12/17/2017 The Problem With Title I Education Funding - Pacific Standard

HOME EDUCATION

THE PROBLEM WITH TITLE I EDUCATION

FUNDING
A new report on America's education system highlights problems with
Title I funding formulas.
DWYER GUNN · MAR 30, 2016

Last week, the Hamilton Project released a report

report
report on America's struggling K–12 public
education system. The report is full of useful information on the importance of both early
education and post-secondary education, but it pays special attention to the country's high-
poverty public schools, which currently educate approximately 56 percent of students
nationwide.

As the graph below demonstrates, that percentage is much higher in southern states (in
Mississippi, for example, approximately 92 percent of students attend a high-poverty school).
The report also highlights a discouraging trend: Many of these schools receive less per-pupil
Title I funding than schools in wealthier states.

America's schools are becoming increasingly

increasingly
increasingly more
more
more segregated
segregated
segregated (by race and income), a fact that
spells bad news for students. Schools with a high percentage of low-income students struggle
to attract and retain qualified teachers. In Charlotte, North Carolina, researchers have linked
the re-segregation of schools to higher criminal activity, lower test scores, lower graduation
rates, and declines in college attendance rates. High-poverty schools also struggle with
resources and funding, which is especially troublesome because low-income students are the
most likely to need higher-quality teachers, after-school tutoring, and other supplemental
services.

This is in no small part due to America's education funding system. School districts derive 90
percent of their funding from state and local revenues. Districts in wealthy areas are able to
raise substantially higher levels of local revenues, and most states' education
education
education funding
funding
funding formulas
formulas
formulas
fail to direct enough state revenues to poor districts to correct these inequities. But federal
funding plays a role as well. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was
created with the explicit goal of providing supplemental federal funds to low-income students
and the schools that educate them.

Here's what the text of the law states:

https://psmag.com/education/the-problem-with-title-i-education-funding 1/3
12/17/2017 The Problem With Title I Education Funding - Pacific Standard

IN RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

AND THE IMPACT THAT CONCENTRATION OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES HAVE ON THE ABILITY OF
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES TO SUPPORT ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS, THE
CONGRESS HEREBY DECLARES IT TO BE THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ... TO LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES SERVING AREAS WITH
CONCENTRATIONS OF CHILDREN FROM LOW-INCOME FAMILIES TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE THEIR
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS BY VARIOUS MEANS WHICH CONTRIBUTE PARTICULARLY TO MEETING
THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF EDUCATIONALLY DEPRIVED CHILDREN.

Unfortunately, Title I has fallen far short of its original mission. The Hamilton Project report
concludes that states with higher percentages of low-income students actually receive less
per-pupil Title I funding. So why does a federal education funding system that was created to
correct education inequities do the exact opposite?

In a policy
policy
policy proposal
proposal
proposal released alongside the report, Nora
Nora
Nora Gordon
Gordon,
Gordon a Hamilton Project researcher
and professor at Georgetown University, provides some context. Title I funding formulas are
complicated, she explains, but allocations are based on six criteria: average per-pupil spending,
state size, historical funding allocations, the ratio of education spending to per-capita income,
and within-state variations in local school spending. Some of those criteria are accompanied by
mandatory minimums—there's a minimum funding level for smaller states, for example, and
the historical allocation criteria includes a "hold-harmless" rule that requires a minimum
funding level based on previous years' funding levels.

Here's the problem: Congress doesn't fully fund Title I (by a long shot), but the mandatory
minimums aren't waived in the absence of adequate funding. "The result of these formulas is
that the amount of Title I funds per poor child varies greatly even across districts and states
with similar poverty rates," Gordon writes. As a result, small states like Vermont and North
Dakota receive substantially higher levels of per-pupil funding than places like Louisiana or
Mississippi, despite having lower shares of children eligible for such funding.

Gordon's paper also includes a series of recommendations for both simplifying the Title I
funding process and making it more progressive, including eliminating the small state
minimum and (gradually) phasing out the hold-harmless minimum. Under Gordon's proposed
reforms, 36 states would gain per-pupil Title I funds (with Mississippi emerging as the biggest
winner), while 14 states and Washington, D.C., would lose funds. Most states would see only
minimal losses.

While the reforms that Gordon proposes would no doubt provoke political opposition from
smaller states, they're clearly needed if Title I is to remain true to its original mission.

https://psmag.com/education/the-problem-with-title-i-education-funding 2/3
12/17/2017 The Problem With Title I Education Funding - Pacific Standard

EDUCATION EDUCATION NEWS EDUCATION EDUCATION

AMERICA'S HIGHER EDUCATION TALKING STUDENT SECEDING SCHOOL THE PROBLEM
FRAGMENTED FUNDING IS STILL LOANS WITH SARA DISTRICTS LEAVE A CULTURE OF
EDUCATION… NOT BACK TO PRE… GOLDRICK-RAB VULNERABLE KIDS… EXCELLENCE

https://psmag.com/education/the-problem-with-title-i-education-funding 3/3