Verbatim Mac

Strategy notes and stuff to know about Title I

FYI – most funding under title I through 3 of 4 grants

Knight, Center for Education Research and Policy Studies, and DeMatthews , Educational Leadership and Foundations, 2016 

(David and David “Are ∂ school districts allocating resources equitably? ∂ Implications for Title I funding and the Every Student Succeeds Act” CERPS Working Paper 2016∂ -∂ 2∂ . ∂ University of ∂ Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX. http://www.utep.edu/education/cerps/_Files/docs/papers/CERPS_Working_Paper_2016_2.pdf accessed 7-6-17 GDI - TM)

Districts are eligible to receive Title I funding based primarily on school district Census poverty rates (Riddle, 2011). Title I funds are allocated through four components, basic grants, concentration grants, targeted assistance grants and the Education Finance Incentive Grants. The first three components (77% of Title I) allocate funds based on the percent of students in poverty in each district and the state average per-pupil expenditures on education. Districts receive more Title I funds as the percent of students in poverty increases and the state average per-pupil expenditures increases. Education Finance Incentive Grants (23% of Title I) provide additional funding based on the state’s funding level as a percent of the state’s per capita income spent on K-12 education and a measure of the degree to which the state distributes funding equitably across districts (Baker, Taylor, Levin, Chambers & Blankenship, 2013).

There are a few 1ac versions ready to go in this doc:

Portability: During the writing of ESSA, there was a debate about whether or not to include a provision to make Title I funds portable, that is tie them to individual students not to schools or school districts. This would allow Title I funds to follow students to private or charter schools. There is a big debate about this on both sides – but don’t let that scare you, there’s a bunch of people who think that this free market approach would be fabulous!

Meta formula changes: One of the big criticisms of current title I funding is lack of transparency and too much complexity resulting in misallocation of funding. The plan would revamp the formulas to streamline and increase transparency. This regulation would help equalize funding

Close the comparability loophole: ESSA left in place a comparability rule and subsequent loophole that allows states to use accounting tricks to demonstrate that they are in compliance with a requirement that school districts treat Title I and non-Title I schools comparably. The comparability loophole allows districts to count numbers of teacher rather than resources allocated. This ensures that districts, who vary their pay based on experience and quality, can be in compliance while still undermining quality education in Title I schools by placing cheaper, less experienced teachers in Title I schools.

Most of the advantages could be mixed and matched – so if the internal links/advantages seems confusing/overlapping that’s why! You could use any of the other lab’s aff adv about achievement as adv too.

There are some pieces for additional advantages – rural economies; more robust racism adv; federalism adv (for portability).

Extension and backup for all versions – you can mix and match things throughout - be a bit careful, we’ve noted a few things might not be consistent between increase formula reforms and portability.

1ACs

Portability 1ac

Portability Inherency

Squo ESSA reauthorization does not include portability of Title I funds, undermining school and state flexibility

Corona, government relations director, and Burke, director of foundation for educational chocie 16 (Brittany Corona State Programs and Government Relations Director, Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice; Lindsey Burke Director, Center for Education Policy and Will Skillman Fellow in Education, http://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/new-way-fund-education “A new way to fund Education” 7-3-2017//GDI/CH)

The tenants of federalism and the reality of federal education financing mean there are very few things Washington can or should do to advance school choice. However, as long as the federal government continues to spend roughly $15 billion annually on Title I programs, which constitute the largest portion of the approximately $24 billion ESSA, states should have the freedom to use those funds how they see fit for their communities. That should include allowing states to make those dollars portable, meaning they follow low-income children to any educational environment of choice—public, charter, private, or otherwise. Today, convoluted Title I formulas coupled with policies in some states that assign students to public schools based on their parents’ ZIP Codes do not make Title I a vehicle conducive to achieving its primary purpose: “…provid[ing] a good education for every boy and girl—no matter where he lives,” as was President Lyndon B. Johnson’s intention when establishing the initiative in 1965. By reforming Title I to give states the option to make dollars portable, policymakers would create much-needed flexibility for education providers and families and increase the likelihood of achieving the initiative’s goal. During the summer of 2015, an amendment to the House version of ESSA (H.R. 5) would have allowed for complete portability of Title I funds, including the ability of students in states that opted-in to have their funds follow them to private schools of choice. But the original amendment including portability to private schools was tabled, and a subsequent watered-down version, which did not include private schools, was considered. Even that weaker option, which would have allowed portability only to public schools and public charter schools, failed to make the final bill. ESSA, as signed into law, allows for no Title 1 portability whatsoever.

