Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
March 16, 1999, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3843 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY March 16, 1999 WAYNE RIDDLE SPECIALIST EDUCATION FINANCE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR & PENSIONS IMPROVING
EDUCATION FOR DISADVATAGED CHILDREN
BODY:
Title I,
Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Background and Prospective
Reauthorization Issues Wayne Riddle Specialist in Education Finance Domestic
Social Policy Division Congressional Research Service Testimony Prepared for a
Hearing by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions March
16, 1999 Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act:
Background and Prospective Reauthorization Issues Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My
name is Wayne Riddle; I am a Specialist in Education Finance with the
Congressional Research Service, and I appreciate your invitation to provide
background information and a review of prospective reauthorization issues for
Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or
ESEA. Basic Provisions of ESEA Title I, Part A
My remarks will apply apply to the programs authorized by Title I, Part A of the
ESEA, not the Even Start, Migrant, Neglected and Delinquent, or
Comprehensive School Reform programs authorized by Parts B through E.
ESEA Title I, Part A, funds are used to provide supplementary
educational services to pupils at public schools with relatively high
concentrations of children from low- income families, as well as low-achieving
pupils who live in the areas served by these public schools, but who attend
private schools. Title I has been the "anchor" of the ESEA, and
the largest federal elementary-secondary education program, since it was first
enacted in 1965. Title I was last reauthorized and substantially revised in
1994, under the Improving America's Schools Act, or IASA, For FY1999, the total
funding for Title I, Part A, is $7.7 billion, an amount which has increased by
approximately 16% since FY1995. Title I grants or services are provided to
approximately-, (a) 90% of all local educational agencies, or LEAs, (b) 45,000,
or 58%, of all public schools; and (c) 11 million, or 22% of all pupils,
including approximately 167,000 pupils attending private schools, Four-fifths of
all participating pupils are in pre- kindergarten through grade 6, with only 5%
of participants in grades 10 through 12. Title I has numerous requirements
regarding such matters as selection of schools and pupils to be served, fiscal
accountability, pupil assessment, program improvement, or parental involvement,
but few or no requirements regarding such matters as instructional methods,
program strategies, or staff qualifications, which are left almost totally to
state and LEA discretion. In other words, Title I is now, and always has been,
essentially a "funding mechanism", with various forms of encouragement, but no
requirements, to employ any specific educational techniques or strategies. In
particular, there is no requirement that the instructional methods or strategies
used be proven effective through research. LEAs can generally choose to focus
Title I services on selected grade levels -for example, only in elementary
schools -- but they must generally provide services in all schools, whatever
their grade level, where the percentage of pupils from lowincome families is 75%
or more. There are 2 basic formats for Title I programs (1) traditional, or
"targeted assistance school," programs and (2) schoolwide programs. In general,
only Title I schools in which 50% or more of the pupils are from lowincome
families may operate school-wide programs, while any school meeting the basic
Title I eligibility criteria may operate a targeted assistance program. In
targeted assistance programs, Title I services are focused on the lowest
achieving individual pupils in the school. For example, pupils may be "pulled
out" of their regular classroom for several hours of more intensive instruction
by a specialist teacher each week, or funds may be used to hire a teacher's aide
who provides additional assistance to low achieving pupils in their regular
classroom. AN participating private school pupils are served in targeted
assistance programs. In schoolwide programs, Title I funds may be used to
improve the performance of all pupils in a school, and there is no requirement
to focus services on only the most disadvantaged pupils- For example, funds
might be used to provide professional development services to all of a school's
teachers, upgrade instructional technology, reduce class sizes, or implement new
curricula. Currently, most participating schools are targeted assistance
schools, but most pupils served by Title I are in schoolwide programs. Finally,
although Title I funds are allocated on the basis of children from low-income
families, the family income of pupils is not considered at the school level, and
there is no means test for individual children to be served by Title I.
