Evidence of the Effects of the Title I Comparability Loophole

8/2/2019 Evidence of the Effects of the Title I Comparability Loophole

1/40

Evidence o the Efects o the Title IComparability Loophole

Shining a Light on Fiscal Inequity Within Floridas PublicSchool Districts

Jennier S. Cohen New America Foundation

Raegen T. Miller Center for American Progress

March 2012

www.americanprogress.org www.aei.o

American Enterprise Institutefor Public Policy Research

Tightening Up Title I


2/40


3/40

1 Introduction and summary

5 Background

10 Florida, the Sunshine State

12 Data analysis

14 Findings

17 Discussion

19 Recommendations

21 Conclusion

22 Florida background appendix

24 Technical appendix

31 Endnotes

33 About the authors and acknowledgements

Contents


4/40


5/40

Introduction and summary | American Enterprise Instit

Introduction and summary

Ideniying he culpri o unequal school unding in U.S. public schools used o

be simple. When public schools derived nearly all o heir revenues rom local

propery axes, he mah was sraighorwardschools in poor areas were poorly

unded while schools in wealhy areas were well unded. oday, wih ederal and

sae governmens kicking in nearly hal o unding or public schools, in par o

address previous inequiies, undersanding why schools wih large concenraions

o poor sudens are sill being nancially shorchanged is much more complex.

o dae, legislaive and judicial atenion o inequiy in elemenary and second-

ary educaion nance has mainly ocused on variaion in resources available o

school disrics. Tis ocus makes sense because disrics have he auhoriy o

raise revenue and disribue aid owing rom sae and ederal sources. Ye ocus-

ing on inequiies wihin school disrics also meris atenion. Budgeing and

reporing pracices wihin disrics can undermine he inen o even he mos

equiable sae and ederal unding sreams. Te scal requiremens o ile I o

he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac seek o preven his possibiliy.

Te comparabiliy requiremen, one o hree scal requiremens, holds ha

disrics ha receive unds under ile I mus use sae and local unds o oer ser-

vices in ile I schools ha are comparable o hose oered in schools ha do no

receive ile I unds.1 Tis ensures ile I unds are used o provide supplemen-

ary services or low-income sudens raher han make up or inequiable disri-

buions o sae and local unds. Disrics may use one o wo main approaches o

demonsrae compliance wih he comparabiliy provision, bu boh approaches

ail o disill acual levels o nancial resources.2 Insead hey ocus on he disri-

buion o sa and supplies, remaining indieren o qualiy issues and explicily

ignoran o he srong relaionship beween eacher compensaion and experi-ence.3 ogeher hese shorcomings represen a loophole in he requiremen, as

highlighed in a recen Governmen Accounabiliy Oce repor.4


6/40

2 Center or American Progress | The Implementation and Eectiveness o Supplemental Educational Services

Te exen o which he comparabiliy loophole undermines he supplemenary

purpose o ile I unds is no erribly clear. Tere is good reason o suspec ha

ile I schools oen receive subsanially ewer resources rom sae and local

sources, as measured in acual dollars, han non-ile I schools in he same dis-

rics. eacher salaries, he larges single expendiure caegory and someimes he

majoriy o spending a he school level, are closely pegged o years o experiencein he majoriy o school disrics.5 And inexperienced eachers are overrepre-

sened in ile I schools serving, by deniion, high concenraions o low-income

children. ogeher hese paterns creae hidden salary gaps, as documened by

Te Educaion rus using daa rom Caliornia, Ohio, and exas, and corrobo-

raed by he Cener or American Progress using daa rom Caliornia wih a more

comprehensive approach.6

ile I schools do no necessarily need highly experienced eachers who, despie

receiving much higher salaries han eachers wih a ew years o experience, may

prove o be no more eecive in he classroom.7 Wha ile I schools need is heirair share o sae and local unds. Money, no experience, is he issue, and he

empirical lieraure ha examines wheher disrics disribue ile I unds on a

level playing eld is very hin. Te daa necessary o reveal acual expendiures

a he school level have been hard o come by hisorically bu his is beginning o

change. Te American Recovery and Reinvesmen Ac o 2009, also known as he

simulus bill, included a one-ime school-level expendiure reporing requiremen,

and his requiremen in urn inspired he inclusion o new school-level expendi-

ure iems in he Oce o Civil Righs biennial survey.8 Tese daa sources should

enable researchers and advocaes o assess he damage done by he comparabiliy

loophole in all saes and he Disric o Columbia.

Bu Floridas raher advanced daa and reporing environmen allows us o ge a

jumpsar on his endeavor. Tis paper explois a unique daase conaining inor-

maion on 2,579 unique Florida public schools rom he 2001-02 school year

hrough he 2007-08 school year. Te daa were drawn rom web-accessible les

mainained by he Florida Deparmen o Educaion and he Naional Cener

or Educaion Saisics. Florida is ahead o is peers in reporing acual school

expendiures, including measures o acual average eacher salaries and per pupil

expendiures, in oal and by clusers o programs (regular, excepional, voca-ional educaion). Regular expendiures include hose unded by ile I.


7/40

Introduction and summary | American Enterprise Instit

We use sraighorward analyic echniques o address quesions abou he

relaionship beween suden povery raes and expendiure measures a he

school level. Specically, we employ mulilevel regression analysis ha allows us

o accoun or he clusering o schools wihin disrics and conrol saisically

or disric and school characerisics, providing a clearer picure o hidden salary

gaps and expendiure paterns expeced under he comparabiliy loophole.

We nd ha, holding all else equal, a 10 percenage poin increase in he suden

povery rae corresponds o a $213 decrease in average eacher salary. Tis means

eachers in a school wih a 70 percen suden povery rae make, on average,

$1,067 less han eachers in an oherwise idenical school wih a 20 percen su-

den povery rae. Tis relaionship is wiped ou, however, when we accoun or

schools average level o eacher experience. A one-year increase in average eacher

experience ranslaes o a $523 increase in average eacher salary. Tis patern

conorms o expecaions and corroboraes prior research on hidden salary gaps.

Because eacher salary is he predominan driver o regular per pupil expendiures,

one would expec any relaionship beween suden povery raes and average

eacher salary o carry hrough o regular per pupil expendiures. One would also

expec o nd a posiive relaionship beween suden povery raes and regu-

lar per pupil expendiures because regular per pupil expendiures include ile

I unds, which disrics disribue o schools based on suden povery raes.9

Indeed, we ound ha a 10 percenage poin increase in he suden povery rae

corresponds wih a $56 increase in regular per pupil expendiures on average,

conrolling or a hos o school and disric characerisics.

Ye his overall esimae is no oo reassuring. Te comparabiliy requiremen

perains o disrics, so we exploi he richness o he daa o esimae simulane-

ously a separae relaionship beween suden povery rae and regular per pupil

expendiure or each disric. Te disribuion o hese esimaes suggess ha a

leas some Florida disrics canno possibly provide ruly comparable sae and

local resources o heir ile I and non-ile I schools.

Te U.S. Deparmen o Educaion cied Florida in 2009 or several ailures

around he exising comparabiliy requiremen, so i sands o reason ha expen-diure paterns rendered in acual dollars are unlikely o demonsrae a compa-

rable disribuion o resources in Florida during he years sudied.10 Policymakers

should consider he ollowing recommendaions:


8/40


9/40

Background | American Enterprise Instit

Background

Characerizing equiy in U.S. public school nance was once a simple mater

wealhy communiies had well-unded schools and poor communiies did no.

Virually all revenues were derived rom local propery axes. Te siuaion oday

is vasly more complex in wo ways. Firs, he role o sae and ederal unding

or public educaion has increased dramaically. Te overall proporion o all

school revenues rom local sources, sill 80 percen in 1930, now hovers rom

year o year around 44 percen.11 Tis proporion was 43.5 percen in he 2007-

08 school year, wih sae and ederal revenues accouning or 48.3 percen and8.2 percen o he oal, respecively.12 Second, urbanizaion and adminisraive

consolidaion in he lae 19h and early 20h cenuries made he school disric,

no he school, he ocal poin o revenue policies and he agen responsible or

disribuing resources o schools.