Quality education Advantage [Portability]

Educational disparities rising—impacting children’s well-being and brain development

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)

Educational disparities between lower- and higher-income students have noticeably widened in recent years. In fact, income-based disparities among students are now larger than racial disparities,26 and low-income children are 15 percent less likely to graduate from high school than their high-income peers.27∂ The causes of this gap are many and well-documented. Many low-income students encounter a host of disadvantages outside of school that are likely to affect their educational achievement.28 For instance, low-income students are less likely to benefit from parents with postsecondary degrees. Studies have shown that the mother’s education level strongly predicts the achievement of the child, and among low-income families, the mother’s education level usually does not exceed a high school diploma.29∂ Children living in low-income neighborhoods also have increased exposure to hardship in their communities. These communities tend to lack access to meaningful job opportunities and face chronic unemployment. As a consequence, members are more likely to be distressed by mental health challenges, substance abuse, crime, and high levels of incarceration. Furthermore, residents of these communities are also excessively exposed to pollutants and environmental hazards. The trauma associated with all of these conditions poses serious negative consequences for a child’s well-being and brain development.30∂ But while family and community factors are strong predictors of student achievement, school-level factors matter as well. In fact, in 1966, James Coleman, an American sociologist and researcher, released a report that studied more than 650,000 students nationwide and found that the level of student poverty in a school is the single most determinative school-level factor in a student’s academic achievement.31∂ Since the Coleman report, study after study has shown that low-income children who attend high-poverty schools fare worse than low-income children who attend low-poverty schools.

And, Low income schools reflect more teacher attrition and lower teacher quality undermining academic achievement

Knight, Center for Education Research and Policy Studies, and DeMatthews , Educational Leadership and Foundations, 2016 

(David and David “Are ∂ school districts allocating resources equitably? ∂ Implications for Title I funding and the Every Student Succeeds Act” CERPS Working Paper 2016∂ -∂ 2∂ . ∂ University of ∂ Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX. http://www.utep.edu/education/cerps/_Files/docs/papers/CERPS_Working_Paper_2016_2.pdf accessed 7-6-17 GDI - TM)

In contrast, teacher experience gaps exist both across schools in the same state and across schools in the same district. The coefficient for elementary schools of -0.079 in the first row of Panel C, Column 4 (of Table 4) suggests that, comparing schools in the same district, each 10% increase in the percent of FRL students is associated with a 0.79 percentage point decrease in the proportion of teachers with three or more years of experience. Elementary schools with 75% FRL students have, on average, 79.8% of teachers with three or more years of experience, whereas lower-poverty elementary schools with 25% FRL have 83.8% of teachers with three or more years of experience on average, a gap of about 4.0 percentage points. As demonstrated by the coefficients for middle and high schools in Column 4 of Panel C, experience gaps in middle and high schools are even greater. Based on the predicted values, the within-district experience gaps for middle and high schools are 6.5 and 6.1 percentage points, respectively (based on comparisons between schools with 25% FRL and 75% FRL in the same district). Teacher experience gaps are even greater for students of color (see appendix Table A2). These findings comport with other statewide analyses of teacher attrition (e.g., Hanushek et al., 2004; Goldhaber et al., 2015) – low-income students and students of color disproportionately attend schools with the least experienced teachers within school districts.

This gap matters for multiple reasons:

Scenario 1- economic growth

This hinders long term economic growth and competitiveness because educational inequality makes it impossible to meet future high-skilled job demand—fixing the gap is key to economic competitiveness

Parmley and Smith, Smith is a Senior Fellow with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2016

[Kelli and Marshall, “Memo: Improving and equalizing high school and college graduation rates for all students,” Brookings Institute, December 15, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/12/15/memo-improving-and-equalizing-high-school-and-college-graduation-rates-for-all-students/, GDI - TM]

Economists estimate that by 2020 more than two-thirds of jobs in the United States will require some form of postsecondary education or training. However, at the current rate of higher education completion, the nation will fall nearly 20 million degrees short of meeting that need. According to The Pell Institute, in 2014 only 35 percent of 25-34 year olds had a bachelor’s degree or higher, placing the United States around the middle of 43 developed nations. Achieving economic competitiveness demands a national response to increase the number of people earning four-year degrees or credentials. Moreover, the degree attainment rate masks pernicious inequities. According to the Pell Institute, more than half of all 24-year-olds with bachelor’s degrees are from families in the top 25 percent of the income bracket, while individuals from the bottom quarter accounted for only 10 percent of four-year degrees. Moreover, according to the Digest of Educational Statistics, Asians (57 percent) and whites (40 percent) are roughly twice as likely to hold a bachelor’s degree as African Americans (27 percent) and Hispanics (20 percent). Despite recent improvements in college-going rates, the overall degree completion rates, combined with disparities in educational attainment for low-income and underrepresented populations, will impede our nation’s efforts to develop a flourishing, inclusive economy. The “leaky student pipeline” metaphor, which characterizes the transition points in our educational system where students are lost, provides a powerful framing for identifying how to increase graduation rates. At each transition, some students fall by the wayside, especially black and Hispanic students and those from low-income families. While every transition point is important from a policy and practice perspective, improving student success at three critical junctures would have the greatest impact: (1) high school graduation, (2) pre-college remediation, and (3) college graduation. The U.S. has made progress over the last 15 years in improving on-time high school completion. A recent GradNation report describes how high school graduation rates began to rise in 2002, after flat-lining for 30 years, and have climbed sharply since 2006. The national graduation rate reached 82.3 percent in 2014—a gain of more than 10 percentage points since 2002. Gains by black and Hispanic students have been the key drivers with both of these student subgroups exceeding the national rate of improvement between 2013 and 2014 (0.9 points), and with yearly gains averaging more than 1.3 percentage points since 2011. Even with these gains, however, there is much to do to reach GradNation’s goal of having 90 percent of students graduate on time by 2020. The opportunity gap remains one ongoing challenge. The overall increase in high school graduation rates notwithstanding, substantial racial and economic variation persist. For example, while 88 percent of white students graduate, only 73 percent of African American and 75 percent of Hispanic Americans leave school with a diploma. That means one-quarter of African and Hispanic American students have little chance of obtaining a reasonably well paying job and are effectively shut out of college.[1]

