NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED535995
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2011-Aug
Pages: 3
Abstractor: ERIC
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Softening the Blow: Toward a Fairer Allocation of Title I Funds
Miller, Raegen
Center for American Progress
The All Children Are Equal Act introduced by Rep. Glenn Thomson (R-PA) in the House of Representatives last week tackles a flaw in the way Title I, the largest program authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA, allocates funds to school districts. The bill, which enjoys bipartisan sponsorship of Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), among others, would gradually squelch an aspect of two of the program's four funding formulas that is out of sync with the purpose of Title I funds--to enhance the educational experience of children living in concentrated poverty. Congress first folded the Targeted Grant and the Education Finance Incentive Grant, or EFIG, formulas into ESEA during its 1994 reauthorization. The most recent reauthorization, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, required that appropriations over and above the level of fiscal year 2001 be allocated to school districts by means of these flawed formulas. The problem is that the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas favor the country's largest school districts, irrespective of the concentrations of children in poverty the districts serve. The result is that small districts and those serving medium-sized cities, including many serving high concentrations of poverty, take a beating. The All Children are Equal Act would weaken the size advantage built into the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas, thus softening the blow to low-income children in small- and medium-sized districts. Said another way, the bill would turn down the volume on the sucking sound, reducing allocations for the largest districts and increasing allocations for other districts. The bill's approach is straightforward. It would simply lower each of the weights associated with the number-weighting scheme by an amount equal to 10 percent of its current value for four consecutive years. A weight of 3.0 would be thus reduced to 2.7, 2.4, 2.1, and finally 1.8. In the end this would substantially dampen the inequity created by number-weighting, not eliminate it. (Contains 2 figures.)
Center for American Progress. 1333 H Street NW 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. Tel: 202-682-1611; Web site: http://www.americanprogress.org
Publication Type: Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: Center for American Progress
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I; No Child Left Behind Act 2001