States will be glad to see the in large infusion of federal funds into K-12 education. But will they help districts balance their budgets without major teacher layoffs? Most of the reductions in state and local resources are unrestricted funds resulting from reductions in local property tax revenues or state general support for schools. All of the new federal funding will be restricted funding that can not replace the unrestricted funds that districts are losing. So, likely districts will have to lay off hordes of teachers that are supported with unrestricted funds at the same time that they hire teachers for special education and Title I activities. Much of the time, these will not be the same teachers (if we want them to be highly qualified). The fix would be to allow Fiscal Stabilization funds to be used for general K-12 purposes instead of restricting the funding for Title I, special education and career tech. Here are the details:
Let’s just concentrate on the three big pots of funding – Title I ($13 billion), Special Education ($13 billion), and Fiscal Stabilization Funds ($39 billion – shared with higher education).
Title I – These funds are distributed through existing Title I formulas, and the funds are general subject to restrictions that the funds support disadvantaged students (Schoolwide Title I schools have a little more flexibility). These funds have supplement not supplant requirements which restrict the funds from replacing funding sources that the state or locals would otherwise have provided. Estimates of district by district allocations for Title I and special education are available (here).
Special Education – Distributed by existing formulas can only be used for special education, and subject to supplement not supplant language.
Fiscal Stabilization funds – The distribution of these funds is a little more complicated, but once the state shares have been determined, and K-12’s share of that is determined, then the K-12 funds are distributed using a combination of the general purpose funding formula used in that state, and the state’s allocation method for Title I funds. While the funds are distributed using the general purpose fund formula, the Stabilization funds can only be used for ESEA, Special Education and Perkins Career and Technical Education purposes.
States are Cutting General Purpose K-12 Funding that Can’t be Backfilled with Title I and Special Education Funds
To illustrate this point, it might be easiest to focus on a specific school district. I will look at the impact on Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) which is the second largest in the country and located in a state that is facing one of the worst state budget crises in the nation. Based on the analysis of the Congressional Research Services (referenced above), LAUSD would receive $218 million in Title I funds and $91 million in special education funds for the 2009-10 school year. I estimate that LAUSD will get in excess of $250 million in fiscal stabilization funds (there are too many moving parts to get an accurate estimate here). So in total, LAUSD would receive around $550 million for 2009-10 to be used mainly for Title I and special education purposes.
California’s Governor has proposed cutting general purpose funding to schools by about $2 billion in the current school year, and effectively $3 billion in 2009-10 from the current funding level (which has already been cut in adopting the 2008-09 budget). As part of this reduction, he is also allowing schools to reduce the school year by 5 days. Of course there are other specific programmatic cuts, deferrals and other budget gimmicks, but most of the reductions are general purpose. LAUSD educates roughly 11 percent of California’s students, LAUSD share of the cuts will be around $550 million for the two fiscal years combined. [It should be noted that California education advocates would argue that the reductions are much larger than suggested here because these cuts come on top of the state not providing statutorily required cost of living adjustments in either year. The advocates estimate the total cuts at around $10 billion. Which the actual cuts are probably somewhere between the Governor’s numbers and the advocates numbers, using the Governor’s numbers makes the point on the impact of the stimulus package]
LA’s Cuts Roughly same as LA’s Funding Under Stimulus
Perhaps by magic perhaps by intent, but the cuts that LAUSD will face under the current budget proposal are roughly equivalent to the new Stimulus funds they would receive. Unfortunately, the color of the money is different. They will lose general purpose funds, and get restricted funds. What will this mean for their budget? Basically, they will have to cut a large number of programs being funded with general purpose funds. Then at the same time they will have to create or expand another set of programs to serve special education and Title I students. And, if they cut a program that is general fund supported, and replace it with new ESEA, special ed or Stabilization funds, they will likely violate the supplanting language and have to give some of the funding back to the feds.
What Can be Done About This?
A simple change in the stimulus package to allow the fiscal stabilization funds to be used for general purposes instead of targeted purposes could quickly fix the issue. This would mirror the flexibility that higher ed or other parts of state budgets will have with respect to the stabilization funds. Absent such a change, it will be difficult for districts to use the stimulus funds without a whole lot of unintended consequences.
Correction: It was brought to my attention that may initial post was inaccurate. The Fiscal Stabilization funds can be used for any ESEA purpose not just Title I uses. While this broader flexibility would provide districts more options than just Title I, it is still replacing general purpose funds with restricted funds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm not clear on something. To what extent are schools currently using their unrestricted funds to make up for shortfalls in these areas - like special ed - that will now be receiving restricted funds? We can't expect the new money to free up unrestricted funds?
Thanks, you always teach me important things.
Paul already asked one of my first questions. The bigger question, it seems to me, would be some sort of waiver language in the supplement not supplant language. That sounds like a no-brainer.
I'm wrestling with smaller questions in regard to my school and district. Its my understanding that peer tutoring and the Toledo plan can be funded under other Title funds. Would it be easier to get a waiver along those lines?
The recession has barely hit here, but in the last few weeks we've really seen its effects on the students. I have witnessed the devastation of the recessions of 1983, 1991, and 2001, and they all hit with sudden force. The cutbacks that worried adults were not nearly as important as the trauma endured by the kids, who thus brought additional violence and disorder to school. (Tom Toch's latest post may be the first time I've disagreed with him. He implies that staying the course on promising experiments is more important than staving off a catastrophe in our poorest schools.)
Between 30 to 40% of my school's students are on IEPs or equivalent, and our district will get another $6.5 million for special ed next year, but where would we find warm bodies, much less effective special ed teachers? I'm fooling around with this idea. Every day our school gets newly traumatized transfers (they wouldn't attend a neighborhood school like our - given all of the choice options - if they weren't trapped by something. But these vulnerable kids at this vulnerable time in their chaotic lives get no transition services. At best, they get a handshake, a "how do you do?," and "find a seat somewhere." Surely Title money could fund graduation coaches, attendance specialists, or other types of adults to help them.
This situation reminds me of the problem of capital spending in the time of NCLB. One glance at NCLB and central offices knew they needed new expenditures for computers and software. They were in too big of a hurry to think through the type of computer systems and learning software that would be appropriate. Its no surprise that districts across the country adopted the most primitive online tutorials. We never came close to having the resources in operating budgets that would have allowed us to properly utilize technology.
The worst came two years ago when I was assigned 240 students! That is not a typo; most teachers had more than 200. That year, we became The Wire, and our school may never recover from it. The worse tragedy was that hundreds of thousands of dollars of computer hardware and software was sitting unopened in leaky rooms. It would have been manifestly impossible for us to even have time to open the boxes, much less learn the programs and see if they were useful tools. (regardless, the spring rains took care of that issue by destroying the expensive capital purchases.)
If I were an advocate of data-driven accountability, I'd be trying to take the high road. I'd be working with others to allow stimulus money to be diverted to avoid a meltdown. Even if the policies of accountability advocates are the greatest thing since sliced bread, the value that they can add is small compared to the harm that will be done during the recession if we can't reach a rational compromise. If I were a "reformer" who proved myself by honoring a compromise, then I would have leverage for a fair hearing from the "status quo." Which reminds me, under any honest accounting in this economy you have to expect test scores to drop like a rock. If I'd invested so much in data-driven accountability I'd be looking for allies for dealing with the bad news that if coming.
The rest of the country doesn't have this problem, but we will be dealing with the Radical Right that took over both state houses so we will be trying to craft solutions using local and federal money, while the legislative leadership is trying to drive a stake into the hear of the concept of public education. Which raises another question - should we build a creationism studies program and then try to shift some of those resources into science? John Thompson
Robert, I am curious if you have seen anything on whether this infusion of cash actually represents fully-funded Title I and IDEA programs, as opposed to the partially funded mandates of year past. Has anyone run those numbers?
I ran the numbers in a fairly sketchy way based on Wikipedia and a report from the relevant Congressional committee. Wikipedia says (without citation) that the feds currently fund 12% of special education, rather than the 40% they're supposed to. Meanwhile, this report says that IDEA funds in 2009 will increase from $11.5 billion to $17.5 billion under the stimulus bill.
Together, those things imply to me that the feds would be increasing their share of IDEA costs from 12% to a little less than 20%, which would still be less than half the amount they're supposed to pay.
But I have no idea how reliable those numbers are, esp. from Wikipedia.
To Paul's point that currently unrestricted funds are being used for special education, he is absolutely right. But, as a requiremnet of IDEA, districts can not use federal funds to supplant (replace) the funds that the district was already providing from local sources. They could use the new federal funds to cover all of the costs of increases in salaries and benefits, so that over time the locals could reduce their share of special education funding, but they can not make this change over night.
To Anonymous's point that there are a lot of really good things that districts could do for kids with Title I and special education funding,this is clearly true. But in districts that are less financially secure than your own, and are facing teacher layoffs, it is hard to lay off teachers, and increase class sizes at the same time you are creating new programs for disadvantaged youth.
Federal special education funding will increase from $11.2 billion to $24.2 billion, a $13 billion increase. This will still leave the federal share significantly below 40 percent.
thank you
Post a Comment