Prospective Title 1, Part A Reauthorization Issues Arising From Implementation
of the 1994 Amendments The overarching questions for reauthorization of Title I
are; whether the 1994 amendments under the IASA are being implemented as
intended-, are they moving the program toward substantially increased
effectiveness; and, if the major elements of the IASA's strategy should continue
to be pursued, how might they be improved and refined? Alternatively, should
strategies other than those embodied in the IASA be adopted to improve federal
aid for the education of disadvantaged pupils? The remainder of my testimony
will focus on the major issues debated in the 1994 reauthorization of Title I,
current reauthorization issues arising from the implementation of IASA
provisions intended to address these issues, and possible' additional issues
arising from improvement strategies other than those embodied in the IASA. I
should emphasize that given the early stage of the reauthorization process, the
issues I identify constitute a preliminary and selective list. Further, since we
are still in the middle of implementing some of the most basic provisions of the
1994 amendments, only limited information on the effectiveness of those
amendments will be available during this Congress. Thus, most judgements
regarding the impact of the 1994 amendments must be considered to be highly
tentative. During the Congress' consideration of the Improving America's Schools
Act in 1993-94, there was widespread agreement that the program was not as
effective as it should or could be, and the legislation was revised in several
major respects, The main reasons identified for this inadequate performance were
that the program was usually marginal in terms of both the amount of aid
received by high poverty schools relative to their need, and Title I's impact on
pupils' overall curriculum- that policies intended to identify effective
practices, disseminate information about these, and provide incentives for their
adoption were not performing any of these functions well that performance
expectations of Title I pupils were too low; and that the required types of
assessments, and program improvement requirements linked to them, were of little
value. Title I amendments embodied in the Improving America's Schools Act of
1994 attempted to address each aspect of this critique of Title I. The intended
strategy of the IASA was to improve Title I's effectiveness through: First,
greater targeting of funds on high poverty LEAs and schools; Second, requiring
states to adopt for Title I students and programs challenging curriculum content
standards, pupil performance standards, and assessments, which were to be the
same as the standards and assessments applied to all students, Third, a renewed
focus on program improvement requirements, with sanctions for schools and LEAs
with inadequate performance, rewards authorized for those with especially good
performance, along with expanded technical assistance and related provisions
intended to identify effective practices and disseminate information about them;
and Fourth, increased flexibility through expanded schoolwide programs and
authority to waive other requirements. The extent to which these major elements
of the 1994 Title I amendments have been implemented varies widely I will
discuss each in turn, Greater Targeting of Funds on High Poverty LEAs and
Schools The IASA contained a series of provisions that were intended to increase
the share of funds going to high poverty LEAs, more closely link grants to
changes in the number of poor children in various regions of the Nation, and
increase the targeting of funds on the highest poverty schools within LEAs.
Greater targeting of funds on high poverty LEAs was to be accomplished through
use of a new targeted grant formula to allocate a share of post- 1994 increases
in Title I appropriations. The distinctive feature of this formula, in contrast
to other Title I formulas, is that it would provide increased grants per poor
child as the percentage or number of poor children in a LEA increases. This was
to be combined with a shift to calculating Title I grants by LEA, rather than by
county, to better pinpoint high poverty LEAs wherever they may be located.
However, while the calculation of grants by LEA is scheduled to occur for the
1999-2000 school year, subsequent appropriations acts have prevented use of the
targeted grant formula, as well as a second new allocation formula adopted in
1994 that would.reward states with relatively low expenditure disparities among
their LEAs. Better targeting of Title I grants on regions of the Nation with the
highest rate of growth in poor school-age children was to be accomplished
through use of updated population data made available through a new Census
Bureau program of intercensal population estimates for states, counties, and
LEAs, if the data were deemed reliable by the Secretaries of Education and
Commerce, as well as a National Academy of Sciences Panel. This provision of the
IASA has been implemented, although only partially. The first set of updates for
counties had some effect on allocations for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and a
second set of updates, this time for LEAs, is scheduled to be used in allocating
fiscal year 1999 grants. However, the impact of population updates on Title I
grants has been highly constrained by special provisions in appropriations acts
for fiscal years 1997 through 1999, which were adopted in reaction to the
unexpected scale and regional shifts in the population updates. The IASA also
contained a number of provisions intended to focus funds more on high poverty
schools within LEAs. These provisions have been implemented in most LEAs, and as
a result the percentage of high poverty schools receiving Title I grants has
increased substantially, while the percentage of low poverty schools
participating in the program has declined. However. in a number of LEAs this
shift toward higher poverty schools has been constrained through the granting of
waivers allowing the continuation of grants to relatively low poverty schools
that otherwise would be dropped from eligibility. Reauthorization issues with
respect to targeting include: What level of increased targeting on high poverty
LEAs is appropriate and feasible to implement? What is the appropriate balance
between the use of the most up-to-date Census data versus stability of grants to
lower-growth states and LEAs? And, have the IASA's efforts to increase targeting
within LEAs provided sufficient funds to meet the severe needs of schools with
very high concentrations of poor pupils? Standards and Assessments A second
series of IASA provisions requires states participating in Title I to develop or
adopt curriculum content standards, pupil performance standards, and assessments
linked to these, at least in the subjects of mathematics and reading Language
arts. In general, these standards must be applicable to both Title I
participants and all other pupils in the state. These provisions address 3 major
concerns about Title I programs -- that: (a) they had not been sufficiently
challenging academically, perpetuating low expectations for the achievement of
participating pupils; (b) they had not been well integrated with the "regular"
instructional programs of participants; and (c) they had required extensive
pupil testing that is of little instructional value and is not linked to pupils'
curriculum. These requirements were also adopted in part to link the program to
standards-based reforms taking place in most states. The deadline for adopting
content and performance standards was the 1997-98 program year, and for adopting
assessments is the 2000-01 program year. States were given time to meet these
requirements because many of them were at an early stage of standards-based
reform in 1994. Nevertheless, approximately one- half of the states did not meet
the fall 1997 deadline for establishing content and pupil performance standards.
