School Districts Shortchange Low-Income Schools: Report

It's been long suspected that schools serving low-income students receive less money to pay their teachers than those in nearby affluent schools. Now there's data from the U.S. Department of Education to back that claim up.

"The facts are out there like they've never been before," U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said on a conference call with reporters Wednesday.

And the spending disparity affects teacher quality: As veteran teachers move to more affluent schools that can pay them more, students in poorer schools are more frequently taught by unseasoned teachers with little classroom experience.

In the the 13,000 districts surveyed, which encompass 82,000 of the nation's 100,000 schools, more state and local money went to teacher salaries in high-income schools than in the district schools serving poor children, according to the new data. And 40 percent of low-income schools spent less on school employees in the 2008-2009 school year than other well-off schools within their districts.

"Low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed, but in far too many places, policies for assigning teachers and allocating resources are perpetuating the problem rather than solving it," Duncan said.

According to the report, between 18 and 28 percent of low-income schools aren’t adequately staffed to meet their students' needs. The report, titled "Comparability of State and Local Expenditures Among Schools Within Districts," used data collected from 13,000 school districts that had to self-report information on how they spend money to receive 2009 stimulus dollars.

The report attributes the gap to a loophole in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the sweeping federal law on public education passed in 1965. That law created a special class of schools known as Title I that explicitly serve poorer students. The law aimed to ensure that those schools were appropriately funded.

But a loophole in the law's reporting system that aimed to prevent school districts from using Title I dollars to plug overall budget gaps has allowed them to do just that. The law "often results in low-income schools subsidizing their high-income counterparts," Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), the former Denver schools superintendent, said in a Wednesday statement.

"Too many disadvantaged children living below the poverty line are getting short-changed now," Duncan said. Duncan called attention to a legislative fix his department proposed that's included in a stalled draft of the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind Act
sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

Though Duncan highlighted the glaring disparities Wednesday, his administration has so far prioritized other issues -- such as standards and innovation -- over funding equity.

Duncan has criticized Congress's standstill on reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, and has tried topush his own reforms in the interim by offering states waivers exempting them from NCLB requirements if they adopt certain plans. But the waivers don't primarily target the funding concerns highlighted in Wednesday's report.

When asked why he didn’t use the waiver procedure to enforce equitable spending, Duncan said, "these districts are technically in compliance with the law." What differs in this case, he added, is that the law itself is the problem. "We don't think there's a great mechanism" for fixing it in the waivers, he said.

But Dianne Piche, a former Education Department official who now heads the education arm of the U.S.-based Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the federal government could enforce equity through other means.

"Their legal conclusion is that they can't alter a comparability loophole through waivers, but there is already a counterweight to that loophole in the law," Piche said. She suggested the Education Department "aggressively enforce" an existing NCLB provision that requires nondiscrimination in the rights and benefits of public schools on the basis of race and ethnicity; and another that requires the equitable distribution of teachers based on income.

Comments

[fing ding]

01:11 PM on 06/23/2012

The results of the study show the exact opposite of what is claimed in this article.
Title I schools (high poverty schools) get more funding than non-Title I schools.

The study shows the following figures for Title I and non-Title I schools:

Exhibit C-12. Number and percentage of Title I schools that had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the average for non–Title I schools in their district, 2008–09

Elementary schools:
Title I schools were below average 7,962 (46%)
Title I schools were above average 9,429 (54%)

Middle schools:
Title I schools were below average 950 (42%)
Title I schools were above average 13,015 (58%)

High schools
Title I schools were below average 697 (45%)
Title I schools were above average 839 (55%)

Exhibit C-14. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the average for their non–Title I schools, 2008–09

Title I schools were below average 1,267 (47%)
Title I schools were above average 1,433 (53%)

Exhibit C-20. Number and percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the average for schools in their district’s lowest-poverty quartile, 2008–09

Highest-poverty schools were below average 2,945 (36%)
Highest-poverty schools were above average 5,313 (64%)

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/school-level-expenditures/school-level-expenditures.pdf

[CWN]

03:03 AM on 12/06/2011

My biggest concern before I take this DE report seriously is how much data was excluded. Schools were told not to include school lunches, regional programs, adult education, special education, and several other line items. I can't tell whether ELL spending was included by most districts. My perception is that some districts lump special education with ELL, but do know that funds for both are not allowed to be used for other purposes.

If a district spends 15% of it's budget on ELL, lunches, and district wide social services, that is an extremely important piece of data that is missing from this report.

