Federal funding for educator quality helped a small district outside Boston cut down class sizes for beginning teachers. A cadre of Delaware districts used it to help teachers better personalize instruction for students. And the school district in El Paso, Texas, which is always on the lookout for teachers with expertise in working with English-language learners, has used some of the money for recruitment.
Those activities鈥攁nd thousands of educators鈥� jobs鈥攃ould be in jeopardy if Congress takes President Donald Trump up on his proposal to get rid of the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grant program, better known to school districts as Title II, after the portion of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that governs it.
Eliminating the $2.3 billion program could hamper implementation of the law鈥檚 newest version, the Every Student Succeeds Act. It also could lead to teacher layoffs and make it tougher for educators to reach English-learners and other special populations and to make the most of technology in their classrooms, educators and advocates say.
The Trump administration proposes scrapping the third-largest federal K-12 program, the $2.3 billion Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, or Title II. Here鈥檚 how those grants were distributed in the 2015-16 school year.
Source: U.S. Department of Education
The proposed cut is the largest鈥攁nd arguably, the most consequential鈥攖he new president pitched for the U.S. Department of Education in his fiscal 2018 budget request, unveiled earlier this month. Overall, the administration wants to slash spending at the department by $9 billion, or 13 percent of its current, nearly $70 billion budget. The plan would cover the budget year that begins Oct. 1 and generally affects the 2018-19 school year.
The administration has also proposed cutting Title II in half for the current federal fiscal year, according to reports. If that cut goes through, districts would feel the squeeze when classes begin this fall.
The Trump administration doesn鈥檛 see Title II as effective. The funds are 鈥減oorly targeted and spread thinly across thousands of districts with scant evidence of impact,鈥� according to White House budget documents.
But educators feel differently. Title II, some agree, may need some tweaking. But it pays for programs that help teachers hone their practice.
鈥淚f you鈥檙e cutting Title II, you鈥檙e telling me one of two things,鈥� said Kevin Cormier, who teaches 7th and 8th grade math at Nissitissit Middle School in central Massachusetts. 鈥淥ne, we鈥檙e perfect and we can鈥檛 develop anymore, or two, we suck and we can鈥檛 be helped.鈥�
There may be room for improving Title II, Cormier said, but it also finances valuable work, including an initiative in his district aimed at getting teachers more comfortable with collecting data and analyzing it to improve their practice.
For the Frisco Independent school district near Dallas, which is constantly hiring to keep pace with its ballooning enrollment,
Title II funds are a lifeline for providing professional development to teachers, principals, and other administrative staff members.
The district, whose enrollment shot up from 7,234 students in 2000 to a projected 58,253 this year thanks to a business boom, is planning eight new schools over the next few years, said Manuel Gonzales, the federal programs coordinator.
鈥淲e are hiring new principals, new assistant principals, and a large number of new teachers every year because we are growing so rapidly and opening up new schools,鈥� Gonzales said. 鈥淲ith that, there is a significant need to provide professional development for administrators and teachers on best practices in the field鈥攅verything from how do they collaborate, how to use data effectively, how to create common formative assessments, how to analyze student work and refine their instruction to improve student learning.鈥�
And the federal cuts would come on top of reductions to state funding, he added.
鈥淚f we lose this from the federal government, that鈥檚 going to impact us doubly,鈥� Gonzales said.
Effectiveness Questioned
The Trump administration isn鈥檛 the first to question Title II, which represents the third-largest pot of money for K-12 in the department.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told Education Week back in 2009 that the program鈥攖hen funded at $3 billion鈥攄idn鈥檛 seem to be getting much mileage for the dollar. 鈥淎nyone who鈥檇 argue you鈥檙e getting great value for that $3 billion, I鈥檇 love to see that analysis,鈥� he said.
The Obama administration sought tweaks to the program, including making a small portion of it competitive, rather than having the money flow through a formula, but didn鈥檛 seek to scrap Title II.
Research on the two main activities districts use their Title II dollars on鈥攃lass-size reduction, which uses a quarter of the funds, and professional development, which accounts for another half鈥攐ffer a mixed picture.
Numerous studies have questioned the impact of professional development on student achievement, said Chad Aldeman, a principal at Bellwether Education Partners who served in the Education Department during the Obama administration.
Professional development can help boost teacher confidence and improve their content knowledge, but there isn鈥檛 a ton of evidence that those benefits translate into student achievement gains, he said.
But Deborah S. Delisle, the executive director of ASCD, an educational leadership organization, said that gains in student outcomes are only one piece of the puzzle. Professional development helps teachers stay on top of their craft, she said.
鈥淎ttempting to define the success of professional development through the single measure of student achievement is flawed logic,鈥� Delisle said in an email. 鈥淚 wouldn鈥檛 trust a doctor who was not continually reading the latest in medical research, and likewise, we can鈥檛 pretend that educators don鈥檛 need continuous learning opportunities that will help them become more effective in their schools.鈥�
Impact on ESSA Plans
Meanwhile, some studies of class-size reduction, another use of Title II funds, have shown some positive results, while others are inconclusive or don鈥檛 show much impact. Class-size reduction seems to have the biggest bang for the buck when it鈥檚 done on a large scale, slashing class size by seven or 10 students, and in the earliest grades.
Getting rid of Title II could make the teacher quality portion of states鈥� ESSA plans more difficult to implement. Those plans are due to be sent to the department beginning in early April.
Pedro Rivera, the state chief in Pennsylvania, said his state considered both teacher preparation and educator effectiveness in writing its plan, which proposes moving to a full-year internship for beginning teachers and bolstering the state鈥檚 superintendent and principal academies, he said.
鈥淣ow some of the funding we were going [to use] is ... in jeopardy of going away,鈥� Rivera said. In fact, just days before releasing a budget that would get rid of Title II, the Trump administration put out a template for states to use in crafting their ESSA plans that asks, specifically, how states are planning to use Title II dollars to implement the law.
It鈥檚 unclear if Congress will take Trump up on the cut.
Aldeman, for one, noted that the money goes out to almost every congressional district. 鈥淭here鈥檚 lots of people affected,鈥� he said. 鈥淎lmost every congressman has people who would be laid off because of this proposed budget cut.鈥�
