Opportunity grants program

It is also important to note that states can and do contribute more or less than the average share described above. Regardless of the exact percentage distribution of funding between state and local sources, the reliance on state and local funding to support public education means that funding has become inequitable among states, districts within states, and even schools within districts.

States vary widely in how much they are willing or able to spend on K education. According to fiscal year data from the U. For example, the authors found that when states are ranked by adjusted per-pupil funding, California fell 17 places to land within the quintile of states spending the least per pupil on education. Some of this variance in per-pupil spending stems from how much money a state is able to generate wealth , and some of it comes from how much money states and districts are willing to invest in public education funding effort.

In relation to measures of adequacy discussed earlier, there is a moderate relationship between states that have a high effort level and states that spend more adequately on their high-poverty districts. State disparities in education funding have major consequences for the ability of schools in different states to provide students and educators with comparable experiences and supports. For example, staff salaries make up a large part of school spending.

These states, and especially high-poverty schools and districts in these states, may then have an even harder time recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. In addition to per-pupil spending and effort, states vary widely in their commitment to progressivity in their education spending. A progressive state funding system is one where high-poverty school districts receive greater funding than low-poverty school districts, and a regressive funding system does the opposite.

There is more than one way to measure progressivity: Researchers have used a variety of analytical models to calculate it and have adjusted for different factors such as inflation or regional labor market costs to increase accuracy when comparing states. While different approaches lead to slightly different conclusions, the broad findings are similar across methodologies. Nationally, progressivity of state and local funding combined has barely shifted from minimally regressive to minimally progressive over the last decade.

Given the lack of progressivity in many states, there exists a disparity nationally in state and local per-pupil spending between districts that serve the most low-income students and districts serving the wealthiest students. For example, it is possible for a regressive formula in a wealthy state to allocate more dollars to a high-poverty school district than a progressive formula does in a poorer state.

New Jersey, for example, invests almost percent more of its state funds in K education in their high-poverty districts, whereas Michigan invests less than 10 percent more in its high-poverty districts. Furthermore, school funding disparities by racial and socioeconomic status often overlap to have a compounded effect on students.

In the United States, 20 percent of students are enrolled in districts that are both low income and predominantly enroll students of color. In Texas, teachers talked about how their Title I school lacked the necessary facilities for sports such as track and field, whereas wealthier schools nearby had a lot of funding for sports programs and extracurriculars.

Without access to these programs, teachers said they felt like their students were limited from means of nonacademic success and markers of being well-rounded individuals that colleges valued; for example, they might miss out on sports scholarships or experience leading an after-school club that could look good on college applications.

In Clarksdale, Mississippi, teachers and administrators talked about how hard it was to recruit and retain high-quality teachers when the school could not afford to give educators a competitive salary and the same kind of resources that the wealthier school districts in the state could. The Clarksdale Municipal School District even had trouble competing with the salary level of managerial positions at fast-food restaurants in town.

Additionally, teachers who had worked in both affluent and high-poverty schools in Mississippi noted that the wealthier districts had newer school buildings that were in better condition; had funding to provide a more well-rounded curriculum, including STEM and career and technical education in the early grades; and could afford to give students access to the latest technology, including, for example, individual laptops. In addition, it was noted that more affluent schools had the staffing and funding for better communication with parents and the resources to better incorporate parent involvement in school activities.

In Alabama, educators, administrators, parents, and students also emphasized the point that despite the advantage that more affluent schools and districts have with regard to funding and resources, students in all schools must pass the same state accountability tests and compete in the same job market.

Teachers emphasized that since their school was in a high-poverty district, their students face challenges outside school, such as food insecurity, housing instability, and intergenerational poverty and low educational attainment. Therefore, it is difficult for students to compete with their more affluent peers, who have more resources both in school and outside school. In addition, these teachers also said they believed it was unfair that state standards for teachers and for grading schools failed to take into consideration the effects of chronic underinvestment on their schools and the starting level for student achievement scores that they are required to raise.

The research discussed above focuses on school district revenue from state and local sources as well as disparities across states and districts. But there are also funding disparities among individual schools in the same school district. In , CAP analyzed how districts across the country funded individual schools and found that at least 4. However, the Every Student Succeeds Act has helped to address the problem of transparency by requiring states to report per-pupil expenditures for every school.

The remaining four biggest school districts were allocating more for their highest-need schools but not an adequately higher amount to account for the difference in need. Although greater availability of data is important, policymakers must take the next step of responding to any funding gaps identified in the data by creating new policies that incentivize states and districts to close funding gaps among schools and within districts.

In addition to contributing to persistent inequity and inadequacy, a heavy reliance on state and local funding for education also leaves education funding particularly vulnerable to an economic recession. During the Great Recession in , as common sources of state revenue—for example, income tax and sales tax revenue—declined, many states were forced to cut state funding for education to balance their reduced budgets.

