Title Funding and the War on Poverty

This edition of MathTrack’s newsletter aims to uncover the deep and historical nature of Title funding and its utility for solving the current crisis schools are facing in their teacher talent pipeline. For time and initial exposure, this post covers Title I and Title II school funding.

First, it is helpful to understand the historical context within which landmark legislation was enacted. The post-World War II economic slowdown led to economic challenges in the US. The reported poverty level in the US at that time placed 22% of our population at or below the poverty level. That is double the poverty rate (11.4%) of today. Poverty was especially prevalent among specific demographics, including African Americans, elderly individuals, and families living in rural areas. This economic and social disparity led President Johnson to announce during his State of the Union address in 1964 the “War on Poverty.” As it was titled, this war came with landmark policy and legislation that sought to create a "Great Society" with opportunities for all citizens, particularly the disadvantaged, a society we still strive to achieve today.

Alongside the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid and the expansion of the federal food assistance program, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was also passed. With its comprehensive approach, this act was the first federal education law to provide funding aimed to close the educational achievement gap and ensure that all children had access to a high-quality education. "Title funds," as they became known, refer to the sections or titles structured into different parts within ESEA, each addressing specific educational needs and policy areas. These parts were labeled with titles to organize the legislation into manageable and clearly defined sections.

Title I – Financial Assistance to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the largest federally funded education program. Its primary aim is to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with a high number or high percentage of children from low-income families. This funding was designed to ensure that all children, regardless of their economic background, have the means to meet challenging state academic standards, thereby addressing educational disparities. Here are the last three fiscal years budgets:

• Fiscal Year 2021: Approximately $16.5 billion allocated.
• Fiscal Year 2022: Approximately $17.5 billion allocated.
• Fiscal Year 2023: Approximately $18.3 billion allocated.

Since Title I funds are distributed in formulaic ways, it is not appropriate to take the number of students in the US that are Title I eligible (~25M) and divide it by the total allocated funds to get an idea of the per-student funding. Digging deeper into the data, in Indiana, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) received $231,950,846.98 in federal Title I funds with approximately 336,000 students eligible for funding, where per-student allocations based on the formula range from $600 to $1000s per student. The focus for Title I funding is on programming that impacts these areas for students who are “Title eligible” or students experiencing poverty:

• Instructional Support: Hiring additional teachers and instructional aides.
• Professional Development: Training for teachers and staff to improve instructional quality.
• Extended Learning Programs: Funding for after-school, summer, and extended-day programs.
• Parental Involvement: Activities and programs that encourage parental engagement in their children's education.
• School-wide Programs: Funds can be used for comprehensive school-wide improvements in schools where at least 40% of students are from low-income families.

I am sure you are starting to see the “war on poverty” and what these legislative acts attempt to provide. If you think of the total investment, since President Johnson’s State of the Union address in 1965, we are getting close to $500B, or if you like numbers the way I do, $500,000 millions. That is an expensive war! It is not even decimal dust to what the US has spent in the same timeframe on military wars (US Federal Budget | Costs of War, n.d.), but it shows the federal government is consistent and serious with its efforts. Specifically, Title I grants offer tactics or subgrants to direct funding:

• Basic Grants: Allocated to LEAs with at least ten children from low-income families exceeding 2% of the school-age population.
• Concentration Grants: Provided to LEAs with over 6,500 children from low-income families or where these children exceed 15% of the total school-age population.
• Targeted Assistance Grants: These grants use weighted counts of eligible children to allocate more funds to districts with higher numbers or percentages of low-income students.
• Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG): Distributed based on state effort and equity in education funding, considering the state's average per-pupil expenditure.

Title II: Support for Teacher Quality and Professional Development

Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) focuses on improving teacher and principal quality through professional development, recruitment, and retention programs. It aims to ensure that all students have access to highly qualified educators. Almost all education-related research from the last 25 years agrees that this is vital in all disciplines, especially STEM and mathematics (Burroughs et al., 2019; Depaepe et al., 2020; Hill et al., 2021). The last three fiscal years budgets for this Title funding are as follows:

• Fiscal Year 2021: Approximately $2.14 billion allocated.
• Fiscal Year 2022: Approximately $2.17 billion allocated.
• Fiscal Year 2023: Approximately $2.19 billion allocated.