Wheher schools are unded equiably depends no only on he disribuion o local,

sae, and ederal unds bu also on resource allocaion pracices wihin school dis-

rics. Federal unds ow almos exclusively according o he need-based ormulas o

large programs, mos imporanly ile I, Par A o he Elemenary and Secondary

Educaion Ac. Commonly called ile I, his program channels unds o school

disrics o provide addiional services or sudens living in areas o concenraed

povery. While here are legiimae concerns abou equiy in he allocaion o hese

unds, he grea majoriy o school nance reorm eors aim o improve equiy in

he disribuion o nonederal unds beween disrics wihin saes.13

Between-district equity

Sae unding ormulas can be progressive, regressive, or somehing in beween.Tese ormulas were sculped by wo generaions o liigaion and legislaion seek-

ing equiable or adequae unding or propery-poor school disrics.14 In some

saes, noably New Jersey, sae allocaions o school disrics overcome dispariies

in local wealh o creae a srong posiive relaionship beween combined sae and


10/40


local revenues available o a school disric and he percenage o is sudens living

in povery.15 New Jersey, however, is currenly under scruiny or cus o is sae

unding or public educaion which claimans believe disproporionaely aec low-

income disrics.16

In oher saes, he relaionship beween school disrics nonederal revenuesand heir povery raes is negaive. Te legal saus o hese saes unding or-

mulas remains in ux accordingly. Te Connecicu Supreme Cour, or example,

recenly paved he way or a challenge o Connecicus school nance sysem by

reversing a 2007 lower cour decision ha dismissed he consiuional basis or a

sui brough by a consorium o low-income disrics, ciies, and parens.17

Within-district equity

Inequiy in he disribuion o resources wihin school disrics has plagued U.S.educaion or more han 100 years despie decades o eors o address he under-

lying problems. Equiable resource disribuion was a cenral ineres, or example,

o numerous cour-moniored desegregaion plans.18 Similarly, disrics receiving

ederal unds under ile I are required o provide comparable sae and local

resources, on average, o boh heir schools serving concenraions o low-income

sudens and heir oher schools.19

School disrics, however, have managed o appear equiable in he eyes o cour

moniors or U.S. Deparmen o Educaion audiors wihou necessarily being

so. Curren compliance regimes ocus on absrac quaniies such as he raio

o books o sudens or he raio o sudens o sa, raher han acual expendi-

ures.20 Such quaniies can be reasonably similar across schools even when acual

per pupil expendiures vary enormously.

Funds follow experience

eacher experience is he driving orce behind he disribuion o acual nancial

resources wihin school disrics. eacher salaries consiue he larges caegoryo school expendiures in a school disrics budge.21 ypically, eacher salaries

also increase in real erms wih addiional years o experience. Finally, radiional

ranser policies wihin school disrics privilege senioriy, allowing more experi-

enced eachers o ranser beween schools as desired.


11/40

Background | American Enterprise Instit

Tese rules have clear implicaions or nancial equiy. eachers, no unlike oher

kinds o workers, preer o work a sies where heir jobs are percepibly easier,

holding all else equal. Tis preerence ypically does no avor schools serv-

ing concenraions o low-income children.22 Research shows ha experienced

eachers oen move away rom high-povery schools, eiher by securing a ranser

wihin disric, or changing disrics.23

A any given ime, eachers in low-poveryschools have more experience, on average, han eachers in high-povery schools.

Tis nding is rue across and wihin disrics.24

Tere is a limied body o evidence, however, showing ha eachers in low-povery

schools earn higher salaries han eachers in high-povery schools wihin school

disrics. Neiher he ederal governmen nor mos sae governmens collec or

make his inormaion available.

Te reason or he dearh o school-level inormaion on acual eacher salaries is

ha school disrics ypically allocae eaching slos o schools insead o unds.School disrics pay eachers salaries and repor he disric average as hough i

perains o individual schools, hus concealing dierences in acual school-level

average salary driven by eacher experience.25

Hidden salary gaps

Advocaes have begun o assess he magniude and pervasiveness o inequiy in

acual expendiures on eachers salaries by painsakingly maching school-level

inormaion on eacher experience o disric-level salary scales. Te Educaion

rus, a nonpro research and advocacy rm, assessed he hidden salary gap

wihin he 50 larges school disrics in exas and he 14 larges in Ohio by

esimaing he average eacher salary in schools serving he highes and lowes

concenraions o low-income sudens. Te Educaion rusWes assessed he

hidden salary gap wihin he 50 larges school disrics in Caliornia.26

Tese sudies yielded wo ndings. Firs, he overwhelming majoriy o disrics

examined had subsanially lower average eacher salaries in heir high-povery

schools han in heir low-povery schools. Second, hese hidden dierences inaverage salary were signicancommonly more han $1,000 and as high as

$6,000 per eacher. Te sudies provide srong evidence ha large disrics in

Caliornia, Ohio, and exas spend less, on average, o pay eachers in schools serv-

ing concenraions o low-income children han hey do o pay eachers in schools

serving more afuen sudens.


12/40


Te Cener or American Progress ook his line o research a sep urher using

acual school-level average eacher salary daa rom a sample o schools in school

disrics in Caliornia. Te repor, iled Comparable, Schmomparable, ound ha

a 10 percenage poin increase in he suden povery rae ranslaes o a $411 drop

in eacher salary, on average, conrolling or a number o acors ha are known o

inuence school and disric spending. Once eacher experience was included inhe analysis, however, he eec o suden povery was compleely wiped ou. Te

nding corroboraed he sudies conduced by Te Educaion rus and Educaion

rusWes: eachers in high-povery schools end have less experience and earn

correspondingly lower salaries han heir colleagues in low-povery schools.

Tis small body o research suggess boh sae and ederal provisions inended

o ensure equiable unding among schools wihin disrics allow gaps in eacher

salaries o persis. And since 95 percen o school disrics across he counry

receive ile I unds, ederal policymakers would bene rom more research on

he exen and magniude o hidden spending gaps. In paricular, hidden salarygaps represen evidence ha a known loophole in he ile I scal requiremens

allows disrics o inequiably und heir low-income schools, undermining he

supplemenary purpose o ile I unds.27

New era of responsibility

Tere will soon be a radical upick in he availabiliy o school-level daa on aver-

age eacher salary and oher expendiure measures. Te American Recovery and

Reinvesmen Ac o 2009, also known as he simulus bill, required each sae

educaion agency o urnish he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion wih school-level

expendiure daa or he 2008-09 school year. U.S. Deparmen o Educaion

guidance species ha expendiures be repored in several caegories including

expendiures on personnel salaries or eachers only.28

On he heels o he simulus bill, he Oce o Civil Righs a he U.S. Deparmen

o Educaion also decided o require school-level unding inormaion in is

biennial survey. Tese daa were colleced in 2009-10 rom schools in a sample

o 7,000 school disrics across he naion. Te sample includes all disrics wihmore han 3,000 sudens. Te U.S. Deparmen o Educaion expecs o release

hese daa in May 2011.


13/40


14/40


Florida, the Sunshine State

Florida is ahead o he game in publicly reporing acual school expendiures,

including measures o average eacher salary and per pupil expendiures. As a

resul, we are able o provide a groundbreaking examinaion o he relaionship

beween suden povery raes and average eacher salary or per pupil expendi-

ures using daa rom every school in Florida over seven years.

Florida makes available or public consumpion a wide variey o educaion-

relaed daa including acual average eacher salaries and per pupil expendiuresa he school level. Florida is widely considered o be one o he mos advanced

saes in erms o he availabiliy o educaion daa. In 1968 he Florida legislaure

passed a law insrucing he Florida Deparmen o Educaion o implemen a

sysem o ensure he saes educaional programs were eecive and well man-

aged.29 Tis led o he creaion o sae academic goals and a saewide assessmen

program ha was originally piloed in 1971. oday he sae annually assesses

academic achievemen in mah and reading o every suden in grades 3 hrough

10 via he Florida Comprehensive Assessmen es, or FCA. Te oucomes o

hese ess are used o assign each school and school disric in he sae wih a

grade, which can deermine school unding.

Florida also has a relaively sophisicaed school unding ormula. Te sae

deermines he disribuion o sae and local unding o school disrics using a

weighed suden unding ormula ha was rs se in law in 1973.30 Te weighed

unding ormula assigns a weigh o sudens based on heir paricipaion in

special programs, which hen is used o deermine how much unding a school

disric will receive o educae ha suden. School disrics receive addiional

unding in proporion o he number o sudens hey serve ha paricipae in

cerain educaion programs like special educaion or English Language Learnerprograms. Te per pupil unding allocaion also accouns or variaion in he cos

o living and providing educaional services in dieren disrics. Noably, here is

no addiional weigh or sudens eligible or ree and reduced-price lunch, or any

oher measure o povery.


15/40

Florida, the Sunshine State | American Enterprise Institu

Florida also provides or several supplemenal sources o unding based on di-

eren school disric needs and paricipaion in special programs. Addiionally,

school disrics receive unding rom he sae lotery and school recogniion

program and rom a class-size reducion caegorical program.

