Verbatim Mac

Solvency – SNS reforms

SNS reforms – should consider actual expenditure

*also a neg card against the comparability reform version

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)

The "comparability of services" objection is more serious but also fails. As the CRS acknowledged, n77 if the ca-veat excluding teacher salaries and seniority is applied not only to the distribution of "services" (the sole focus of the comparability rule), but also to the distribution of "funds" (the subject of the distinct, "supplement not supplant" rule), districts could systematically assign their most experienced, most expensive teachers to non-Title I Schools and thus spend far less on instruction at Title I than at non-Title I schools. Doing so would directly contradict Title I's recogni-tion that low-income schools need more funds for instruction. Even so, the CRS suggested that, without ever saying so, Congress intended the treatment of teacher salaries it wrote into the "comparability" rule to apply as well to the "supplement not supplant" rule. n78∂ This interpretation is flawed. The "comparability" and "supplement not supplant" provisions are distinct, and they must be interpreted as distinct. As their words plainly signify, comparability applies only to the distribution of "ser-vices"; n79 "supplement not supplant" applies only to the expenditure of "funds." n80 That distinction must be given operative significance, or each provision would render the other superfluous--violating a well-established rule against interpreting statutes to contain redundancies or superfluous provisions. n81∂ Congress itself has always treated the two rules distinctly. It limits the comparability rule to service differentials other than those tied to differences in teacher seniority but has never applied a parallel caveat to the "supplement not supplant" rule. n82 By reading into the statute a requirement Congress added in one place but left out of another, the CRS violated another established rule of statutory interpretation: that Congress is assumed to have intended "the exclu-sion of language from one statutory provision that is included in other provisions of the same statute." n83∂ Congress has perfectly sensible--indeed, compelling--reasons for treating the distribution of services and funds dif-ferently in regard to teacher seniority and salaries. Absent the "teacher seniority" caveat, the requirement of comparable teacher services might be thought to depend on the quality of each individual teacher providing services. If that were so, the comparability provision would require districts to rate each teacher to identify how much "value added" each pro-vides and then use the aggregate of all teachers' "value added" to see if different schools get less or more. Under these circumstances, Congress had three good reasons not to use teacher seniority or salary as a proxy for teacher quality: Doing so is: inaccurate; n84 administratively burdensome, given the many millions of teachers nationwide whom dis-tricts would have to rate individually; and demoralizing to teachers, some of whom districts would have to declare less worthy than others. The simple solution is the one the ESEA's comparability provision has long used: Treat each teacher as equal to all others by defining comparability of services in terms of pupil-teacher ratios and district-wide sala-ry schedules.∂ The "supplement not supplant" rule is very different. It applies to something classically and inherently fungible: money. Because each dollar actually spent is no different from or more administratively burdensome to track than any other dollar, no matter what the dollar pays for, there is no reason for districts not to count every dollar spent on each of its schools, including dollars spent on teachers--which is exactly what the new Act requires districts to do and to report publicly. n85 Indeed, it is the CRS proposal to treat money spent on teachers differently from money spent on every-thing else that resurrects all the problems Congress aimed to avoid through the "comparability of services" caveat: Its proposal is inaccurate (treating schools that spend vastly different amounts as if they spend the same), administratively burdensome (requiring the Department to segregate and track different types of dollars), and demeaning (to disadvan-taged children on whom the CRS interpretation lets districts spend less).∂ It is thus entirely consistent for Congress to treat each teacher the same when talking about services and each dollar the same when talking about spending. And it makes perfect sense for the Department to use the spending data that Congress now requires districts to make public--in reports that must treat dollars spent on teachers the same as dollars spent on everything else--when applying the "supplement not supplant" rule.

Neutrality standards – solves

Reforms to SNS for neutrality test increases innovation without increasing burden of compliance

Miller K-12 Education Researcher, Research Director FutureEd 12 (Reagan, Frederick M. Hess, Cynthia G. Brown, “Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Offers a New Chance to Improve Education”, Center for American Progress, 3-6-12, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2012/03/06/11315/reauthorization-of-the-elementary-and-secondary-education-act-offers-a-new-chance-to-improve-education/, 7-4-17, JIJD-GDI)

