Search

This brief is one in a series aimed at providing K-12 education decision makers and advocates with an evidence base to ground discussions about how to best serve students during and following the novel coronavirus pandemic. It addresses one central question: What are the key considerations for districts that may need to reduce spending and potentially lay off employees? In order to answer this question, the brief breaks down the issue into four points: (1) State revenues will drop for districts in many states. The extent of revenue loss will vary considerably across districts and could be partially mitigated by the federal response; (2) If the federal government does not offset state revenue losses, districts will need to cut spending on salaries and benefits; (3) School spending cuts negatively affect students' educational outcomes and apparently neutral budget choices often have disproportionate effects on traditionally underserved students; and (4) The COVID-19 pandemic creates substantial new demands on schools that will likely require a reallocation of resources. Based on these points, the brief provides four strategies to consider and two strategies to avoid. [This brief was co-prepared by Georgetown University, McCourt School of Public Policy.]

Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 50 years ago as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty." The most expansive federal education bill ever passed, it was developed as redress, establishing that poor children needed more educational services than wealthier children. Title I of the ESEA provides federal funds to state and local education agencies with the intention of augmenting funding for high-poverty students. Yet even today, after five decades, substantial revisions, and an allocation of over $14 billion, Title I is not living up to its promise. The authors assert that the solution is not simply a matter of fixing one piece or another of a given formula. They propose a return to basics: A poor student deserves what the federal support promised to poor children 50 years ago, regardless of where that student lives and what their school or school district looks like. This paper suggests, and details some clear principles for reforming Title I formulas, and measuring the progress made. They are: (1) Simplicity; (2) Tie the money to qualifying students in schools with concentrated poverty; (3) Consistency; (4) Leveling the playing field; and (5) Flexibility. Title 1 funding formulas have become so complex and murky that few people really understand how they work and even fewer think they are achieving their true purpose. Stakeholder politics will persist, but the authors encourage both sides to come together to evaluate proposals against these fundamental principles, so that Title I can finally start to fulfill its 50-year-old promise to poor students.