Currently, 48 states have met the content standards requirement and 21 have met
the pupil performance standards requirement- the remaining states have obtained
temporary waivers from the Secretary of Education. A few states are finding it
difficult to set statewide standards for all pupils, and are attempting to
develop hybrid systems that rely ultimately on local standards. States which
have not yet adopted assessments linked to their content standards are using a
variety of "transitional" assessments, to which only limited requirements apply,
to evaluate the performance of pupils being served by Title I. While the Title I
standards requirements are being implemented, the pace at which benchmarks have
been met so far is slower than the one specified in the IASA, and it is not yet
possible to determine how effective this strategy will be overall in improving
the achievement of disadvantaged pupils. The major question for reauthorization
is whether to continue supporting the application of standards-based reform
concepts to Title I until they are more fully implemented and results are more
clear, and whether the schedule for implementation of standards, assessments,
and associated accountability provisions can or should be accelerated. Program
Improvement and Technical Assistance The IASA expanded upon previous Title I
program improvement provisions, requiring the identification of schools and LEAs
that do not meet state standards for "adequate yearly progress" - Ultimately, if
performance does not improve, "corrective actions" must be taken, consistent
with state and local law, that may include withholding funds, reconstituting
school staff, or appointment of a trustee to administer an LEA. However, these
"corrective actions" are not to be taken until states adopt assessments linked
to their content and performance standards, so these provisions have not yet
been fully implemented. The IASA also included numerous provisions intended to
improve and expand the provision of technical assistance on effective practices,
especially for schools or LEAs identified as needing improvement- These include
the authorization for states to reserve up to 0.5% of their Title I funds for
program improvement grants, restructuring of regional technical assistance
centers, school support teams and "distinguished educators" designated by the
states, plus regional laboratories and research and development centers funded
by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, While there are numerous
sources for this technical assistance, there is reason for concern about the
resources available to technical assistance providers, the effectiveness of
their services, and coordination among them. For example, the funding level for
the comprehensive technical assistance centers has declined by approximately 40%
since 1994. One particular aspect of debates about effective use of Title I
funds that is drawing increasing attention is the hiring of teacher aides, who
constitute approximately one-half of the staff hired with Title I funds, and are
especially prevalent in high poverty LEAs and schools. Aides are used both to
provide supplementary instruction and to perform non-instructional tasks. Only a
small minority of aides have bachelor's degrees or similar qualifications for
instructional duties. The IASA required teacher aides funded under Title I to be
directly supervised by teachers, and in general to have a high school diploma or
equivalent within 2 years of employment, but many observers have continuing
concerns about the effectiveness of using Title I funds to hire aides. Questions
for Title I reauthorization include how to substantially improve the coherence
and effectiveness of activities to identify and disseminate information about
effective practices, particularly through professional development services for
teachers directly involved in instruction,- and how to provide meaningful
incentives for adoption of effective practices and improved performance while
recognizing limits on federal influence and maximizing state and local
flexibility in carrying out Title I programs. The potential conflict between the
desire to encourage, or even require, the adoption of effective practices in
programs such as Title I and the equally strong desire to maintain and possibly
increase the degree of state and local flexibility under these programs, is
especially sharp currently. An additional issue is whether the use of Title I
funds to hire aides should be limited, or career ladder programs be encouraged
so that more of them might be qualified for instructional responsibilities.
