Rep. Grijalva half right on Student Success Act
WHO SAID IT: Raúl Grijalva.
TITLE: U.S. representative, 3rd Congressional District.
PARTY: Democrat.
THE COMMENT: “The GOP cannot claim to be helping our children while their bill undermines the requirement for states to set high educational standards. They can’t claim to be for greater opportunity, while this bill eliminates vital programs, including all funding for special populations like English Learners and migrant students. Worst of all, they can’t claim to want the best for our children when this bill will literally allow states to siphon money away from underserved communities and redirect it into schools in affluent communities.” THE FORUM: Feb. 26 news release.
WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT: Whether House Resolution 5, the Student Success Act, cuts all funding for Englishlanguage learners and allows states to redistribute money from poorer schools to more affluent schools.
ANALYSIS: The Student Success Act, which would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is awaiting a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives after passing the Education Committee on a party-line vote in February.
House Democrats, the Obama administration and several education advocacy groups oppose the bill, largely because it prohibits increases to Title I funding for schools with large populations of disadvantaged students. The Student Success Act would freeze that funding at 2012 levels.
Under No Child Left Behind, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2002, schools also receive funding for English-as-a-secondlanguage instruction through Title III.
This funding — totaling $723.4 million in fiscal 2014 — is distributed through state education departments. Arizona schools received $14.5 million under Title III in 2015, of which nearly $3.4 million went to schools in Grijalva’s district.
The Student Success Act would replace Title III with a new section on parental engagement and local flexibility. Instead of providing funds for Englishlanguage learners, it would create grants for non-governmental organizations that offer help to all public school students.
But that doesn’t mean funding for English-language learners would be completely eliminated.
Instead, it would be merged into the new Title I, while maintaining a funding stream for English-as-a-secondlanguage instruction separate from other Title I funds.
The second half of Grijalva’s statement, that the bill “will literally allow states to siphon money away from underserved communities and redirect it into schools in affluent communities” refers to the Student Success Act’s Title I portability.
Most school districts qualify for at least some Title I grant money, which is available to districts with at least 10 children and 2 percent of their students below the poverty level.
Title I funds are currently distributed to districts through four funding formulas, some of which provide more money based on increased populations of poor students. The most basic formulas distribute a certain amount per economically disadvantaged student. But the other formulas account for the increased costs of educating more students below the poverty level. A district with more than 30 percent of its students in poverty, for example, receives two and one half times the Title I funding per child as a district that has less than 15 percent of students below the poverty level.
The portability created by the Student Success Act would tie this funding to the students, not the district. If the students move to a more affluent school, they bring the federal funding with them, even if their new school wouldn’t otherwise qualify for Title I funding.
The federal Department of Education, which opposes the bill, says this portability could cost districts in poorer areas.
Detroit’s neediest schools could lose $265 million and Los Angeles’ poorest schools $785 million by tying the funding to students, the department estimated earlier this year.
BOTTOM LINE: The Student Success Act retains funding for Englishlanguage learners, though it moves this funding to a different part of the program. It does allow states to redistribute money from poor schools to affluent ones when they’re disbursing Title I funds by tying the funding to individual students and letting students bring the funding with them if they move schools.
THE FINDING: Two stars: somewhat true/somewhat false.
SOURCES: News release: “Grijalva & CHC Leaders Confront Ed & Workforce Chair Over GOP Cuts to Education Funding”; Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014; FY 2015 Title III Allocations List, Arizona Department of Education; Highlights of the Student Success Act, National Association of Elementary School Principals website; “Arne Duncan blasts House effort to revise No Child Left Behind,” Washington Post, Feb. 24; No Child Left Behind Act — Title I Distribution Formulas, New America Foundation website.