CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH Education Equity
JANUARY 2024
Samantha Wilkerson, M.Ed., John R. Lewis Social Justice Fellow
Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
Introduction Earlier this year, the House of Representatives proposed a $60.3 billion cut in the Fiscal Year 2024 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.1 The proposed cuts warrant a critical examination of U.S. funding priorities and their potential consequences on education equity.2 The need for equitable policy solutions to maintain accessible educational opportunities for all—irrespective of background or circumstances— is paramount as the nation addresses learning recovery in the wake of the pandemic. This policy brief examines the consequences of the House of Representatives proposed cuts to Title I and Title II1 programming and the implications of the budgetary decisions on students. The brief emphasizes the critical need for equitable and inclusive policy solutions that prioritize educational opportunities for all children regardless of race or socioeconomic status. Lastly, it provides evidence-based insights and recommendations to ensure that policies contribute to the educational advancement and well-being of all children.
1
The proposed cuts also included completely eliminating Title III funding which provides support for English Language Learners.
/2
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
Key Terms Department of Education (ED): The federal agency responsible for overseeing and promoting educational policies and programs in the United States. Its mission is to ensure access to quality education, protect students’ civil rights, and support educational innovation.3 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA): A federal law that provided financial assistance to support primary and secondary education, particularly for disadvantaged and low-income students. It aimed to improve educational opportunities and equity by allocating federal resources to schools.4 Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA): A federal law that replaced the No Child Left Behind Act. It governs K-12 education policy in the United States, emphasizing state flexibility in setting educational standards and accountability measures, with a focus on improving student achievement.5 National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP): An assessment mandated by Congress to assess the educational achievement of U.S. students and monitor changes in those achievements. 6 Title I—Improving Basic Programs Operated By State And Local Educational Agencies: A federal program under the ESSA that provides financial assistance to school districts with high percentages of students from low-income families. The funding is intended to support initiatives that address the specific needs of economically disadvantaged students and improve educational outcomes. 7 Title II—Preparing, Training, and Recruiting HighQuality Teachers, Principals, or Other School Leaders: A federal program under the ESSA that focuses on supporting effective instruction, school leadership, and teacher professional development. It provides federal funding to states and districts to enhance teacher and principal quality.8
/3
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
Federal Education Funding: Title I and Title II The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) was passed by former President Barack Obama on December 10, 2015, and includes provisions that uphold protections for disadvantaged and high-needs students. The bipartisan law reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) which was enacted as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”9 ESEA, more broadly, encouraged school districts to develop and implement programs using federal funds to improve student achievement, including Title I and Title II initiatives. The legislation also sought to address poverty by enhancing equitable access to quality education, acknowledging that children from lowincome families had unique educational needs. The primary objective of Title I is to supplement state and local funding for schools serving a high concentration of economically disadvantaged students, with the goal of helping these students meet state academic standards. Title I funding is distributed through four main grant programs, which include:10 Basic Grants: These grants are given to school districts based on the number of lowincome students they serve. Concentration Grants: These grants are given to school districts with a high percentage of low-income students. Targeted Grants: These grants are provided to school districts to assist schools with relatively high percentages of low-income students, ensuring that they receive additional resources to meet the unique needs of their students. Education Finance Incentive Grants: These grants are seen as a reward to states for their own financial efforts in providing for students from low-income backgrounds.
WHO DOES TITLE I SERVE? Race/Ethnicity
Number of Students
Percentage
American Indian or Alaska Native
326,360
1.25%
Asian
1,068,463
4.09%
Black
5,336,581
20.87%
Latinx
9,712,648
37.22%
Two or More Races
970,012
3.72%
White
8,753,857
32.85%
Total
26,097,921
100%
Source: (All4Ed, 2023)
/4
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
STATE
FEDERAL FUNDING PER STUDENT
PERCENTAGE OF BLACK STUDENTS
Alaska
$3,343
1.9%
North Dakota
$2,876
4.2%
Montana
$2,829
0.6%
Maine
$2,680
3.2%
South Dakota
$2,641
1.6%
Vermont
$2,592
2.6%
Wyoming
$2,512
0.9%
California
$2,485
6.2%
Mississippi
$2,322
54.2%
Kentucky
$2,254
11.7%
Source: (Education Data, 2023) (Black Teacher Collaborative, 2018)
The chart above shows the ten states that receive the most funding per student from the federal government. Of those states, only one serves a majority Black population: Mississippi. The data challenges prevailing assumptions about federal funding streams, such as Title I, designed to support communities with high proportions of students from low-income families as mainly supporting Black communities. While federal funding is intended to provide educational support, the disparities revealed in this chart underscore a pressing issue: the racial inequity in funding distribution poses a direct threat to educational equity in the United States. Furthermore, this disparity perpetuates a cycle of disadvantage, hindering the social and economic mobility of Black students and reinforcing systemic inequalities.
