reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act offers a new chance to improve...

8/2/2019 Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Offers a New Chance to Improve Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reauthorization-of-the-elementary-and-secondary-education-act-offers-a-new 1/12

American Enterprise Institutefor Public Policy Research

Tightening Up Title I

Reauthorization o the Elementary andSecondary Education Act Ofers a New

Chance to Improve EducationJoint Recommendations on Needed Changes to Title I

Raegen T. Miller Center for American Progress

Frederick M. Hess American Enterprise Institute

Cynthia G. Brown Center for American Progress

March 2012

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE www.AEI.oR



1 American Enterprise Institute | Reauthorization o the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Oers a New Chance to Improve Educatio

Introduction

Te Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac, or ESEA, began as a componen o he

Grea Sociey reorms o he 1960s. Seven reauhorizaions have changed he law inmyriad ways, bu perhaps never o such grea eec as wih he accounabiliy provisions

o he mos recen reauhorizaion—he No Child Le Behind Ac o 2001, or NCLB.

Because o No Child Le Behind he law is now equaed in he public mind wih he

ile I requiremen mandaing elaborae rameworks o school and disric accounabil-

iy or suden achievemen in muliple academic subjecs, as measured by conroversial

end-o-year ess.

Te quesion o wheher and how o reshape he law’s accounabiliy requiremens

dominaes curren debae around he reauhorizaion o ESEA, which is already over-

due by hal a decade. On he one hand, he accounabiliy debae is exciing because iis inormed o an unprecedened exen by ne-grained daa and sophisicaed analy-

ses. Bu on he oher hand, all he conenion surrounding accounabiliy hreaens o

preven a number o oher imporan ile I requiremens rom receiving he share o

policymakers’ atenion ha hey deserve.

Recognizing his danger, he Cener or American Progress and Frederick Hess, direcor

o educaion policy sudies or he American Enerprise Insiue, have collaboraed o

raise he public prole o a suie o hugely imporan bu oen overlooked ile I provi-

sions apar rom hose around accounabiliy or suden achievemen. oward his end

we commissioned a se o seven papers rom expers on various aces o ile I. Eachpaper describes a problem and marshals exising knowledge o consruc a number o

recommendaions or ederal policymakers. Tis brie deails hose recommendaions

we joinly embrace and explains why.

By design we chose no o wade ino undamenal quesions abou he ederal role in

public educaion or he broader conours o a reormed ESEA. Tese opics would no

be erile ground or agreemen. Insead, we have chosen o ocus on specic ways o

improve ESEA in he even ha ederal policymakers reauhorize he law relying largely

on No Child Le Behind as a oundaion.

Admitedly, our join recommendaions and he papers undergirding hem ocus on

requiremens ha are oen regarded as obscure, echnical, or oher wise unglamorous.

And while i is cerainly rue ha No Child Le Behind’s accounabiliy sysem ges he

lion’s share o he atenion, we would argue ha hese seemingly mundane provisions

may well prove more signican when i comes o wha goes on in America’s schools

and school sysems day-o-day. Some requiremens are known inormally as “se-asides”




and ohers as “caps.” Tese requiremens ensure ha minimum or maximum levels,

respecively, o agencies’ ile I allocaions ser ve specic purposes. Fiscal requiremens

lie a he hear o compliance regimes ha have grown up wih ESEA wih he nominal

purpose o ensuring ha ile I unds heed congressional inen.

We did no ackle ever y se-aside, cap, or scal requiremen on he books, nor could

we say enirely away rom he subjec o accounabiliy. Ye our projec provides anenry poin or a wide range o sakeholders, rom amilies ser ved by ile I o chie

sae school ocers o U.S. Deparmen o Educaion ocials. Moreover, our join

recommendaions, i adoped, would enail momenous shis away rom “sandard

operaing procedure” in elemenary and secondary educaion. We’re cerain here’s a

lo o chew on here, beginning wih he ollowing jawbreaker.

