Formulas And Not Formula?

Former CRS analyst Wayne Riddle takes a look at Title I formulas in The Title I Monitor (pdf). The same issue also takes a look at an ongoing formula fight.  Great preview of the subsurface issues that will emerge whenever an ESEA renewal bill really gets moving.

The NEA has a new report out (pdf) and it’s a lot more interesting than the press statements about it. This task force did seek out input and ideas from independent voices and wasn’t a whitewash.  It’s easy to point to past – and similar efforts – and predict little change. And there is a Charlie Brown/Lucy quality to all this to be sure.  Still, big institutions change slowly and there is some important signaling in this even if you don’t agree with all the details. A decade ago differential pay was a non-starter, this report calls for it.  Don’t write it off too fast.

2 Replies to “Formulas And Not Formula?”

  1. I have been pointing out for some time now that the argument made in the Riddle brief posted above is based on excessively crude analyses (in this case, completely misleading anecdotes) which fail to consider the current insensitivity of poverty income thresholds to regional and urban-rural income/wage distributions. A similar argument is at the center of the supplemental poverty measure debate. Put simply, when one adjusts poverty rates for regional differences, one does not find that Title I is disproportionately allocated to rich states/districts:

    We can take this analysis a step further to show that Title I also does not overfund urban areas and underfund rural areas. I will have more on this soon.

  2. The NEA report is very impressive. Just might get me to join. The differential pay part alone is worth the price of reading the report. This does not seem to be business as usual and in the main, does not sell-out teachers to business model reformistas. Now I’m going to spend more time with it and read what others have to say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.