The White House released a report that shows that school districts with large numbers of low-income students, including Los Angeles, Fresno and San Diego, stand to lose millions of dollars in federal funding under the House version of amendments to the nation’s education law.

The House amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would cut out $7 billion over six years in federal funding  known as Title 1, which goes to school districts based on their numbers of low-income students. California would lose $877 million in Title 1 funding, according to the report, released Friday.

Los Angeles Unified, for example, would lose $86 million in Title 1 funding, representing a 24 percent drop over the next six years, according to the report.

Other California districts that would lose Title 1 funds under the House bill (HR 5) include:

  • Fresno Unified, which would lose $4.9 million, a 10.7 percent drop;
  • San Diego City Unified, which now gets $41 million in Title 1 funds, would lose $4.1 million;
  • San Bernardino City Unified School District, which would lose $2.5 million;
  • Long Beach Unified, which would lose $2.1 million.

According to the report, education spending has dropped by $800 million since 2012, when it was cut during the height of the recession. The House bill would lock in the current price tag for education at its current rate until fiscal year 2021.

Share Article

Comments (12)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * *

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Dawn Urbanek 5 years ago5 years ago

    The White House Blog commented on this issue and the comment as well as this article is shameful. The blog comment states: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/13/school-districts-you-dont-see-map-tell-much-story-ones-you-do-see "The School Districts You Don't See on This Map Are as Telling as the Ones You Do See: Right now, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are advancing legislation (H.R. 5) that would cement recent education cuts — taking funding from the schools that need it most and giving it to some of … Read More

    The White House Blog commented on this issue and the comment as well as this article is shameful.

    The blog comment states: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/13/school-districts-you-dont-see-map-tell-much-story-ones-you-do-see

    “The School Districts You Don’t See on This Map Are as Telling as the Ones You Do See:

    Right now, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are advancing legislation (H.R. 5) that would cement recent education cuts — taking funding from the schools that need it most and giving it to some of the nation’s wealthiest districts.

    This approach is backwards, and our teachers and kids deserve better.

    Today, the President’s Domestic Policy Council released a report breaking down the harmful effects of that legislation, and underlining the fundamental importance of dedicated funding for low-income students. You can read that report here.

    Here are the top 100 school districts that would see their funding cut:

    And keep in mind what that funding could have gone toward: Hiring teachers, school nurses, counselors, or reading specialists. It could help pay for books and supplies — perhaps for a new curriculum. See what passage of the harmful cuts in H.R. 5 could mean to a district near you.

    Meanwhile, take a look at a few of the districts that would stand to gain:

    Loudon County Public Schools (Loudon County, VA) would see a funding increase of more than $1.7 million. Fewer than 4% of families there live below the poverty line.

    Meanwhile, Richmond City Public Schools would see their funding cut by more than $5 million. More than 35% of families there are living in poverty.

    Capistrano Unified School District (Orange County, CA) would receive more than $1.1 million in additional funds. Fewer than 9% of families there live below the poverty line.

    Meanwhile, the Fresno Unified School District would see their funding cut by more than $4 million. More than 46% of families there live in poverty.

    The Plano Independent School District (Plano, TX) would see their funding increase by more than $1.3 million. Fewer than 10% of families there live below the poverty line.

    And yet, the Dallas Independent School District would lose more than $13 million in funding. More than 36% of families there are living in poverty.

    If you think this is wrong, you’re in good company.
    Now, pass this on.”

    Well – I am a parent in Capistrano Unified and the truth is that CUSD is one of the most underfunded school districts in the United States at $7,002 per student. So I am personally troubled by the intentional deception of this article and the Statements coming from the White House. If you would really like the facts regarding CUSD:

    http://disclosurecusd.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-white-house-is-reporting-that.html

    Shame on both the Federal and State Government for using our Public Education System to redistribute wealth. I guess no one cares about the poor and ELL learners in CUSD – the ridicules LCFF law deprives EVERY student, irrespective of their personal wealth race or ethnicity of the basic education that EVERY child is entitled to under the Constitution (State and Federal)

  2. Gary Ravani 5 years ago5 years ago

    What we have here is a little example of the "shock doctrine" in action. The current majority is going to try and jump on the bandwagon of dissatisfaction with Duncan's policies and the general paranoia of their base about CCSS and use it to achieve their long term goals of dismantling government programs that go to support the disadvantaged and, it goes without saying, particularly minority disadvantaged students. There is bit of cognitive dissonance here, … Read More

    What we have here is a little example of the “shock doctrine” in action. The current majority is going to try and jump on the bandwagon of dissatisfaction with Duncan’s policies and the general paranoia of their base about CCSS and use it to achieve their long term goals of dismantling government programs that go to support the disadvantaged and, it goes without saying, particularly minority disadvantaged students.

