Supplement Not Supplant Is Back: Why Education Advocates Are Concerned a Wonky New ESSA Spending Proposal Will Hurt Poor Kids
Education advocates argue that a recent proposal by the Education Department regarding school spending undermines an important rule that aims to ensure equitable funding for low-income students.
The controversial "supplement not supplant" rule, which has been included in multiple reauthorizations of federal K-12 law, including the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires school districts to demonstrate that they are not using federal Title I grants, specifically meant for low-income students, when they should be using state and local funds instead.
The Education Department’s proposal, which was released on Friday, requires districts to show that their allocation of funding is "Title I neutral," meaning that they are not intentionally providing less funding to schools that serve a high number of low-income children.
However, education advocates argue that this level of flexibility would give districts too much freedom in how they use their federal grants, thus undermining the legal protections for low-income students.
Lynn Jennings, the director of national and state partnerships at The Education Trust, a nonprofit organization that advocates for educational rights for low-income students and children of color, expressed concern that this proposal could undermine one of the most crucial civil rights components of ESSA.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, on the other hand, defended the new guidance, stating that it allows schools to use their funds based on what is best for the students without raising any red flags during audits. She emphasized that this proposal does not change the legal obligations of school districts to make appropriate investments in education but rather clarifies the flexibility districts have in demonstrating compliance with the law.
Although the "supplement not supplant" rule has been a part of federal law for many years, its implementation has been a subject of political contention depending on who is providing the guidance.
One particularly controversial aspect has been whether actual teacher salaries should be included in the calculations. Some argue that including teacher salaries would result in less funding for low-income schools since newer, lower-paid teachers are often assigned to those schools. In 2016, the Obama Administration proposed guidance that included actual teacher salaries but faced opposition from congressional Republicans who believed it overstepped the law and some education groups, including teachers unions, who were concerned about potential teacher transfers. This issue became part of a series of ongoing battles in implementing ESSA.
The new guidance does not directly address the teacher salary issue. However, one of the approved funding methods mentioned in the proposal involves allocating funds based on "staffing and supplies," such as providing equal supply allowances per student and ensuring a consistent student-to-teacher ratio.
Advocates argue that if DeVos’ proposal is enacted, it would hinder their efforts to distribute resources more equitably at the state and local levels. They emphasize that the "supplement not supplant" rule is not sufficient to address the problem of resource equity.
Jonathan Travers, a partner at Education Resource Strategies, a nonprofit organization that assists districts with school improvement, acknowledges the challenge of creating a rule that provides flexibility to districts while protecting Title I schools. He questions how Title I schools would be effectively protected under the proposed rules. Travers suggests that districts could use funding methods that indirectly redirect resources away from Title I schools, such as assigning more teachers to high schools that offer advanced placement (AP) classes to reduce class sizes or providing matching funds to parent-teacher associations.
The new proposal does not require districts to develop a new methodology for allocating funds. Although the guidance suggests two possible methods that would comply with the rules—a weighted funding system and a system based on staff and supplies—districts are also free to use alternative methods.
Not all advocates were immediately against the new proposal.
In 2016, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), which represents state education secretaries, put forward its own proposal that would have allowed districts to use any fair method for distributing Title I funding.
As the deadline for the final Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) funding rule approaches, opponents are pressuring Education Secretary King with an alternative plan.
Melissa McGrath, Chief of Staff for CCSSO, stated in an email that states are taking the lead in implementing Title I programs in an equitable and effective manner to benefit all students, especially those who have been historically underserved. The CCSSO appreciates the US Department of Education’s commitment to supporting state and local leadership in implementing federal programs. The group is currently reviewing the proposal and plans to submit further public comment.
Although CCSSO’s 2016 proposal would have required districts to publicly disclose how they distribute funds, this requirement is not included in the new guidance.
This lack of transparency hampers advocates who may have suspicions about wrongdoing, but are unable to provide proof.
"It puts everything back in the dark. It keeps it hidden, out of public view," said Jennings.
Note: The Education Resource Strategies and receive financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Foundation, and Walton Family Foundation. The Alliance for Excellent Education and receive funding from the Gates Foundation and Carnegie Corporation. The Education Trust and receive financial support from the Gates, Shusterman, and Walton foundations, Carnegie Corporation, and Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Stay informed with newsletter. Sign up now to receive stories like these directly in your inbox.