Although property tax revenue, a common source of local revenue, is more stable than state sources, it is highly inequitable since it depends on local property values. During the recession, a fall in property values meant that districts were not able to raise additional revenue to make up for the gap left by state funding cuts.

Districts that serve low-income communities are particularly vulnerable during a recession because they rely more heavily on state funding and lack the ability to raise as much local revenue as high-wealth districts. By , there were still , fewer jobs in school districts compared with These funding cuts were also very persistent. After the Great Recession, it took until for slightly more than half of all states to provide more state and local funding than they did prior to the recession.

Poorly conceived policy choices on the part of some governors and state lawmakers squeezed K education budgets in some states even further than the effects of the recession alone.

As the economy recovered from the recession, policymakers in seven of the 12 states that cut education funding the most enacted income tax cuts, adding to the steady decline in state education funding.

In many other policy areas, the role of the federal government during a recession is to act as a stabilizer, providing additional funding in order to maintain important services for families and children when a recession worsens individual economic conditions. Another way that the federal government can provide assistance during a recession is through fiscal stimulus packages voted on by Congress. However, the amount of money allocated toward education in a congressional stimulus package is time limited and subject to political will.

This stimulus package provided broad support for states, including funding for emergency relief for elementary and secondary schools and child nutrition programs, as well as to provide early childhood education to children of health workers. Senate has not passed a bill to provide any additional aid. It is imperative that the federal government provide emergency funding assistance to state and local governments during negative economic events. But a long-term, substantial federal investment in public education through mandatory spending that is not subject to annual or one-time appropriations would provide states and districts with a funding source that is better insulated from political pressure to reduce spending.

Moreover, such funding could stabilize education budgets during and after a recession. Despite the need for greater and more equitable investment in education, education funding remains a small percentage of total federal government spending, and there are only very weak federal incentives for states and districts to shift toward more equitable funding. Spending on education programs is a form of federal nondefense discretionary spending.

Within nondefense spending, only about 6 percent of that funding is allocated toward K education. Despite its relatively small contribution, one way that the federal government has tried to address education funding disparities is through Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now known as ESSA.

Title I is a federal grant program that was originally designed to target districts serving high numbers or percentages of students from families with low incomes. It comprises four separate funding formulas, each of which involves different calculations, as well as hold-harmless and small-state minimum provisions.

Therefore, it is time for a new major federal investment in K education. This program would provide significant additional funding to the highest-poverty districts in each state and incentivize states to increase their own spending and better target funding to address disparities across and within districts. Additionally, the new program would require states and districts to identify and address the root causes of gaps in opportunity and outcomes by race, family income, disability, and home language.

As described at the beginning of this report, the Public Education Opportunity Grants program would create new, mandatory formula grants to states and eligible school districts. By targeting funding to districts with the highest poverty within each state this program will have the greatest impact on expanding opportunity and improving school experiences and outcomes for historically underserved students across the country.

Similar to Title I, Part A, under the proposed grant program, states would receive funding from the U. Department of Education and then make formula-based subgrants to districts.

States would be eligible for funding in two ways. First, all states, as well as Washington, D. That is, after determining weighted poverty quartiles see Appendix , the 25 percent of districts with the highest poverty rates in the state would be eligible. For states that only have a single school district, the entire state would be eligible. All states must continue to meet the fiscal equity requirements of ESSA, including maintenance of effort and supplement, not supplant requirements.

To receive funding under the proposed grant program, states must also conduct and make public an analysis of gaps in opportunity and outcomes based on race, family income, home language, and disability to determine root causes and potential solutions for closing those gaps.

States may reserve 0. These initiatives must be developed in consultation with communities across the state, including stakeholders in the districts that will receive federal formula funding. In every state, districts in the highest-poverty weighted quartile within the state would be eligible to receive funding.

Eligible districts would be determined based on a three-year rolling average of the percentage of children living in poverty. First, the state must meet the fiscal equity requirements above. Second, the state must demonstrate that it reaches a certain effort level, as measured by the percentage of GSP spent on education, depending on state wealth, as measured by GSP per capita.

Charter schools that are their own local educational agency would be eligible in the same way as traditional school districts, with poverty levels determined in the same manner as under Title I, Part A.

In the first year of the program, states would be identified as high top 25 percent , medium middle 50 percent , and low bottom 25 percent wealth, as measured by GSP per capita. States would also be identified as high, medium, and low effort based on total state and local direct education expenditure as a proportion of GSP. State and district eligibility in future years would be based on these same high, medium, and low thresholds for wealth and effort.