Supplement, not supplant

Te supplemen-no-supplan, or SNS, requiremen aims o preven school disricsrom using ile I unds o ree up sae and local unds or purchasing goods and ser-

vices hey would no oherwise have been able o aord or o provide ax relie. In heir

paper, “How he Supplemen-No-Supplan Requiremen Can Work Agains he Policy

Goals o ile I,” atorneys Melissa Junge and Sheara Krvaric—ounders o he Federal

Educaion Group, a rm ha helps cliens comply wih ederal regulaions—oer

several opions or modiying his long-sanding requiremen. We embrace he opion

ha would make SNS amenable o innovaion while grealy reducing he burden o

compliance. Te idea is o replace he primary es currenly in use wih a simpler, more

objecive es, specically:

• I disrics can documen ha he manner in which hey allocae sae and local

resources o schools is “ile I neural,” hey should be clear o suspicion around sup-

planing nonederal unds wih ile I dollars.

Te neuraliy es does no arise ou o hin air. I’s rooed, as he auhors explain, in a

es originally designed or schoolwide ile I programs. Bu he neuraliy es does rep-

resen a major deparure rom he radiional cos-by-cos approach required o reue

presumpions o supplaning.

Tis deparure makes sense o us or he ollowing hree reasons:

• Firs, he cos-by-cos approach is inherenly hosile o innovaion. Each purchase o

a good or service made wih ile I unds is mached wih an unobserved, counerac-

ual speculaion abou wheher he purchase would have been made in he absence o

ile I unds. Tus, he subjecive judgmens o sae audiors play a prominen role in

SNS enorcemen, and i’s simply wrong o characerize SNS as a crisp scal require-




men. Raher, i’s an idiosyncraic, psychological one. Wha’s more, SNS gives school

ocials srong incenives o perpeuae pas spending pracices—even hopelessly

ineecive ones—ha did no ar hem wih an audi excepion.

• Second, cos-by-cos analysis is burdensome, in addiion o he ac ha devoing

scarce resources o compliance is waseul in he ace o an alernaive approach, espe-

cially one ha rees local ocials o ake conscious seps oward using ile I unds oimprove suden achievemen.

• Tird, a swich o he neuraliy es would pave he way or consolidaion o ederal

unds in schoolwide ile I programs ha serve 87 percen o sudens receiving ile

I unds.1 Tis pracice is allowable under ederal rules and he fexibiliy i aords in

bypassing cos-by-cos reporing, or example, should be popular. Fund consolidaion,

however, is rare in some saes and virually unknown in ohers. Such is he sifing

naure o he curren supplemen-no-supplan requiremen.2

School-level expenditure reporting

Jennier Cohen o he New America Foundaion and CAP’s Raegen Miller, by shedding

ligh on ile I’s comparabiliy requiremen, poin ou ha some o he naion’s poores

schools are being shorchanged when i comes o unding. In heir paper, “Evidence o

he Eecs o he ile I Comparabiliy Loophole,” using a daase including school-

level expendiures and oher inormaion on 2,500 Florida schools over seven years,

he auhors nd compelling evidence ha high-povery schools end o enjoy ewer

sae and local resources, when measured in acual dollars per pupil, han low-povery

schools in he same disrics. Tese ndings corroborae exising research on school-level expendiure paterns,3 and hey are uterly unremarkable given ha he majoriy

o school unds go o eacher salary. Salary closely racks eacher experience, and expe-

rienced eachers end o migrae o he low-povery schools in heir disrics in search

o beter working condiions.

Ye he ndings are remarkable in ha hey have no bearing on wheher disrics in

Florida are in compliance wih he ile I comparabiliy requiremen. Te reason or his

seeming conradicion is ha he exising requiremen specically excludes salary dier-

enials due o eacher experience in deerminaions abou wheher a disric’s ile I and

non-ile I schools receive reasonably comparable shares o sae and local resources.

We see his exclusion as a orm o dishonesy. And while we dier on wha ederal

policymakers should do o redress disrics’ ailures when i comes o comparabiliy, we

agree on how comparabiliy should be assessed. Accordingly, we joinly embrace wo o

he recommendaions advanced by Cohen and Miller:




• Disrics should annually repor school-level expendiures o he Deparmen

o Educaion.

