Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
APRIL 14, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
2613 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY BY
MICHAEL
CASSERLY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS
BEFORE
THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
SUBJECT -
TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
ACT
BODY:
Good afternoon, my name is Michael
Casserly. I am the Executive Director of the Council of the Great City Schools.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee concerning Title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The Council is a coalition
of 54 of the nation's largest urban public school systems. Our Board of
Directors is composed of the Superintendent of Schools and one School Board
member from each city, making the Council the only national organization
comprised of both governing and administering personnel and the only one whose
sole mission and purpose is urban.
Our member urban school systems educate
over 6.5 million students or about 13.5% of the nation's k-12 public school
student enrollment. Some 63% of our students are eligible for a free or reduced
price lunch; 21% are English Language Learners; and about 12% are students with
special needs. Approximately 80% of our students are African American, Hispanic
or Asian American. In addition to my statement, I have provided to the Committee
a copy of the Council's recommendations for reauthorizing the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and a copy of our recent report, Reform and Results: An
Analysis of Title I in the Great City Schools, 1994-95 to 1997-98. I would ask
that they be included in the hearing record.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to
focus my brief remarks this afternoon to discussing what the Council has learned
about the implementation of the 1994 Amendments. We have met repeatedly with our
Title I Directors (who operate the largest Title I programs in the nation), our
Superintendents and School Board members; and we have conducted a detailed
survey of program activities and results in the nation's Great City Schools.
A. Reform and Results
I am pleased to report that the indicators of
progress in our cities look hopeful and encouraging. They are also consistent
with data from other studies showing upward trend lines in urban student
achievement.
We trust that the Committee will find our report on Title I
particularly helpful, although there are substantial limitations to the data. We
do not consider this analysis to be a full-fledged evaluation of the program,
nor is it a comprehensive examination of every aspect of the 1994 legislation.
It is intended, instead, to be a preliminary status report--in the absence of
data other than NAEP scores on high poverty schools -- on how the last
reauthorization affected services and achievement in the nation's major cities.
Some highlights of the report's findings: 1- Accelerated Achievement. We
collected Title I test score data for two and three year periods on both
norm-referenced and criterion referenced assessments for grades 4 and 8. Results
were analyzed by examining the numbers and percentages of Title I students in
urban schools scoring at or above both the 25th and 50th percentiles (in the
case of norm-referenced exams) and the numbers and percentages of Title I
students attaining a passing mark (in the case of criterion-referenced tests).
The trends were particularly heartening, as 21 of 24 responding districts posted
Title I reading gains and 20 of 24 districts showed math gains- Improvements
were particularly strong in 4th grade reading.
- The percentage of Title I
4th grade students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25 percentile in
reading increased from 41.1% in 1994-95 to 55-5% in 1996-97 to 57.6% in 1997-98
(Conversely, the percentage of Title I students below the 25th percentile
declined from 58.9% to 44-5% to 42.4%).
- The percentage of Title I 8th
grade students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25th percentile in
reading increased from 40.8% 1994-95 to 51-1% in 1996-97 to 56-3% in 1997-98. -
The percentage of Title 1 4th grade students in urban schools scoring at or
above the 25th percentile in math increased from 49-2% in 1994-95 to 54-7% in
1996-97 to 58-5% in 1997-98.
- The percentage of Title I 8th grade students
in urban schools scoring at or above the 25 percentile in math increased from
43.4% in 1994-95 to 55-7% in 1996-97, before decreasing slightly to 54-4% in
1997-98.
These results should be considered cautiously, as they represent
counts of students--not test scores--aggregated across several different
standardized tests-2. Standards Based Reforms. To get these results, urban
schools have been implementing higher academic standards for Title I and
non-Title I students alike. Despite the focus on state standards development,
most cities have not waited for them to be completed. Urban school districts
have actively embraced the standards movement on their own, helping to boost
results for Title I students.
- Some 94% of all major urban school systems
now report having content standards in reading at the elementary and middle
school levels.
- Some 78% report having performance standards in reading at
the elementary and middle schools.
- Over 90% of urban school districts
report having content standards in math for their elementary and middle school
students.
- About 75% report having performance standards in math for their
elementary and middle school students.