Minimum local unding or K-12 school disrics is also deermined annually byhe sae legislaure. Te sae deermines how much each couny mus conribue

oward is educaion unding based on heir mos recen ax valuaions.

In ligh o is unding ormulas indierence o povery, i is no surprising ha

Florida has been cied or improperly implemening he comparabiliy require-

men o ile I. According o a review conduced by he U.S. Deparmen o

Educaions Suden Achievemen and School Accounabiliy Programs, or SASA,

in November 2009, Florida had been improperly implemening he writen assur-

ance opion or demonsraing comparabiliy and had been conducing compa-

rabiliy reviews less requenly han required.31 Specically, Florida had alloweddisrics o demonsrae comparabiliy wih writen assurance ha hey had

disricwide salary schedules; policies o ensure equivalence among schools in

eachers, adminisraors and oher sa; orpolicies o ensure equivalence among

schools in maerials and supplies. Federal regulaions require ha disrics provide

a writen assurance oall three o hese iems, no one o he hree. Addiionally,

Floridas Deparmen o Educaion had been conducing comparabiliy reviews

every ve years, raher han every wo years as required by law.

Tese audi ndings sugges ha during he period we sudied, i is possible ha

many disrics were in violaion o even he exising loophole-ridden comparabil-

iy requiremen. Tus, i would no be surprising i our analysis revealed paterns

suggesing ha, a leas in some disrics, ile I schools receive lower levels o

sae and local resources, measured in acual dollar erms, han non-ile I schools.


16/40


Data analysis

Te daa used in his sudy were drawn rom wo sources. Firs, we downloaded

publicly available school-level daa rom he 2001-02 school year hrough he 2007-

08 school year rom he Florida Deparmen o Educaions websie. Tese daa

include average eacher salary, average per pupil expendiure in each o hree pro-

grammaic bins (regular, excepional, and vocaional), school ype, charer school

saus, and oher special school ideniers. Second, daa on suden paricipaion

in special programs like ree and reduced-price lunch (a proxy or suden pov-

ery) and special educaion were drawn rom he U.S. Deparmen o EducaionsCommon Core o Daa.32 Tese wo daa sources were merged ogeher o creae a

seven-year longiudinal daase on every public school in Florida.

Te nal analyic sample includes 2,579 schools in Floridas 67 radiional

school disrics. Te sample includes up o seven years o daa or each school.

Schools wih ewer han wo years o daa have been dropped rom he sample.

Addiionally, schools wih paricularly low or high per pupil expendiures, average

eacher salaries, or pupil-eacher raios were dropped rom he sample.33 Missing

values or ree and reduced-price lunch eligibiliy, special educaion, gied, and

English language learners were impued wih school-level averages. Aypical

schools were also dropped rom he sample. Tis includes charer schools, schools

ha serve ewer han hree grades, early educaion schools, schools ha do no

occur in radiional setings, special schools or specic populaions, and schools

or negleced or delinquen sudens.

Each Florida disric covers an enire couny and serves sudens in kindergaren

hrough 12h grade, and in some cases pre-kindergaren. Disrics in Florida are

economically and ehnically diverse and range widely in size. Disrics on he

souhern coas o Florida, or example, end o be large and have large concenra-ions o Hispanic sudens, while disrics in he panhandle end o be smaller and

have larger concenraions o Arican-American sudens. Some disrics have ewer

han 10 schools while ohers have more han 200 schools. During he period rom

2001-02 hrough 2007-08, he average school in Florida had an average eacher sal-

ary o $41,766 and an average regular per pupil expendiure o $5,537.


17/40

Data analysis | American Enterprise Institu

In his paper, we address wo research quesions:

Wha is he gap in average eacher salary beween one school and anoher oh-

erwise idenical school ha serves sudens ha are 10 percenage poins more

likely o be rom a low-income amily, conrolling saisically or a number o

characerisics o schools and disrics?

Wha is he relaionship beween regular per pupil expendiures and he suden

povery rae in a school, conrolling saisically or a number o characerisics

o schools and disrics? Does his relaionship vary by disric?

Tese quesions are bes addressed using muliple regression echniques.

Specically, we employ regression analysis ha allows us o accoun or he clus-

ering o schools wihin disrics, saewide ime rends, and school characerisics

such as grade span and enrollmen. Tese characerisics, in paricular, inorm

disrics decisions concerning he allocaion o ile I unds o schools. Te longi-udinal naure o he daase allows us o conrol saisically or all ime-invarian

characerisics o disrics. A echnical appendix oers a horough descripion o

our analyic approach.


18/40


Findings

Average teacher salary

Te ndings addressing he rs research quesion conorm o expecaions arising

rom heory and prior empirical work: Te higher he proporion o low-income

sudens served by a school, he lower he average salary o ha schools eachers.

Conrolling saisically or secular rends and key school characerisics, we nd

ha a 10 percenage poin increase in he suden povery rae corresponds o a

$213 decrease in he average salary o a schools eachers. Tis means eachers in aschool wih a 70 percen suden povery rae make, on average, $1,067 less han

eachers in an oherwise idenical school in he same disric wih a 20 percen su-

den povery rae. Wih an average o 56 eachers per school in Florida, his salary

gap represens enough resources o enable a school o hire an addiional eacher.

Te esimaed relaionship beween suden povery and eacher salary changed

when we included indicaors o he percenage o sudens ideniying as Arican

American or Hispanic in he model. Tis is no surprising given he well-docu-

mened dierences in raes o suden povery by ehniciy. When we conrolled

saisically or all ime-invarian disric characerisics, observed and unobserved,

we were unable o deec a saisically signican relaionship beween a schools

suden povery rae and is average eacher salary. Te proporions o Hispanic

and Arican-American sudens in a school seem o serve as proxies or suden

povery wihin a disric.

Finally, i is imporan o poin ou ha he relaionship beween a schools

suden povery rae and is average eacher salary vanishes when we accoun or

eacher experience. In his model, a one-year increase in a schools average eacher

experience ranslaes o a $523 increase in average eacher salary. Te magniudeo his relaionship conrms Florida is uterly unexcepional among saes because

eacher salary is closely ied o experience. Moreover, our oher esimaes sugges

eachers in Florida ake advanage o opporuniies o move rom high-povery o

low-povery schools wihin or beween disrics. We do no observe his mobiliy


19/40

Findings | American Enterprise Institu

because our daa are aggregaed o he level o he school year bu i seems reason-

able o conclude ha experience-based compensaion policies and eacher-soring

behavior resuls in a disribuion o resources ha avors low-povery schools.

Regular per pupil expenditures

No all resources are ied up in eacher salary and i is conceivable ha high-

povery schools evenually receive heir air share o sae and local resources

despie eacher salary and soring. A rs blush, our analyses lend suppor o

his hypohesis. We ound ha a 10 percenage poin increase in a schools su-

den povery rae corresponds o a $56 increase in he schools regular per pupil

expendiure, on average, conrolling saisically or school years, school grade

span, percenages o sudens in special programs (special educaion, English

language learners, gied and alened), enrollmen, and all ime-invarian dis-

ric characerisics.

Ye his nding is no reason o celebrae. Regular expendiures include unds

disrics receive as ile I allocaions and disribue o schools based on numbers

and concenraions o sudens rom low-income amilies and grade span. ile I

unds are mean o provide addiional unds or services or low-income sudens,

so one would expec o nd a posiive relaionship beween suden povery raes

and regular per pupil expendiures. Tus, he quesion becomes wheher he

esimaed relaionship is large enough such ha schools receiving ile I unds

also receive sae and local unds ha are comparable o hose o schools no

receiving ile I unds.

We canno assess his quesion direcly because our daa do no indicae which

schools receive ile I unds, jus which schools are eligible. Nor do he daa parse

regular per pupil expendiures by revenue source. We can, however, speciy a model

ha aords each disric a unique relaionship beween a schools suden povery

rae and regular per pupil expendiures. Fiting such a model o our daa allows us

o consruc Figure 1 where each line segmen represens a unique disric. Te

endpoins o each segmen represen he lowes and highes povery raes among

schools in ha disric, along wih saisically adjused regular per pupil expendi-ures or hose schools. Te slope o a segmen represens a crude bu meaningul

measure o he exen o which ile I unds do indeed provide addiional unding

or services or low-income sudens. Te gure includes segmens or he 12 dis-

rics wih he highes slopes and he 12 disrics wih he lowes slopes.


