Verbatim Mac

Solvency – Resources

Solvency resources – distribution

Resource allocation key to teacher experience and quality – and equitable distribution across high and low poverty schools

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)

Finally, we find that holding constant local cost factors, districts that receive more funding per student, spend more, or offer higher salaries, relative to other districts in the same state or county, have lower teacher salary expenditure gaps, lower teacher-pupil ratio gaps, and in most cases, lower teacher experience gaps. In sum, additional resources appear to help districts allocate funding more equitably. Moreover, in districts that receive greater funding per student relative to otherwise similar districts in the same state or county, teacher experience is more equitably distributed across high- and low-poverty schools.

Solvency resources – funding levels

Funding key factor – holding constant other district difference doesn’t alter impact on resource gaps

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)

Next, we test how the relationship between funding and teacher resource gaps differs for different types of districts. We find that poverty rate, district percent of student of color, urbanicity, and district size are all unrelated to the relationship between funding and teacher resource gaps (interactions are all insignificant). In other words, resources appear equally as important in closing teacher resource gaps regardless of district poverty, student demographics, urbanicity, and enrollment size (although other unobservable district characteristics may influence the relationship between district funding and teacher resource gaps).

Resources necessary to address teacher quality and experience

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)

Third, the study has implications related to efforts to address educational inequality more broadly. Much of the recent policy debates surrounding the inequitable access to effective teachers has centered on state laws related to teacher tenure, transfer, and dismissal (for example, Vergara v. California, Wright v. New York, and others). The role of equitable and adequate resources across school districts is notably absent from the discourse. This study demonstrates the importance of district funding rates, especially relative to otherwise similar districts in the same state or county, in helping districts close teacher experience gaps. Although other factors related to human capital management policies may play a role, district administrators’ ability to provide students with equitable learning opportunities across schools depends on their ability to improve teaching and learning conditions in their highest-need schools, which likely requires a sufficient level of resources. Although money is not a panacea for improving working conditions, sufficient resources may be a necessary condition (Grubb, 2009).

Solvency – resources improve teacher quality

Resources necessary to address teacher quality and experience

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)

Third, the study has implications related to efforts to address educational inequality more broadly. Much of the recent policy debates surrounding the inequitable access to effective teachers has centered on state laws related to teacher tenure, transfer, and dismissal (for example, Vergara v. California, Wright v. New York, and others). The role of equitable and adequate resources across school districts is notably absent from the discourse. This study demonstrates the importance of district funding rates, especially relative to otherwise similar districts in the same state or county, in helping districts close teacher experience gaps. Although other factors related to human capital management policies may play a role, district administrators’ ability to provide students with equitable learning opportunities across schools depends on their ability to improve teaching and learning conditions in their highest-need schools, which likely requires a sufficient level of resources. Although money is not a panacea for improving working conditions, sufficient resources may be a necessary condition (Grubb, 2009).

Need increase in resources to equalize the teacher quality

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)

These findings have important policy implications. First, potential regulations that would require districts spend equal proportions on teacher salaries between Title I and non-Title I schools, which the DOE has argued should be part of ESSA, would have major implications for school districts. Most districts already allocate teacher salary expenditures equitably across schools, and about a quarter of students attend districts with either all or no Title I schools.

However, the data show that approximately 939 districts provide more teacher salary expenditures per student to non-Title I elementary schools, compared to their Title I elementary schools (46% of the 2,030 districts with at least one Title I elementary school and at least one non-Title I elementary school). A total of 7.0 million students attend Title I elementary, middle, or high schools in districts where non-Title I schools receive more per-pupil teacher salary funding, on average, than Title I schools at the same grade level. We find that the total expenditure required to equalize average funding in Title I schools to that of non-Title I schools across all districts nationally is $3.3 billion (a 2.2% increase in total state and local teacher salary spending nationally). Given standardized teacher salary schedules, districts would most likely accomplish this by increasing teacher-student ratios in Title I schools. Without additional revenues however, districts would need to implement forced teacher placements, which prior research shows are largely ineffective (Miller & Lee, 2014), or reassign Title I and non-Title I schools.

Resources increases improve teacher quality and remedy experience gap – statistically significant

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)

Given that our sample is limited to districts with at least four elementary schools (for analyses of elementary teacher resource gaps), some of our fixed effects estimates may not draw on a sufficient number of districts within states or counties, potentially limiting the ability to observe within-state or within-county comparisons. However, our results are consistent when we limit the sample to states with at least 40 districts that meet sample requirement. Results from county fixed effects are also consistent when we limit the sample to only counties with at least 10 districts. The coefficient for per-pupil funding in county fixed effects models that predict teacher experience gaps increases to .008 when the sample is limited to counties with at least 10 districts, implying that each additional $1,000 per student relative to districts in the same county is associated with a reduction in the teacher experience gap of 8.7% of a standard deviation.

Solvency – Title I resources

Title I provides wide ranging support for students to address inequality

Sonnenberg - Statistician Annual Reports and Information, NCES, Specialties and Functions:Allocations, Digest of Education Statistics 2k16 (William “Allocating Grants for Title I” National Center on Education Statistics published- January 2016, accessed- 7/03/17 url- ,file:///C:/Users/randomness/Downloads/Xanthia-national%20center%20for%20education%20statistics%20(2).pdf GDI-XRL)

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (ESEA), is the U.S. government’s largest educational program to assist disadvantaged children. Established in 1965 as a “War on Poverty” program, Title I now funds programs intended to improve learning for students at risk of educational failure. Such students include low-achieving children in our Nation’s highest-poverty schools, English Learners, children of migrant workers, children with disabilities, Indian children, children who are neglected or delinquent, and young children and their parents who are in need of family-literacy services. Title I funds are intended to provide instruction and instructional support for these disadvantaged children so that they can master challenging curricula and meet state standards in core academic subjects. The law does not stipulate how Title I funds are to be spent. Instead, Title I is an example of flexible funding that local and state educational agencies may use as they deem best. Title I funds are commonly used to support extended-day kindergarten programs; learning laboratories in mathematics, science, and computers; special after-school and summer programs to extend and reinforce the regular school curriculum; and other services to extend and accelerate academic progress. In addition, some Title I funds are also used to pay for additional teachers, professional development, and computers.

Solvency – target SEAS

Focusing on SEAs to leverage incentives best method to improve the teacher quality – competitive 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)

At the same time, the federal government’s ongoing efforts to improve disadvantaged students’ access to high-quality teachers may be misguided. Districts’ ability to close teacher resource gaps likely depends, in part, on the availability of resources, relative to observationally similar districts in the same state or county. Policies that provide more funding for underfunded school districts may help those districts narrow teacher quality gaps. Thus federal efforts to provide more equitable access to high quality teachers may benefit from redirecting pressure from school districts to state school finance systems. The federal government has exhibited substantial influence on state education agencies through competitive grants (i.e., Race to the Top) and waivers from federal policies (Wrabel, Saultz, Polikoff, McEachin & Duque, 2016).

Unfortunately, in contrast to state education agencies, the federal DOE has little direct influence over state legislatures, which control school district funding levels. Most of the external pressure placed on state legislatures to alter school funding has historically come through state and federal judicial decisions. The federal government’s focus on state education agencies and district human capital policies may simply be a response to lack of authority over state legislatures.

However, identifying incentives for state legislatures to increase the equity and overall level of funding across districts, perhaps by expanding Title I funding through the Education Finance Incentive Grants (which currently comprise 23% of Title I funding) may be a more effective approach to improving equitable access to high-quality teachers within districts.