The supplement-not-supplant, or SNS, requirement aims to prevent school districts from using Title I funds to free up state and local funds for purchasing goods and ser- vices they would not otherwise have been able to afford or to provide tax relief. In their paper, “How the Supplement-Not-Supplant Requirement Can Work Against the Policy Goals of Title I,” attorneys Melissa Junge and Sheara Krvaric—founders of the Federal Education Group, a firm that helps clients comply with federal regulations—offer several options for modifying this long-standing requirement. We embrace the option that would make SNS amenable to innovation while greatly reducing the burden of compliance. The idea is to replace the primary test currently in use with a simpler, more objective test, specifically: If districts can document that the manner in which they allocate state and local resources to schools is “Title I neutral,” they should be clear of suspicion around supplanting nonfederal funds with Title I dollars. The neutrality test does not arise out of thin air. It’s rooted, as the authors explain, in a test originally designed for schoolwide Title I programs. But the neutrality test does represent a major departure from the traditional cost-by-cost approach required to refute presumptions of supplanting. This departure makes sense to us for the following three reasons: First, the cost-by-cost approach is inherently hostile to innovation. Each purchase of a good or service made with Title I funds is matched with an unobserved, counterfactual speculation about whether the purchase would have been made in the absence of Title I funds. Thus, the subjective judgments of state auditors play a prominent role in SNS enforcement, and it’s simply wrong to characterize SNS as a crisp fiscal requirement. Rather, it’s an idiosyncratic, psychological one. What’s more, SNS gives school officials strong incentives to perpetuate past spending practices—even hopelessly ineffective ones—that did not tar them with an audit exception. Second, cost-by-cost analysis is burdensome, in addition to the fact that devoting scarce resources to compliance is wasteful in the face of an alternative approach, especially one that frees local officials to take conscious steps toward using Title I funds to improve student achievement. Third, a switch to the neutrality test would pave the way for consolidation of federal funds in schoolwide Title I programs that serve 87 percent of students receiving Title I funds. This practice is allowable under federal rules and the flexibility it affords in bypassing cost-by-cost reporting, for example, should be popular. Fund consolidation, however, is rare in some states and virtually unknown in others. Such is the stifling nature of the current supplement-not-supplant requirement.

Neutrality Test SNS and Comparability Solves

Miller K-12 Education Researcher, Research Director FutureEd 12 (Reagan, Frederick M. Hess, Cynthia G. Brown, “Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Offers a New Chance to Improve Education”, Center for American Progress, 3-6-12, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2012/03/06/11315/reauthorization-of-the-elementary-and-secondary-education-act-offers-a-new-chance-to-improve-education/, 7-4-177-4-17, JIJD-GDI)

The last of the seven papers we commissioned offers a district perspective on the “back office” requirements of Title I. In their paper, “The Consequences of Distrust,” Jon Fullerton of Harvard University and Dalia Hochman, an independent consultant, explain how Title I requirements support an apparatus and culture of compliance inimical to the goals of the program—enhancing the educational experience of children living in concentrated poverty. We jointly endorse two of the authors’ thoughtfully presented recommendations. In fact, we’ve already supported these recommendations, which bear repeating: Base supplement-not-supplant on the test of Title I neutrality, as detailed by Junge and Krvaric. Base the comparability requirement on actual expenditures, as introduced by Cohen and Miller, and driven home by West. Reauthorization of ESEA is an infrequent, semiregular but nonetheless critical opportunity for federal policymakers to steer the course of K-12 education. This brief has laid out a number of recommendations for changing key “back office” provisions of Title I, the law’s signal program. Both CAP and Frederick Hess believe these policy options, if enacted, would go a long way toward improving the alignment of the ambitious goals of Title I and its implementation.

Solvency - Require Title I spending on tutorials

Individualized Tutorials Helps Disadvantaged Students Math Education

Ander et al.,University of Chicago, Crime lab and the Education Lab,Executive Director, 16 (Roseanna, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, “Improving Academic Outcomes for Disadvantaged Students: Scaling Up Individualized Tutorials”, The Hamilton Project, 3-28-16, http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/improving_academic_outcomes_for_disadvantaged_students_scaling_up_individua, 5-7-17, GDI-JIJD)

Based on the results described above, we propose that schools serving economically disadvantaged students set up an educational safety net by delivering individualized math tutorials during the school day. Specifically, we propose that all school districts receiving schoolwide Title I funds provide individualized daily tutorials to all third through tenth grade students who are at least two grades behind grade level in math. In the tutorials, one tutor would work with two students for a full class period every day. Since we find in our Chicago data that the Match/SAGA tutorial program doubles or triples the amount of math students learn over the course of a year, the expectation would be that most students would need a year or two of this intensive safety-net intervention to catch back up to grade level, at which point they would begin to benefit from regular classroom instruction. Put differently, we view our proposal as a complement to and acknowledgment of, but not a substitute for, ongoing policy discussions about strengthening regular classroom instruction and other common targets of school reform.