20/40


Figure 1 suggess suden povery raes a he

school level vary widely wihin many Florida

disrics. High levels o such variaion, o

course, highligh he need or ormal mecha-

nisms ha guaranee comparable disribuions

o unds among schools. Te posiive relaion-ship beween suden povery raes and regular

per pupil expendiures in some disrics sug-

gess i is possible ha ile I and non-ile I

schools in hese disrics receive comparable

levels o sae and local resources, and ha

ile I unds supplemen hose resources. In

hose disrics exhibiing a negaive relaion-

ship, however, i is unlikely ha ile I unds

arrive in schools ha already receive heir air

share o sae and local resources.

Figure 2 shows he disribuion o he slopes o

he prooypical plos relaing adjused regular

per pupil expendiures and suden povery

raes a schools or all 67 Florida disrics. Tis

requency plo suggess ha in 10 disrics

in Florida, schools wih higher povery raes

receive ewer unds per pupil han schools wih

lower povery raes. One o hose disrics even

has a slope lower han -10. In conras, he

esimaed slopes are posiive in he remaining

57 disrics. Schools wih higher povery raes

exhibi larger regular per pupil expendiures

han schools wih lower povery raes. Tis

indicaes ha resource allocaion pracices in

hese disrics are a leas progressive, overall,

bu he range o posiive slopes suggess ile I

unds may no be used solely o provide addi-

ional services o low-income sudens in manyo hese disrics. Raher, i appears ha ile I

unds in many disrics predominanly serve o

resore pariy in regular per pupil expendiures.

Figure 1

Adjusted spending as a unction o student poverty,

by district

Lines shown or 24 districts, 12 with seemingly most progressive

regular per pupil expenditures (lines going up to the right),

12 with the least

Figure 2

Distribution o estimated relationships between

poverty rates and spending within districts

Floridas 67 traditional districts grouped by similarity in estimated

slope relating regular per pupil expenditures and student poverty

rates at the school level

Regular expenditures (dollars per pupil)

$8,000

$7,500

$7,000

$6,500

$6,000

$5,500

$5,000

$4,500

$4,000

$3,500$3,000

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of students in poverty

(Range of slopes), district counts

Units of slope are adjusted dollars of regular per pupil spending

per 1 percentage point increase in student poverty rate

(Below -10), 1

(-10, 0), 9

(0, 10), 21

(10, 20), 18

(20, 30), 12

(30 and up), 6


21/40

Discussion | American Enterprise Institu

Discussion

Tis paper adds o he small lieraure exploiing school-level measures o expendi-

ures. Te nding ha average eacher salary is negaively relaed o heir suden

povery rae, conrolling saisically or a hos o school and disric characerisics,

is consisen wih salary gap paterns observed in oher saes. Te consisency o

his patern across jurisdicions and research mehods builds suppor or he under-

lying heory ha eachers end o exercise ranser privileges or choose o swich

disrics o obain posiions in schools wih lower raes o suden povery.

Tis paper also provides a basis or comparisons beween saes. In paricular,

we nd ha 53 percen o he variaion in school-level average eacher salary

occurs beween Florida disrics. In comparison, esimaes rom Comparable,

Schmomparable,which perormed a similar analysis using Caliornia daa,ound ha 70 percen o he variaion in average eacher salaries in Caliornia lies

beween disrics. Tis means mos variaion in eacher compensaion occurs

beween disrics in Caliornia, while schools wihin disrics compensae each-

ers similarly. One explanaion or hese ndings is ha Caliornia has more han

10 imes as many school disrics as Florida, including many small ones. Anoher

poenial explanaion is ha Caliornia has a number o disrics, including some

sizeable ones, wih skewed disribuions o eacher experience and credenials.

Te wihin-disric salary gaps we observe in Florida reec roubling paterns in

regular per pupil expendiures. Tese ndings sugges here are some disrics

in Florida where regular per pupil expendiures in ile I schools are lower han

hose in non-ile I schools. Conclusive evidence on his patern requires knowl-

edge o which schools acually receive ile I unds. Our daa lack his crucial

inormaion bu a closer descripive look a a ew disrics reinorces he roubling

regression resuls.

Figure 3 presens he average regular per pupil expendiures or subses o schools

in ve disrics illusraing he range o concern abou comparabiliy problems in

Florida. High schools are omited rom his analysis because high-povery high


22/40


schools oen do no receive ile I unds. For

each disric, he blue bars represen he average

regular per pupil expendiures among elemen-

ary and middle schools wih suden povery

raes in he lowes quarile. Few o hese

schools are likely o receive ile I unds. Tered bars indicae average spending in schools

in he highes quarile o povery, which are

pracically guaraneed o receive ile I unds

(see Figure 3).

Polk Couny presens he graves concern. Is

lowes-povery schools, which generally did

no receive ile I unds, ouspen he counys

highes-povery schools, which did receive

ile I unds. Tis patern srongly suggessile I unds did no play a supplemenal role

in Polk Counys ile I schools. Te siuaion

in Osceola Couny is scarcely beter. Te aver-

age regular per pupil expendiure among he highes-povery schools in Osceola

was jus $101 more han among he lowes-povery schools. Tis dierence cor-

responds o abou a quarer o he approximaely $380 per suden ile I alloca-

ion he counys highes-povery schools received during he period sudied, so

i is also dubious o conclude ha ile I unds played a supplemenal role in

Osceolas ile I schools.34

Te sory is progressively less quesionable in Indian River, Manaee, and

Marin counies bu i is imporan o keep in mind ha aggregae gures may

obscure underlying comparabiliy problems, an observaion ha inorms our

recommendaions.

Figure 3

Average spending among elementary and middle

schools, by district and student poverty rates

Regular per pupil expenditures

$8,000

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0

Polk Osceola Indian River Manatee Martin

Lowest quartile Highest quartile


23/40

Recommendations | American Enterprise Institu

Recommendations

Close the comparability loophole

Widespread hidden salary gaps beween eachers in low- and higher-income

schools sugges he curren ile I comparabiliy requiremen condones inequiy.

Te provision explicily excludes rom comparabiliy deerminaions salary di-

erenials based on eacher experience. As a resul, mos disrics jus repor base

salaries rom se salary schedules o demonsrae comparabiliy, obscuring inequi-

ies in eacher disribuion across low- and higher-income schools. Removing hisexclusion rom he law would go a long way oward ensuring high-povery schools

receive a air share o resources.35 Ideally, he provision would be amended o

require ha disrics demonsrae comparabiliy using expendiures measured in

acual dollars, including hose dollars ied up in eacher salary.

A sronger accounabiliy requiremen, however, would be counerproduc-

ive i disrics engaged in involunary ransers o eachers among schools in

order o comply wih he requiremen. Te poenial or such behavior would

be empered by a srong sysem o accounabiliy or suden achievemen.

Accounabiliy gives ocials an incenive o ensure ile I schools have eecive

eachers and exra resources o suppor heir work. Simply moving eachers wih

relaively high salaries o ile I schools would no serve his goal well because

high salaries do no necessarily imply higher eacher eeciveness. Similarly,

sudens in low-income schools may be beter served by addiional services or

inervenions raher han by more expensive eachers. As a resul, he reauho-

rized version o comparabiliy should orbid involunary eacher ransers as a

means o complying wih he comparabiliy requiremen. Tis would encourage

disrics and schools o look o oher mehods o providing resources o heir

low-income schools o improve achievemen.


24/40


ESEA reporting requirement in the manner of OCR/ARRA

Opaciy in he disribuion o nancial resources o schools is unaccepable in

a new era o responsibiliy marked by scal consrains. Furhermore, school

disrics wishing o allocae resources in ways ha improve suden achievemen

and narrow achievemen gaps would do well o rs undersand how and wherehey acually spend heir unds.36 Alhough Florida is a leader in his area, many

saes are ar behind in making daa on school-level spending publicly available. As

a resul, he reauhorizaion o ESEA should include a provision ha requires dis-

rics o repor annually o he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion heir acual school-

level expendiures, broken ou several ways as in he Oce o Civil Righs biennial

survey, or each o heir schools.

Tese daa are necessary or monioring comparabiliy bu here is also a sraegic

argumen or such a reporing requiremen. Greaer ransparency around how

acual dollars are allocaed o schools and expended by hem could evenuallylead o shiing a greaer share o discreion over expendiures rom disrics

cenral oces o school leaders. Such discreion is no a panacea, o course, bu i

is dicul o promoe sraegic managerial behavior in an environmen where he

mos imporan lines in school budges reec disric-level averages.


