In the weeks before the election last fall, Robert Gordon published for the Center for American Progress, where he worked at the time. The title鈥�"More Equity and Less Red Tape"鈥攁ptly summarizes what is a nuanced argument delving deeply into complicated rules governing how districts spend Title I money.
In the piece, Gordon argues that the federal government should abandon the 鈥渟upplement, not supplant鈥� rule and be more forceful about 鈥渃omparability.鈥� Under 鈥渟upplement, not supplant,鈥� schools are forced 鈥渢o prove what they would have done in the absence of federal funding,鈥� Gordon writes. That creates a web of red tape that doesn鈥檛 ensure districts equitably distribute resources, he said.
The 鈥渟upplement, not supplant鈥� rule wouldn鈥檛 be missed if Congress strengthened the 鈥渃omparability鈥� rules, he argues. The current rule requires districts to provide Title I schools with similar services to those at other schools. But 鈥渃omparability鈥� would be much more powerful if it required districts to ensure Title I schools receive the same resources as other schools, Gordon writes. The change would create complexities of its own鈥攑articularly in the accounting for teacher salaries鈥攂ut it would probably lead to an equitable distribution of money to schools serving low-income students, he concludes.
To deconstruct the title, beefing up 鈥渃omparability鈥� would produce 鈥渕ore equity鈥� while getting rid of 鈥渟upplement, not supplant鈥� would result in 鈥渓ess red tape.鈥�
I revisited the essay this week because it helps explain how state officials could divert stimulus money for Title I away from districts, as some to do. But this issue certainly will arise during NCLB reauthorization. And then Gordon will be able to do more than pontificate on it. He鈥檒l have the chance to sway federal policy in his new post as the person in charge of education issues at the White House鈥檚 Office of Management and Budget.