/5
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
Title II-A Funding, The Supportive Effective Instruction State Grant, which was also first implemented under ESEA of 1965, plays a pivotal role in the allocation of federal resources aimed at enhancing the professional development and support mechanisms available to educators and educational leaders. The main goal of this program is to ensure that all students have access to highly qualified educators so that they can have opportunities for successful futures. Title II is expressly designed to facilitate equitable access to effective educators for all students.11 The distribution of Title II funding unfolds through state educational agencies (SEAs) and is subsequently channeled to local education agencies (LEAs).12 Every year, Congress decides how much money Title II will get as part of the federal budget.13 Recently, Title II funding has exhibited fluctuations, with appropriations often falling below the levels authorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
TITLE II-A APPROPRIATION AND AUTHORIZATION BY YEAR 3.2 3.175 3.175
3.175
3.175 3.175
3.175
NCLB
3
3.175
2.948
Funding (in billions)
2.8
2.6
Authorized Appropriated 2.465
2.4
ESSA
2.467 2.338
2.35
2.295 2.295 2.295 2.295 2.295 2.295 2.295
2.256
2.2
2
2.35
2.132
2.143
2020
2021
2.17
2.19
2.056 2.056 2.056 2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Year
Source: (Powered by Title II, 2023)
/6
2019
2022
2023
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
Implications of Cuts to Title I and Title II-A Programs
PUBLIC K-12 FEDERAL FUNDING PER STUDENT
$1,549 $2,829
$2,876
$1,428 $1,504
$1,480 $922
$2,485
$1,637
$1,384
$2,641
$2,512 $1,289
$2,592 $1,545
$1,781
$1,907
$1,996
$1,754
$1,696 $1,711 $1,154
$1,414 $1,556
$1,720
$1,453 $2,167
$2,254
$1,399
$1,477 $1,293 $1,869 $1,313 $1,280 $1,350 $1,874 $1,379
$1,324
$1,740 $2,023
$1,698 $2,322 $1,963
$1,619
$1,398
$2,680
$1,699
$2,119
$3,343
$1,681
$2,142
LEGEND:
Less than $1200 $1201- $1500
$1501- $1900 Over $1901
Source: (Education Data, 2023)
Currently, the federal government spends between $1,100-$3,400 per student in each state. The House Appropriations Republicans proposal for budget cuts will decrease federal spending by 29%.14 The cut to the Department of Education includes an 80% cut to Title I programs and completely defunds Title II programs.15 Note: The cuts also include defunding Title III of the ESSA which provides supports of English Language Learners. In fiscal year 2023, Title I represents a federal investment in elementary and secondary education of $18.39 billion distributed to states and school districts. Title I plays a crucial role in supporting the education of more than 26 million children, which is more than one-third of the nation’s school-aged children. Furthermore, students from BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) families are the primary beneficiaries of these funds with 3 out of 4 Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students attending Title I schools. 16
/7
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
The proposed cuts intentionally target Black and Brown teachers, limit funds that are used on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and threaten funds to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Further, the proposed cuts completely defund teacher preparation “programs that support organizations that seek to undermine the unity of our country, and programs that are duplicative, or narrowly tailored to a small set of recipients.”17 Many specialized programs, such as “Grow Your Own” programs that are geared towards encouraging members of the community to seek out careers in education would be subject to the cut. Multiple studies have shown the positive impact that teacher diversity has on all learners, and more specifically Black students.18 While Black students make up 15% of students in the country, Black teachers only account for 7% of teachers.19 The imbalance significantly impacts Black student success. On average only 17% of Black fourth graders read on grade level nationwide.20 The reductions exacerbate the already severe challenges faced by schools facing teacher shortages and could strip away vital resources, perpetuating historical disparities in educational opportunities between Black and white children in the United States.