25/40

Conclusion | American Enterprise Institu

Tis paper has modeled an analyic approach o summarizing one saes hidden

eacher salary and per pupil spending gaps. Florida can ake disinc pride as a

leader in promoing ransparency around he disribuion o acual resources o

schools. Tis paper has exploied his ransparency o shed ligh on he exen o

inequiy creaed by policies in which unds ollow eacher experience and cur-

renly condoned by he very ederal law mean o enhance he educaional experi-

ences aorded children in areas o concenraed povery. Tere is reason o believe

wihin-disric expendiure paterns in mos saes and he Disric o Columbiado no avor high-povery schools.

Federal policymakers should heed hese ndings as hey consider he reauhoriza-

ion o he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac. I is clear, a leas in Florida,

ha he comparabiliy requiremen o ile I is no robus enough o ensure schools

receive heir air shares o sae and local resources, irrespecive o heir ile I saus.

Beyond implicaions or reauhorizaion o ESEA, his paper should provide civil

righs aciviss wih new moivaion o ake advanage o he counrywide school-

level expendiure daa ha he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion plans o release in

May 2011. Tese daa will undoubedly shed more ligh on persisen inequiy in

he way disrics allocae resources o heir schools.

Conclusion


26/40


Florida background appendix

Public K-12 educaion in Florida is primarily unded hrough he Florida

Educaion Finance Program, or FEFP, which was passed in 1973.37 Te FEFP

deermines how much local and sae unding each school disric in he sae

receives or each school year. Sae unding comes almos enirely rom sales axes

and lotery revenues. Local unding comes rom propery ax revenues.

Sae unding is deermined using a weighed coun o ull-ime equivalen su-

dens paricipaing in educaional programs in each disric. Each disric con-ducs a survey o is suden paricipaion in dieren programs a leas our imes

during he year. Te sae collecs his inormaion and muliplies he number o

sudens in each program by a program cos acor deermined by disric repors

on he cos o implemening each program. Tis produces a weighed ull-ime

equivalen, or FE, suden coun. Te baseline cos, weighed a 1.000, is ha

associaed wih basic educaion or ourh- hrough eighh-graders. Sudens in

kindergaren hrough hird grade; ninh hrough 12h grade; or hose enrolled in

Excepional Suden Educaion programs (special educaion and gied sudens),

English or speakers o oher languages, or career educaion programs are assigned

a weigh above 1.000. Disrics also can add addiional weighs i hey qualiy

or he Small Disric supplemen; he Small, Isolaed High School Supplemen;

or one o he bonus FE programs associaed wih achievemen on Advanced

Placemen, Inernaional Baccalaureae, or Advanced Inernaional Cericae o

Educaion ess. Tere is no an addiional weigh or sudens eligible or ree and

reduced-price lunch or any oher measure o povery.

Te weighed FE suden coun is muliplied by he sae base suden alloca-

iona minimum per pupil unding amoun ha is deermined annually by he

sae legislaure. In 2002, he rs year o daa included in his sudy, he basesuden allocaion was $3,298.48. In 2008, he las year o he sudy, he base

suden allocaion was $4,079.74.38 Tis amoun is hen muliplied by a Disric

Cos Dierenial o provide a base unding amoun or each disric. Te Disric


27/40

Florida background appendix | American Enterprise Institu

Cos Dierenial is based on he hree-year average o each disrics Florida Price

Level Index. Tis accouns or variaion in cos o living and providing educaional

services in dieren disrics.

Aer he base unding amoun is deermined, Florida provides or several supple-

menal sources o unding. Disrics are provided addiional unding based onseveral acors including he number o sudens enrolled in Juvenile Jusice

Programs, wheher enrollmen is declining in he disric, and wheher he disric

is considered sparse. Appropriaions are also disribued o disrics or sae

schools programs, reading programs, insrucional maerials, suden ranspora-

ion, and a meri award program. School disrics are also provided wih und-

ing or supplemenal academic insrucion or sudens ha score poorly on he

saes sandardized ess and a guaraneed allocaion or sudens paricipaing

in Excepional Suden Educaion. Finally, school disrics receive unding rom

he sae lotery and school recogniion program and rom a class-size reducion

caegorical program. Tis supplemenal unding, combined wih he base undingamoun, is he oal sae conribuion or disric unding.

Minimum local unding or K-12 school disrics is also deermined annually by

he sae legislaure. Each year he legislaure ses a oal required level o local

eor or all counies in he sae, each o which houses a school disric. In 2002

he required local eor was $4.37 billion and in 2008 he required local eor

was $7.9 billion.39 Te sae deermines how much each couny mus conribue

oward his oal based on heir mos recen ax valuaions. Tis inormaion is

used o deermine each counys local eor millage rae (propery ax rae) ha

when combined add up o he oal required local eor amoun. Counies, how-

ever, ypically allocae more unding o heir K-12 school disrics han specied

in he minimum se by he sae.

In 2008 K-12 school disric unding in Florida was comprised o 38.8 percen rom

sae sources, 52.5 percen rom local sources, and 8.6 percen rom ederal sources.40


28/40


Technical appendix

able A1 provides a breakdown o he analyic sample by he number o schools

serving each grade level. Tis inormaion has some bearing on our analysis o

average eacher salaries and per pupil expendiures in schools across Florida

because school ype ypically aecs he amoun o resources schools receive. All

school disrics in Florida are K-12 disrics delineaed by couny. Noe: Charer

schools, early learning schools, and schools ha serve ewer han hree grade

levels have been eliminaed rom he analyic sample.

able A2 oers descripive saisics on various indicaors or he 2,579 schools

in 67 school disrics included in he analyic sample. Te sample includes up

o seven years o daa or each school. Schools wih ewer han wo years o daa

were omited rom he sample. Addiionally, schools wih paricularly low or high

values o per pupil expendiures, average eacher salaries, or pupil-eacher raios

were omited rom he sample.41 Missing values or ree and reduced-price lunch

eligibiliy, special educaion, gied, and English language learners were impued

wih school-level averages over years wihou missing values.

Table a1

Counts o the unique schools included in the inal analytic sample,

by grade coniguration

School type Count

Elementary school 1,621

Middle school 477

High school 397

Combination elementary-secondary school 84

Total 2,579


29/40

Technical appendix | American Enterprise Institu

Tis paper discusses wo ses o analyses using he hypohesized regression model

represened by Equaion 1,

Yijt

= + Djt

+ Sijt

+ +

where Yijt

represens average eacher salary or regular per pupil expendiures in

school i in disricj in school year t, Sijt

represens a vecor o school characerisics,

Djtrepresens a vecor o disric characerisics, represens a se o school-yearindicaors, and represens a complex error erm. Tis approach ignores random

variaion wihin a school across he school years bu ted models, including he

addiional sochasic componens, yielded similar poin esimaes.

Table a2

Descriptive statistics or variables representing school characteristics

as well as student and teacher characteristics aggregated to the schoollevel or 2,579 unique schools over as many as seven years

Variable Mean Std. Dev.

Average teacher salary 41,766.11 3,710.14

Total per pupil expenditure 6,426.51 1,197.48

Regular per pupil expenditure 5,537.19 1,052.02

Average years o teacher experience 12.20 3.01

Enrollment 968.93 581.08

Pupil-teacher ratio 16.71 2.25

Full-time equivalent teachers 56.47 27.31

Proportion American Indian* 0.00 0.00

Proportion Asian 0.02 0.02

Proportion Arican American 0.25 0.25

Proportion Hispanic 0.21 0.22

Proportion white 0.50 0.29

Proportion minority 0.49 0.29

Proportion o students eligible or ree and reduced-price lunch 0.51 0.24

Proportion special education 0.15 0.05

Proportion gited 0.04 0.05

Proportion English language learners 0.09 0.11

Proportion o teachers with advanced degrees 0.32 0.09

*Actual mean value is .003 with a standard deviation of .004


30/40


able A3 presens he resuls o ting various model specicaions o he daa.

Column (1) represens he null model because i includes only error erms. Tese

resuls are valuable because here is very litle research available on school-levelaverage eacher salary, paricularly on how hese salaries vary wihin and beween

disrics. In Florida, i appears ha 46.9 percen o he variaion in average eacher

salary occurs wihin disrics. Tis means variaion in average eacher salaries

comes almos equally rom wihin and beween disrics.