In other words, the high-wealth threshold would always be set at the wealth of the 75th percentile state in the first year of the program. State wealth and effort would then be calculated and compared with these thresholds annually, allowing for more districts to gain eligibility over time, either due to decreases in state wealth or increases in state effort.

Once determined to be eligible, a district would receive at least five years of funding, regardless of changes to state wealth and effort. In low-wealth states, all districts would be eligible for funding if the state has a high level of effort.

If the state has medium effort, districts in the three highest-poverty quartiles would be eligible. If the state has low effort, districts in the two highest-poverty quartiles would be eligible.

In medium-wealth states, the poorest 75 percent of districts would be eligible if the state has high effort. If the state has medium effort, districts in the two highest-poverty quartiles would be eligible. If the state has low effort, only districts in the highest-poverty quartile would be eligible.

In high-wealth states, the poorest 50 percent of districts would be eligible if the state has high effort. If the state has medium or low effort, only districts in the highest-poverty quartile would be eligible. Once a district is determined to be eligible, it would receive five years of funding regardless of changes in state wealth or effort. To receive another five years of funding, each district must demonstrate, by the end of the first five years, that its high-poverty schools receive at least as much state and local funding per pupil as its low-poverty schools.

In order to receive funding under the proposed program, districts would be required to conduct and make public an analysis of gaps in opportunity and outcomes by race, family income, disability, and home language to determine root causes and potential solutions for closing those gaps.

Districts would be permitted to use funds for activities designed to improve student outcomes and resource equity based on this analysis. Uses of funds must be tied directly to this analysis and must support the student groups facing gaps in opportunity and outcomes.

Funding from the program can be used for capital expenditures if, during the process of identifying key indicators described below, districts find critical physical or digital school infrastructure gaps that impede the ability of students and educators to learn or teach safely and effectively. In determining the resource equity indicators, districts must identify the key resources that are needed for all students in the district to have a high-quality school.

These resource equity indicators could include measures such as high-quality and experienced educators; well-rounded education; low class sizes; health and wellness programs; and support staff.

Once key indicators of student outcomes and resource equity are decided, districts must consult with community members to set annual progress targets for these indicators over a year period. Districts must publicly report the results of the consultation with community members and the final indicators and targets, as well as annual progress toward the targets.

Districts would also be required to measure and report their progress in meeting the goal of every school having the key resources identified as necessary by the community. After the fifth year of the program, if the district has not met its outcome and resource equity targets, the state would be required to direct spending of the federal funding for the remaining years, potentially with the assistance of a nonprofit support organization.

The authors asked focus group participants in Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi about how and on what initiatives they would spend additional federal education funding, and they had many answers in common. Furthermore, teachers, students, and parents recognized the need for greater, more consistent professional development for educators, especially to keep up with an evolving workforce landscape and to be competent in using culturally responsive pedagogy.

Additionally, teachers, parents, and students recognized the importance of higher teacher pay and expressed the need for some additional funding to go toward higher salaries, especially to help schools remain competitive as a desirable place for talented teachers. Another important priority noted was funding for wraparound services for students and educators, including school meals; basic school supplies such as pencils, notebooks, and backpacks; and even access to washers and dryers for students and their families.

In addition to meeting the physical needs of students and educators, each focus group emphasized the need for social, emotional, and mental health supports for students and for teachers.

The importance of these services delivered by individuals trained in culturally responsive practice and trauma-informed care was highlighted across states. The CTLR Mentor Fund is meant to support students who may need funding for nonpaid internships, a pplications for conferences, conference travel, and testing, such a s for special needs or for professional schools.

These limited funds, administered by the Dean of Students, are meant to support students in need in moments of emergency, such as the death of a family member. To assist undergraduate matriculated students in meeting short-term exceptional medical needs to support their ability to fully engage in their academic programs.

We normally require seven days to turn around these fund requests. Exceptions are made for emergencies! Please email Naomi Neff nneff middlebury. You will be notified of your approval via Handshake notifications. Watch for these notifications in your email or through the notification icon in Handshake. You may need to check your clutter and junk folders. We recognize we are asking for personal information in the application.

This helps us make appropriate decisions. All information will be kept confidential. Log in to your Handshake account at middlebury. Eligible applicants for the apprenticeship grants are public two-year institutions of higher education with at least one existing registered apprenticeship training program or an eligible institution establishing a new registered apprenticeship program.

An information webinar about the apprenticeship grant program will be held Thursday, Jan. GEER dollars, in turn, originate from the U. Work-based Learning Opportunity Grants are intended to provide essential emergency support to public higher education institutions as they respond to student needs and reinforce the vital connection between higher education and the workforce while strengthening their collaborative roles in economic development.

All inquiries and communication concerning the Work-based Learning Opportunity Grants and the RFA should be sent via email to workbasedlearning highered.