Verbatim Mac

Squo - Graduation Rates students low income schools

Uniqueness – graduation rates

Students in high poverty schools less likely to graduate

Boser, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, and Baffour, research associate, K-12 Education Policy, Center for American Progress, 2017

(Ulrich and Perpetual, “Isolated and Segregated”, Center for American Progress, May 31, 2017, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2017/05/31/433014/isolated-and-segregated/, accessed 7/5/17, GDI-JG)

But deeply ingrained and pervasive economic segregation in Austin’s public schools is no isolated incident. In fact, it reflects a disturbing, nationwide trend. Millions of students across the country attend schools that are intensely segregated by economic status. Today, 40 percent of all low-income children—or 10 million students—attend schools with poverty rates reaching 75 percent or higher.5∂ Rising income inequality has contributed to these trends of economic segregation6 and thus further exacerbates many of the nation’s student achievement issues. When it comes to high-school completion, students attending high-poverty schools—or schools where at least 75 percent of students are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch—only have a 68 percent chance of graduating.7 In comparison, students attending low-poverty schools—or where 25 percent or less of students qualify for free and reduced-price lunch—have a 91 percent chance of graduating.8∂ Moreover, all students—rich or poor, white and nonwhite alike—miss out on the substantial benefits of learning in richly diverse classrooms.9 As the research shows, students across the spectrum are better prepared for post-secondary success when they have been educated in diverse schools and have learned alongside peers who come from all walks of life.10

Squo Teacher Quality – general

SQuo Debate – Title I

Title I Flawed – General

School districts currently underfund high-poverty schools—studies prove

Liebman, Simon H. Rifkin Professor, Columbia Law School, and Mbikiwa, Attorney, the High Court of South Africa, 2017

(James S. and Michael, “EVERY DOLLAR COUNTS: IN DEFENSE OF THE OBAMA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S "SUPPLE-MENT NOT SUPPLANT" PROPOSAL”, Columbia Law Review Online, March 1, 2017, accessed via LexisNexis, accessed 7/14/17, GDI-JG)

Evidence compellingly demonstrates--as Congress famously recognized in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) n1--that children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds require more education-al resources than other students. n2 Yet, a half century later, many school districts still spend less money on high-poverty schools than on more privileged schools. n3 In 2011, a study by the U.S. Department of Education discovered that nationwide, more than forty percent of schools eligible for Title I funding based on their high-poverty status re-ceive less state and local funding for instructional and other personnel costs than non-Title I schools in the same dis-tricts at the same grade level. n4 A more recent study confirmed that more than 4.5 million low-income students attend Title I schools that on average receive about $ 1,200 less per student than non-Title I schools in the same district. n5

Funding inequities undermine educational quality for marginalized students in high poverty schools – appropriate enforcement of new compliance rules key to addressing funding gaps

Sargrad, Managing Director of the K-12 Education Policy team at the Center for American Progress, 16 (Scott Sargrad, 10-3-2016, "Federal Regulations Should Drive More Money to Poor Schools," Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2016/10/03/145214/federal-regulations-should-drive-more-money-to-poor-schools//HJ-GDI)

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was designed to provide additional resources to the most disadvantaged students in poor schools. But within years, it was clear that poor kids did not receive their fair share of education dollars.

To address this inequity, Congress approved the first supplement-not-supplant provision in 1970 to ensure that districts did not use federal money to replace state and local dollars. On September 6 of this year, the U.S. Department of Education issued draft regulations on ESSA’s updated supplement-not-supplant provision and in so doing, took another important step forward toward fulfilling the law’s intent.

Before I dive into the research and policy, I want to step back and note that we are not considering dry academic questions. Even as we sit here today, too many low-income students across the country sit in crumbling schools without access to the experienced and effective teachers, rigorous courses, and wraparound services that they need to have a chance at success. In fact, just two weeks ago, on an unseasonably hot September day, every school in Baltimore closed early because so many of them had no air conditioning, depriving these students of valuable learning time.

Money matters in education. And it matters particularly for students from low-income families. This is common sense—and it’s supported by a growing body of research. For low-income students, a 10 percent increase in per-student spending increased adult wages by almost 10 percent, according to a 2015 study. Similarly, a 2016 study found that greater state spending on low-income students dramatically improved student learning in reading and math.

Students in poorer schools, however, continue to receive less than their richer peers. In approximately 1,500 school districts across the country, there are about 5,700 Title I—or poor—schools that receive, on average, $440,000 less per year than wealthier schools. That’s a lot of money. With $440,000, a school could hire eight new guidance counselors, or give a $10,000 bonus to more than 40 teachers.

