A key difference between the House and Senate bills that rewrite No Child Left Behind — the nation’s education law — is in how federal funds would be allocated to help poor students.
Now, public schools receive those Title 1 funds based on a formula that calculates how many disadvantaged students are enrolled — a system the Senate bill keeps in place.
Districts dole out those funds to schools to support programs for disadvantaged kids — mostly in elementary school.
The House bill, however, calls for “Title 1 portability,” in which the money would “follow the child” from school to school.
If a poor child transferred from a high-poverty school to a wealthier school, the federal money would follow to his new school. It would essentially mean affluent schools that now receive no Title 1 funds would get a small portion going forward —pulling money from high-poverty schools.
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said if portability goes into effect, the 100 largest school districts in the country that serve high concentrations of black students could lose up to $1.3 billion in federal funding.
The top 100 districts serving Latino students could lose up to $1.8 billion, including Denver Public Schools, where 60 percent of students are Hispanic. The district stands to lose up to $62 million in federal funds under portability, a .
Clearly, the problematic No Child Left Behind law needs to be rewritten. Finally, after years of trying, the two chambers have produced bills that would lessen the federal government’s role — for example, in testing. The issue of portability shouldn’t be allowed to derail the overall revision.
Republicans say portability would not be a requirement, only an option for states. But critics assail portability as being a reverse Robin Hood effect. Poor schools need the money for programs for the larger groups of disadvantaged youth, and it makes little sense to dilute that funding.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
