A new article in the journal Education Finance & Policy takes on the accepted notion that Title I over-subsidizes urban districts. The authors argue instead that measures of student poverty that drive state and federal funding allocations fail to reflect geographic differences in cost of living. The article constructs alternative poverty income thresholds based on regional differences in wage levels for low-skilled workers, and then examines distribution of Title I revenues after adjusting poverty rates for geographic differences in cost of living, and adjusting Title I revenues for differences in purchasing power of districts. The authors find that when fully adjusting for regional differences, Title I funding patterns disproportionately favor rural districts in low cost-of-living states. The authors recommend that the baseline measure of student poverty be changed to incorporate geographic differences in cost of living, preferably using labor market analysis because it offers a more complete picture of regional differences. Additionally, Title I funding allocations should be adjusted for uncontrollable differences in the cost of education rather than for state average expenditure levels, so that Title I funds have the same purchasing power in every district. More

Source:  Public Education News Blast

Published by LEAP

Los Angeles Education Partnership (LAEP) is an education support organization that works as a collaborative partner in high-poverty communities.