Poverty funding not the answer for insurance gap 

Something has to be done to plug the immediate $58 million hole in funding for teacher health insurance and a long-term solution has to be found. But right now, there is no consensus on what to do. Some solutions have been proposed, one of which involves taking money from school poverty funding, more commonly known as "NSLA funding."

State NSLA funding is named after the federal National School Lunch Act program. It supplements the state's primary school funding formula, and it's given to school districts based on their on their percentage of low-income students. School districts receive extra funding for each low-income student (between $517 and $1,549 per student) depending on the percentage of their students that are considered poor.

The point is to give schools extra resources to help close the gap that exists between poorer students and their more affluent counterparts. It is a recognition, firmly established in education research, that low-income students often need greater supports if they are to succeed in school.

Using state NSLA dollars to plug the hole in funding for teacher health insurance is not a good solution. Some have claimed, mistakenly, that NSLA funding was never considered to be a long-term funding source for schools. These funds have been referenced in numerous adequacy reports and court documents since they were created in 2003 as part of the state's response to the 2002 Lakeview decision declaring the state's system of schools to be unconstitutional. But there is no clear evidence to suggest that it was meant to be a temporary source of funding for schools. The fact that NSLA funding has seen increases over the years seems to indicate the opposite.

Others float the idea of using NSLA funds to plug this gap because those dollars have not always been spent as effectively as they could have been to improve educational outcomes for struggling students. It would be easy to find agreement on that point, but it's still no reason to take those funds from our poor students. Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, along with other organizations, has noted that the potential effectiveness of NSLA funding has at times been undermined. At times, the funding was not adequately targeted and some districts did not spend enough of their NSLA funds on the most promising or proven strategies. That said, a more reasonable response might be to make the program better, either by more careful targeting of how the funds are spent, improved evaluation and reporting, or, in the case of poor-performing schools that are not spending the funding well, greater state oversight on their use.

Let's look at a few reasons not to use NSLA funds to shore up teacher health insurance. First, using the funds for this purpose would be inconsistent with both the intent and letter of the NSLA funding law, which is to give poorer districts the additional resources to implement strategies that improve educational outcomes for low-income students. Taking more of those funds away will not further that cause.

Diverting NSLA funding could potentially undermine the state's compliance with the Lakeview court decision concerning funding adequacy, especially if NSLA funds were to disappear or if they were significantly reduced. Inevitably, someone would try to make the case that the needs of our low-income students were being undermined and land the state back in court.

We must recognize that while low-income students have made promising educational gains over the years, they still face significant gaps both in the quality of their learning opportunities and in their academic achievement relative to their peers. Taking NSLA money away would only undermine this effort and the gains we have made.

Using NSLA funds for teacher health insurance would send the wrong message to students and families in this state. We'd essentially be saying, "We can't find a more politically acceptable way to come up with the money, so we're going to take it away from you."

Yes, we must shore up health insurance for our teachers, it's critical to ensuring a well-trained workforce for our education system and our kids. But surely we can find a better way than this.


From the ArkTimes store

Comments (2)

Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

More by Rich Huddleston

  • What will a Trump administration mean for Arkansas's children and families?

    Trump doesn't have the political/policy track record that most candidates have when they become president, so the best we can do is make educated guesses based on his campaign promises and the priorities the Republican-controlled Congress will likely push with the new administration.
    • Nov 17, 2016
  • What it's going to take to improve Arkansas

    If Arkansas lawmakers don't start making decisions based on what's best for the future of the state's children, then that future won't be very bright. If the decisions our officials make continue to favor the wealthy of today rather than the workforce of tomorrow, Arkansas will continue to fall near the bottom when it comes to third-grade reading, graduation rates, college attendance and other indicators that, when good, make Arkansas a better place to build businesses, families and lives.
    • Apr 17, 2014
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Schlafly's influence

    Phyllis Schlafly, mother, attorney and longtime antifeminist, died recently. What Schlafly promoted was not novel or new. Men had been saying that men and women were not equal for years. However, anti-feminism, anti-women language had much more power coming from a woman who professed to be looking out for the good of all women and families.
    • Sep 15, 2016
  • Seven

    The controversy over the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol lawn just won't go away.
    • Feb 9, 2017
  • Why a change of leadership at the LRSD now?

    Johnny Key's abrupt, unilateral decision to not renew Baker Kurrus' contract as superintendent strikes us as shortsighted, misguided and detrimental to the education of our children and the health of our community.
    • Apr 21, 2016

Most Shared

Latest in Guest Writer

  • Can't afford to gut ACA

    The Affordable Care Act was passed into law with the promise that it would make insurance affordable. Because of bipartisan leadership in Arkansas, we continue to strive to achieve that goal. While rhetoric abounds, it is important to understand the Arkansas experience.
    • Sep 21, 2017
  • Tipping point

    I was extremely cautious before engaging in the educational debate about the State Board of Education's decision to take over the Little Rock School District.
    • Sep 14, 2017
  • Left behind

    Arkansas is getting a lot of attention for our very low unemployment rate. If you look only at that number (3.4 percent), you would think workers here were doing quite well — better than surrounding states and even the nation as a whole. But that seemingly simple rate can hide some huge gaps in prosperity.
    • Sep 7, 2017
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31  

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: The casting couch

    • sigh............ I would argue that the idea of 'freedom from fear' is part of the…

    • on October 19, 2017
  • Re: Caution: government at work

    • As to the AR Chamber of Commerce-DO NOT FORGET it supports passage of SJR8, which…

    • on October 19, 2017
  • Re: The casting couch

    • Freedom from fear is a human right.

    • on October 19, 2017

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation