The Arkansans most likely to be poor are younger than 5 years old. The poverty rate in this population is 32.6 percent, about one in three. When these poor children start school, they do so with limited resources and experiences that contribute to school success. They are at a distinct disadvantage compared to their higher-income peers. Without additional resources provided by their schools, they will never catch up.
To improve their chances, Arkansas created a funding program targeted to provide better opportunities just for these poor children. Now the purpose of that program is being questioned, and the Legislature has the chance to re-examine this issue in the fiscal session that begins Monday.
It was my honor to serve as chairman of the Senate Education Committee when the state developed a new school funding formula in response to the Supreme Court ruling in the Lake View case. I was present for those lunchtime and late-night sessions in which options were weighed.
What we created was special poverty funding, or as it’s more commonly known at the Capitol, NSLA Funding. The nickname comes from an acronym for the federal National School Lunch Act. Though eligibility for the federal program helps determine how much extra funding a school should receive, the money in question does not come from the federal government. It’s state money.
Our intention was always clear that this funding was to provide additional support to low-income students. But that hasn’t stopped the debate.
On one side, the superintendents’ organization, the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, suggests that this additional funding was intended as a resource for all students. Others, including the Arkansas Commissioner of Education, agree with me that the funding should be used for programs that benefit low-income and struggling students.
The evidence that the money was not intended for all students is written into the funding formula. We set it up with different types of funding. One was basic foundation funding necessary to teach all students. It’s for classroom teachers, library materials, technology, school district personnel, and the like. Currently that amount is $6,393 per student.
Because the Legislature acknowledged that some students had special needs above what the foundation amount would meet, we created additional funding streams. These categorical types were for students learning English and those in alternative learning environments, as well as the extra poverty funding. The latter currently ranges from $517 to $1,549 per low-income student, depending on the percentage of low-income students in a district.
Again, the amount of poverty funding is not based on the total number of students in the district, but the total number of low-income students.
Just as we shouldn’t spend money set aside for English language learners on athletics or school buses for all students, neither should we use poverty money for district-wide needs.
So how should it be spent? The Legislature can look to its own recent studies for the answer to that question.
Last year, Act 1467 required the Legislature to study (yet again) the best uses of this funding and for the Education committees to recommend a list of evidence-based programs that would make the best use of this funding. The report put together by the Bureau of Legislative Research lists quality after-school and summer programs, tutoring, and pre-kindergarten as programs that research shows are proven to reduce the achievement gap between low-income students and their higher-income peers. The report also lists resources such as high-quality teachers that are already provided for in foundation funding for every student.
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this. The Bureau detailed problems with the effectiveness of some districts’ spending of this money in 2012, and the University of Arkansas’ Office of Education Policy as well as Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families have come to similar conclusions. The bottom line of all these organizations-which don’t always agree on such things-is that spending this money in a piecemeal fashion won’t lead to the improvements in student achievement that we seek.
Limiting the uses of this funding will not cost the state anything. However, many school superintendents hope to maintain the current widespread list of eligible uses-policies that have resulted in little benefit to low-income students.
There are notable examples of school leaders who have resisted the trend to use the funding to fill budget gaps. The Clinton school district in north central Arkansas is one such example.
Understanding the importance of pre-kindergarten for low-income students, Clinton school leaders began using poverty funding in 2008 to support a master’s degree-level teacher and a teacher’s aide for an additional pre-kindergarten classroom. As a result of this investment, which helps low-income students begin school on par with others, Clinton continues to make achievement gains. In the 2011-2012 school year, 88 percent of third-graders were proficient or above on the Benchmark exam for literacy. If we had more school leaders like those in Clinton, we could enable children to reach their full potential and brighten the future of our state.
Those who urge that this funding become just another source of district revenue for all students suggest that a rising tide floats all boats. But as Rep. Randy Alexander (R-Springdale) recently pointed out, too many of the boats have leaks. And without the additional resources low-income students need, their boats aren’t going to rise.
Jim Argue Jr. is board chair of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, former president pro tempore of the Arkansas State Senate and chair of the Senate Education Committee.
Perspective, Pages 76 on 02/09/2014