Verbatim Mac

Case Answer to Answer Blocks

AT: no solvency – ESSA plans

Hiccups in initial submissions fixed – won’t stop approval of the ESSA plans

Reyna, Senior Associate at Education Strategy Group, 2017

(Ryan, “Goldilocks and the "ambitious" ESSA goals” Edexcellence July 5 2017

https://edexcellence.net/articles/goldilocks-and-the-ambitious-essa-goals?utm_source=Fordham+Updates&utm_campaign=0726a3ca57-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d9e8246adf-0726a3ca57-71494877&mc_cid=0726a3ca57&mc_eid=50947fba94 accessed GDI –TM)

Fortunately, the Department and states—equally—have time to address this issue. The Secretary and her team are under tremendous pressure to deliver feedback to states on a quick timeline, and some initial stumbles are to be expected as they navigate this new process. Based on the recently released second batch of feedback letters, it appears the Department has learned its lesson and is working to correct this issue. Gone are questions of ambition; in its place are questions for additional detail. This is the right strategy. The Department should defer to state goals, so long as a state can defend them using data.

And states have work to do as well. When resubmitting plans, or submitting new plans in Round Two, every state should provide more detail and data to explain their rational in choosing ambitious goals. Not only will this help in the review process, but it will also provide valuable information to the state’s stakeholders.

Like Goldilocks, this story can end happily ever after.

AT: Plan Results in decrease

gradual implementation solves best – eliminates loss of state funding through hold harmless provision

Boser & Brown, 15, Vice President of Education Policy at American Progress [Ulrich & Catherine; 7-7-2015, American Progress "5 Key Principles to Guide Consideration of any ESEA Title I Formula Change," Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2015/07/07/116696/5-key-principles-to-guide-consideration-of-any-esea-title-i-formula-change/ ; RJC]

5. Ensure that states and districts do not lose funds in the transition from the old to the new formula

While the formula is unfair and has for generations shortchanged some states, districts, and schools, an abrupt funding cut could be devastating to any community that has come to rely on its Title I allocation.

Therefore, as part of any fix to the Title I funding formula, there must be a gradual transition plan that ensures that no state loses money. Specifically, there should be a hold-harmless provision, which would keep states at their current funding allocation level and dedicate new funding to states that have been shortchanged in prior years and are now on track to receive a fair allocation. Under this proposal, no state would suddenly lose resources, and more equitable funding levels will be reached gradually.

Districts should also be held harmless from the negative impact of a funding fix. There is a hold-harmless provision in current law, and it is something that clearly needs to be included in any sort of formula reform. Without such provisions, low-income children whose schools have long-received Title I money would lose funding, and districts that have long depended on federal funds would suddenly be short-changed, which would force them to lay off teachers and make other dramatic cuts. Any approach that causes schools to lose substantial funds abruptly is bad policy, and Congress should ensure that the switch from the old formulas to the new formula is smooth, predictable, and does no harm.

The Title I funding formula has been in the place for 15 years. There is a great need to rework the formula to make it clearer, to eliminate the bias against rural areas and wealthier states, and to clearly incentivize states and districts to invest in education overall and to invest more in providing educational opportunities for students from low-income backgrounds. A better funding formula is the foundation for ensuring that every student, particularly those growing up in poverty, has an equal shot at the American dream.

AT: comparability only solves in district differences

Closing the “Comparability Loophole” Will Only Help Students in High Poverty Schools

Klein, Education weekly reporter, 17 (Alyson Klein “As Congress Rewrites NCLB, Arne Duncan Highlights 'Title I Comparability Loophole'” Education Week - Politics K-12 7-14-2017 http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/03/can_an_nclb_rewrite_close_the_.html 7-13-2017 GDI-JIJD)

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, of which the NCLB law is the most current edition, requires that states and districts ensure they are providing "comparable" (essentially the same) level of services to both Title I schools (which serve disadvantaged students) and wealthier schools using their own state and local money, before they can tap federal Title I funding (which is supposed to be extra money aimed at the poorest students.)¶ The "loophole" part? When it comes to the biggest expenditure (teachers' salaries), states and districts have some wiggle room. As long as all the schools in a district are on the same salary schedule—which usually means that teachers with the same level of experience and education get the same wages—and as long as the high-poverty schools have the same proprotion of teachers as the low-poverty schools, then the staffs are considered "comparable." That's true even if a high poverty Title I school has a high number of lower-paid, novice teachers, and a wealthier school that doesn't qualify for Title I has a high percentage of experienced educators who make significantly more money. And there are other problems with ESEA's comparability provision, civil rights advocates say. ¶ About 4.5 million students attend inequitably funded Title I schools, according to a report on the loophole produced by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, earlier this week. And those schools get about $1,200 less per student, on average, than wealthier schools in their districts, CAP found. ¶ So what's the most recent pitch? Duncan and Morial will highlight U.S. Department of Education data from the 2011-12 school year that shows which states are shortchanging poor and minority kids the most. (More on what this state level data has to do with the comparability loophole below.)¶ So which states have the biggest disparities? They include Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.¶ The biggest offender on that list is Pennsylvania, where high-poverty districts spend 33 percent less than lower-poverty districts. High-poverty districts in Vermont spend 18 percent less than lower poverty districts, and high-poverty districts in Illinois, Missouri, and Virginia spend 17 percent less than the lower-poverty districts. ¶ What's more, districts serving high proportions of minority kids spend markedly less than other districts in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.¶ Nevada has the most persistent problem in that grouping. High-minority districts there spend 30 percent less per student than districts serving a lower percentage of minorities. And in Nebraska, high-minority districts spend 17 percent less per student than lower-minority districts. In Arizona, higher-minority districts spend 15 percent less than lower-minority districts. ¶ That's not to say the problem is persistent everywhere. In fact, high-poverty districts in Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, and South Dakota spend more than the lower-poverty districts. ¶ True edu-budget-geeks may be confused here. After all, the comparability loophole only effects intradistrict funding (meaning how much one school in a district spends compared to another). And these state level numbers compare different districts in the same state. So why use these particular numbers if you're trying to make the argument that closing the comparability loophole is good policy?¶ The department, however, contends that leaving the loophole open compounds the problem of fiscal inequality, so closing it will only help the poor and minority kids who are losing out, even if it won't totally solve the problem they're illustrating with the data. (State level inequities are mostly the result of state funding formulas, and there's not much the feds can really do about those.)