Noelle Ellerson Sasha Pudelski AASA: The School Superintendents Association July 8, 2013

 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the farthest-reaching federal legislation affecting education.  Title I of ESEA distributes funding to local education agencies (LEAs) to improve achievement of disadvantaged children.  In order to allocate more funding per Title I student to LEAs with higher concentrations of poverty, the current formula weights the count of eligible students in an ELA.  Unfortunately, the current weighting system has the perverse effect of diverting funding away from higher-poverty LEAs, toward lower-poverty LEAs, regardless of the actual poverty rate.

 This misallocation stems from the use of two alternative weighting systems: One based on the percentage of students in poverty (percentage weighting) One based on the sheer number of students in poverty (number weighting)  Both poverty indicators (number and percentage) are run through their respective weighting scale, and the LEA receives its final Title I allocation based on the system that is of most benefit.

Percentage of School Age Children Who Are Title I Eligible Weight Given Each Student in Bracket Up to and up Weighting Brackets Based on Percentage of Students Who Are Title I Eligible

Number of Title I Eligible School Age Children Weight Given Each Student in Bracket , ,263-7, ,852-35, ,515 and up3.0 Weighting Brackets Based on Number of Title I Students 6

 The current weighting system has the perverse effect of diverting funding away from higher-poverty LEAs, toward lower- poverty LEAs, regardless of the actual poverty rate.  How? # weighting gives a big boost in student count to a large LEA even if it has a low % of poverty, while small ELAs, even with high poverty rates, get no benefit from # weighting. Since Title I distributes funding from a fixed appropriation, all funds gained by an LEA that benefits from number weighting are at the expense of those LEAs that do not.

 The current weighting system has the perverse effect of diverting funding away from higher-poverty LEAs, toward lower- poverty LEAs, regardless of the actual poverty rate.  How? As a result, all small and moderate-sized LEAs with high poverty rates receive far less than they would if all districts were weighted using percentage weighting only. In fact, some of the highest poverty LEAs are so disadvantaged by number weighting that they receive less than if there were no weighting system at all. This runs counter to Congressional intent and negates the fact that poverty is poverty and all children should be treated equal under the law.

 The ACE Act gradually phases out the number weighting system while leaving percentage weighting in place.  By reducing the weight factors used in the number weighting system over four years, the formula becomes balanced and accurately reflects Congressional intent to allocate funding to LEAs with higher concentrations of poverty.  Large LEAs with high concentrations of poverty would still benefit from percentage weighting, as would all smaller LEAs with higher percentages of poverty.

Top 30 LEAs Benefitting Under ACE (Targeted Dollars) StateLEA NAMEStudentsPovertyCumulative Difference OHCleveland Municipal School District32, %6,558,334 NYRochester City School District16, %4,041,659 INIndianapolis Public Schools22, %3,580,825 TXBrownsville Independent School District22, %3,503,755 TXLa Joya Independent School District14, %2,696,989 CABakersfield City Elementary School District13, %2,418,943 NYSyracuse City School District9, %2,334,332 TXLaredo Independent School District12, %2,261,449 NJLakewood Township School District9, %2,260,032 TXPharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District13, %2,255,328 TX Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District14, %2,239,104 OHDayton City School District10, %2,211,312 ALBirmingham City School District13, %2,163,398 MIFlint City School District9, %2,076,531 MIDearborn City School District9, %1,947,614 MOKansas City School District11, %1,864,728 CTHartford School District8, %1,822,955 INGary Community School Corporation8, %1,734,068 PAAllentown City School District8, %1,645,880 OHColumbus City School District28, %1,599,032 OHToledo City School District15, %1,598,855 NCRobeson County Schools10, %1,590,370 TXDonna Independent School District8, %1,550,374 TXMcAllen Independent School District10, %1,547,395 AZSunnyside Unified District9, %1,533,429 KSKansas City Unified School District 5008, %1,525,709 OHAkron City School District11, %1,497,751 NJCamden City School District6, %1,480,899 CAFresno Unified School District33, %1,401,275 NYKiryas Joel Village Union Free School District4, %1,362,146 OHCincinnati City School District19, %1,328,429 AZCartwright Elementary District8, %1,326,326 Source: US Education Department

 Created in NCLB  Dedicated funding stream for small and rural schools and rural and low-income schools  How is rural defined? Urban-centric locale codes  How is small defined? Less than 600 students  How is low-income defined? Census poverty data Note: To find out if you’re CD has REAP eligible districts, ask ED.

 How much do districts receive? Base grant amount is 20k, max is 60k Annual appropriation for REAP is $180 million  What do districts use REAP $ for? Professional development, ed technology, teacher recruitment/retention, school climate improvements, curriculum purchases

 Maintains student disaggregation by subgroup  Provides school leaders the flexibility to target dollars where they’re needed most  Eliminates HQT  Returns assessment & accountability to state and local leaders  Eliminates SES/Choice  Returns school improvement interventions for low performing schools to states  Puts states in charge of designing a teacher evaluation system that includes student performance

Noelle Ellerson Sasha Pudelski