Table a3

Estimated coeicients, p-values, and goodness-o-it statistics or a set o regression models itted to data in

which the unit o observation is a school year and the outcome is average teacher salary

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7

Student poverty rate -623.9 -2,026*** -1,776*** -2,133*** 152.5 79.28

Year 2003 1,165*** 1,155*** 1,150*** 1,137*** 1,156*** 1,044***

Year 2004 1,479*** 1,431*** 1,425*** 1,403*** 1,488*** 1,459***

Year 2005 2,562*** 2,475*** 2,468*** 2,442*** 2,598*** 2,636***

Year 2006 3,708*** 3,569*** 3,564*** 3,524*** 3,768*** 3,717***

Year 2007 6,271*** 6,117*** 6,112*** 6,049*** 6,292*** 6,548***

Year 2008 8,028*** 7,857*** 7,850*** 7,766*** 8,044*** 8,424***

Proportion Hispanic 4,876** 4,866** 5,431*** -3,544*** -2,077**

Proportion Arican American 1,443 1,347 1,403 -3,571*** -1,309**

Elementary school 716.9 702.0 687.4*** 228.2

Middle school 488.3 879.6 1,026*** 461.4**

High school 1,800*** 2,595*** 3,278*** 1,686***

Natural log o enrollment -993.2*** -1,257*** -375.2**

Average years o teacher experience 522.5***

Constant 41,762*** 38,566*** 37,977*** 37,064*** 43,647*** 41,863*** 28,412**

Observations 17,123 17,123 17,123 17,123 17,123 17,123 17,123

Schools 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,579

Districts 67 67 67 67 67 67 67

Between-district variance 12,054,784 13,162,384 10,387,729 10,355,524 10,368,400 3,900,625 825,554

Within-district variance 10,666,756 2,295,225 2,289,169 2,289,169 2,250,000 2,250,000 1,985,28

Intraclass correlation 0.531 0.851 0.819 0.819 0.822 0.634 0.294

R^2 between districts 0 0.00172 0.0986 0.109 0.0870 0.664 0.898

R^2 within districts 0 0.785 0.783 0.783 0.786 0.788 0.806

R^2 overall 0 0.306 0.385 0.391 0.377 0.725 0.864

***p


31/40


Column (2) corresponds o a baseline conrol model ha includes suden pov-

ery rae and a dummy indicaor or each year. Te addiion o hese indicaors

explains 78.5 percen o he beween-disric variaion in average eacher salary.

Alhough he coecien on suden povery is negaive, as would be expeced, i is

no saisically signican. Column (3) corresponds o his baseline model wih

he addiion o covariaes or he percen o Hispanic sudens and he perceno Arican-American sudens in each school. Te addiion o hese ehniciy

variables explains 13.8 percen o he beween-disric variaion in average eacher

salaries rom he null model. Addiionally, he coecien on suden povery

becomes more negaive and saisically signican.

Column (4) presens he model in column (3) wih he addiion o dummy indica-

ors or school ypeelemenary, middle, and high school. Combinaion elemen-

ary-secondary schools are used as he baseline. Te coecien on high school is

boh saisically signican and posiive, indicaing ha high school eachers make

signicanly more han elemenary-secondary combinaion school eachers.

Column (5) adds he naural log o school enrollmen o he model, rounding ou

he ull specicaion. Te esimaed coecien on suden povery in his model

is -2,133 wih a p-value o less han .01, indicaing saisical signicance. Tis sug-

gess ha, holding everyhing else in he model equal, a school wih a 100 percen

povery rae has an average eacher salary $2,133 below ha in a school wih no

low-income sudens. Similarly, his means ha a 10 percenage poin increase in

povery rae corresponds o a $213.30 drop in average eacher salary.

Column (6), however, includes dummy indicaors or each school disric. Tese

indicaors are equivalen o including disric-level xed eecs in he model

because hey accoun or boh observable and unobservable disric characer-

isics. Te addiion o hese disric indicaors explains 53.7 percenage poins

more o he beween-disric variaion in average eacher salary han he preceding

model. When disric dummies are included, he coecien on suden povery

rae is no longer saisically signican, suggesing ha observable and unobserv-

able disric characerisics wipe ou he predicive power o suden povery.

Finally, column (7) adds average years o eacher experience o he model wihdisric dummy indicaors. Despie he inclusion o he disric dummies, average

eacher experience is saisically signican and indicaes ha a one-year increase

in average eacher experience will ranslae o a $522.50 increase in average

eacher salary while holding all oher variables equal. Tis is unsurprising because


32/40


eacher salaries are primarily driven by years o eacher experience due o eacher

salary schedules. Tis nal model explains 93.2 percen o beween-disric varia-

ion and 81.4 percen o wihin-disric variaion in average eacher salaries.

able A4 is analogous o able A3 bu wih he oucome variable being regular

per pupil expendiures. Column (1) presens he null model as i only includeserror erms and no independen variables. Tis model suggess 57.5 percen o he

variaion in regular per pupil expendiures lies wihin school disrics.

Table a4

Estimated coeicients, p-values, and goodness-o-it statistics or a set o regression models itted to data in

which the unit o observation is a school year and the outcome is regular per pupil expenditure

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7

Student poverty rate 1,218*** 1,294*** 741.4*** 474.0** 555.7*** 79.28

Year 2003 111.3*** 109.6*** 94.64*** 117.8*** 104.4*** 1,044***Year 2004 448.5*** 446.6*** 423.5*** 414.9*** 412.0*** 1,459***

Year 2005 875.6*** 873.5*** 852.0*** 844.2*** 841.5*** 2,636***

Year 2006 1,331*** 1,329*** 1,293*** 1,274*** 1,273*** 3,717***

Year 2007 2,054*** 2,052*** 1,979*** 1,949*** 1,951*** 6,548***

Year 2008 2,419*** 2,417*** 2,311*** 2,159*** 2,209*** 8,424***

Proportion Hispanic -443.0** -511.3*** -534.2*** -513.2*** -2,077**

Proportion Arican American -863.6*** -242.3 -169.8 -69.48 -1,309**

Elementary school -267.6* 1,022*** 1,169*** 1,351*** 228.2

Middle school -1,695*** -1,772*** -1,900*** 461.4**High school 91.59 721.4** 1,686***

Natural log o enrollment 1,800 470.7 -375.2**

Average years o teacher experience 2,772*** 1,703*** 522.5***

Constant 5,531*** 3,818*** 4,260*** 15,717*** 16,044*** 16,509*** 28,412**

Observations 17,123 17,123 17,123 17,123 17,123 17,123 17,123

Schools 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,579

Districts 67 67 67 67 67 67 67

Between-district variance 909544 781102 728633 602021 541254 294958 825,554

Within-district variance 1232100 340706 340706 271649 265225 265225 1,985,28Intraclass correlation 0.425 0.696 0.681 0.689 0.671 0.527 0.294

R^2 between districts 0 0.186 0.231 0.325 0.387 0.648 0.898

R^2 within districts 0 0.718 0.718 0.772 0.778 0.779 0.806

R^2 overall 0 0.454 0.478 0.528 0.572 0.717 0.864

***p


33/40


Column (2) represens a baseline conrol model ha includes suden pov-

ery rae and dummy indicaors or each year o daa. Tis model accouns or

72.3 percen o he wihin-disric variaion in regular per pupil expendiures.

Unexpecedly, he coecien on suden povery rae is posiive and saisically

signican. Column (3) builds upon he model specied in column (2) by adding

dummy indicaors or school ypeelemenary, middle, and high schoolusingcombinaion elemenary-secondary schools as he baseline. Column (4) adds he

naural log o enrollmen o he model specied in column (3). Te negaive sign

on he coecien on he naural log o enrollmen suggess schools wih higher

enrollmen numbers spend less per pupil.

Column (5) adds covariaes on he percen o special educaion, gied, and

English language learner sudens, rounding ou he ully specied model. Tis

model explains 40.5 percen o he beween-disric variaion and 78.5 percen

o he wihin-disric variaion in per pupil expendiures. Te esimaed coe-

cien on suden povery rae is 474.0 wih a p value smaller han .01, indicaingsaisical signicance. Tis means, holding everyhing else equal, a school wih a

100 percen povery rae will spend $474.00 more per pupil han a school wih no

low-income sudens. Similarly, a 10 percenage poin increase in suden povery

would ranslae ino a $47.40 increase in per pupil spending.

Column (6) presens he ully specied model wih he addiion o dummy indica-

ors or each disric, accouning or boh observable and unobservable disric char-

acerisics. Te addiion o hese dummies accouns or 27.1 percenage poins more

o he beween-disric variaion han he model specied in column (5). Unlike he

hypohesized model or average eacher salaries, he coecien on suden povery

rae remains saisically signican even wih he addiion o he disric dummy indi-

caors. Tis suggess suden povery plays a signican role in deermining per pupil

expendiures even aer accouning or observable and unobservable disric charac-

erisics. In his model, he coecien on suden povery rae is 555.7 wih a p value

less han .01. Tis indicaes ha a 10 percenage poin increase in povery rae, while

holding all else equal, is associaed wih a $55.70 increase in per pupil expendiure.

