Last week, the joint legislative education committee met to make spending recommendations in education. The committee made a few recommendations that involved more spending. They suggested putting more money towards technology, substitute teachers, and English language learners (ELL). Alternative learning environments (for students with academic or behavioral challenges) would also see more funding. But, they did not recommend any changes in school poverty funding – for a fourth year in a row.  Yikes.

The state calls this funding source NSLA, after the National School Lunch Act. Districts use the number of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunches to set the NSLA funding level for that district. NSLA funds should be used to support low-income students. Good uses of NSLA funds are reading and math specialists, tutors, school nurses, pre-k education, and after-school programs.  These are all things that help low-income students close the achievement gap and catch up to their peers. But there are two challenges impact the effectiveness of NSLA funding in schools.

First, NSLA funds have been flat for two years and our lawmakers have suggested keeping it flat another two years. The cost of serving low-income students has increased, but funding per student has remained the same. This is important because NSLA funds should target the needs of our poorest children.

Second, school districts have too much flexibility on how they can spend their NSLA dollars. Experts have studied NSLA funding for a while. The research shows that too much flexibility can actually be bad. It spreads resources too thing, to the point where it no longer helps low-income students.

Many districts don’t focus their NSLA money on low-income students. They spend it on other programs that are not aimed at closing the achievement gap. The Office of Education Policy says that’s why it’s difficult to understand how poverty funding impacts student achievement. Because of the law’s loose requirements, districts can continue spending NSLA dollars this way. Legislators agree that the funding isn’t being used the way it should, but they haven’t made any recommendations on how to make those needed changes. Last session, they talked about “studying it” and now continue to recommend further study.

To tackle these issues, AACF recommends two things:

• Narrow the list of allowable spending with NSLA funds. This would make sure schools spend the money on proven strategies. After-school programs, student health, and pre-k programs all raise achievement levels for low-income children.
• Give the money as grants to address specific needs of low-income students. This would be more effective than giving the money straight to school districts.

Taking these steps would ensure that we are making the best decisions in our spending that help low income students.