School Choice facilitates better investments that grow the economy by restructuring education

Keating, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Chief Economist, 15 (Raymond “School Choice and Economic Growth: Market Forces and Education” EdChoice 02-26-15 https://www.edchoice.org/research/school-choice-and-economic-growth/ 7-14-2017 GDI-JIJD)

It’s clear that investments in human capital—including education—matter to economic growth. The link between education and growth has long been a talking point for elected officials—and they have it right. However, given the poor performance of the U.S. economy for at least the past six years—average real GDP growth of 1.0 percent, and for the past 13 years, average real GDP growth of 1.8 percent, compared with average real growth of 3.7 percent from 1950 to 2000—the imperative to improve economic growth has not been more important, arguably, than since the Great Depression. ¶ Unfortunately, too much talk about boosting education to boost the economy comes back to the simplistic and costly proposal of throwing more taxpayer dollars at an education system long bloated by taxpayer dollars, with little to show for such massive expenditures— except a staffing surge. These dollars invested in public education that do not boost student achievement are dollars that could have been spent, for example, on scientific breakthroughs, on modernizing factories and other business facilities, or on other goods and services actually chosen by consumers. ¶ The structure of primary and secondary education in the United States—that is, government-run and regulated— runs counter to the market system of competition and freedom that has provided the foundation for building successful, competitive businesses and industries focused on serving consumers, and creating the most powerful economy on the planet. Therefore, no one should be shocked that enormous resources are spent on this education system, while that same system fails to achieve corresponding results. After all, this effectively is a government monopoly, and why would anyone expect innovation, quality, efficiency, and a focus on the consumer from a monopoly? Moreover, government monopolies, given their waste and failures, serve as serious drags on economic growth.¶ To achieve true excellence in education that will in turn help to accelerate economic growth, government control and regulation must give way to true choice and competition whereby entrepreneurs and educators work to better serve their customers, i.e., students and families. ¶ Greg Forster summed it up this way: “Worst of all, the monopoly pushes out educational entrepreneurs who can reinvent schools from the ground up. Only a thriving marketplace that allows entrepreneurs to get the support they need by serving their clients better can produce sustainable innovation. In any field of human endeavor, whether education or medicine or politics or art or religion or manufacturing or anything else, entrepreneurs who want to strike out in new directions and do things radically differently need a client base. There need to be people who will benefit from the new direction and support it. And that client base must be robust on three dimensions: size, strength, and suffrage. There must be enough supporters, they must have enough ability to provide support, and they must have enough freedom to decide for themselves what to support.”117 ¶ More money, along with a host of other efforts, such as curriculum changes and reforms in teacher compensation policies, will mean little in terms of education outcomes and the economy, given that the government-controlled system will remain in effect. Substantive change that dramatically alters educational performance and positively impacts the economy requires universal school choice. Interestingly, more support for school choice, including universal school choice, exists than most people probably think. ¶ Consider that, according to the Education Next 2013 survey of American adults on the question of a universal voucher initiative that “gives all students an opportunity to go to private schools with government funding,” 44 percent were in favor, with 37 percent opposed.118 ¶ However, a 2013 Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice survey provided definitions of what is actually meant by various forms of school choice, and the poll results among American adults are quite encouraging. For example: ¶ • A “tax-credit scholarship system” was favored by 66 percent of adults, with 24 percent opposed. School Choice and Economic Growth: A Research Synthesis on How Market Forces Can Fuel Educational Attainment 36 edchoice.org (Definition: “A ‘tax credit’ allows an individual or business to reduce the final amount of a tax owed to government. Some states give tax credits to individuals and businesses if they contribute money to nonprofit organizations that distribute private school scholarships. A ‘tax-credit scholarship system’ allows parents the option of sending their child to the school of their choice, whether that school is public or private, including both religious and non- religious schools.”) ¶ • Education savings accounts were favored by 64 percent of adults, with 25 percent opposed. (Definition: “An education savings account—often called an ESA—allows parents to withdraw their child from a public district or charter school, and receive a payment into a government-authorized savings account with restricted, but multiple uses. Parents can then use these funds to pay for private school tuition, online education programs, private tutoring or saving for future college expenses.”) ¶ • On school vouchers, when asked if they favor or oppose without any definition, 43 percent were in favor, with 28 percent opposed. But when vouchers were defined, those in favor jumped to 60 percent and 32 percent were opposed. (Definition: “A school voucher system allows parents the option of sending their child to the school of their choice, whether that school is public or private, including both religious and non-religious schools. If this policy were adopted, tax dollars currently allocated to a school district would be allocated to parents in the form of a ‘school voucher’ to pay partial or full tuition for their child’s school.”) ¶ • Finally, universal school vouchers gained large support, whereas means-tested vouchers did not. When noted that “Some people believe that school vouchers should only be available to families based on financial need,” 58 percent disagreed and 37 percent agreed. Meanwhile, when noted that “Some people believe that school vouchers should be available to all families, regardless of incomes and special needs,” 58 percent agreed, and 37 percent disagreed. ¶ When choice and competition in education are truly expanded in a substantive, substantial way, the benefits will flow forth in terms of improving educational attainment and quality, thereby boosting U.S. productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth.

