Equitable Resources in Low Income Schools

Teachers with the least experience and fewest credentials teach in our poorest schools, putting low-income students at a disadvantage. School finance disparities in teacher spending within school districts are a major cause of this problem. However, school district budgeting techniques mask these intra-district disparities, allowing administrators and policymakers to ignore them.

The Title I comparability provision of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is intended to prevent local school districts from systematically spending less on students in their highest-poverty schools. Each school district that receives federal NCLB Title I funding must use its state and local funds to provide "comparable services" to its high-poverty (Title I) and low-poverty (non-Title I) schools before federal funds are received. After accounting for state and local dollars, Title I dollars are intended to provide additional funds for additional services in high-poverty schools.

In practice, however, loopholes in federal law and regulations have rendered the comparability provision in Title I meaningless. This is especially true with respect to spending on teacher salaries, which account for the majority of local school district expenditures. Under current law, two schools within the same school district may be deemed "comparably resourced" even if the teachers in one school are far more experienced, and therefore receive higher salaries, than those in a neighboring school.

Why does this matter? Teacher experience is at least a partial predictor of success in the classroom and one of the approximations for teacher quality available today. Experienced teachers tend to have better classroom management skills and a stronger command of curricular materials. Many novice teachers struggle during their initial years in any classroom, let alone in classrooms in the neediest schools. Additionally, schools with many inexperienced teachers have higher rates of staff turnover, which perpetuates the cycle of novice teachers instructing students with the greatest needs. So long as comparability regulations allow school districts to be deemed "comparable" even though experienced teachers are unevenly distributed, low-income students will continue to be disadvantaged in the classroom.

Teacher salary inequities are not the only funding disparities affecting our children's education. Spending on other resources also plays a role in the quality of education. All too often, the latest technology, up-to-date curricular materials, and curriculum specialists, such as reading consultants, are available to students in affluent schools, but not to students in Title I schools.

When Congress reauthorizes NCLB, it will have the opportunity to address the teacher and resource inequities in our schools by closing loopholes and strengthening the Title I intra-district school finance comparability provision. To achieve this, Congress should:

Require school-level budget transparency. Congress should require school districts to report real-dollar spending on teachers and other instructional resources at the school level, and track the distribution of local, state, and federal funds.

Require comparability in per-pupil spending, including actual teacher salaries, across individual schools. School districts should be required to demonstrate that per-pupil spending, including teacher salary spending with differences based on teacher experience, is comparable in high-poverty Title I and low-poverty non-Title I schools, and to do so in a transparent manner. This requirement should be phased in to give school districts time to address current inequities in teacher and resource distribution. Additionally, the requirement should only apply to non-targeted funds; including spending on special education or other student-specific programs could unfairly disadvantage schools with needy populations.

Revise the definition of instructional staff. Congress should limit the definition of instructional staff to highly qualified teachers.

Amend the law to explicitly state that spending comparability constitutes a minimum requirement, and lower the current threshold from 10 percent to 5 percent. Federal regulations state that to be "comparable" the amount of funds spent at a Title I school must fall within 10 percent of the average amount of funds spent at non-Title I schools. The comparability provision thus sets a minimum requirement for providing resources to Title I schools. Absent explicit guidance, some states have interpreted the regulations as also setting a maximum resource level for Title I schools. In reality, current regulations do not do so. To ensure the maximization of resources for high-poverty schools, the law should be amended to explicitly state that comparability requirements are meant to set a floor, not a ceiling, for funding Title I schools. The law should also be amended to lower the current threshold from 10 percent to 5 percent.

Dedicate new money to help schools meet teacher distribution requirements.To help close the teacher experience and credential gap and bring districts closer to comparable per-pupil spending, Congress should require school districts that are out of compliance with the Title I comparability provision to spend at least 45 percent of their Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant dollars on teacher redistribution. Congress should also expand the scope of the Teacher Incentive Fund program to allow school districts to use grants to address teacher distribution inequities, including base pay increases for teachers who agree to teach in high-poverty or high-minority schools.

Grant waivers for exceptional staffing situations. On a very limited basis and under specific conditions, the U.S. Department of Education should make comparability waivers available to schools with unique needs, including those that are experimenting with teacher reforms.Waivers should not be granted to schools with no previous demonstration of academic success. The Department of Education should set general state waiver requirements, allowing the states to grant waivers on a case-by-case basis, subject to federal audits.

Lindsey Luebchow is a former policy analyst with New America's Education Policy Program and is now a student at Yale Law School where she studies educational equity, adequacy, and school finance issues. Jennifer Cohen, a policy analyst in the Education Policy Program at the New America Foundation, contributed to this report.