now joins 24 other states and D.C. that require sex education. 

Multi-state Drug Reform

On Tuesday, voters across the nation sent a clear message and voted for drug policy reform. Voters in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota legalized marijuana for recreational purposes. In Mississippi and South Dakota, voters legalized medical marijuana. In Oregon voters decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, and in Washington, D.C., voters decriminalized psychedelic plants (like mushrooms). With these new policies to decriminalize and legalize certain drugs will come new questions for parents and educational officials. How should officials address issues of student drug possession? What will the impact of legalization be on K-12 achievement? What rights do employees have who use recreationally? Leaders can look for some answers in Colorado, which legalized marijuana in 2012, saw the rate of teen drug use fall to its lowest level in a decade. 

Stay tuned for more Election 2020 coverage here.