More local groups express concern with Republican ESEA proposals: Say that GOP Proposals Raid Funding for Poor and Minority Students

Last week, 7 additional local education groups including the American Association of School Administrators, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National School Boards Association sent a letter to Chairman Kline outlining problematic provisions with their draft bills.  A top point of concern for the groups is the elimination of the maintenance of effort provisions in current law that ensure all children have access to a quality education regardless of background or zip code.

Under current law, states and districts receiving Title I federal funds must maintain at least 90 percent of their education investments from the previous year.  Known as maintenance of effort (MOE), the goal is to prevent decreases in education investment by states and districts because of federal investments. Without this requirement, these local education groups said that they fear “a ‘race to the bottom’ in state and local support for public education, often under the guise of fiscal distress.”

Despite calls from these local education groups, the proposed GOP legislation eliminates maintenance of effort altogether. In a recent article in Ed Week, Kline spokeswoman, Alexandra Solberger, said:

“Republicans believe we must streamline and reduce the federal role in education,” said the spokeswoman, Alexandra Sollberger, in an e-mail. “Dictating state and local decisions, particularly those related to budgeting and spending of state and local resources, represents unnecessary federal overreach. ... The very premise of the maintenance-of-effort provision is flawed—it assumes higher levels of funding guarantees improved student learning, but we all know this concept has been disproven time and time again.”

In a letter to Chairman Kline, these 7 local education organizations expressed their reservations about this proposal:

“Current MoE provisions provide the greatest protection to low-wealth districts that generally educate more low-income students. These low-income districts generally receive the majority share of their funding from the state, and if states are allowed to cut funding, the most vulnerable districts—those that teach the most vulnerable students—will be hurt disproportionately. Elimination of MoE would compound fiscal pressures at the local level, upending the driving principle behind Title I as federal dollars would be used to backfill holes in state and local support. We urge the committee to retain current law related to Maintenance of Effort.”

The Center for American Progress agrees and believes arguments for elimination of MOE “do not hold water.”

“This is a recipe for converting federal funds into state and local tax relief, or for converting funds meant for education into support for other government services.”

The New America Foundation has also expressed concerns.

“If the federal government doesn’t require states and localities hold up their end of education funding, it’s far less likely that they will use Title I funds to provide additional services for low income students – the core purpose of the federal funds.”

We all want greater state and local flexibility in education, but if there isn’t any education funding, there is no need for funding flexibility.

We cannot forget the most important historical civil rights issue of our time is our nation’s education policy. While we’ve come a long way, we cannot forget that our nation still has more work to do to ensure that all kids – regardless of zip code or income – have access to a good, quality education. We must make guaranteeing all students access to a world-class education our top priority.

Read the full letter to Chairman Kline here.

For additional information on ESEA reauthorization, including the Kline proposal, and other letters of opposition, click here.