Seattle School Board considering measure that could jeopardize Title I funding
/By Matt Halvorson
The Seattle School Board is considering a measure to weaken students’ standardized testing obligations, which could put the district’s federal Title I funding at risk.
The board may reportedly vote on the issue as soon as Wednesday, May 4, though the measure did not appear on the agenda as of Monday morning.
Title I gives supplemental funds to schools with at least 40 percent of students eligible for free or reduced lunch. Schools with greater than 40 percent eligibility are allowed to offer school-wide programs that serve all students.
Federal law requires at least 95 percent of students participate in state standardized tests for a district to be eligible for Title I. Loosening the mandatory status of state standardized tests puts the district at a marked risk of falling short of those numbers.
More than $14 billion is distributed each year through Title I, making it by far the largest source of federal funding for most schools and districts -- and a powerful leverage point. The federal government has limited ability to impact the school board’s decision-making other than by threatening to withhold Title I funds, which would be devastating to SPS as a whole, but would disproportionately impact the schools most in need of additional financial support.
Testing fewer than 95 percent of students doesn't automatically trigger the loss of funding, but the school district’s attorney and the deputy superintendent have shared with the board their belief that there is the potential for Title I funds to be taken away because Seattle Public Schools (SPS) has a track record of flouting such regulations in the past, and because the district is already in hot water due to disproportionate discipline and noncompliance with special education requirements. The board was told that the state and federal government may choose to make an example of SPS in order to discourage other districts from proceeding down this path.
The opt-out “movement,” for its part, is largely driven by teachers and their unions in seeming opposition to being judged based on student outcomes, though some also see opting out of inherently inequitable standardized tests as a stand for civil rights.
Those advocating for students of color to opt out of standardized tests argue that such tests are not authentic measures of student achievement. A self-assigned assessment task force in Seattle defined authentic assessments as “those that reflect actual student knowledge and learning, not just test-taking skills; are educational in and of themselves; are free of gender, class and racial bias; are differentiated to meet students’ needs; allow opportunities to go back and improve; and undergo regular evaluation and revision by educators.”
These would no doubt be better tests than the ones currently being given. The question is, given the existence of the actual test, whether it is better to abstain altogether than take a flawed test. Virtually all national civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, National Urban League, League of United Latin AmericanCitizens, SEARAC, and many others, oppose the opt-out movement — though many have not so much come out in support of standardized tests, but in opposition to what they view as a misguided anti-testing movement.
As part of the 2015 Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, for instance, 12 national civil/human rights groups issued a joint statement opposing anti-testing efforts, acknowledging that while the existing tests are imperfect, “we cannot fix what we cannot measure. And abolishing the tests or sabotaging the validity of their results only makes it harder to identify and fix the deep-seated problems in our schools.”
Regardless of your stance on skipping standardized tests, the Seattle School Board will consider this measure on Wednesday, putting Title I funding at risk. If community voices advocating in favor of opting out are far greater than those advocating for our low-income schools, it will be even more unlikely that the board vote protects Title I.