• Tese school-level expendiure gures in acual dollars—including all dollars

devoed o eacher salary, as experience dierenials or oherwise—should be used

as he basis or comparabiliy deerminaions.

I is imporan o make clear ha ogeher we ake no urher sance on he manner

o comparabiliy deerminaions or on wha consequences should beall a disric

ha ails o ensure comparable services in ile I and non-ile I schools. Our recom-

mendaions above are sricly mean o oser ransparency in governmen and simple

“ruh in adverising.”4

Furher, policymakers should leverage momenum oward greaer ransparency in

educaion unding creaed by a one-ime reporing requiremen embedded in he

American Recovery and Reinvesmen Ac.5 Te Deparmen o Educaion’s analyses o

he school-level expendiure daa gahered under he Recovery Ac highlighed dicul-ies ha some disrics and saes had in producing wha should be rouinely available

numbers. Ta’s reason enough o keep collecing hese daa, which also happen o show

ha he paterns deeced by Cohen and Miller in Florida are widespread.6

In an era o chronic scal challenges, school leaders, disric ocials, and policymakers

need o become accusomed o asking ough quesions abou resource allocaion. Ye

radiional budgeing and reporing pracices—allocaing sa insead o acual dollars

and reporing disric-level averages insead o school-level gures—shield he paries

rom operaing wih daa o appropriae granulariy or validiy. And relaedly, yielding

subsanial gains in suden achievemen will require ha disrics allocae resourcesmore sraegically—wih an eye oward resuls raher han wha’s poliically expedien.

An annual appraisal o how resources are allocaed o schools, where he rubber his he

road, is a prerequisie or sraegic-resource allocaion.7

Improving productivity

Marin Wes o Harvard Universiy exends he argumen or school-level expendiure

reporing in his paper, “Te Federal Role in Improving Educaional Produciviy.” Wes’s

recommendaions sem rom he observaion ha one o he naion’s srenghs, enre-

preneurial creaiviy, is eecively neuralized by oher orces wihin elemenary and

secondary educaion. Innovaion is no magic. I can be culivaed bu no in he absence

o rich inormaion abou he coss and benes o dieren approaches o providing

educaional services.




Wes oers a se o recommendaions ha allow ederal policymakers o help he orces

o innovaion, especially privae-secor acors, gain racion in public educaion. Te

overarching idea behind his recommendaions is ha No Child Le Behind’s noion o

accounabiliy is incomplee. While No Child Le Behind brough unprecedened ocus

o quesions around oucomes such as suden achievemen and graduaion raes, he

law ailed o bring o he surace inormaion abou produciviy. Beween wo oher-

wise idenical schools, he one yielding greaer gains on oucome measures per-uni-cosshould no be inconspicuous, as i is under No Child Le Behind.

We joinly suppor Wes’s ollowing recommendaions, paying special noe o one rec-

ommendaion ha speaks specically o ile I, puncuaing he reporing requiremens

menioned above and siuaing i wihin a produciviy-oriened view o accounabiliy.

• Condiion he receip o ile I unds on he imely disclosure o comparable measures

o per pupil spending a he sae-, disric-, and school-level, alongside he es-based

merics ha now dominae school repor cards. Crucially, school-level expendiure

gures should refec acual eacher salaries.

Te oher recommendaions reach beyond ile I, or even ESEA. Tey push he ederal

governmen, by example and acion, o aciliae scruiny and expose incenives, hus

making public educaion more suscepible o innovaion:

• Te Deparmen o Educaion should se an example or saes and school disrics by

prioriizing produciviy in is own unding decisions, a spiri already embodied by he

Invesing in Innovaion Fund (i3) gran compeiion process, and suggesing high pri-

oriy on programs like he eacher Incenive Fund, mean o caalyze ransormaion.

