Congress gears up for Title I reauthorization
Questions and answers about a vital federal education program

With the federal title I program up for its five-year renewal--or reauthorization, as it's called in the U.S. Congress--lawmakers in Washington, D.C., are beginning to turn their attention to changes in the program, some of which would drastically change Title I. The Clinton administration already has made a set of reauthorization proposals for the program, and the AFT has its own Title I task force that is following developments in Washington and presenting its views on how to improve the program.

You'll be hearing a lot more about the Title I reauthorization in the coming months, so we offer this set of question and answers on the program to provide some background.

What is Title I?

Title I, the largest federal education program, is specifically designed to assist low-income children. Currently funded at $8.3 billion, the program serves more than 11 million children in school districts throughout the country. The aim is to give districts extra funds and flexibility to improve educational opportunities for poor children and improve their academic achievement.

How has the program changed in recent years?

Since it was last reauthorized in 1994, the focus of Title I has been on high academic standards and improved academic achievement for students the program serves. There has also been a stronger emphasis on professional development for all school staff and improved flexibility in running programs at the school level, such as greater use of schoolwide projects.

We hear a lot about Title I schoolwide projects. Have they been working?

We have seen some good schoolwide projects since they were first allowed under Title I. In the last reauthorization, the poverty threshold required for mounting a schoolwide project--basically using the money for the entire school rather than a selected number of low-income students, as was commonly done in the past--was lowered to 50 percent. The movement to lower that threshold further could divert services from poor students and spread the funds even thinner. As a result, the AFT is opposed to proposals to lower the schoolwide projects threshold.

Is Title I working to improve student achievement?

Evidence shows that Title I programs do help students achieve at higher levels. For example, the 1999 "National Assessment of Title I" found that reading and math achievement levels of nine-year-olds in the highest-poverty schools improved by nearly one grade level. Reading and math scores are also up across most urban school districts, which enroll the highest number of low-income students.

What can we expect in this reauthorization and Congress?

Unfortunately, we can expect a series of damaging proposals, including vouchers, bad charter school bills and block grants, which have almost nothing to do with improving the achievement of poor students. The role of instructional paraprofessionals has also become a central issue, with some in Congress and even in the U.S. Department of Education considering proposals that would severely limit the use of paras for instructional support.

What is the AFT's response to these attacks on paraprofessionals?

At the federal level, we are working to get a clearer and stronger definition of the appropriate role of paraprofessionals working in Title I and a stronger mandate for inclusion in professional development. We are also stepping up the AFT's efforts to establish state- and district-level standards for the employment and training of classroom paraprofessionals. At the local level, we have to stop school administrators from using paraprofessionals inappropriately. Much of the criticism of classroom paras is based on their being used in ways that violate both the federal law and union contracts, such as serving as primary instructors and not working under the supervision of a certified teacher.

Who are some of the key representatives in Congress who will determine the future of Title I?

In the U.S. House of Representatives, two subcommittees of the Committee on Education and the Workforce are responsible for Title I and the rest of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families is chaired by Republican Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware; the ranking Democrat is Rep. Dale Kildee of Michigan. Republican Rep. Bud McKeon of California chairs the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Lifelong Learning, while fellow Californian Rep. Matthew Martinez is the ranking Democrat.

American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO - 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW - Washington, DC 20001