/8
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
COMMUNITY SNAPSHOT (2019) (ALL SCORES ARE FROM 4TH GRADE) DISTRICT/ STATE
AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING
STATE NAEP READING SCORES
STATE NAEP MATH SCORES
STATE NAEP READING SCORES FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH
STATE NAEP MATH SCORES FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH
Deweyville ISD (TX)
$14,048,000 (65%)
Black- 205 White- 232
Black- 233 White- 254
Eligible- 206 Not Eligible- 232
Eligible- 235 Not Eligible- 257
Muroc Joint Unified (CA)
$47,174,000 (60%)
Black- 197 White- 234
Black- 224 White- 250
Eligible- 205 Not Eligible- 236
Eligible- 223 Not Eligible- 252
Source: (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019–20) (National Center for Education Statistics National Assessment for Educational Progress, 2019)
SNAPSHOT: COMMUNITY IMPACT While federal funding only accounts for 8-10% of nationwide K-12 funding, there are several districts in the nation that have over 50% of their funding from the federal government. If funding to Title I is cut by 80%, students in school communities that rely on federal funding will see an increase in the achievement gaps. The striking case of two school districts illustrates this: Deweyville Independent School District (Deweyville ISD) in Texas and Muroc Joint Unified School District in California. Both school districts are made up of traditionally underserved communities, and in both cases, these students face significant academic achievement disparities when compared to peers from more privileged backgrounds. The federal funding that constitutes a significant portion of these districts’ budgets is essential in addressing these disparities, offering additional support for students so that they can have access to high-quality education. Deweyville ISD in Orange, Texas, operates with a total budget of $21,671,000, with 65% deriving from federal funds. The Texas state report card from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveals Black students and students who qualified for free or reduced lunch performed more than 20 points lower in Math and Reading than their white counterparts. The state NAEP reading scores reveal Black students averaged 205, significantly trailing their white peers who scored 232. The state NAEP math scores reveal a similar disparity as Black students scored an average of 233, whereas
/9
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
white students scored significantly higher at 254. These disparities are further compounded when considering the Free and Reduced Lunch data, a proxy for economic disadvantage (Deweyville ISD had 54.1% of economically disadvantaged students).when considering the Free and Reduced Lunch data, a proxy for economic disadvantage (Deweyville ISD had 54.1% of economically disadvantaged students). Muroc Joint Unified School District in North Edwards, California, operates with a total budget of $78,843,000, with 60% deriving from federal funding. In the 2019 snapshot, Black students had NAEP Reading scores of 197, while white students scored notably higher at 234. The same trend is observed in Math scores, with Black students averaging 224 and white students 250. In addition, the data revealed that students who are eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch scored 205 in Reading and 223 in Math, while their non-eligible peers performed substantially better at 236 in Reading and 252 in Math.
Policy Recommendations It is imperative to consider evidence-based policy solutions that address the implications of cuts to Title I and Title II funding in education. These solutions must foster an inclusive and empowering educational landscape for students from marginalized communities, reaffirming the nation’s commitment to providing quality education for all. • Increase Funding for Title I Programs: Community advocates and policymakers must advocate for the preservation and potential increase of funding Title I programs serving low-income students. These funds should be used to reduce class sizes, hire experienced educators, provide professional development opportunities, and enhance academic resources to address achievement gaps effectively. It is critical that federal funding is allocated to schools with the highest need, particularly in African American communities, to provide equitable educational opportunities.
/10
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
• Invest in Teacher Development Programs that Promote Academic Success and Diversity: Educators, community leaders and parents should advocate for comprehensive training and continuing education programs for teachers as outlined in Title II of ESSA. This includes increasing access to culturally responsive pedagogy and DEI training, social-emotional learning programs, and historically accurate curriculums particularly in underserved communities. • Develop A Monitoring and Accountability System: Legislators should implement a system of rigorous oversight and accountability to ensure that federal funds are allocated and used effectively, and that funding does not drop below what is necessary to support student needs. Regular assessments of the impact of funding on student outcomes, particularly for BIPOC students, can inform evidence-based decision-making and targeted interventions. • Streamline Title I Grant Process for Enhanced Equity: Legislators should introduce a streamlined and simplified process for receiving Title I grants. The current 4-tiered system does not alleviate access gaps in Black and Brown communities. Implementing a more straightforward and efficient system will ensure that schools with the most need in the community receive funding promptly.