• Require ha saewide longiudinal daa sysems unded wih ederal dollars incorpo-

rae program paricipaion and cos inormaion needed o analyze he cos eecive-

ness o specic programs.

• Encourage saes o eliminae sel-imposed barriers o he expansion o new educa-

ion-delivery models, especially hose leveraging online echnologies, wih he poen-

ial o reduce coss.

Supplemental educational services

Wes’s las recommendaion pus a spoligh on he role o compeiion among ser-

vice providers in improving educaional produciviy. Policymakers’ eors o enable

such compeiion should draw lessons rom a se-aside provision o ile I ha arrived

wih No Child Le Behind. In heir paper, “Te Implemenaion and Eeciveness o

Supplemenal Educaional Services,” Carolyn J. Heinrich o he Universiy o exas and




Paricia Burch o he Universiy o Souhern Caliornia reviewed he lieraure on he

upake and eecs o he larges and perhaps mos conroversial se-aside provision ever

o visi ESEA.

Te provision in quesion requires disrics o devoe 20 percen o heir ile I alloca-

ions o urnishing choice-relaed ransporaion and supplemenal-educaional services

o sudens in schools idenied or improvemen, correcive acion, or resrucuring. Asimplemened, he ecacy o supplemenal-educaional services, which generally con-

siss o uoring provided by privae companies, is suspec. In prior research he auhors

and heir colleagues ound no eec o supplemenal-educaional services paricipaion

on suden-achievemen gains.8 While he se-aside provision eecively simulaed

demand or supplemenal-educaional services, disrics lacked he discreion and par-

ens lacked he inormaion needed o enorce compeiion on he basis o qualiy.

Heinrich and Burch oer specic recommendaions should policymakers decide o

rene he supplemenal-educaional services se-aside provision:

• Disrics should be allowed and encouraged o negoiae perormance-based conracs

wih supplemenal-educaional services providers ha aciliae greaer conrol over

hourly raes and minimum supplemenal-educaional services hours provided, uor

qualicaions and curriculum (paricularly or serving English language learners and

suden wih disabiliies), and oher programmaic and nancial-managemen acors.

• Saes could similarly negoiae perormance-based conracs wih disric-operaed

providers. Eecive design and managemen o perormance-based conracs miliae

or some racion o ile I resources o be used in his way.

• Saes and disrics should assess wha online providers oer in a supplemenal-educa-

ional services session—including qualiy and diereniaion in he curriculum. Tey

should also consider, along wih heir assessmens o oher providers, wha crieria or

key elemens should be used (and wih wha weigh) o se he hourly rae o supple-

menal-educaional services providers. Inormaion gahered on provider perormance

on hese crieria should be communicaed widely o sudens and parens.

• Where agencies mus esablish addiional eligibiliy crieria beyond sricer low-

income requiremens, such crieria should arge supplemenal educaional services

resources, a levels above he hreshold o impac, oward sudens who are mos

severely underperorming.




Parent involvement

ile I’s paren-involvemen se-aside provision involves ar less money han he sup-

plemenal-educaional services se-aside, bu i has a longer hisory in ESEA. Like he

supplemenal-educaional services provision, he paren-involvemen provision is ripe

or renemen. In her paper, “ile I and Paren Involvemen,” Karen Mapp o Harvard

Universiy reviews he hisory o paren involvemen in ederal educaion policy, build-ing a case or recommendaions addressing he curren se-aside or paren involvemen.

Disrics receiving more han $500,000 in ile I unds mus use a leas 1 percen o

hose unds o implemen paren-involvemen programing. Excep in he larges disrics,

he se-aside simply can’ cover he coss o ull-ime proessional personnel devoed o

paren involvemen. Disrics can exceed he minimum se-aside, bu absen a vision or

increasing parens’ capaciy o engage he disric and a ramework o ocus his engage-

men, i’s unlikely ha addiional personnel will yield improved academic achievemen.

We joinly adop one o Mapp’s recommendaions ha speaks o he vision and ramework, wha one migh call he “necessary condiions or eecive use o he paren

involvemen se-aside unds.”