US economic growth good – solves laundry list of impacts

Noell, Professor of Economic and Business at Westmont College and Ph.D. in Economic from Lousiana State University and Smith, Professor of Economic and Business at Gordon College and Ph.D. in Economic from Stanford University, 13

(Edd S. and Stephen L.S., “Want A Better World? Let's Work On Boosting Economic Growth,” Forbes, April 23, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/23/want-a-better-world-lets-work-on-boosting-economic-growth/, GDI – TM)

If we as a society want to live in a better world, we must start taking economic growth seriously. It’s easy for economists to understand why growth is so important—but too often, economists fail to explain why it matters. With increased economic growth, the lives of millions of people around the world—in countries both rich and poor—can be transformed. Both authors of this column have witnessed growth’s power in person. One grew up in 1960s Hong Kong. While today Hong Kong is a wealthy financial capital, in the early 1960s it was engulfed in poverty. His earliest memories include images of the flood of over one million refugees into his city from Mao’s China. But by the time he reached high school much had changed. Children born in shanty towns now lived in apartments with electricity and running water. Each morning, crossing Victoria Harbor with its glittering view of Hong Kong’s burgeoning skyline, he could see the trade, construction, and growth that provided jobs, increased wealth, and lifted families out of poverty. Since then, in our frequent professional travel to Asia, we have both seen first-hand the fantastic poverty reduction triggered by growth in Korea, China, and much of Southeast Asia. The immense power of economic growth is easy to see in dramatic surges like Hong Kong’s, but the transformative power of growth is not limited to poor countries. In wealthy countries like the United States growth and the prosperity that it brings allow us, as a society, to afford to do many good things. It is quite remarkable that someone such as the climate activist Bill McKibbin argues that growth is “the one big habit we finally must break.” When he looks at growth, he sees a malevolent force driving our desires to consume ever more fossil fuels. We could not disagree more. With greater growth our economy can afford to buy green products, offset our carbon footprint, and conserve and replenish the renewable natural resources we consume. Growth means, literally, the increase in the production of goods and services in an economy. Since production of goods and services requires that workers and firms’ owners be paid, the value of production is basically the same as the value of households’ income. So growth measures the increases in a country’s ability to take care of itself. With growth, families are better able to purchase goods and services. A cynic may only think of the purchase of another 80” TV, but economists understand that the “goods” a society gets from growth go far beyond the ones you can pick up at Best Buy. With greater growth we could invest even more in basic research to help find cures for diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Greater growth would allow us to avert the coming intergenerational fight over how to pay for trillions of dollars of entitlement promises we have made to the needy among us, and to our parents and grandparents in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are profoundly moral concerns. In short, the supporters of growth—who usually make their case in economic terms, about tax and spending policies—are on to something. They understand growth’s potential to ease economic problems. Right now the United States is growing at about two percent per year—but to get the U.S. unemployment rate down to a healthy level (under six percent) within four years will take approximately four percent growth per year. That is not just a number on a press release—it’s the dignity of a paycheck and the security of an income for millions of families across America. So if you care about long-term human wellbeing—in rich and poor countries alike—you must care about economic growth. Before we as a society can consider how to achieve such growth, we must recognize that getting growth right matters. Not every instance of economic growth in every country is beneficial. But time and again, hard data documents its positive impact on the things that ultimately matter: education, environmental care, physical health, political freedom, and healthy culture. Failure to realize the transformative power of growth would be a failure of our moral imaginations. We would risk leaving a world for our children in which diseases persist, rivers remain polluted, and the elderly and sick receive inadequate care. Growth must not be sold short. Growth is not just morally defensible; it is a moral imperative for achieving lasting human flourishing.

Scenario 2 – Democratic Decision making

Educational equality essential to U.S. democracy—persistent and long standing inequalities undermine participation and democratic decision-making

Chen, PhD candidate at Saint Louis University, publishing in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, 2015

[Amy Yun-Ping, “Educational Inequality: An Impediment to True Democracy in the United States,” Sociology Study, Vol.5 No.5, May, http://www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/55f62bc2bf7b8.pdf accessed GDI -TM]