[bobbrowntown]

01:28 AM on 12/06/2011

I think the real issue that arne doesn't want to mention is that middle class parents like myself have the knowledge needed to game the system. We know how to get resources to our children and arne and obama and friends have made that easier. We all know the rich send their children to expensive private schools. the middle class control school systems to make sure their children get the best education. poor families dont stand a chance. Local school boards make decisions about resources, they only care about the parents who vote which is in most cases middle class parents. So what are arne and company going to do about it, nothing, which is what they have done since obama was elected.

[1differentdrummer]

05:08 AM on 12/04/2011

So what's new? It's been that way for eons.

[ttsgw]

05:08 PM on 12/03/2011

The American way, rich parents pay the politicians more money their children get more tax money to their education. It is not their fault the the the poor parents are too lazy getting rich.

[MA2AW]

09:25 PM on 12/02/2011

"Low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed, but in far too many places, policies for assigning teachers and allocating resources are perpetuating the problem rather than solving it," Duncan said.

This is because those who work for the Dept of Ed make 6 figure incomes and don't do jack. Why should one school get more money if the same amount of students attend? Here we go, wheres AL and Jessie?
Fire this Department! Completely.... Save billions.

[lincheryl]

01:43 PM on 12/04/2011

Many low-income students haven't had the experiences and background of more wealthy students and also suffer from poor nutrition. For instance, some students have books and computers with internet access at home and others don't. If you think 25 students always equals another group of 25 students, you need to go volunteer and help in a class of low-income students and see if you still agree with your own comment.

[arecibo48]

09:17 PM on 12/02/2011

This is shameful.

[carnivaluv]

12:36 PM on 12/02/2011

Yep see, teachers don't care for children as much as money or they'd never have changed schools. It is sad though that this shortchanging is happening.

[chriss0114]

12:51 PM on 12/02/2011

being paid so little, it is often a necessity to pay a mortgage to take a better paying job

[carnivaluv]

01:07 PM on 12/02/2011

Okay, then teachers need to stop saying that kids are the reason they are teaching because they are leaving the kids that really need them the most for more money.

[lincheryl]

01:44 PM on 12/04/2011

They also care about their own children and need to be able to adequately support them.

[Mochilero]

11:08 AM on 12/02/2011

The Right always claims that the cycle of poverty is about laziness and dependency. And they ignore all the signs that show it is more about neglect and preference.

[Linelle Campbell]

10:54 AM on 12/02/2011

I'm so sick of reading so many articles about the problem. Where are the practical solutions? Where are the solutions about better parenting, better ways to evaluate students and teachers, identifying the true definition of student achievement, making sure that administrator, teachers, parents, and students are all held equally accountable? Where are the solutions for ensuring students can actually survive post high school whether it be at college or in a job?

[MA2AW]

09:27 PM on 12/02/2011

That was cancelled at the last meeting of "No Child Left Behind." You didn't get the memo?

[Max Patton]

05:55 AM on 12/02/2011

It's just another explanation for the growing income gap between whites, blacks, and hispanics. Who do you think goes to these "low income" schools? This article could have easily been titled: "School Districts Shortchange Minorities."

[Ghoulish]

02:29 PM on 12/02/2011

My 4th grade "white" daughter attends a low-income, minority school in Mississippi, and has since Kindergarten. The school has once been graded failing, and are currently at-risk of failing. However, she is getting a wonderful education. Why? Because I make sure she is doing her job - attending, reading, doing her homework, paying attention, being respectful. She has had the exact same teachers as most of her classmates who are doing poorly. The only differences I can see are home environment and parental expectations.

[MA2AW]

09:30 PM on 12/02/2011

About time! I also went to a MS public school in Central Ms. 4 white kids out of about 500 including teachers. Straight A's, and the other white kids often did better than all the rest. It's not the teachers, it's the kids and their home life.

[UrbanRevolution]

06:11 PM on 12/05/2011

A wonderful education compared to what? The notion that low-income = tragic homel ife is a misnomer. I went to Beverly Hills High School and the tragedy was the amount of kids in their parent's medicine cabinets and then in the nurses office the next day because they were "sick".
Schools that cater to low-income families here in Denver do not have the same resources. Kids don't have their own text books, there are few computers in the computer lab and the science rooms don't even have lab stations, bunsen burners, etc.

My son went to school in a middle to upper-middle class neighborhood. Demographics were 33% white 33% black 33% other. At the open house i sat there and listened to this teacher tell me that the reason she is teaching at the school is she wanted to teach "at-risk" kids. If she considered my son "at - risk" because of the color of his skin then how much could she possibly expect from him? She also decided to change text books but didn't have enough for everyone. I promptly wrote the school board, my city council member, the principal, etc. They had books 2 weeks later. When i tell that story to other parents too often I hear, "you can do that?".

Parental involvement is limited by life experiences. Some parents don't know that they can demand a good education and again low-income does NOT automatically = bad home life

[fing ding]

01:35 PM on 06/23/2012

Please read the study that this article refers to.