Under our proposal, all students in the third through tenth grades would be assessed either at the beginning of the school year or at the end of the previous school year to determine which students are two grades or more behind grade level in math. These students would be assigned to receive individualized Match/SAGA tutorials each day of the school year, with each tutorial taking place during a full class period of about 50 minutes. Where appropriate (e.g., in middle and high school grades), the tutorials would be treated as a required course: students would receive a grade and it would be credit-bearing. Students would be enrolled in these math tutorials in addition to their regular math class. If the student progresses to grade level, the tutorials could be discontinued. Students who remain behind grade level could continue in the math tutorials for multiple years.

Solvency—Fiscal Assistance Teams

Implementing fiscal assistance teams ensures proper allocation of Title 1 funding

CAP Education Policy Team, 2015

(Center for American Progress, “A Fresh Look at School Funding”, May 18, 2015, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2015/05/18/113397/a-fresh-look-at-school-funding/, accessed 7/3/17, GDI-JG)

School dollars are not always spent in ways that help students. Some school systems overspend their funding due to outdated governance structures; others invest in weak programs or practices. The federal government can do far more to help states and districts and give them dedicated support to improve fiscal outcomes. Virginia has been a leader in this space, and in a program started under then-Gov. Mark Warner (D), the state has provided technical support to districts that helps them spend their school dollars more wisely through fiscal assistance teams.∂ Specifically, CAP recommends that fiscal assistance teams should be an explicitly allowable use of the funds currently available for state administration and for supporting low-performing schools under Title I. In other words, state-level Title I funds should be allowed to pay for technical assistance teams that provide fiscal support, which includes but is not limited to evaluating key operational functions, such as budgets, staffing, and administration. The state would provide a recommended list of outside vendors that districts could use; districts would be required to help pay for some portion of the program out of their own budgets. While such uses of Title I funds might be allowable in certain circumstances under current law, this proposal would include amending the ESEA to ensure that this specific use of funds is permitted.∂ By encouraging states to use their funds for this purpose—and making it explicitly allowable under Title I—this proposal would create incentives to reduce inefficiencies in the spending of federal, state, and local dollars. More importantly, the policy effort would increase the real dollars available to support students without an increase in overall spending, and these dollars would be available to increase services targeted toward low-income schools that improve outcomes for low-achieving students.∂ The proposal has already secured the support of now-Sen. Warner. “As Governor, I was proud to establish a program that encouraged school systems to conduct efficiency reviews to identify how we could better allocate limited resources to get the maximum impact in the classroom,” Sen. Warner said. “This commonsense best practice should be available to school districts nationwide that are seeking more efficient ways to use existing resources. This proposal would do just that, and I’m happy to support it going into reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.”∂ Conclusion∂ The Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s original purpose was to improve the education of disadvantaged students and to ensure that the schools and districts that serve these students had additional resources to meet their needs. Unfortunately, fiscal inequities continue to persist, with low-income districts and schools receiving less funding than their higher-income counterparts. It has now been nearly 14 years since the law has been reauthorized, and Congress should consider fresh ideas for supporting states and districts in equitably funding their low-income schools. If Congress fails to remedy funding problems now, an entire generation of students may miss out on fair and effective funding. Focusing ESEA on funding issues should be a key priority in any reauthorization discussion moving forward.

Lack of information and misinformation fixed with audits and dissemination

Gordon, Associate Professor, Georgetown University, McCourt School of Public Policy, and Reber, Associate Professor, University of California, Los Angeles, Luskin School of Public Affairs, 2015

(Nora and Sarah, “The Quest for a Targeted and Effective Title I ESEA: Challenges in Designing and Implementing Fiscal Compliance Rules”, The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Volume 1 Issue 3, December 2015, http://www.rsfjournal.org/doi/full/10.7758/RSF.2015.1.3.07, accessed 7/8/17, GDI-JG)

