Equity and Funding

1. Equity and Funding

2. Historical Timeline 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson 1954 Brown v. Bd. of Education 1965 Elementary & Secondary Ed. Act 1980�s shift in focus of ESEA 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 2009 Race To the Top (RTtT) 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson � Separate but (un)equal Schools 1954 Brown v. Board of Education � State support of segregated schools was unconstitutional 1965 Elementary & Secondary Ed. Act � outlawed use of federal funds for segregated programs; initially categorical funding for schools serving low income; Federal role expanded beyond information-gathering � now they were administering funds and programs 1980�s- many programs for low income schools were cut, ESEA focus broadened to support teaching innovations, cultural and social enrichment, library resources, parental involvement, nutrition programs, medical services 2001 NCLB dramatically increased the federal role in education � funding was based on annual yearly progress � goal was to guarantee all succeeded, and yet the schools had become resegregated 2009 RTtT used Competition, not categorical funding; only 12 states which demonstrated alignment with federal government priorities received funding 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson � Separate but (un)equal Schools 1954 Brown v. Board of Education � State support of segregated schools was unconstitutional 1965 Elementary & Secondary Ed. Act � outlawed use of federal funds for segregated programs; initially categorical funding for schools serving low income; Federal role expanded beyond information-gathering � now they were administering funds and programs 1980�s- many programs for low income schools were cut, ESEA focus broadened to support teaching innovations, cultural and social enrichment, library resources, parental involvement, nutrition programs, medical services 2001 NCLB dramatically increased the federal role in education � funding was based on annual yearly progress � goal was to guarantee all succeeded, and yet the schools had become resegregated 2009 RTtT used Competition, not categorical funding; only 12 states which demonstrated alignment with federal government priorities received funding

3. Federal Spending under ESEA

4. Funding of Education varies by state In many states In Illinois

5. Study Question F&E 1 In the past most of the ESEA funding has been non-competitive based on need. All/any schools that prove they fall under the federal guidelines for funding receive those funds. However, competitive grants are now being proposed for states/districts who meet certain federal requirements such as Race to the Top. Which would be appropriate? (Choose one) Non-competitive funding for all meeting requirements A combination of non-competitive and competitive grants Competitive grants only No federal funding

6. Example of non-competitive funding based on need ESEA free school lunches provided for all children whose families earn less than 130% of poverty level income

7. Example of Competitive Funding Race To the Top Awarded to states which write the best grant proposals & meet the following criteria: * Adopting standards & assessments * Build data systems * Recruit, reward effective educators * Turn around lowest-achieving schools * Facilitate creating high-performing charters

8. For Competitive Funding * Competition can be a motivator to excel * Competition can encourage innovation * Competition assumes accountability * Competition focuses on rewards more than punishment

9. Against Competitive Funding Writing a competitive grant diverts funds from education to grant writing Competition works against equity in education (there are winners and losers) The �winners� are the schools with the best grant writers Competition only motivates people who are confident they can succeed.

10. Study Question F&E 2 If the federal government�s role is the concern of the �common good� then (Choose one) Mandates only should be sanctioned. Mandates and funding should both be provided. Funding should be provided through grants only. A combination of funded mandates and grants should apply. No mandates should be required and limited grants for innovation available.

11. �Common Good� Something that is good for the entire community as a whole: * honest police force * adequate park space Usually, these are paid for by tax revenue

12. a. Mandates only should be sanctioned �Mandates� = �requirements for receiving federal funding� Examples: Special Education � before get $, demonstrate students get appropriate education in least restrictive environment NCLB and IDEA � states create assessments and plans to reach 100% proficiency �ONLY if they want $ This funding is substantial Due to budget crises, states can�t provide enough $ Mandates can be viewed as more or less effective �Sanctioned� = �Required� (not punishment)

13. b. Mandates & funding should both be provided When mandates are not funded, states seem to ignore them Examples: Some states cannot pay for mandated longer school days, so they are cutting back NCLB required schools to hire high quality teachers but no funding to do so

14. c. Funding should be provided through grants only Race To the Top � Only the states which won funding needed to comply with criteria (e.g. adopt Common Core Standards) Some of the criteria were based on sound research, and some were not (e.g. merit pay, charter schools) Some argue that it is not fair to take money from one state and give it to another which agrees to criteria

15. d. A combination of funded mandates & grants Restatement of answer �b� � we can ignore this answer

16. e. No mandates should be required & limited grants for innovation available Federal government provides funding for innovations proposed by states & holds states accountable E.g. States request funds for computer carts States are held accountable if they do not use funds to meet their objectives

17. Study Question F&E 3 Equity in public education means equitable access to: high quality teaching/learning YES/NO adequate and current learning materials Y/N clean and well maintained physical facilities Y/N food and health care YES/NO safe and secure neighborhoods YES/NO secure housing YES/NO

18. Interpretation of F&E 3: What does the League mean when we talk about equity in education? Is it possible to have equity in education without considering the larger picture? Should each of these options be considered when we discuss educational equity, even if they are not funded through the schools? If it is possible in 10 minutes, we�ve been asked to rank order the answers.