• Clariy in saue ha paren-involvemen policies and compacs should align wih he

goals and sraegies o school-improvemen eors.

Legislaed prescripions or parenal engagemen are liable o produce boilerplae docu-

mens and compliance-oriened aciviy. We don’ need ha. Wha we do need, however,

is or policymakers o oer a clear signal ha parenal engagemen and school improve-

men eors be muually grounded in concern or improved academic oucomes.

State education agencies

One o he mos common complains heard abou educaion unding is ha oo much

money ails o make is way o he classroom, which is he senimen behind policies

such as exas’s “65 percen rule.”9 Such policies pu sae educaion agencies a a disinc

disadvanage in securing a generous slice o he educaion unding pie. Ye an emerging

body o work highlighs he crucial and largely unullled role o sae educaion agen-

cies in osering improved educaional oucomes.10

Sae educaion agencies need o ake a more acive role in providing services and sup-

pors ha respond o disrics’ needs around improving achievemen overall and closing

achievemen gaps. Tis role is quie dieren han he radiional one o disribuing

unds and ensuring compliance wih sae and ederal laws and regulaions. Given heir

augmened ile I responsibiliies, i is reasonable o ask wheher sae educaion agen-




cies should be able o hold back a greaer share o ile I unds han currenly allowed by

a provision ha caps heir share o saes’ ile I allocaions a 1 percen or adminisra-

ion and up o 4 percen or school-improvemen aciviies.

Asking doesn’ hur, bu Brenda urnbull and Leslie Anderson o Policy Sudies

Associaes, Inc. know a nonsarer when hey see one. Tey begin heir paper,

“Governmen ha Works or Schools and Children,” wih his observaion: “Problemsa many sae educaion agencies are srucural and longsanding, which means ha

simply adding more money so hey can handle heir curren ile I responsibiliies is

probably no he bes soluion, and cerainly no he only soluion.”

Tey had us a “problems,” and we agree ha he auhors’ recommendaions are sensi-

ive o he hisory o ederal involvemen in educaion and relevan o he debae around

reauhorizaion o ESEA. Te ollowing recommendaions or ederal policymakers

address wha we see as a disconnec beween sae educaion agencies’ responsibiliy or

implemening ile I and heir capaciy o do so:

• Focus on a more manageable subse o he curren 588 sae responsibiliies.

• Promoe sae paricipaion in muual assisance consoria.

We joinly endorse hese recommendaions, and oer anoher one inspired by he

auhors. Curren law allows he Deparmen o Educaion o “bypass” sae educaion

agencies under specic circumsances such as ailure or inabiliy o carry ou a duy

imposed by ederal law. Raher han augmen such bypass auhoriy, as urnbull and

Anderson sugges, we urge policymakers o cra a process ha would allow more duies

radiionally perormed by sae educaion agencies o be awarded o alernaive provid-ers when hey are beter equipped or he ask a hand and willing o commi o hiting

superior perormance arges (wih unding coningen on resuls).11

District management perspective

Te las o he seven papers we commissioned oers a disric perspecive on he

“back oce” requiremens o ile I. In heir paper, “Te Consequences o Disrus,”

Jon Fulleron o Harvard Universiy and Dalia Hochman, an independen consulan,

explain how ile I requiremens suppor an apparaus and culure o compliance

inimical o he goals o he program—enhancing he educaional experience o children

living in concenraed povery. We joinly endorse wo o he auhors’ houghully

presened recommendaions. In ac, we’ve already suppored hese recommendaions,

which bear repeaing:




• Base supplemen-no-supplan on he es o ile I neuraliy, as deailed by Junge

and Krvaric.

• Base he comparabiliy requiremen on acual expendiures, as inroduced by Cohen

and Miller, and driven home by Wes.

Reauhorizaion o ESEA is an inrequen, semiregular bu noneheless criical oppor-uniy or ederal policymakers o seer he course o K-12 educaion. Tis brie has laid

ou a number o recommendaions or changing key “ back oce” provisions o ile I,

he law’s signal program. Boh CAP and Frederick Hess believe hese policy opions, i

enaced, would go a long way oward improving he alignmen o he ambiious goals o

ile I and is implemenaion.