3. Reaching More Needy Students. The
1994 Amendments to Title I profoundly altered the numbers of schools and
students served by Title I in the Great City Schools between the 1994-95 school
year and 1997- 98.
- The number of urban school students receiving service
from Title I increased by about 71% (1,250,612 to 2,138,358).
- The
percentage of all urban school students receiving service from Title I jumped
from about 31% to 51%.
- The number of urban schools participating in Title
I grew by about 18% (3,064 to 3,618).
- The number of urban schools that
participated in Title I on a schoolwide basis more than doubled (976 to 2,379).-
The number of private school students receiving service from Title I in the
major cities increased by about 14% (75,321 to 86,014).
- The number of
private schools in major cities served by Title I increased by nearly 7% (838 to
896). These promising results are consistent with other studies and indicators
of progress in urban schools:
- NAEP data indicate that African American,
Hispanic, central city, and poor students have made gains in reading and math
since 1994 that are consistent with the results from our Reform and Results
study.
It is very possible, in fact, that major urban school systems are
driving the improving NAEP scores for these students.
- ACT scores collected
by the Council of the Great City Schools and ACT, Inc., show slight gains for
urban school students between the Spring, 1997 and 1998 testing, despite
national scores that remain constant. Increases are posted across all urban
student racial groups, except for Mexican Americans.
- The Final Report of
the National Assessment of Title I, Promising Results, Continuing Challenges,
indicates that ten of thirteen major urban school systems examined showed
increased Title I achievement scores since 1994-95.
B. Successful Title I
Strategies
Urban schools have been pursuing a number of strategies with
Title I funds to boost achievement, including reducing class size, improving
planning, implementing research-based reforms, providing professional
development, conducting after-school and summer programs, and improving parent
involvement.
- About 65% of the Great City Schools report that reducing
class sizes with Title I funding is one of their most successful strategies for
improving achievement.
- Some 50% report that using research-based reform
models and improving planning in schools with chronically poor achieving schools
has been among their best Title I strategies.
- About 45% report that their
most successful strategies for boosting Title I performance has involved
improving professional development, boosting parental involvement, and providing
extensive after-school programming.
- Over a third credit the use of higher
academic standards in boosting their Title I scores.
- Less than 13% rate
state interventions as an effective strategy for improving urban Title I
achievement.
The Title I program in Fort Worth (TX) is a good illustration
of what is occurring in many major city school systems across the country. It is
a turn-around that started with a "get tough" school superintendent, Tom Tocco,
and his refusal to accept the poor performance that the Title I program had been
yielding. Fort Worth has strengthened its early-elementary school reading
program, including using Title I funds for pre-k programs, recruited teachers,
improved discipline, and implemented special efforts for English Language
Learners and students with disabilities.
The result in Fort Worth was that
the percentage of the district's 4th grade students passing the
criterion-referenced TAAS reading exam improved from 36.6% in 1994-95 to 58.7%
in 1996-97 to 73.3% in 1997- 98. In addition, the achievement gap between
students of various racial groups has narrowed appreciably. "Title I funds, used
appropriately, can have a significant and positive impact on student
achievement," claims Superintendent Tocco. "This has clearly been the case in
Fort Worth".
The story is similar in Philadelphia, one of the pioneers in
the use of schoolwide projects. The Philadelphia Schools have strengthened its
accountability measures, raised standards for all students, implemented a number
of proven school reform models, and reduced the size of schools. The result was
that the percentage of Title I 4th grade students scoring in the lowest quartile
(i.e., below the 25th percentile) in reading on the Stanford-9 declined from
71.0% in 1994- 95 to 52.0% in 1996-97 to 47.3% in 1997-98.
Progress at
Philadelphia's John Marshall Elementary School is an example of what can happen
with Title I funds. School Principal Stanley Szymendera has combined schoolwide
funds from Title I with foundation support to strengthen their early literacy
program, making Marshall the second most improved school in the city. Says
Szymendera, "Without Title I funding, we could have never made the progress we
have made. This school owes a lot to Title I".
Title I scores in San
Francisco have shown similarly impressive gains, as the system has placed
increasing emphasis with its Title I funds on the professional development of
teachers, increasing standards, and strengthening the quality of classroom
teaching. The percentage of Title I 4th graders scoring below the 25th
percentile in reading on the ITBS has declined from 54.3% in 1994-95 to 40.2% in
1996-97 to 34.6% in 1997-98.