The fundamental concept of democracy aims to offer equal access to all members of society and to ensure that they are empowered to make a good life for themselves and establish the public good for the country. Quality education is a method to eliminate poverty and encourage the engine of shared prosperity for generations of Americans. When education improves the preparation and productivity of young members of the community, it increases the wealth of the country and leads many people to their American dreams. Nevertheless, the persistent and long-standing educational inequalities are an obstacle for the United States becoming a nation with true democracy and equal liberty. Thus, democracy becomes a superficial aspect and a beautiful bubble, and it is not realized in practice. The Collapse of Political Responsibility Hochschild and Scovronick (2003) stated, “Education also powerfully affects people’s involvement with politics and their community, thereby creating another link between the nested structure of inequalities in schooling and the American dream” (Hochschild and Scovronick 2003: 24). Well-educated members of the community largely understand their obligation as participants in a democratic society, and they likely know current political facts and participate in political activities. The virtue of education in a democracy is that it tends to prepare children for citizenship and to foster in them the knowledge necessary for them to function in a civic society. But today in the United States, only some Americans fully exercise their political rights, and these are often citizens with high incomes, high socioeconomic statuses, and high levels of formal education. According to the American Political Science Association Taskforce (2005): In 1990, nearly nine out of 10 individuals in families with incomes over $75,000 reported voting in presidential elections, while only half of those in families with incomes under $15,000 reported voting. Fifty-six percent (56%) of those with incomes of at least $75,000 reported participating in political campaign activities, compared with a mere 6% among Americans with incomes under $15,000. (American Political Science Association Taskforce 2005: 80-81) The evidence indicates that there is a significant correlation between income status and the practice of citizenship. Americans with higher socioeconomic status usually enjoy not only higher educational achievement and salaries, but also have greater resources and skills to engage in politics and organizations. Education provides opportunities for Americans to acquire knowledge of democracy and to recognize their duty as members of a democratic society. Nevertheless, educational inequalities can lead to disparities in resources and skills between privileged and unprivileged people. The situation demolishes the goal of promoting democracy. The voices of U.S. citizens are heard unequally, and collective decisions respond much more to the privileged than to people of average means. The gap of inequality will increase. Instead of making progress, U.S. politics will continue to involve exclusion and unfairness, which strongly distorts the primary framework of democracy.

And, Democracies less violent, more protective of human rights and less prone to war

Diamond, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, 2016

(Larry, “Democracy in Decline: How Washington Can Reverse the Tide”, Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug 2016, Volume 95, Issue 4, pages 151-159, accessed via ProQuest, GDI-JG)

Although democracy promotion may have fallen out of favor with the U.S. public, such efforts very much remain in the national interest. Democracies are less violent toward their citizens and more protective of human rights. They do not go to war with one another. They are more likely to develop market economies, and those economies are more likely to be stable and prosperous. Their citizens enjoy higher life expectancies and lower levels of infant and maternal mortality than people living under other forms of government. Democracies also make good allies. As Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, has written, "Not every democracy in the world was or is a close ally of the United States, but no democracy in the world has been or is an American enemy. And all of America's most enduring allies have been and remain democracies."∂ Authoritarian regimes, by contrast, are inherently unstable, since they face a central dilemma. If an autocracy is successful-if it produces a wealthy and educated population-that population will construct a civil society that will sooner or later demand political change. But if an autocracy is unsuccessful-if it fails to generate economic growth and raise living standards-it is liable to collapse.

Portability good – Choice Advantage

Uniquely, school choice like Title I portability promote integration – statistics prove

Gibbons, Public affairs manager, Step up Students, 2014 (Patrick, “The myth of school vouchers and racism” Chapel Hill News, 5/14/14. (https://www.stepupforstudents.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/14-4-15-patrick-myth-of-vouchers.pdf) Accessed 7/11/17, GDI – JPA)