Flexibility One of the most distinctive changes in Title I since 1994 has been
the rapid growth of schoolwide programs. Schoolwide programs may be viewed both
as a mechanism to increase Title I's focus on comprehensive schoolwide reform in
high poverty schools, and as an example of increased flexibility at the school
level. The IASA reduced the low-income pupil eligibility threshold for
schoolwide programs from 75% to 50% in general, and a substantial number of
additional schools below the 50% threshold have obtained waivers allowing them
to adopt schoolwide programs. The IASA also increased the incentive to adopt
this Title I format by allowing the use of funds under most federal aid
programs, not just Title I, on a schoolwide basis, as long as basic program
objectives and fiscal accountability requirements are met. Thus, the Title I
schoolwide program statutory provisions authorize a very broad and substantial
degree of flexibility to eligible schools in their use of funds under most
federal education programs. The rationale for limiting schoolwide program
authority to relatively high poverty schools is that in such schools, all pupils
are disadvantaged, and the level of Title I grants should be sufficient to
meaningfully affect overall school services, since these funds are allocated on
the basis of the large number of lowincome pupils in these schools.- Schoolwide
programs must meet planning requirements that do not apply to other Title I
schools, and are to report achievement data for pupils that is disaggregated by
gender, race, limited English proficiency status, disability, migrant status,
and poverty status, if such disaggregated data can be compiled in a
statistically sound manner. Thus far, there is little direct evidence of the
achievement effects of this expansion of schoolwide programs. Finally, both the
IASA and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act provided authority for waivers of
many Title I statutory or regulatory requirements -- case-by case waiver
authority exercised directly by the Secretary of Education, and the delegation
of waiver authority to SEAs in 12 states under ED- FLEX. A very large proportion
of the waiver requests and approvals under both of these authorities have
applied to requirements under Title I, especially the 501/6 eligibility
threshold for schoolwide programs, certain requirements regarding selection of
Title I schools and allocation of funds among them, and the deadline for states
to establish curriculum content and pupil performance standards. Questions for
Title I reauthorization regarding flexibility provisions, particularly
schoolwide programs, include whether the increased flexibility is being used in
ways that are effectively increasing the academic achievement of disadvantaged
pupils, whether the accountability requirements are consistent with the
increased flexibility in schoolwide programs, and whether there should be any
change in the 50% lowincome pupil percentage that is generally required to
qualify for a schoolwide program. And, are there additional forms of flexibility
which might be considered, such as a simplification of some administrative
requirements for small enrollment LEAs, including charter schools? Possible
Reauthorization Issues That Do Not Arise From Implementation of IASA Provisions
Finally, Congress may consider certain Title I reauthorization issues or
strategies that do not arise from implementation of the IASA provisions. Two
possibilities are more intensive assistance for very high poverty schools, and
an emphasis on school and program choice. More Intensive Assistance for High
Poverty Schools Most schools with very high poverty rates undoubtedly continue
to face severe and wide-ranging barriers to educational achievement. While some
provisions of the IASA have increased the percentage of high poverty schools
that receive Title I grants, and raised the amount of those grants to a limited
degree, there is continuing interest in providing more intensive financial and
technical assistance to these high need schools. Examples include Clinton
Administration proposals for Education Opportunity Zones in the 105th Congress,
which would have provided additional funds, flexibility, and technical
assistance to high poverty schools that adopt selected accountability policies,
and the more recent proposal for expansion of the program improvement authority
in Title I from 0.5% to 2.5% of state grants. School Choice and Title I The
provisions for use of Title I funds to expand school choice options are
currently very limited. While funds are allocated on the basis of numbers of
poor children, Title I is currently, and increasingly with the growth of
schoolwide programs, structured as a "school aid" program, not an "individual
pupil aid" program. A number of proposals were introduced in the last Congress
that would allow the use of Title I funds to increase school choice, including
private schools, for pupil-, attending Title I schools that are deemed to be
ineffective or unsafe. Others have suggested converting Title I into a "portable
grant" that might be used to obtain supplementary services at any public school
chosen by a family, or possibly to help the costs of attending private schools
or tutorial services as well. Such proposals would require reconsideration of
many aspects of Title I as it currently operates, although they might be more
compatible with such trends as the increasing number of disadvantaged pupils
attending charter schools or other schools of choice in some states. Thank you,
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding my testimony.
LOAD-DATE: April 1, 1999 