The same picture exists in Memphis, where
Superintendent Gerry House is one of the nation's most aggressive users of
external reform models, including Equity 2000, Success for All, Accelerated
Schools, and others. The percentage of Title I 4th graders below the 25th
percentile in reading has declined in Memphis from 68.2% in 1994-95 to 46.3% in
1997-98.
One Memphis school benefiting from Title I is the Cummings
Elementary School. Cummings has used its Title I funds for the "Roots and Wings"
program to improve student reading skills in the first and second grades. The
result has been substantial test score gains. "Our Title I program has brought
reading to a new level in our school," says Angela Whitelaw, a teacher at the
school. "Our students choose books as their reward for high achievement."
Results are similar in Denver, Chicago, San Antonio, Miami, St. Paul, and
many other cities. Some cities are not showing the same upward movement, of
course, but the general trend in Title I achievement scores for urban school
children is encouraging.
The story of Juanita (not real name) might be a
nice way to describe what the program can do. Juanita is a 5th grader in P.S.
130 in the Bronx (District 8). When Juanita was a third grader she scored well
below the 50th percentile in math. She began participating in the district's
Title I-funded math program, the 24 Math Challenge (Jumping Levels), and by the
end of the 4th grade, Juanita not only scored in the 90th percentile, she won
the New York citywide 24 Challenge math tournament for her age group.
C.
Recommendations
Despite the encouraging achievement gains that many urban
school districts are experiencing with their Title I dollars, too many are not
providing the education that our children deserve. We need to improve faster,
for America's urban schools are not satisfied with where we are. The Council of
the Great City Schools proposes changes in Title I that are aimed at
accelerating improvements in student achievement; at building capacity in urban
schools to spur gains; and at strengthening local accountability for results.
1. Accelerate Gains.
- Maintain and strengthen the standards-based
approach to achievement in Title I and ESEA.
(a) Shift
emphasis from state standards development to local standards implementation; (b)
Encourage use of local standards and locally defined "annual yearly progress"
when they are more rigorous than the states'.
- Retain a categorical
approach for services to poor, limited English proficient and other children
with special needs.
- Require use of documented effective practices,
approaches, and strategies that are working locally or nationally.
-
Strengthen and enforce the "mastery" provisions in Title I by periodically
identifying children who are not learning necessary instructional material and
intervening with additional services.
- Maintain current national and
within-district allocations based on poverty, and retain 50% threshold for
schoolwide Title I eligibility. 2. Build Local Capacity and Increase Flexibility
and Efficiency.
- Expand the current Title I professional development plan
into a broader school capacity-building effort.
- Require Title I
paraprofessionals (except those with second language skills) to be on a teaching
career ladder before assuming any classroom instructional responsibilities.
- Streamline Title I grant making into a more efficient federal-to- local
allocation system, coupled with state monitoring and compliance, and elimination
of state plans.
- Simplify schoolwide program plans and harmonize with
existing school-level strategic planning.
- Allow local, rather than state,
Title I funds to be used for intervention into and support of low-performing
schools.
- Use locally comprised, rather than state selected, school support
teams to marshal internal capacity and external technical assistance to assist
low performing schools.
- Move to a locally defined, market-driven approach
to securing technical assistance for local school systems within
ESEA.
3. Strengthen Local Accountability
- Require
dissaggregated Title I achievement data by major sub-groups of students (e.g.,
economic, racial, gender, language, etc.) and publicly disseminate results.
- Replace duplicative accountability systems with local accountability when
more rigorous than state system or Title I improvement system.
- Authorize
local school system Title I monitors who report directly to the Superintendent
to "bird-dog" low-performing schools.
- Establish local corrective action in
low-performing Title I schools as both a required activity and a compliance
issue that can trigger the withholding of funds to schools that fail to improve.
The Council of the Great City Schools strongly supports the rapid
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and encourages
bipartisan collaboration on this cornerstone federal legislation. We stand ready
to assist this Committee in any way that would be helpful and constructive.
Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer questions.
END
LOAD-DATE: April 15, 1999