Many have tried to link vouchers and school choice to racism,¶ but it can’t be done without a tortured reading of the law and¶ civil rights history.¶ So it was a surprise to see attorneys Elizabeth Haddix and¶ Mark Dorosin of the UNC Center for Civil Rights, do just that in¶ “The Ugly Truth About Vouchers,” (CHN, http://bit.ly/1iiQSQT).¶ The authors begin by claiming private schools “are permitted¶ to discriminate against students on the basis of race,” which is¶ simply not true. As determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in¶ Runyon v. McCrary (1976), no private school in the U.S. is¶ permitted to discriminate based on race, color or national origin.¶ Next, Haddix and Doroson argue there are “historical links¶ between racism and private schools.” Indeed, many private¶ schools grew in enrollment during desegregation, as white¶ students fled public schools. But to link racism and private¶ schools is to miss the more important historical precursor:¶ American public schools were themselves rooted in racism.¶ African-Americans waited 235 years after the founding of the¶ first public high school to get their first public high school. It¶ would be another 84 years before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled¶ on Brown v. Board (1954) and nearly 20 more years before real¶ integration efforts were made.¶ Don’t forget, public school districts and elected officials¶ fought racial integration every step of the way. Some districts¶ zoned African-Americans completely outside their boundaries.¶ Others shut down altogether to avoid integration. Many urban¶ areas faced “white flight” as white families segregated¶ themselves into whiter public school enclaves.¶ After whitewashing this history, the authors point to four¶ rural, North Carolina counties where black students make up 79¶ to 86 percent of public school enrollment while private schools¶ there are between 95 and 99 percent white. The point they¶ seem intent on missing is that the new voucher plan likely would¶ send many black students to largely white private schools – and¶ thus reduce segregation. How is that racist?¶ Finally, the authors directly link North Carolina’s recent¶ voucher legislation with racist policies occurring 40 to 60 years¶ prior. They write, “Private entities that profit from privatizing¶ our tax dollars have not been made to answer for the racist¶ history of their legislation.”¶ It is a head-scratching statement given the lingering racial¶ segregation in North Carolina along public school district lines.¶ Though the North Carolina student population is 52 percent¶ white and 26 percent black, districts range from 0.03 percent to¶ 95 percent black and 3 percent to 94 percent white. Take¶ neighboring Orange and Durham counties. Orange County is 64¶ percent white and 16 percent black. Durham County is 19¶ percent white and 51 percent black.¶ The authors’ statements are even more disappointing when¶ you realize the great work the UNC Center for Civil Rights has¶ done in highlighting the inequalities facing low-income and¶ minority students. Last year, the center’s report, “The State of¶ Exclusion,” blasted public school zoning policies. The report¶ found “failing schools” were the closest school to 48 percent of¶ all black students in the state, while high-poverty schools were¶ the closest to 68 percent. These rates were double the¶ statewide average for all students.¶ Given the existing racial and income disparities, the most¶ likely beneficiaries of North Carolina’s voucher program – put on¶ hold by a court injunction – are minority students. This is exactly¶ what we saw in Florida after the state passed the Tax Credit¶ Scholarship Program. Today, 70 percent of scholarship students¶ attending private schools are black or Hispanic. Half of the¶ students come from single-parent households, while the¶ average scholarship student lives in a family with a household¶ income just 9 percent above poverty.¶ Isn’t this exactly the student population Haddix, Dorosin and¶ the UNC Center for Civil Rights wish to help in North Carolina?

Educational inequality and segregation promotes racial exclusion

James, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law, 2015

(Osamuida, “Soapbox: Racial segregation in schools, no matter how unintended, should be illegal”, Miami Herald, February 19, 2015, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/coral-gables/article10679735.html, accessed 7/11/17, GDI-JG)

A popular magazine recently asked its readers whether racial segregation is still legal, even if it is not deliberate. The answer depends on what we mean to oppose when we oppose racial segregation. If we mean to merely prevent formal and intentional acts of discrimination, then the answer is yes — unintended racial segregation is legal. If we mean to actually end racial exclusion, marginalization, and isolation in pursuit of substantive equality, then the answer is no — racial segregation, no matter how unintended, should be illegal.∂ Failure to commit to substantive racial equality continues to forestall attempts to achieve racial integration in our communities and schools. In Miami, for example, “unintended” residential racial isolation today is actually the product of intentional local, state, and federal policies that broadened access to safe, stable communities for some, while simultaneously denying home ownership, quality education, and public services to others. One need only examine neighborhood maps of Miami during the early 1930s that used racial composition to designate — for investment purposes — areas like Coral Gables as “best,” and certain parts of Coconut Grove as “hazardous,” to get a sense of this intentional government discrimination.∂ Although this sort of blatant racism has long been outlawed, enduring racial and economic segregation in our city is a direct byproduct of intentional decisions to deny access to mortgages and other forms of community investment and development on the basis of race. Moreover, our still-segregated communities have resulted in segregated learning environments.∂ Current debates about controlled choice in the city of Coral Gables implicate this very issue. When asked whether their government has any obligation to counteract school segregation, many parents might respond ‘no’ if it means that they cannot attend their neighborhood school. After all, they might argue, school segregation is an historical artifact no longer in operation.∂ As members, however, of a broader community still impacted today by the intentional racial discrimination of yesterday, we have a duty to consider factors other than convenience, comfort, and our own ideal schooling arrangements when evaluating controlled choice.∂ We have a duty to also consider the value of school integration in helping us achieve our goal of substantive equality. We have a duty to weigh that value just as heavily as we weigh benefits of attending school close to home, and to reject the false dichotomy that the formality of “intent” creates. We have a moral imperative to actively embrace a commitment to racial inclusion in our schools and neighborhoods, and to reject school assignment plans that result, intentionally or unintentionally, in racial exclusion and segregation instead.

Racism kills – disproportionate impact on health of racial and ethnic minorities

Miller, 2016

(Jake “Health Disparities - Talk explores the unhealthy truth about racism” Harvard Medical School October 20, 2016 https://hms.harvard.edu/news/health-disparities-0 accessed GDI - TM)