This inequity also happens across districts. While there is significant variation across states, high-poverty districts spend an average of 15 percent less per student than low-poverty districts. In Pennsylvania, poorer school districts spend 33 percent less per pupil than wealthier districts in the state.

As a result of these policies, children of color often suffer the most. Indeed, compared with high-poverty schools and schools with high percentages of students of color, wealthier schools and schools with lower percentages of students of color offer more rigorous core programs. Wealthier schools are twice as likely to offer a full range of math and science courses, offer three times as many Advanced Placement classes, and are twice as likely to offer dual enrollment opportunities.

But these are not just facts and figures. Every day, real students walk into schools with so few resources that every one of us would say they are unacceptable for our own child. In one Detroit elementary and middle school, black mold covers the gym floor, and the ceilings are full of exposed wires, wrote Lakia Wilson, a counselor at Detroit’s Spain Elementary-Middle School, earlier this year. And in the William Penn School District in Pennsylvania, students such as Jameria Miller “race to class to get the best blankets” to stay warm within the school’s uninsulated metal walls.

From the passage of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, the federal government’s role has been to protect historically disadvantaged students and ensure that they have the same opportunities as their more advantaged peers. Beginning with the original supplement-not-supplant provision in 1970, the federal government has had a responsibility to enforce this requirement of the law. Today’s ESSA is no different.

Districts have historically shown compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirement by showing that every service purchased with Title I funds was supplemental and would not have been provided absent the Title I funds. This means that districts often limited their spending to programs that they could easily show were supplemental, such as pulling kids out of class for additional instruction, but that were not necessarily the most impactful.

The new law stops the short-sighted practice of making districts justify every purchase. Now districts must demonstrate that their methods of funding make sure that poor schools get their fair share.

Recognizing that historical funding inequities are a problem without an easy solution, the U.S. Department of Education provides in its proposed regulation multiple options for districts to demonstrate compliance, including allowing states to develop their own compliance test. The proposal also includes additional flexibility for districts with schools serving a lot of students with disabilities or English learners, those with small schools, and those with a single school. What’s more, the proposed regulations give districts additional time to comply, so they can phase in any changes needed to ensure that poor schools are getting their fair share.

While this change will require extra efforts, it does not mean districts must use completely new strategies to distribute school funding. Under the proposal, more than 90 percent of districts would already be in compliance with supplement not supplant. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. Those remaining 10 percent or so of districts must do the hard work of showing that they are fairly supporting poor schools with state and local funds before the addition of federal dollars.

But it’s worth it. Funding inequities for vulnerable children remain, and we must close this gap because money matters, especially to students from low-income families. The department’s regulations, which provide flexible options and time to comply, give districts the opportunity to be thoughtful about investing as part of a broader plan to support students who are most in need.

Current Title 1 misallocates resources and spurs inequality

Moffitt, Mary Tefft and John Hazen White Senior Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Brown University, 2016

(Susan L., “The State of Educational Improvement: The Legacy of ESEA Title I”, History of Education Quarterly, May 2016, Vol. 56, No. 2, accessed 7/3/17, GDI-JG)

4. Financing public education. Inequalities that emerge through the state and local control of education-related finances provide a fourth inherited challenge. Title I of the ESEA aims to reduce inequality of ed- ucational outcomes, yet it is overlaid on patterns of unequal interstate, intrastate, and intradistrict allocation of educational resources that cre- ated enormous inequality in the distribution of educational resources and thus educational opportunity.16 ESEA Title I layers on top of these inequalities and has done little to correct those fundamental patterns.

Status quo funding isn’t equitable—that decreases resources for schools serving disadvantaged students

Chingos, Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute, and Director, Education Policy Program, The Urban Institute, 2017

(Matthew M., "How progressive is school funding in the United States?", Brookings, June 15, 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-progressive-is-school-funding-in-the-united-states/, accessed 7/8/17, GDI-JG)

But there are good reasons to believe that it is more expensive to provide the same quality of education to disadvantaged children—in other words, funding that is equal may not be equitable. For example, schools serving disadvantaged children likely find it harder (or more expensive) to recruit and retain high-quality teachers.[4] Additionally, poor children may have higher rates of disabilities or social service needs that require resources to appropriately address.∂ From this perspective, the fact that overall funding progressivity remains low despite two decades of reforms enacted by courts and state legislatures suggests a troubling lack of progress on equitable funding of public schools. This finding is consistent with our state-level analysis, which shows that states where the distribution of education funding is strongly progressive are the exception rather than the norm.∂ These descriptive findings based on district-level data can only depict patterns of school funding in broad strokes. They do not tell us how funding should be distributed, or even how it is currently distributed across different schools within the same district.[5] In the meantime, the available evidence provides compelling reasons for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to pay careful attention to how much education funding is available, how it is distributed, and how it is spent.