It shows the exact opposite of what this article claims.

High-poverty (Title I) schools get more money than schools that don't have high levels of poverty.

C-14. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the average for their non–Title I schools, 2008–09
Title I schools were below average 1,267 (47%)
Title I schools were above average 1,433 (53%)

C-20. Number and percentage of schools in their district’s highest-poverty quartile that had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the average for schools in their district’s lowest-poverty quartile, 2008–09
Highest-poverty schools were below average 2,945 (36%)
Highest-poverty schools were above average 5,313 (64%)

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/school-level-expenditures/school-level-expenditures.pdf

[Screaming-of-the-Lambs]

03:09 AM on 12/02/2011

So many articles on HuffPo have a single response in common and it goes something like this: "DUH."

[carnivaluv]

12:41 PM on 12/02/2011

Why cut down HP? Please go somewhere else and read their articles.

[Screaming-of-the-Lambs]

11:53 AM on 12/04/2011

LOL that's funny, what you said right there.

[ConservativeChampion]

12:27 AM on 12/02/2011

The reality is that virtually ALL of the government schools are doing bad. It is sad given how much we over fund the schools.

[am10]

11:51 AM on 12/02/2011

Not quite. Most "government schools" in suburbs and towns are doing quite well while inner city school aren't. People think they are doing lousy due to test scores. Guess what? The difference is that we test EVERYONE.

[FrogLips]

11:59 AM on 12/02/2011

The conservative base is doing all they can to destroy the "evil" public schools and replace them with publicly funded Christian schools. That has been their goal since the mid-1970's.

Don't forget that most charter schools are "government" schools.

[RondaGP]

11:54 PM on 12/01/2011

I am pleased that, as U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, "The facts are out there like they've never been before," but these findings have been more than just "long suspected."

In 1991, Jonathan Kozol detailed this in his book, Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools, he discusses the disparities in education between schools of different classes and races. It is based on his observations of various classrooms in the public school systems of East St. Louis, Chicago, New York City, Camden, Cincinnati, and Washington D.C.
His observations take place in both schools with the lowest per capita spending on students and the highest, ranging from just over $3,000 in Camden, New Jersey to a maximum expenditure of up to $15,000 in Great Neck, Long Island.
In his visits to these areas, Kozol illustrates the overcrowded, unsanitary and often understaffed environment that is lacking in basic tools and textbooks for teaching. He cites the large proportions of minorities in the areas with the lowest annual budgets, despite the higher taxation rate on individuals living in poverty within the school district.

This article states that, “Though Duncan highlighted the glaring disparities Wednesday, his administration has so far prioritized other issues — such as standards and innovation — over funding equity.”
These glaring disparities have always been known so, unfortunately, I doubt the report will alter priorities any more than Kozal’s findings did.

[fing ding]

01:46 PM on 06/23/2012

Please read the study that this article refers to.

It shows the exact opposite of what this article claims.

High-poverty (Title I) schools get more money than schools that don't have high levels of poverty.

C-14. Number and percentage of Title I districts in which Title I schools had per-pupil personnel expenditures below and above the average for their non–Title I schools, 2008–09
Title I schools were below average 1,267 (47%)
Title I schools were above average 1,433 (53%)

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/school-level-expenditures/school-level-expenditures.pdf

You might want to look at average spending in Camden New Jersey too.

"The Camden City School District spends $24,765 per pupil in current expenditures."
http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/us/new-jersey/district/camden-city-school-district/

That's more than double the U.S. average.

Minority districts have been outspending non-minority districts since before Kozol's book was published. He cherry-picked his schools to prove his point.

"Figure 1 shows that on average, during the 1989–90 school year, spending was fairly equal across school districts with less than 50 percent minority enrollment. However, districts in which 50 percent or more of the students enrolled were racial minorities spent more than those districts with less than 50 percent minority enrollment."
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97917.asp

[WhitakerKY]

10:53 PM on 12/01/2011

I'm also finding out, I'm very naive. I THOUGHT all of my teaching colleagues had science degrees. Now I'm learning they have education degrees, with a few science courses, at best. I'm like, the ONLY Biology teacher with a Biology degree. I'm seriously ready to quit. No wonder I'm constantly fighting uphill. They don't KNOW anything!

[am10]

11:54 AM on 12/02/2011

Here (Northeast) you're required to have a degree in the subject area if you're teaching middle or high school. Unless, of course, you're Teach For America. They don't even require an interest in helping kids.

[Ghoulish]

02:34 PM on 12/02/2011

Same here (Mississippi). A secondary English Education major has the same amount of hours in English as an English major. Same with science, history, etc.