About the authors

Cynthia G. Brown is Vice Presiden or Educaion Policy a he Cener or AmericanProgress and served as direcor or he Renewing Our Schools, Securing Our Fuure

Naional ask Force on Public Educaion, a join iniiaive o he Cener and he

Insiue or America’s Fuure. Brown has spen more han 35 years working in a variey

o proessional posiions addressing high-qualiy, equiable public educaion.

Prior o joining he Cener, she was an independen educaion consulan who advised

and wroe or local and sae school sysems, educaion associaions, oundaions, non-

pro organizaions, and a corporaion. From 1986 hrough Sepember 2001, Brown

served as direcor o he Resource Cener on Educaional Equiy o he Council o Chie

Sae School Ocers. She was appoined by Presiden Jimmy Carer as he rs assis-an secreary or civil righs in he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion (1980). Prior o ha

posiion, she served as principal depuy o he Deparmen o Healh, Educaion and

Welare’s Oce or Civil Righs. Subsequen o his governmen service, she was co-

direcor o he nonpro Equaliy Cener. Beore he Carer adminisraion, she worked

or he Lawyers’ Commitee or Civil Righs Under Law, he Children’s Deense Fund,

and began her career in he HEW Oce or Civil Righs as an invesigaor.

Brown has a maser’s degree in public adminisraion rom he Maxwell School a

Syracuse Universiy and a B.A. rom Oberlin College. She serves on he Board o

Direcors o he American Youh Policy Forum and Perry Sree Preparaory Public

Charer School.

Frederick M. Hess is residen scholar and direcor o educaion policy sudies a he

American Enerprise Insiue. An educaor, poliical scienis, and auhor, Hess sud-

ies a range o K-12 and higher educaion issues. He is he auhor o infuenial books on

educaion including Te Same Ting Over and Over , Education Unbound , Common Sense

http://www.aei.org/article/education/the-same-thing-over-and-over-book/

http://www.aei.org/article/education/common-sense-school-reform-book/


http://www.aei.org/article/education/the-same-thing-over-and-over-book/



10 American Enterprise Institute | Reauthorization o the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Oers a New Chance to Improve Educat

School Reorm , Revolution at the Margins , and Spinning Wheels , and pens he Education

Week blog “Rick Hess Sraigh Up.” His work has appeared in scholarly and popular ou-

les such as eachers College Record , Harvard Education Review , Social Science Quarterly ,

Urban Afairs Review , American Politics Quarterly , Chronicle o Higher Education , Phi Delta

Kappan , Educational Leadership , U.S. News & World Report , Te Washington Post , Te

New York imes , and National Review. He has edied widely cied volumes on educa-

ion philanhropy, sreching he school dollar, he impac o educaion research, andNo Child Le Behind. He serves as execuive edior o Education Next , as lead aculy

member or he Rice Educaion Enrepreneurship Program, on he Review Board or

he Broad Prize in Urban Educaion, and on he Boards o Direcors o he Naional

Associaion o Charer School Auhorizers, 4.0 SCHOOLS, and he American Board

or he Cericaion o eaching Excellence. A ormer high school social sudies eacher,

he has augh a he Universiy o Virginia, he Universiy o Pennsylvania, Georgeown

Universiy, Rice Universiy, and Harvard Universiy. He holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in

governmen rom Harvard Universiy as well as an M.Ed. in eaching and curriculum.

Raegen T. Miller is he Associae Direcor or Educaion Research a American Progress.His work ocuses on sraegic managemen o human capial in educaion. He has

published aricles in peer-reviewed research journals shedding ligh on he produciviy

coss o eacher absences. Prior o joining American Progress, Raegen was a Naional

Academy o Educaion/Spencer Posdocoral Fellow aliaed wih he Cener on

Reinvening Public Educaion a he Universiy o Washingon. He holds a docorae

in adminisraion, planning, and social policy rom he Harvard Graduae School o

Educaion, where he augh courses on applied daa analysis and he oundaions o

schooling and eaching.