Racism makes people sick. In the United States, blacks, Latinos, native Americans and other minority groups have greater risks of diseases like tuberculosis and coronary heart disease than whites, as numerous studies by sociologists, public health researchers, epidemiologists and physicians have found. Once they are sick, researchers say, minorities tend to receive lower quality health care than whites. As a result, minorities can expect to die at a younger age than whites. At the latest 2016 HLC Diversity Dialogue, featured speaker David Williams, the Florence Sprague Norman and Laura Smart Norman Professor of Public Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, discussed the historic and current state of health disparities in the U.S. and explored some possible solutions. One key reason for the lack of health equity is the health risks that are associated with the lower social and economic status of minorities, said Williams, who is also professor of African and African American studies and of sociology at Harvard University and director of the Lung Cancer Disparities Center at the Harvard Chan School. Blacks and Latinos in the U.S. experience lower income and wealth and have reduced access to high quality health care and nutritious food, Williams said, so it’s not surprising that they experience higher rates of mortality than people in this country who are better off economically. But it’s not just about economics. “The deeply embedded racism in our culture has consequences for health,” Williams said, citing growing bodies of research that show the perils of prejudice. When researchers correct for factors such as education and income—comparing white high school dropouts with black high school dropouts, for example—there are still significant differences in the health risks and outcomes between races. Ongoing research is shedding light onto why that happens and how policy changes and medical training can help solve the problem. Williams noted that numerous studies have shown that people who experience discrimination are more likely to have elevated stress hormones, increased inflammation, high blood pressure, cognitive impairments and poor sleep.

School choice helps every student –whether they choose to exercise choice or not

Bedrick, education policy analyst at the Cato Institute, 2016 (Jason “Public or Private, What Students Need Is Educational Choice” CATO Institute, 8/5/16 (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/public-or-private-what-students-need-educational-choice) Accessed 7/8/17, GDI – JPA)

Public or Private, What Students Need Is Educational Choice¶ When parents are looking for a school for their children, their primary concern isn’t whether the school is run by the government or a private entity. They want to know that the school provides a high-quality education in line with their values that meets the unique needs of their children.¶ The real question isn’t “public vs. private” but what sort of education system delivers what parents want and kids need. Assigning children to district schools based on the location of the home that their parents can afford might work for some families, especially those who can afford to live in expensive areas with better schools. But district-based schooling leaves low-income families behind. Instead, our education system should directly empower families to choose the schools that work best for them.¶ Whether they exercise choice or not, all students benefit from having more choices.¶ Students have diverse educational needs. They have varying aptitudes and interests and learn better in different environments. No school can be all things to all students. No school can meet all the unique needs of all the children who just happen to live nearby. Even the highest-performing schools aren’t necessarily the right fit for some students. Empowering families with educational choice through vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, or education savings accounts enables them to select the education providers that are the best match for their kids.¶ District schools are subject to political control, which produces winners and losers. At best, district schools will reflect the values and preferences of the majority of citizens in a given area. Other times they even reflect the values and preferences of a mere plurality or a politically powerful minority. The zero-sum nature of political control forces citizens into conflict with each other. By contrast, a system of educational choice avoids social strife and fosters social harmony by allowing parents with differing views of education each to have their preferences met without forcing their views on their unwilling neighbors.¶ Perhaps most importantly, research shows that educational choice works. The near-consensus of random-assignment studies — the gold standard of social science research — finds that educational choice programs improve students’ academic performance and increases their likelihood of graduating high school and enrolling in college.¶ Not only do participating students benefit, but so do those who remain in their assigned schools. More than 30 studies find that choice programs produce modest but statistically significant positive effects in district schools as a result of the increased choice and competition.¶ Whether they exercise choice or not, all students benefit from having more choices.

Portability Solvency

Option –

Plan: The United States federal government should amend Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and subsequent reauthorizations of the Title I provision to allow for Title I portability.

Portability in Title I funds streamlines formulas allowing fairer distribution of resources – weighting systems can prevent transfer overload

Snow, Foundation for Excellence in Education, policy analyst in education choice, 17 (Mckenzie Snow “It’s time to free states to improve the focus and fit of their Title I funds” Fordham Institute 1-24-2017 https://edexcellence.net/articles/its-time-to-free-states-to-improve-the-focus-and-fit-of-their-title-i-funds 7-12-2017 GDI-JIJD)

Title I is currently focused on funding a system of schools, not disadvantaged students. A portability option would allow states to instead fund eligible children—putting students first in a very real way. Furthermore, arguing against any voluntary change to the status quo assumes that current Title I funding distribution is fair. Unfortunately, this is not the case.¶ We’ve been hearing a lot about Michigan’s education system recently. Under the current Title I funding distribution system, Detroit City School District receives about $4,100 per child. The School District of the City of Inkster—less than thirty minutes away from downtown Detroit and with essentially the same poverty rate—receives about $1,350 per child or one-third of Detroit’s per pupil allocation. (See Marguerite Roza and Robin Lake here.) Because of the Title I distribution required by four competing federal formulas—each of which has different allocation patterns, prioritizes different states and localities, and is meant to create different incentives—the per pupil allocation between different states and districts seems erratic.In addition to considering the integrity of Title I’s current funding distribution, it is important to take a sober look at the likely rate of student transfers in a portable system. The transfer rates in states with public and private school choice programs are gradual, and Title I-eligible students – and, therefore, Title I dollars—would not likely depart any school or district overnight.¶ To limit the impact of transitioning to portability on dependent schools, states could include weights for concentrations of poverty, allotting more Title I dollars to students in attendance areas with poverty rates above a certain threshold. States also could have the option to include hold harmless provisions based on poverty concentration that limit the amount of federal dollars a school or district could lose each year. However, such hold harmless provisions could complicate and curb the extent to which funds truly follow the child in a state’s portable Title I program.¶ Clearly, the current Title I funding distribution system isn’t perfectly fair or impressively impactful. Allowing states to design and implement transparent, student-centered Title I distribution systems that better reflect their unique education landscapes does more than shift money around. Portability empowers states to target resources so that Title I funding can have a meaningful impact on their neediest students. Simply put, Title I portability would provide states the freedom to try to serve their low-income students with existing federal dollars better—if they want.

