ESEA Reauthorization

The Rural School and Community Trust in November 2009 released its biennial “Why Rural Matters” report. The report uses Federal Education Budget Project NCLB achievement data in its analyses of academic outcomes in rural school districts around the country. The Rural School and Community Trust’s press release is available here, and the full report is here.

Ed Week’s David Hoff draws attention to a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that could complicate school districts’ efforts to spend $10 billion in Title I funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Under NCLB, school districts must provide students with supplemental tutoring or give them the option of transferring to a better-performing public school if they are enrolled in schools that have failed to meet student achievement benchmarks for multiple years. Districts must set aside up to 20 percent of Title I funds for these purposes.

But in practice, many school districts with low-performing schools haven’t actually spent the full 20 percent set-aside on school choice or tutoring (also known as supplemental educational services, or SES). That's in part because of a lack of better-performing schools for students to transfer to, and in part because many districts have done a lousy job of making parents aware of their options under the law. Districts that don’t spend the full set-aside may use that money for other purposes, but they must wait until the following year to do so. With the new infusion of Title I funding, the amount of set-aside money districts are unable to spend is likely to grow. And some observers fear that a delay in spending these funds could undermine their stimulative impact.

Complicating the picture are regulations put in place near the end of the Bush administration that would make it more difficult for school districts to roll over unused set-aside funds and use them for other purposes. Lobbyists for school districts and school administrators are citing the stimulus as a reason that the Obama Administration should undo those regulations and expand waiver authority for districts to use the set-aside funds for things other than public school choice and SES. Education reformers and advocates for low-income children fear that such changes might make it harder for children stuck in poorly performing schools to get the educational supports they need and could reward school districts for bad behavior.

We have a better idea: Maintain the requirement that districts set aside 20 percent of Title I funds for public school choice and SES, but allow them to use that funding for pre-K as well. Don’t allow districts to roll over unspent set-aside funds, but if they can’t or don’t spend the full set aside on choice and SES, require them to use the remaining funds to provide high-quality pre-K for children in neighborhoods. Services could be provided through school-based programs, Head Start, or community-based providers who meet high quality standards (such as employing teachers with bachelor's degrees).

Yesterday, the House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committees released the text of the 2009 Omnibus bill. This bill dictates appropriations for fiscal year 2009, which started on October 1^st, 2008. In the majority of cases, the 2009 Omnibus increased program funding from the 2008 level. The total Department of Education appropriation is $66.5 billion, up from $62.1 billion in fiscal year 2008.

Here at Ed Money Watch and the Federal Education Budget Project (FEBP) we are always working to better understand the distribution of federal education dollars to schools and districts.

We've previously written about both presidential candidates' unwillingness to talk about No Child Left Behind (NCLB). That's changed a bit - especially since the Teacher's College debate between Obama spokesperson Linda Darling-Hammond and McCain advisor Lisa Graham Keegan brought it back into the public eye.

Today on the Diane Rehm Show, Obama spokesperson Melody Barnes mentioned that if elected, Barack Obama would like to consider portfolios as a form of NCLB assessment.

For most of the law's existence, politicians have been debating whether No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is underfunded. School districts, states, and stakeholders have sued the federal government for enforcing an "underfunded mandate" that requires them to meet proficiency and attendance levels without providing what they believe are necessary funds to do so. For several years the fight has gone on with seemingly no hope for conclusion. But three researchers have finally shed some light on the cost of NCLB goals.

It's hard to underestimate the impact of the financial crisis on education. States across the country are struggling to keep their education budgets afloat. Districts have lost millions of dollars in failed investments.

In light of the Vice Presidential debate tonight we put together a short primer on where both of the VP picks stand on education. Needless to say, this is not an exhaustive or official list of either candidate's stance. Rather, we have attempted to trace both of their activities on education before they were potential VPs to paint a fuller picture.

With No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorization on the horizon, it never hurts to look into the future of American public education. Thankfully, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recently released its Projections of Education Statistics to 2017. This report provides some valuable information when considering reasonable future expenditures on education.