The House passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 235 to 189 on February 19, in an effort to cut $61 billion from programs, including education. H.R. 1 would reduce funding for more than 70 education programs by more than 16 percent, or $11.6 billion. The bill would reduce funding for Title I grants for disadvantaged students by $694 million, cut $337 million from Title I School Improvement Grants, and impose a $500 million cut to Teacher Quality State Grants.To translates some of the inside baseball here: Worcester gets nearly $25 million in federal grants each year. About half of that is Title I funds ($13+ million), which are directly tied to the poverty rate of schools. Title I pays for teachers and IA's, so a cut to Title I is a cut to Worcester's teaching staff (should such a cut get through; this passed the House), and, please note, a cut to the teacher staff at the higher poverty schools (which the administration would then have to rebalance).
...Other programs that would be affected by the funding cuts include statewide data systems ($70.7 million), school counseling ($55 million), education technology state grants ($100 million), and the high school graduation initiative ($50 million). In addition, H.R. 1 includes a proposed cut of $1.1 billion to Head Start and multiple cuts to programs that help support school-based health centers.
As we have yet to receive actual grant funds for either Union Hill or Chandler Elementary (we've gotten transition funds), I don't know (but it's worth asking) whether a cut to the School Improvement Grants would cut the funds avaliable to the states. The cut to SIG was a trade for not cutting special ed money.
We also get school counseling funds, so that is a cut in guidance.
And Head Start is run entirely with federal funds. A cut here is not a cut in the school budget; it is a cut directly to services for those kids.
All of which is to say: keep your eyes on the Senate. And remember: this is THIS YEAR'S MONEY.
5 comments:
Hopefully the cuts will not be as bad as the year the USDOE recalculated census numbers and the WPS made a top 10 list. WPS was designated as one of the top 10 Title I fund losers (when using percentages of grants that were cut).
Smart people would compare the House Budget to the President's Budget. The President offered his minimum position and not as far as he's actually willing to go. The House likely offerred the maximum. There is the middle distance and they'll negotiate. On items that they both agreed to cuts it's just a matter of setting a dollar amount. They will close the gap. The Senate is their battle ground.
Jim, yes, and the Senate has a Democratic majority, besides. I'm just wondering when they're going to be able to get ANYthing through!
Agreed, Joan!
if a cut to title 1 results in
a cut to the teacher staff at the higher poverty schools (which the administration would then have to rebalance).
would an increase in Title 1 result in pulling city and state money away from higher poverty schools to be spent elsewhere?
T, no. Title I is very specific that you have to be supplementing (not supplanting) services to that school. In other words, Title I must in some way be paying for ADDITIONAL services to schools that receive those funds.
Post a Comment