Conclusion The reductions proposed by the House Appropriations Republicans have the potential to exacerbate disparities already faced by low-income families and, especially, the Black community. The impact on education alone threatens to widen the already substantial opportunity gap between Black and white children in the United States. Sustaining funding for Title I and Title II is paramount to guarantee access to critical academic and social-emotional support and protect essential educator preparation programs. To create a future where equitable opportunities and success are accessible to all, policymakers must not only resist policies that perpetuate disparities but actively champion those that prioritize social justice, equity, and the well-being of our most vulnerable communities.
/11
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
References 1 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations. (2023 July 11). FY24 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies - Bill Summary. Retrieved from https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/ files/documents/FY24%20Labor%20Health%20and%20Human%20Services%20Education%20and%20Related%20 Agencies%20-%20Bill%20Summary.pdf 2 Barnum, M. (2023, July 14). Republicans’ Education Budget Cut. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://www.chalkbeat. org/2023/7/14/23795314/republicans-education-budget-cut-title-i-low-income-schools-covid-aid-critical-race-theory 3 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). About the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/ landing.jhtml?src=ft 4 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Overview. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn#:~:text=The%20 Elementary%20and%20Secondary%20Education,was%20a%20civil%20rights%20law 5 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/ essa?src=rn 6 National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). About the Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/about/ 7 Every Student Succeeds Act. (n.d.). Title I: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Educational Agencies. Retrieved from https://www.everystudentsucceedsact.org/title-i-improving-basic-school-programs-operated-by-stateand-local-educational-agencies 8 Every Student Succeeds Act. (n.d.). Title II. Retrieved from https://www.everystudentsucceedsact.org/title-ii9 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). https://www.ed.gov/ essa?src=rn#:~:text=The%20Elementary%20and%20Secondary%20Education,was%20a%20civil%20rights%20law 10 Shackleford, R., & Hyslop, A. (2023, January 23). Title I: At A Glance. Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from https://all4ed.org/publication/title-i-at-a-glance 11 Powered by Title II. (n.d.). What Is Title II? https://poweredbytitleii.com/what-is-title-ii/#flowtitleiifunding 12 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (n.d.). Instructional State Grants (Title II, Part A) Resources. https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/instructionstate-grants-title-ii-part-a/resources/ 13 Powered by Title II. (n.d.). Recent Updates. Retrieved from https://poweredbytitleii.com/recent-updates/ 14 Barnum, M. (2023, July 14). Republicans’ Education Budget Cut. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://www.chalkbeat. org/2023/7/14/23795314/republicans-education-budget-cut-title-i-low-income-schools-covid-aid-critical-race-theory 15 White House. (2023, September 12). State Fact Sheets: House Republicans’ Funding Bills Would Have Devastating Impacts for Hard-Working Families Across America. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2023/09/12/state-fact-sheets-house-republicans-funding-bills-would-have-devastating-impacts-for-hardworking-families-across 16 Title I at a Glance. Alliance for Excellent Education. https://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Title-I-At-A-Glance.pdf
/12
CPAR | Education Equity Under Threat: The Defunding of Title I and Title II Programs
17 House Committee on Appropriations. (2023 July 13). FY24 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies - Bill Summary. https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/files/documents/ FY24%20Labor%20Health%20and%20Human%20Services%20Education%20and%20Related%20Agencies%20-%20 Bill%20Summary.pdf El-Mekki, S. (2021, September 9). To Achieve Educational Justice, We Need More Black Teachers. EdSurge. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-09-09-to-achieve-educational-justice-we-need-moreblack-teachers#:~:text=When%20Black%20students%20have%20at,climbs%20by%20nearly%2040%20percent. 18 El-Mekki, S. (2021, September 9). To Achieve Educational Justice, We Need More Black Teachers. EdSurge. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-09-09-to-achieve-educational-justice-we-need-more-blackteachers#:~:text=When%20Black%20students%20have%20at,climbs%20by%20nearly%2040%20percent 19 El-Mekki, S. (2021, September 9). To Achieve Educational Justice, We Need More Black Teachers. EdSurge. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-09-09-to-achieve-educational-justice-we-need-more-blackteachers#:~:text=When%20Black%20students%20have%20at,climbs%20by%20nearly%2040%20percent. 20 Black Teacher Collaborative. (n.d.). Statistics. Retrieved from https://blackteachercollaborative.org/stats/
/13
CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH Education Equity
For more research visit cbcfinc.org