For breviy we do no presen resuls o a nal se o ted regression model. Te

specicaion or hese models resembles ha in column (6) bu wih he addi-ion o a se o erms represening he ineracion o disrics xed eecs and

heir schools suden povery raes. In his specicaion, each disric is allowed

a dieren inercep and slope on he povery covariae. Tese resuls sugges he

relaionship beween he suden povery rae in a school and is regular per pupil

expendiures varies sysemaically by disric.


34/40


For example, he coecien on he ineracion erm beween disric and povery

or one disric is -4,595. aken ogeher wih he esimaed coecien on suden

povery o 1,695, his means ha a school wih 100 percen povery in his disric

would have a regular per pupil expendiure ha is $2,900 less han a school wih

no low-income sudens. Compare his disric wih anoher disric wih an

esimaed coecien o 1,816 on he ineracion erm. aken ogeher wih heesimaed coecien on suden povery, a school wih 100 percen povery in his

disric would have per pupil expendiure ha is $3,511 more han a school in ha

disric wihou any low-income sudens. Resuls or individual disrics should

no be overinerpreed bu, aken as a whole, hey presen srong evidence ha he

relaionship beween suden povery raes and regular per pupil expendiures is

no o sucien magniude or even lacks he appropriae sign, were ile I unds

arriving o schools receiving a air share o sae and local resources.


35/40

Endnotes | American Enterprise Institu

Endnotes

1 Raegen T. Miller, Comparable, Schmomparable (Washington:Center or American Progress, 2010), available at http://www.ameri-canprogress.org/issues/2010/05/comparable_schmomparable.html.

2 Non-Regulatory Guidance: Title I Fiscal Issues (Department o Educa-tion, 2008), available at http://ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/scal-guid.pd.

3 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 1120A(c) (1) (A). 20U.S.C. 6321 (Government Printing Oce, 2004) available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1120A.

4 Government Accountability Oce, Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act: Potential Eects o Changing ComparabilityRequirements, GAO-11-258, Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate, January 2011,Appendix I, p. 14.

5 To date, educational expenditures are not widely reported at theschool level. Education Resource Strategies, a consultancy, providedthe authors with estimates or the percentage o school-levelexpenditures due to teacher salary in a handul o client districts.Estimates vary signicantly across districts and across analyticalapproaches. The most nuanced estimates range rom 42 percentto 55 percent. This evidence seems reasonable considering that,according to district-level data collected by the National Centeror Education Statistics, 40 percent o expenditures are directedto salaries o instructional personnel ( 60 percent o expendituresare dedicated to instruction, and 67 percent o that spending goestoward salaries). See: Education Finance Statistics Center, availableat http://nces.ed.gov/EDFIN/graph_index.asp.

6 The Education Trust, Their Fair Share: How Teacher Salary GapsShortchange Poor Children in Texas (2006), available at http://www.

edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/les/publications/les/Texas%20(Poor).pd; The Education TrustWest, Caliornias Hidden Teacher Spend-ing Gap: How State and District Budgeting Practices ShortchangePoor and Minority Students and Their Schools (2005), available athttp://www.hiddengap.org/resources/report031105;Ross Wiener,

No Accounting or Fairness: Equitable Education Funding RemainsElusive in Ohio (Washington: The Education Trust, 2008), availableat http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/les/publications/les/NoAcctgorFairnessOH.pd.

7 Jennier King Rice, The Impact o Teacher Experience: Examiningthe Evidence and Policy Implications (Washington: National Centeror Analysis o Longitudinal Data in Education Research, 2010),available at http://www.urban.org/publications/1001455.html.

8 These data should be publicly available in May 2011. See: AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act o 2009: Title I, Part A Funds orGrants to Local Education Agencies, available at http://ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/actsheet/title-i.html; 2009-10 Civil Rights

Data Collection (OMB # 1875-0240), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/oces/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2009-10-p1-p2.doc.

9 Districts allocate Title I unds to schools based on complicated rulesinvolving grade bands, poverty rates, and threshold levels o poverty.

10 Charles Edwards and Andrew Brownstein, EDs Recent Title I Monitor-ing Refects R isk-Based Analysis, Title I Monitor16 (1) (2011).

11 The ractions o school unds rom local, state, and ederal sourcesvary across states. For a concise explanation, see chapter 3, note 59in: Eric A. Hanushek and Alred A. Lindseth, Schoolhouses, Courthouses,and Statehouses: Solving the Funding-Achievement Puzzle in AmericasPublic Schools (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).

12 Lei Zhou, Revenues and Expenditures or Public Elementary andSecondary Education: School Year 200708 (Fiscal Year 2008)(Department o Education, 2010), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010326.pd.

13 Raegen T. Miller, Secret Recipes Revealed: Demystiying the TitleI, Part A Funding Formulas (Washington: Center or AmericanProgress, 2009), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/title_one.html.

14 For a concise treatment o the two strains o school nance litigation,see: Hanushek and Lindseth, Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and State-houses.

15 Gordon MacInnes, In Plain Sight: Simple, Dicult Lessons rom NewJerseys Expensive Efort to Close the Achievement Gap (New York: TheCentury Foundation Press, 2009).

16 Geo Mulvihill, School aid cuts argued in court, The PhiladelphiaInquirer, January 6, 2011, available at http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20110106_School_aid_cuts_argued_in_court.html.

17 Arielle Levin Becker, State High Court Ruling Cites Need or Quanti-ying Education Quality.Hartord Courant, March 23, 2010, availableat http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-23/news/hc-school-unding-lawsuit-0323.artmar23_1_higher-education-adequate-education-public-education.

18 More than 200 districts remain under the supervision o the Depart-ment o Justice with regards to compliance with court-ordereddesegregation plans. For an interesting current example, see:Stephanie McCrummen, Ruling on racial isolation in Miss. Schoolsrefects troubling broader trend, The Washington Post, April 20, 2010.

19 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Section 1120A(c) (1) (A).

20 Non-Regulatory Guidance.

21 To date, educational expenditures are not widely reported at theschool level. Education Resource Strategies, a consultancy, providedthe authors with estimates or the percentage o school-levelexpenditures due to teacher salary in a handul o client districts.Estimates vary signicantly across districts and across analyticalapproaches. The most nuanced estimates range rom 42 percentto 55 percent. This evidence seems reasonable considering that,according to district-level data collected by the National Centeror Education Statistics, 40 percent o expenditures are directed

to salaries o instructional personnel (60 percent o expendituresare dedicated to instruction, and 67 percent o that spending goestowards salaries). S ee: Education Finance Statistics Center.

22 Eric Hirsch and others, North Carolina Teacher Working Condi-tions Survey I nterim Report (Carrboro, NC: Center or TeachingQuality, 2006), available at http://www.teachingquality.org/pds/2006nctwcinterim.pd.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/comparable_schmomparable.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/comparable_schmomparable.htmlhttp://ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdfhttp://ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1120Ahttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1120Ahttp://nces.ed.gov/EDFIN/graph_index.asphttp://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Texas%20(Poor).pdfhttp://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Texas%20(Poor).pdfhttp://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Texas%20(Poor).pdfhttp://www.hiddengap.org/resources/report031105http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/NoAcctgforFairnessOH.pdfhttp://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/NoAcctgforFairnessOH.pdfhttp://www.urban.org/publications/1001455.htmlhttp://ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/title-i.htmlhttp://ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/title-i.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2009-10-p1-p2.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2009-10-p1-p2.dochttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010326.pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010326.pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010326.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/title_one.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/title_one.htmlhttp://www.philly.com/philly/education/20110106_School_aid_cuts_argued_in_court.htmlhttp://www.philly.com/philly/education/20110106_School_aid_cuts_argued_in_court.htmlhttp://articles.courant.com/2010-03-23/news/hc-school-funding-lawsuit-0323.artmar23_1_higher-education-adequate-education-public-educationhttp://articles.courant.com/2010-03-23/news/hc-school-funding-lawsuit-0323.artmar23_1_higher-education-adequate-education-public-educationhttp://articles.courant.com/2010-03-23/news/hc-school-funding-lawsuit-0323.artmar23_1_higher-education-adequate-education-public-educationhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://articles.courant.com/2010-03-23/news/hc-school-funding-lawsuit-0323.artmar23_1_higher-education-adequate-education-public-educationhttp://articles.courant.com/2010-03-23/news/hc-school-funding-lawsuit-0323.artmar23_1_higher-education-adequate-education-public-educationhttp://articles.courant.com/2010-03-23/news/hc-school-funding-lawsuit-0323.artmar23_1_higher-education-adequate-education-public-educationhttp://www.philly.com/philly/education/20110106_School_aid_cuts_argued_in_court.htmlhttp://www.philly.com/philly/education/20110106_School_aid_cuts_argued_in_court.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/title_one.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/title_one.htmlhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010326.pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010326.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2009-10-p1-p2.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2009-10-p1-p2.dochttp://ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/title-i.htmlhttp://ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/title-i.htmlhttp://www.urban.org/publications/1001455.htmlhttp://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/NoAcctgforFairnessOH.pdfhttp://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/NoAcctgforFairnessOH.pdfhttp://www.hiddengap.org/resources/report031105http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Texas%20(Poor).pdfhttp://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Texas%20(Poor).pdfhttp://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Texas%20(Poor).pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/EDFIN/graph_index.asphttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1120Ahttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1120Ahttp://ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdfhttp://ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/comparable_schmomparable.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/comparable_schmomparable.html


36/40


23 Benjamin Scadi, David L. Sjoquist, and Todd R. Stinebrickner, DoTeachers Really Leave or Higher Paying Jobs in Alternative Occupa-tions?,Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy6 (1) (2006).