    There is bit of cognitive dissonance here, as 1) Duncan’s policy prescriptions have been manipulative and are likely an overreach; but; 2) almost all of his policies have followed the narrow path of ideological prescriptions demanded by the self-styled reformers as the USDE seemed to be in the pocket of Gates and Ed Trust; and 3), as educationally stultifying and inappropriate as RTTT and SIG requirement may have been, they were no more so than anything done under NCLB enacted under the previous administration.

    Based on appearances this appears to be a Tea Party set of objectives that will be vetoed by the sitting President.

    Replies

    • don 5 years ago5 years ago

      Many of the changes called for in HR5 are identical to the ones Gary has suggested such as removing coercive policies like rttt and CCSS adoption, failed turnaround models, removal of AYP,etc.
      Now hw wants to associate such changes as particular to the Tea Party. Let’s see how far Gary will stoop when his interests coincide with his self-identified enemies.

      • Tom 5 years ago5 years ago

        Beware of what Gary has to say because he lacks objectiveness in his comments. He is a former President of a union group up in the Santa Rosa area per a simple google search. Bottom line, California education is worse off under the dominant union-backed legislature over the last couple of decades, and the State has been severely mismanaged and is not sustainable. California has already missed out on millions of federal … Read More

        Beware of what Gary has to say because he lacks objectiveness in his comments. He is a former President of a union group up in the Santa Rosa area per a simple google search. Bottom line, California education is worse off under the dominant union-backed legislature over the last couple of decades, and the State has been severely mismanaged and is not sustainable.

        California has already missed out on millions of federal dollars thanks to the refusal to tie student performance to teacher evaluations. Look it up for yourself since Edsource not making this point. The voters should reject more of the same irresponsible management.

  3. Don 5 years ago5 years ago

    Another stilted left wing portrayal by Ed Source of a comprehensive bill to reform ESEA with the Student Success Act. The focus of Ms, Udesky's article is on reduction of the total federal appropriation as it effects local districts and none of the other aspects of the bill are mentioned in a major omission of crucial information. This is pandering to big government proponents who see any kind of reduction in spending as antithetical to … Read More

    Another stilted left wing portrayal by Ed Source of a comprehensive bill to reform ESEA with the Student Success Act. The focus of Ms, Udesky’s article is on reduction of the total federal appropriation as it effects local districts and none of the other aspects of the bill are mentioned in a major omission of crucial information. This is pandering to big government proponents who see any kind of reduction in spending as antithetical to the federal takeover of education. The bill actually moves philosophically in the direction of LCFF bringing greater autonomy and control closer to students and teachers. .

    ://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398300

    Copied in part below

    Instead of working with Congress to fix a broken system, the Obama administration has taken unprecedented action to further expand the federal footprint in schools. Through the president’s waiver scheme and pet programs such as Race to the Top, the Secretary of Education has placed an even more convoluted maze of mandates and rules on states and school districts, limiting their ability to effectively serve their students.

    THE SOLUTION:

    Effective education reform cannot come from the top down – it must be encouraged from the bottom up. Washington bureaucrats will never have the same personal understanding of the diverse needs of students as the teachers, administrators, and parents who spend time with them every day. The Student Success Act (H.R. 5) reduces the federal footprint and places control back in the hands of parents and the state and local education leaders who know their children best.

    H.R. 5 – STUDENT SUCCESS ACT:
    •Eliminates more than 65 ineffective, duplicative, and unnecessary programs and replaces this maze of programs with a Local Academic Flexible Grant, providing states and school districts the flexibility they need to effectively and efficiently improve student learning.

    •Downsizes the federal education bureaucracy by requiring the Secretary of Education to identify the number of full-time employee positions associated with consolidated programs and reduce the department’s workforce by an equal number.