Per pupil funding and litany of regulations make Title I ineffective at closing achievement gaps – only portability would solve

Koteskey, Education Policy Analyst, 15 (Tyler, "Title I funding portability is key to ESEA reform"; the hill; 7/9/15 thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/247300-title-i-funding-portability-is-key-to-esea-reform, 7/3/17, GDI AC)

The current Title I program is broken. A meta-analysis of 17 federal studies on its effectiveness indicated only a modest overall impact, while another by Harvard University concluded the program had failed in its original mission of closing achievements gaps between disadvantaged and wealthy students. Examining what schools have to go through to get Title I funding, it is easy to see why. The program’s litany of regulations forces the administrative staff of states and districts to spend resources proving compliance with requirements on how they spend their grants to avoid losing eligibility. This wastes time and money that could be used to allocate the funding in ways that best serves their schools’ individual needs. The “supplement not supplant” and “comparability” provisions, discussed at length in the Reason Foundation’s Title I reform analysis, restricts states’ abilities to combine these dollars with pre-existing state funding for low-income students to create comprehensive programs. And because Title I allocates grants to schools rather than individual students, it actually promotes per-student funding inequalities between schools, especially at larger schools with high numbers but low-percentages of low-income kids. Scott’s Title I portability amendment has the potential to change all of this. Tying Title I funds to eligible students relieves administrative burdens by removing the need to justify expenditures. It also ensures that every school gets the same amount of per-student grants for every low-income child they educate. By making these funds portable, wherever these students enroll, low-income pupils will be able to expand their educational options. They will benefit from administrators with new incentives to attract and retain them to get access to the dollars they bring. Portable Title I funding could even be combined with expanding state voucher, tax-credit scholarship programs, and education savings accounts, with proven positive effects on achievement for disadvantaged students to give even more families access to better options.

Title 1 portability provides private school autonomy—allowing resources to follow students

Burke, Will Skillman Fellow in Education Policy in the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, 2015

(Lindsey M., “From Piecemeal to Portable: Transforming Title I into a Student-Centered Support System”, Heritage Foundation, September 28, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/education/report/piecemeal-portable-transforming-title-i-student-centered-support-system, accessed 7/4/17, GDI-JG)

∂ The Elementary and Secondary Education Act includes important protections for private schools. Specifically, section 9506 of the ESEA states that nothing in the law shall be construed to (a) “affect any private school that does not receive funds or services under” ESEA; (b) “affect a home school”; or (c) “permit, allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect of any private, religious, or home school.” Private schools that participate in Title I’s equitable services provision specifically are not subject to ESEA’s Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) requirement nor to the law’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) mandate.∂ ∂ Stakeholders in the private school community occasionally raise objections to Title I portability out of concern over the possibility of federal regulations following dollars to participating private schools. To mitigate those concerns, any portability proposal should include strong protections for private school autonomy.∂ ∂ Private School Participation. Existing private school participation in the Title I program is already significant. More than 20 percent of private schools currently participate in Title I programs. Notably, the proportion of religious private schools that participate in Title I is much higher. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly half of all Catholic schools (47.8 percent) participate in Title I programs, along with 13 percent of schools designated as “other religious.” Taken together, nearly one-quarter (24.9 percent) of religiously affiliated schools already participate in Title I. Fewer non-religious schools (8 percent) participate in Title I.[28]∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ Strong Protections for Private Schools. Any proposal to allow states to have their Title I dollars follow children to private schools of choice must be coupled with strong protections for private schools. Title I portability proposals should incorporate language similar to that included in the law authorizing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides scholarships to children from low-income families living in the nation’s capital to attend a private school of choice. Many private schools do not want to be considered “recipients of federal financial assistance” out of concern that such a designation would make them subject to the onerous federal regulations and enforcement actions (such as those that fall under Title IX) of the federal civil rights agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The Institute for Justice crafted language for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program that specified that children, not schools, received scholarship proceeds and thus schools were not to be considered recipients of federal funds. Subsections 308(d) and (e) of the D.C. School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (Title III in Division C of Public Law 108-199) state:∂ ∂ This language was necessary because of the unfortunate United States Supreme Court decision in Grove City College v. Bell in 1984, which held that colleges that accepted students participating in the federal Pell Grant program were recipients of federal funds and therefore subject to federal oversight. This led Grove City and Hillsdale Colleges to withdraw from the Pell Grant program.∂ ∂ Title I portability would allow money to follow the student rather than being a payment to a school. Adding those federal dollars to a state-awarded scholarship should not impact school operations, mission, or culture, as such funds would be provided directly to the participating student. Including language used in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program authorizing statute would provide a framework for additional protections within a portability option.[30]