Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Noelle EllersonSasha Pudelski
AASA: The School Superintendents AssociationJuly 8, 2013
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the farthest-reaching federal legislation affecting education.
Title I of ESEA distributes funding to local education agencies (LEAs) to improve achievement of disadvantaged children.
In order to allocate more funding per Title I student to LEAs with higher concentrations of poverty, the current formula weights the count of eligible students in an ELA.
Unfortunately, the current weighting system has the perverse effect of diverting funding away from higher-poverty LEAs, toward lower-poverty LEAs, regardless of the actual poverty rate.
This misallocation stems from the use of two alternative weighting systems:• One based on the percentage of students in
poverty (percentage weighting)• One based on the sheer number of students in
poverty (number weighting) Both poverty indicators (number and
percentage) are run through their respective weighting scale, and the LEA receives its final Title I allocation based on the system that is of most benefit.
Percentage of School Age
Children Who Are Title I Eligible
Weight Given Each Student in
BracketUp to 15.58 1.00
15.59-22.11 1.75
22.12-30.16 2.5
30.17-38.24 3.25
38.25 and up 4.00
5
Weighting Brackets Based on Percentage of Students
Who Are Title I Eligible
Number of Title I Eligible School Age
Children
Weight Given Each Student in Bracket
1-691 1.0
692-2,262 1.5
2,263-7,851 2.0
7,852-35,514 2.5
35,515 and up 3.0
Weighting Brackets Based on Number of Title I Students
6
The current weighting system has the perverse effect of diverting funding away from higher-poverty LEAs, toward lower-poverty LEAs, regardless of the actual poverty rate.
How?• # weighting gives a big boost in student
count to a large LEA even if it has a low % of poverty, while small ELAs, even with high poverty rates, get no benefit from # weighting.
• Since Title I distributes funding from a fixed appropriation, all funds gained by an LEA that benefits from number weighting are at the expense of those LEAs that do not.
The current weighting system has the perverse effect of diverting funding away from higher-poverty LEAs, toward lower-poverty LEAs, regardless of the actual poverty rate.
How?• As a result, all small and moderate-sized LEAs
with high poverty rates receive far less than they would if all districts were weighted using percentage weighting only.
• In fact, some of the highest poverty LEAs are so disadvantaged by number weighting that they receive less than if there were no weighting system at all.
• This runs counter to Congressional intent and negates the fact that poverty is poverty and all children should be treated equal under the law.
The ACE Act gradually phases out the number weighting system while leaving percentage weighting in place.
By reducing the weight factors used in the number weighting system over four years, the formula becomes balanced and accurately reflects Congressional intent to allocate funding to LEAs with higher concentrations of poverty.
Large LEAs with high concentrations of poverty would still benefit from percentage weighting, as would all smaller LEAs with higher percentages of poverty.
Top 30 LEAs Benefitting Under ACE (Targeted Dollars)State LEA NAME Students Poverty Cumulative DifferenceOH Cleveland Municipal School District 32,601 48.24% 6,558,334NY Rochester City School District 16,515 46.76% 4,041,659IN Indianapolis Public Schools 22,167 45.64% 3,580,825TX Brownsville Independent School District 22,651 47.16% 3,503,755TX La Joya Independent School District 14,523 54.40% 2,696,989
CA Bakersfield City Elementary School District 13,905 47.89% 2,418,943NY Syracuse City School District 9,979 44.13% 2,334,332
TX Laredo Independent School District 12,452 57.28% 2,261,449NJ Lakewood Township School District 9,833 43.21% 2,260,032
TXPharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District 13,780 45.11% 2,255,328
TXEdinburg Consolidated Independent School District 14,613 42.45% 2,239,104
OH Dayton City School District 10,450 44.96% 2,211,312AL Birmingham City School District 13,761 44.57% 2,163,398MI Flint City School District 9,564 49.92% 2,076,531MI Dearborn City School District 9,840 44.04% 1,947,614MO Kansas City School District 11,954 40.62% 1,864,728CT Hartford School District 8,735 39.00% 1,822,955IN Gary Community School Corporation 8,694 57.51% 1,734,068PA Allentown City School District 8,111 37.85% 1,645,880OH Columbus City School District 28,416 41.12% 1,599,032OH Toledo City School District 15,374 40.00% 1,598,855NC Robeson County Schools 10,773 41.43% 1,590,370TX Donna Independent School District 8,501 52.76% 1,550,374TX McAllen Independent School District 10,592 39.71% 1,547,395AZ Sunnyside Unified District 9,371 46.95% 1,533,429KS Kansas City Unified School District 500 8,982 40.00% 1,525,709OH Akron City School District 11,677 38.80% 1,497,751NJ Camden City School District 6,774 40.87% 1,480,899CA Fresno Unified School District 33,081 41.60% 1,401,275
NY Kiryas Joel Village Union Free School District 4,690 62.53% 1,362,146OH Cincinnati City School District 19,128 39.97% 1,328,429AZ Cartwright Elementary District 8,831 42.23% 1,326,326
Source: US Education Department
Created in NCLB Dedicated funding stream for small and
rural schools and rural and low-income schools
How is rural defined?• Urban-centric locale codes
How is small defined?• Less than 600 students
How is low-income defined?• Census poverty data
Note: To find out if you’re CD has REAP eligible districts, ask ED.
How much do districts receive?• Base grant amount is 20k, max is 60k• Annual appropriation for REAP is $180
million
What do districts use REAP $ for?• Professional development, ed technology,
teacher recruitment/retention, school climate improvements, curriculum purchases
Maintains student disaggregation by subgroup
Provides school leaders the flexibility to target dollars where they’re needed most
Eliminates HQT Returns assessment & accountability to
state and local leaders Eliminates SES/Choice Returns school improvement interventions
for low performing schools to states Puts states in charge of designing a
teacher evaluation system that includes student performance