    •Repeals ineffective federal requirements governing accountability, teacher quality, and local spending that hamper innovation and hamstring the ability of states and school districts to address the unique needs of their students.

    •Returns responsibility for improving underperforming schools to states, parents, and local leaders by eliminating federally-prescribed school improvement and turnaround interventions.

    •Empowers parents and taxpayers with the meaningful information they need to hold their schools accountable, helping to ensure that every dollar spent makes a direct and lasting impact for students.

    •Protects state and local autonomy over decisions in the classroom by prohibiting the Secretary of Education from coercing states to adopt Common Core.

    •Prevents the Secretary of Education from creating additional burdens on states and school districts, particularly in the areas of standards, assessments, and accountability plans.

    •Reforms the regulatory process to provide the public with greater transparency and accountability over the development of new rules affecting K-12 schools.

    •Eliminates costly special interest projects by repealing earmarks that favor specific national organizations.

    Replies

    • Andrew 5 years ago5 years ago

      Very helpful perspective, Don.

    • navigio 5 years ago5 years ago

      Title I funding has pretty much been a free-for-all up to now. So it's incorrect to imply that these proposals somehow 'change' anything in favor of 'local control'. Furthermore, the story is about funding levels for title I specifically, not the republican esea bill in general. Its also important to note that title I is something independent of the rogue behavior of the DoE, which an early section of the bill specifically calls out as … Read More

      Title I funding has pretty much been a free-for-all up to now. So it’s incorrect to imply that these proposals somehow ‘change’ anything in favor of ‘local control’.
      Furthermore, the story is about funding levels for title I specifically, not the republican esea bill in general.
      Its also important to note that title I is something independent of the rogue behavior of the DoE, which an early section of the bill specifically calls out as its goal to eradicate (waivers and common core, specifically).
      Even then, the idea behind title I is not imposing school reform, it is about providing equal opportunity.
      Finally, this bill is about political power. The ideas being attacked are the same ones that drove nclb. The problem is not those ideas, rather who is implementing them.
      eliminates, downsizes, repeals, returns, empowers, protects, prevents, reforms, eliminates
      zzz…

      • Don 5 years ago5 years ago

        Navigio, I've no idea what you are implying when you say T1 has been a free-for-all or how that relates to your next sentence. The 'furthermore' is you swinging wildly. The article is about "federal funding under the House version of amendments to the nation’s education law". The authors says "The Elementary and Secondary Education Act would cut out $7 billion over six years and that. .."education spending has dropped by … Read More

        Navigio, I’ve no idea what you are implying when you say T1 has been a free-for-all or how that relates to your next sentence. The ‘furthermore’ is you swinging wildly. The article is about “federal funding under the House version of amendments to the nation’s education law”.

        The authors says “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act would cut out $7 billion over six years and that. ..”education spending has dropped by $800 million since 2012, when it was cut during the height of the recession. The House bill would lock in the current price tag for education at its current rate until fiscal year 2021.”

        On the surface it appears that the Obama cut ed spending while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the author wants to hold Republicans accountable . This kind of reminds me of Duncan doing nothing to fix NCLB while writing an article on how not to fix NCLB.

        Many of the provisions in HR5 are designed to curtail the excesses of federal power at the USDE and return more decision-making to states with categorical block grants, analogous with LCFF. As far as your contention that these amendments have nothing to do with local control — they are some significant revisions and were they to become law significant repercussions on local decision-making would result. I expect the governors to support these changes to ESEA. Obama will veto simply to avoid yielding the Republicans any advantage, political animal that he is.

        • navigio 5 years ago5 years ago

          The first sentence was a counter to the claim that there isnt already any ‘local control’ for title I funding.
          The second portion a counter to the claim that an article covering a White House analysis of the impact on title I funding of the proposed changes should also have outlined everything else in HR5. Ergo the use of ‘furthermore’.

    • Tom 5 years ago5 years ago

      Much thanks Don for taking the time to create such a detailed response to the issue. Too bad it takes so much effort to correct the mis-statements made by others.

      • Don 5 years ago5 years ago

        Tom, I can’ take credit for that. The detailed response is excerpts from the link I provided. There’s more info there as well.

        • Tom 5 years ago5 years ago

          Good job anyway, thanks Don.