We concur with Duncan and Murnane when they write, “The challenge is to devise organizational structures that provide high-poverty schools with the resources, knowledge, and freedom to choose the collection of supports they need” (2014, 136). To the extent that Title I's fiscal rules—and those of the web of other federal and state categorical programs contributing to district budgets—impinge on that freedom, we have two concrete recommendations. First, replace existing guidance with new, clear, and concise guidance and disseminate it. The dissemination challenge is significant, requiring a concerted effort by the federal government to get word to state education agencies who in turn must get the word out to local districts. Guidance should reach not only Title I personnel in districts and schools, but also others involved in allocating instructional resources. Clear guidance would empower districts to push back against state agencies that require them to remove legally permissible uses of Title I funds from their federal funding applications, and to question their preliminary single-audit findings before the results are finalized and passed on to federal authorities. It would also empower school district staff more closely associated with the work of instruction itself—in offices of teaching and learning, or curriculum and instruction, for example—to question district-level Title I administrators when they deny them access to funds on the basis of supplanting. Finally, it is critical for this guidance to reach auditors. Decision-makers need to know what they are allowed to do, and that legal uses of funds will not yield inaccurate and damaging audit results.∂ Our second recommendation relates to the challenge districts face in handling multiple streams of state and federal categorical funding, each with their own compliance requirements. Title I schoolwide programs are permitted to consolidate their Title I funds with other federal, state, and local funds so that they do not have to maintain distinct fiscal trails for each separate program. But a recent survey found only 6 percent of districts operating schoolwide programs took up this option, and found that “state or district accounting rules and fear of potential audit exceptions were major barriers to consolidation of funding” (Chambers et al. 2009, xxvii). Consolidating funding is not the explicit focus in this article, and our recommendation here is correspondingly broad: states and local governments should reconsider the impact of their rules on schools’ ability to use funds productively. The U.S. Department of Education requires each state education agency to “eliminate State fiscal and accounting barriers so that these funds can be more easily consolidated” (2015, 8). The federal government and national nongovernmental organizations could potentially play an important role in providing technical assistance in these efforts. We view both these policy recommendations as necessary but not sufficient for addressing the big problem—the lack of instructional capacity in school districts. We do not offer a magic bullet for building this elusive capacity, but instead hope that reducing the complexity of compliance and enhancing flexibility will contribute to creating an environment where efforts to do so have a better chance of flourishing.

Solvency—United for Students Act reforms

The United for Students Act promotes educational progress and equity—resulting in higher student achievement and US competitiveness

Jennings, founder and former CEO, Center on Education Policy, Washington, D.C., and former General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Education and Labor, 2015

(Jack, “ESEA at 50”, Kappan Magazine, April 2015, Volume 96, Number 7, accessed 7/6/17, GDI-JG)

To achieve this, I propose a new approach to fed- eral education policy that expands and transforms the federal role. The congressional creators of fed- eral aid in the 1960s believed the obstacle to better schooling was a lack of money: Once sufficient fund- ing was provided to equalize expenditures among school districts, educators would know what to do to improve education. The architects of the standards/ tests/accountability reforms of the 1990s and 2000s believed that student academic achievement could be improved by setting high academic standards, using tests to measure attainment of those standards, and holding teachers and schools accountable for poor results. Providing more money to assist with this job was not necessary in the minds of many proponents of this second reform.∂ Neither of those two extremes proved to be correct in their assumptions. The past 50 years’ experiences have shown that education is too complex to have easy answers. The truth lies in taking the best from each reform movement. Thus, I propose a signifi- cant expansion of federal aid to schools that is not restricted to particular categories of students but that is contingent on states’ willingness to address the most fundamental issues that impede educational progress. This expanded general aid program could be called the United for Students Act (USA).∂ Under this new policy, the federal government, working with the states, would focus on improving classroom teaching and learning. The objectives of this new approach should be to improve students’ readiness for school, raise the quality of the teach- ing force, encourage mastery of more challenging curricula, and provide sufficient funding for schools to do the job. The current policy of inserting a little extra help for students into an inequitable system of schooling has not brought about the quality of edu- cation we need. The other current federal strategy — demanding extensive testing of students — has not resulted in a broad increase in student achieve- ment. These reforms rooted in past times must be abandoned as ineffective. Instead we should adopt a more direct and equitable way to bring about real improvement.∂ In addition, we must put in place legal and con- stitutional guarantees of students’ rights to a good education. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have called education the civil rights issue of our time. It is — but presidential rhetoric won’t win that battle. What is needed is a guarantee that is as strong as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which helped win the struggle for rights in the 1960s. If this is the civil rights issue of our time, then it deserves the full protection and sanction of con- stitutional law.∂ My own views in this area have evolved. In the nearly three decades I worked for Congress, I helped create the targeted funding programs and also the standards/testing/accountability framework. In var- ious public forums, I argued for these approaches and defended them against criticism. But my views are different now because progress has not been suf- ficient and because the world is changing at such a fast pace that I feel we cannot procrastinate. If we want improvement, we must let go of resistance to change and sweep aside old excuses to adopting new and better ways.∂ This reorientation of national efforts to improve the public schools will make America a world leader again in the area of education. But I also recognize that others may have different ideas. My hope is that in joining this debate we take the time to consider our past experiences with federal aid and also what research shows us about the impact of federal in- tervention.∂ Having knowledge without taking action is not good enough. American schools can be the best in the world, and American students can be both knowl- edgeable and creative. But, we must get moving — and right now!