19. Study Question: F& E 3 For Some: �Equity� & �Education Reform� are catch phrases used by advocates for the privatization of education e.g. public schools are not meeting the needs of many children, SO the government should fund private schools or privately-managed charter schools for high quality teaching/learning with adequate and current materials Race To the Top has endorsed programs which facilitate the growth of high quality charter schools

20. Study Question: F& E 3 For Others: We cannot have equity in public education as long as education is funded by local property taxes The children who are being failed by public schools today are primarily in low-income districts which have unsafe buildings, neighborhoods, increased health risks, etc. Research has shown that most charter schools and vouchers are not more effective than public schools

21. Study Question F&E 4 Currently ESEA funding is considered �categorical� rather than for general use. This means that it can only be used with special populations for special purposes. ESEA should remain targeted toward poverty and special needs. Strongly Agree no consensus Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

22. Study Question F&E 4 Arguments for Local Control The Constitution did not give the federal government authority over education Individualism is central to American identity Local districts should know best how to meet the needs of the community Our tax money goes toward our local schools, so we should have input into them. Socio-economic status is so strong that educational funding cannot affect students� test scores

23. Study Question F&E 4  Arguments for Centralized control The Constitution says that federal govt. can do what is necessary and proper to carry out its duties In countries with high-performing schools disadvantaged schools have lower teacher/student ratio than in US Local funding means that being a low-income student in the US is much more likely to result in poor achievement compared to other developed countries We should be educating for a global society � if it is left to the states, some students will not learn about the theory of evolution, etc. Effects of education funding are more powerful than socio-economic status if the money is spent on factors related to teaching.

24. Inequity of Wealth in the US Wealth inequity is at an historic high Actual distribution of wealth (for each 20th percentile of the population) The poorest 40% own less than 1% of the nation�s wealth But Americans believe that wealth is distributed much more equitably

25. Study Question F&E 4 Warning about Categorical funding federal, state and local programs must be coordinated around a common vision, . At times, the categorical approach of ESEA has resulted in federally funded programs operating in isolation from one another and in services being delivered apart from the regular instructional program of the school. http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/Guidance/pt1.html

26. Study Question 5 The federal government should have a role in supporting early childhood education, birth to 5, for all children Strongly Agree No consensus Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

27. Study Question F&E 5 Reasons against universal early childhood education (ECE): High cost of high quality ECE Low profitability for care centers Difficulty measuring effectiveness without long-term studies Pulls funding away from K-12 education Recent study funded by fed. Govt. did not support long-term results of head start

28. Study Question F&E 5 Reasons for universal ECE There is strong research showing long term results: more people employed, paying taxes and Social Security Better health, stronger social, emotional, and cognitive skills Less crime Fewer students classified as special education Recent study did not clearly compare Head Start vs. other approaches; Access to Head Start did increase the likelihood that low-income would be enrolled in ECE

29. Study Question 6 Federal support for early childhood education programs (Head Start, Title I, Special Education, Early Start) should include funding for parent education and support regarding child development, child health and nutrition, and access to other supportive service, such as mental health, as needed. a. Strongly Agree No consensus Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

30. Reasons for funding parent education & support Research effects of parent ed. & support programs: Higher Intelligence Better nutrition/health Improved social/emotional behavior Higher salaries Lower grade retention/dropout rates Cost effectiveness Savings on welfare Gains in productivity

31. Reasons against funding parent ed. & support High cost for high quality Pulls funding away from K-12 education Federal government should not be viewed as an all-purpose problem-solver

32. Study Question: F&E 6 part b b. This funding should be extended to: All children Only those with special needs Special needs first

33. Need for support for families with special needs children In addition to clinical responses, more comprehensive solutions are needed to fully address the complexities of their needs

34. Who else benefits from parent education and support? ALL families need Safe/stable relationships during the early years to prevent future remediation Early identification and treatment of potential problems Middle Class families are vulnerable Financial stress � the number of children with a securely-employed parent increased in the 90�s but ��s of those gains were lost by 2008 For the past 8 years, public education and health programs have provided essential services (e.g. access to health insurance and pre-kindergarten) for middle-class children whose parents cannot afford them