Raegen’s work in educaion policy is grounded in many years o pracice and service.He augh mahemaics in he Unied Saes and abroad, in radiional public schools

and in charer schools, and in urban and suburban setings. Raegen compleed his

eacher raining a Sanord Universiy, and he holds an M.S. in mahemaics rom Cal

Poly, San Luis Obispo. He was a rusee o Prospec Hill Academy Charer School in

Somerville, Massachusets, and he served as presiden o his local eachers’ union in

Palo Alo, Caliornia.


http://www.aei.org/article/education/revolution-at-the-margins-book/

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/

http://www.aei.org/article/education/revolution-at-the-margins-book/




11 A i E t i I tit t | R th i ti th El t d S d Ed ti A t O N Ch t I Ed t

Endnotes

1 Paul Manna, “Federal Aid to Elementary and Sec-ondary Education: Premises, Eects, and Major Les-sons Learned” (Washington: Center on EducationPolicy, 2008), available at http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cm?DocumentSubSubTopicID=5.

2 Robert Gordon, “More Equity and Less Red Tape: Rethinking

the Comparability and Compliance Provisions in Title I o the Elementary and Secondary Education Act” (Washington:Center or American Progress, 2008), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/titleone_re-port.html.

3 The Education Trust, “Their Fair Share: How Teacher SalaryGaps Shortchange Poor Children in Texas” (2009), availableat http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/les/publica-tions/les/Texas%20(Poor).pd; The Education Trust—West,“Caliornia’s Hidden Teacher Spending Gap: How State andDistrict Budgeting Practices Shortchange Poor and MinorityStudents and Their Schools” (2005), available at ww w.hid-dengap.org/resources/report031105; The Education Trust,“No Accounting or Fairness: Equitable Education Funding”(2008), available at http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/les/publications/les/NoAcctgorFairnessOH.pd.

4 Frederick M. Hess and Linda Darling-Hammond, “How toRescue Education Reorm,” New York Times, December 5,

2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/how-to-rescue-education-reorm.html.

5 Department o Education, “American Recovery andReinvestment Act o 2009: Title I, Part A Funds or Grants toLocal Education Agencies” (2009), available at http://ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/actsheet/title-i.html.

6 Ruth Heuer and Stephanie Stullich, “Comparability o Stateand Local Expenditures Among Schools Within Districts:A Report From the Study o School-Level Expenditures”(Washington: U.S. Department o Education, Ofce o Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy andProgram Studies Service, 2011), available at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/school-level-expenditures/school-level-expenditures.pd.

7 Karen Hawley Miles and Stephen Frank, The Strategic School:Making the Most of People, Time, and Money. (ThousandOaks: Corwin Press, 2008).

8 Carolyn J. Heinrich, Robert H. Meyer, and Greg Whitten,“Supplemental Education Services Under No Child Let Be-hind: Who Signs Up, and What Do They Gain?” Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis 32 (2) (2010).

9 Center or Public Policy Priorities, “Analysis o Sixty-FivePercent Rule in School Spending” (2005), available at http://www.cppp.org/research.php?aid=456.

10 Cynthia G. Brown and others, “ State Education Agencies asAgents o Change What It Will Take or the States to Step UpOn Education Reorm” (Washington: Center or AmericanProgress and American Enterprise Institute, 2011), availableat http://ww w.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/pd/sea.pd; William Slotnik, “Levers or Change” (Washington:Center or American Progress, 2010), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/levers_or_change.html.

11 Bryan C. Hassel and Daniela Doyle, “Shiting Risk to CreateOpportunity: A Role or Perormance Guarantees in Educa-tion.” Working paper (American Enterprise Institute, Futureo American Education Project, 2010), available at http://aei.

org/paper/education/k-12/shiting-risk-to-create-opportu-nity/.

reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act offers a new chance to improve...

Documents