A pedestrian passes in front of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) headquarters in Washington, … [+]
At the very end of 2019, the U.S. Department of Education made an under-the-radar announcement that it was seeking comments on a new study of over $30 billion in federal education spending. If the study is done well, it could provide valuable information for researchers, advocates, and policymakers about the Department’s investment in K-12 education. But there is also a real risk that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos could use the study to advance her anti-public education agenda by undermining support for a robust federal investment in schools and students.
According to the Department, the study will examine funding under the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (also known as IDEA), the main federal law designed to ensure students with disabilities are able to get a quality public education. It will look into how districts and schools use the money they receive from the largest programs of these two laws: Title I, Title II, Title III, and Title IV of ESSA, and Part B of IDEA. The study would also examine how states distribute this money, to determine whether it is reaching the intended beneficiaries.
Studies of federal programs have an important history in advancing education reform efforts. Between 2006 and 2010, the Department of Education’s Policy and Program Studies Service published a nine-volume report on the implementation of No Child Left Behind, including a volume on the targeting and uses of federal education funds. Among other findings, the study showed that federal funds were more targeted to high-poverty districts than state and local funds, and yet high-poverty schools received less Title I funding per low-income student than low-poverty schools.
This type of information is exactly what should inform future reauthorizations of ESSA, and it provides evidence of the importance of increasing federal funding for schools and improving the targeting of that aid. Recent rigorous research has shown overwhelmingly that investing in education has clear benefits for students. Yet a comprehensive look at the Title I formula found that it needs a significant overhaul to achieve its intended purpose. This new study could provide more guidance to lawmakers on how to rethink funding formulas, increase funding strategically and better serve students.
Unfortunately, the proposed study could also be twisted to argue for cutting funding or reducing protections for vulnerable students. The Department’s proposal includes examining whether districts and schools use different federal funding streams for similar activities. Duplication of effort does lead to waste, and under President Barack Obama, the Department also proposed consolidation of many small education programs. But those consolidation proposals actually increased funding levels, while President Donald Trump’s budget proposals have all included billions of dollars in funding cuts due to program eliminations.
The Department’s plan includes specific questions about whether districts and schools are taking advantage of the flexibility they have with federal funds, and these questions have a clear bias towards more flexibility and fewer restrictions on federal dollars. Flexibility can certainly be beneficial, and overly burdensome spending requirements can hurt the effectiveness of programs. But some requirements, like ensuring that aid actually benefits students with disabilities or English language learners, are critical.
Yet the DeVos administration has shown clear hostility to these students. The administration rescinded Obama-era guidance that encouraged schools to address disproportionate discipline of students of color and students with disabilities, and proposed to eliminate the Department’s Office of English Language Acquisition.
DeVos herself has been dismissive of federal guardrails. In her confirmation hearing, she famously said that protection of students with disabilities “is a matter that’s best left to the states.” If the study finds that districts are not taking advantage of certain flexibilities, the DeVos administration could push for even fewer requirements.
As one example, a question in the draft survey targets what’s known as the “supplement, not supplant” requirement of ESSA. This longstanding provision helps ensure that federal dollars are used on top of existing state and local dollars. While examining the impact of this provision is reasonable, the DeVos administration’s guidance on supplement, not supplant is already much weaker than what then-Secretary John King proposed during the last year of the Obama administration. If DeVos uses this study as a rationale to further weaken this requirement, students in the highest-poverty schools will lose out on resources.
Of course, a study is only a study. It doesn’t by itself change laws. And while DeVos and other Trump appointees at the Department will certainly weigh in, the professional researchers and career civil servants involved in the study will work to ensure that the study is done free of political influence.
Still, both the benefits and the risks of this undertaking are real. Clear, unbiased analysis of federal education spending is enormously useful to anyone concerned with improving K-12 schools. If done well, this study could help future policymakers figure out the smartest way to increase investment and improve federal support to schools and students.
The Department is soliciting comment on the study proposal until February 24. The public has an opportunity to weigh in and make sure it is actually helpful to education researchers, practitioners and policymakers. Americans have voiced their broad support for greater federal spending in schools, and should not let Betsy DeVos twist this study to push for private school vouchers and massive cuts to public education.