Title II distributions are formulaic, with funds allocated in predictable and precise ways. Roughly 20% of the funds designated for Title II grants are assigned based on the relative number of students that live within the geographic boundary of the Local Education Agency (LEA). The remaining 80% of the funds are distributed based on the number of students from low-income families (as measured by the poverty line). Digging deeper into the data, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) received approximately $40M in the last reported year. It distributed $34,410,056.94 in federal Title II funds to approximately 385 schools and districts. The focus for Title II funding is on programming that impacts these areas:

• Professional Development: A significant portion of Title II funds is used for ongoing professional development for teachers and principals. This includes workshops, conferences, coaching, and other forms of professional learning to improve instructional practices.
• Class Size Reduction: A portion of Title II funds was explicitly allocated to reduce class sizes by hiring additional teachers. This approach aimed to provide more individualized instruction and improve student outcomes.
• Recruitment and Retention: Funds are used for initiatives to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and principals. This includes signing bonuses, merit pay, loan forgiveness programs, and support for teacher preparation programs.

These mixtures of funding are part of the “funding matrix” from which schools operate. Complete funding breakdowns are different in every state, but they typically come to the following proportions:

• Approximately 10% of budgets come from federal funds, such as the title funding described above.
• 40-50% come from State funds, which is the State per-student contribution to the school based on the number of students served. This contribution also changes with the district's needs in relation to students experiencing poverty, special education students, and English language learners.
• 40-50% come from Local funds, which are usually calculated based on property taxes and contribute to general funds and debt service of the school or district.

How Can Federal Title Funds Solve Local Teacher Shortages in Mathematics?

Many agree that teacher talent is the single most influential school factor in student achievement in our schools (Aaronson et al., 2007; Chetty et al., 2014; Kane & Staiger, 2008). Then, one key to the “war on poverty” is ensuring that every school has high-quality, effective, and knowledgeable teachers in every classroom with consistency. The little talked about issue is that the geographic areas that receive the most Title funding, which serve the most students experiencing poverty, also have another thing in common. They are the districts that educators leave for other higher-paying or more stable districts. This means that the most Title funded schools have the least ability to recruit and the highest likelihood of having their talent recruited away. No war on poverty can be won without understanding this. It should be understood that top-down policies will not change the talent migration issue. They will not ultimately prevent talented teachers from choosing what might be best for them, their families, and their careers. Some of you reading this may empathize with exactly how this feels.

As we have shared, Title I and Title II funds historically supported schools facing teacher shortages and high turnover rates. Title funds allow for targeted interventions to attract and retain qualified teachers. These funds attempt to offer competitive salaries, reduce class sizes, and provide additional instructional resources. Title also supports professional development programs that equip teachers with the skills needed to meet the diverse needs of their students. These treat the symptoms rather than the root cause of a school’s educator talent shortages. The root cause is which talent will solve the shortage crisis and ensure children get access to high-quality educators. We believe this talent is already in your school or local community. From current students to community members, the teacher profession offers a real upgrade to their career trajectory. Which means the incentives are aligned for consistency. With this in mind, the lingering question is how Title funding can be used to set local strategy rather than reactive triage for solving mathematics teacher shortages.

When considering this talent, the first step is recognizing that credentialing and training to become a high-quality educator occur not before employment but during employment. Removing the line in job descriptions requiring active licensure can fundamentally change the amount of applicants received. We position that this is no riskier than the current way of hiring, as many teachers coming out of traditional education preparation programs with a license often lack practical teaching experience (Darling-Hammond, 2012). However, training and ongoing support during employment means Title funding can be applied towards these expenses. It also opens up a relationship between a training partner, school employer, and newly employed teacher who, by the nature of their training and work, join multiple layers of support and mentorship. For example, MathTrack Institute's talent development platform can be paid for with title funds post-hiring and ensures that no matter the needs of the new hire, they can be met timely and cost-effectively. Timing allows for the alignment of support and affordability while increasing the probability of retention and consistency. Timing is everything.

We urge schools and districts to reach out if they want to discuss this strategy with our team MathTrack Institute. Make no mistake, the war on poverty for President Johnson's Great Society is very much ongoing. Like all wars, the change in terrain requires a change in strategies. With slight tweaks, the promise of Title funds to provide equitable access for children to great educators becomes much more straightforward.