24 Charles Clotelter and others, High-Poverty Schools and the Distribu-tion o Teachers and Principals. Working Paper 1 (National Center orthe Analysis o Longitudinal Data in Education Research, 2007), avail-able at http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001057_High_Poverty.pd.

25 Marguerite Roza, Larry Miller, and Paul Hill, Strengthening Title I toHelp High-Poverty Schools: How Title I Funds Fit Into District Al-location Patterns (Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education,

2005); Marguerite Roza, What i We Closed the Title I ComparabilityLoophole? In Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education (Wash-ington: Center or American Progress, 2008); Karen Hawley Milesand Marguerite R oza, Understanding Student-Weighted Allocationas a Means to Greater School R esource Equity, Peabody Journal oEducation 81 (3) (2006): 3662.

26 The Education Trust, Their Fair Share; The Education TrustWest,Caliornias Hidden Teacher Spending Gap; Wiener, No Accounting

or Fairness.

27 Saba Bireda and Raegen Miller, Walking the Talk: Closing theComparability Requirement Loophole in Title I o the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act (Washington: Center or AmericanProgress, 2010), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/comparability_brie.html.

28 The novelty o this reporting requirement may represent a realobstacle to successul reporting in some states. For an example o

guidance oered by a state educational agency to school districts,see: School Based Reporting, available at http://www.k12.wa.us/sas/bldg_lvl/sbr.asp.

29 History o Statewide Assessment Program (HSAP), available athttp://www.fdoe.org/asp/hsap/hsap6878.asp.

30 For a complete explanation o the FEFP, see: Florida Department oEducation, Funding or Florida School Districts (2010), available athttp://www.fdoe.org/ep/pd/epdist.pd.

31 Florida Title I Monitoring Report, available at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/monitoring/reports10/frpt.doc (last accessedDecember 21, 2010).

32 Common Core o Data, available at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.

33 Schools with per pupil expenditures, average teacher salaries, andpupil-teacher ratios in the .1 percentile and 99.9 percentile weredropped rom the sample. For example, schools with a per pupilexpenditure below or equal to $2,416.692 and equal to or above$15,679.52 were eliminated rom the sample. For average teachersalary, schools with values at or below $29,891.22 and at or above$61,758.91 were dropped.

34 During the interval studied, Florida received $487 in Title I unds perstudent receiving ree or reduced-price lunch. Counties receivedunding at dierent rates due to complicated ormulas, and countiesdistribute unds to schools in such a way that not all Title I-eligible

schools receive unds. Osceola Countys high-poverty schoolsaverage 78 percent low-income students, so $380 per student is areasonable estimate o what these schools received in Title I undsduring the years studied, on average. Historical Title I allocationsavailable rom: U.S. Department o Education Budget History, avail-able at http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html; numbers o students participating in special programs such asree or reduced-price lunch come rom: Common Core o Data.

35 Bireda and Miller, Walking the Talk.

36 Karen Hawley Miles and Stephen Frank, The Strategic School: Makingthe Most o People, Time, and Money(Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress, 2008).

37 For a complete explanation o the FEFP, see: Florida Department oEducation, Funding or Florida School Districts (2010), available athttp://www.fdoe.org/ep/pd/epdist.pd.

38 Data collected rom: Oce o Funding and Financial Reporting,available at http://www.fdoe.org/ep/orep.asp.

39 Ibid.

40 Lei Zhou, Revenues and Expenditures or Public Elementary andSecondary Education.

41 Schools with per pupil expenditures, average teacher salaries, andpupil-teacher ratios in the .1 percentile and 99.9 percentile weredropped rom the sample. Schools, or example, with a per pupilexpenditure below or equal to $2,416.692 and equal to or above$15,679.52 were eliminated rom the sample. For average teachersalary, schools with values at or below $29,891.22 and at or above$61,758.91 were dropped.
http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/2006nctwcinterim.pdfhttp://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001057_High_Poverty.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/comparability_brief.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/comparability_brief.htmlhttp://www.k12.wa.us/safs/bldg_lvl/sbr.asphttp://www.k12.wa.us/safs/bldg_lvl/sbr.asphttp://www.fldoe.org/asp/hsap/hsap6878.asphttp://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/monitoring/reports10/flrpt.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/monitoring/reports10/flrpt.dochttp://nces.ed.gov/ccd/http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.htmlhttp://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdfhttp://www.fldoe.org/fefp/offrfefp.asphttp://www.fldoe.org/fefp/offrfefp.asphttp://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.htmlhttp://nces.ed.gov/ccd/http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/monitoring/reports10/flrpt.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/monitoring/reports10/flrpt.dochttp://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdfhttp://www.fldoe.org/asp/hsap/hsap6878.asphttp://www.k12.wa.us/safs/bldg_lvl/sbr.asphttp://www.k12.wa.us/safs/bldg_lvl/sbr.asphttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/comparability_brief.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/comparability_brief.htmlhttp://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001057_High_Poverty.pdf


37/40

About the authors and acknowledgements | American Enterprise Institu

About the authors

Jennifer S. Cohen is a senior policy analys wih he Educaion Policy Program

a he New America Foundaion. She manages he programs Federal Educaion

Budge Projec websie, analyzes school nance daa, and wries policy papers on

a range o educaion policy opics. She is also he principal conribuor or heprojecs Ed Money Wach blog. Her work includes research and publicaions

on he American Recovery and Reinvesmen Ac o 2009, ederal ile I grans

or disadvanaged sudens, eacher disribuion and compensaion issues, and

ederally unded school reorm eors. Beore joining New America, Ms. Cohen

worked or he Educaion Policy Cener a he Urban Insiue in Washingon,

D.C., where she perormed quaniaive and qualiaive research on such issues

as high school reorm, eacher pensions, school unding, and he need or

career-relevan courses in odays public schools. She serves on he board o he

Appleree Early Learning Public Charer School, a school or 3- and 4-year-olds

in he Disric o Columbia. She earned her bachelors degree in public policyrom Sanord Universiy and holds a masers degree in policy, organizaion, and

leadership sudies rom he Sanord Universiy School o Educaion.

Raegen T. Miller is he Associae Direcor or Educaion Research a American

Progress. His work ocuses on scal equiy and eacher qualiy. Prior o join-

ing 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. Raegens 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.


38/40


39/40


40/40

About the Center or American Progress

The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan re-

search and educational institute dedicated to promoting

a strong, just and ree America that ensures opportunityor all. We believe that Americans are bound together by

a common commitment to these values and we aspire

to ensure that our national policies reect these values.

We work to fnd progressive and pragmatic solutions

to signifcant domestic and international problems and

develop policy proposals that oster a government that

is o the people, by the people, and or the people.

Center or American Progress

1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 202.682.1611 Fax: 202.682.1867

About the American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute is a community o

scholars and supporters committed to expanding libe

increasing individual opportunity, and strengtheninree enterprise. AEI pursues these unchanging ideal

through independent thinking, open debate, reasone

argument, acts, and the highest standards o researc

and exposition. Without regard or politics or prevailin

ashion, we dedicate our work to a more prosperous

saer, and more democratic nation and world.

The American Enterprise Institute

1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202.862.5800 Fax: 202.862.7177

American Enterprise Institutefor Public Policy Research

Evidence of the Effects of the Title I Comparability Loophole

Documents

Transcript of Evidence of the Effects of the Title I Comparability Loophole