Fleshing Out Title I Comparability in Obama’s Blueprint

Last weekend the Obama Administration released its “Blueprint for Reform,” a document that discusses the president’s proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). On the whole, the document provides some additional, though hardly thorough, details for programs the Administration already alluded to in its fiscal year 2011 budget request. These include the consolidation of several K-12 education programs and the inclusion of a state definition of a “highly effective” teacher and principal as part of the accountability structure. But the document also briefly mentions, though provides no specifics on, a provision that has recently been overlooked in President Obama’s and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s discussion of ESEA reauthorization: Title I comparability.

Comparability refers to a current provision of Title I that requires school districts to provide equitable state and local resources to both their low-income, Title I schools and their higher-income, non-Title I schools. Theoretically, this provision ensures that any federal Title I funds are used to provide additional services to low-income students on top of the baseline provided through state and local funds.

However, current law allows school districts to demonstrate comparability through methods that deeply obscure the amount of state and local funds Title I schools actually receive. For example, districts can demonstrate comparability by comparing student-instructional staff ratios between Title I and non-Title I schools or presenting the federal government with a district-wide salary schedule that demonstrates that all teachers with similar qualification earn the same amount of money across the district. These current methods overlook the variation in teacher pay due to years of experience, a significant factor in teacher salaries. In addition, it blurs the distinction between certified teachers and instructional staff in general, which could include teacher aides and other uncertified staff.

Because more experienced, and therefore higher paid teachers tend to work in higher-income schools, low-income, Title I schools employ primarily less experienced, lower-paid teachers. As a result, higher-income schools receive a greater share of state and local funds to pay for their teachers than low-income schools. Without a dramatic overhaul of the comparability provision, higher-income schools will continue to monopolize state and local resources, short changing low-income students and schools.

Unfortunately, the “Blueprint” is short on specifics for teacher comparability. It only says: “Over time, districts will be required to ensure that their high-poverty schools receive state and local funding levels (for personnel and relevant nonpersonnel expenditures) comparable to those received by their low-poverty schools.”

While this statement does seem to suggest that actual monetary expenditures will be required to demonstrate comparability, it does not clarify what expenditures exactly that will include. Without clearly specifying that districts must demonstrate comparability by including variation in teacher pay as a result of years of experience, rather than student-instructional staff ratios or salary schedules, the Obama Administration leaves these details up to Congress and leaves low-income students vulnerable. Past attempts to strengthen the comparability provision have been wildly unpopular with teachers unions and any significant improvements are likely to be hard won. But including a stronger version of comparability in ESEA reauthorization is an important step towards bolstering Title I schools and ensuring that they have the strongest teaching staff possible.

Read this report to learn about the Federal Education Budget Project’s recommendations for strengthening comparability.