Title I Portability

Title I Portability

ACTION: OPPOSE TITLE I PORTABILITY. INSTEAD, SUPPORT AN INCREASE IN TITLE I FUNDING IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE NEEDS OF EVERY ELIGIBLE CHILD ARE SERVED.
STATUS: A "portable" Title I would allocate a per pupil share of Title I funds to the student's school and move that allocation with the child's change of schools, whether or not the receiving school has the concentration of poverty necessary to receive a Title I allocation. Portability proposals radically change Title I from a program of grants to schools with high concentrations of poverty to grants to individuals which "travel" with the students if they change schools.
Unfortunately, Title I funds are not sufficient to fund either all children of poverty or all schools serving students of poverty. If there were sufficient funds, there would be no need for a "portability" provision. All eligible students in both public and non-public schools would be served in whatever school attended. The portability proposal adds no funds by itself. It would spread the same funds among all eligible students, thereby diluting the services for students most in need in schools and communities with the highest concentrations of poverty.
The current Title I program is not an entitlement and funds are not sufficient to serve every eligible child. Funds are allocated to states and local districts by a formula based on the numbers of Title I students. Funds and services are then targeted to the schools, both public and private, with the highest percentage of eligible students, where they can be used to serve any educationally disadvantaged student. It is the concentration of poverty in a school or community, rather than the individual student's economic status, that controls the distribution of supplemental resources and thus provides the basis of federal Title I support. If a Title I eligible student transfers to a school served by Title I funds, the student continues to be helped by Title I. If the transfer is to a school without sufficient concentration of poverty to receive Title I funds, the benefit, unfortunately, does not transfer along with the student. The problem is a lack of funding available for all eligible students. Portability will not solve this problem, because transferring funds for one student does not provide a critical mass of resources to offer a program of supplemental services. Moreover, spreading funds which currently serve only one-third of eligible students among all eligible students will further dilute both quality and impact of the services. The priority for funds must stay with students in schools with high concentrations of poverty.
While the Council supports efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Title I, it believes that "portability" is not a desirable amendment for the following reasons:

ISSUES:
NO CHANGE IN LAW IS NEED TO SERVE EVERY ELIGIBLE TITLE I STUDENT.

Portability is not needed if the Title I program were to be fully-funded. Currently, Title I funds are insufficient to serve more than about one-third of eligible students. It is the lack of adequate funding, rather than any provision in federal law, that now prevents Title I from being available to all eligible students. If Title I were fully-funded, all economically and educationally disadvantaged students could receive the supplementary educational services they need to achieve to high standards even in the case where they changed schools.

PORTABILITY DIFFUSES AND DILUTES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TITLE I RESOURCES.

Portability shifts the focus of Title I from the educational needs of concentrations of low-income students and the effects of concentrations of poverty on schools to an individual student's eligibility for a per pupil subsidy. It would dilute the concentration of supplemental funding where most needed to raise student achievement.

At current funding levels, portability proposals would result in a significant reduction in Title I resources for the neediest recipients. The Congressional Research Service estimates that fully funding Title I would require a three-fold increase in funding to $24 billion. Yet, portability would triple the number of students served by Title I without providing a commensurate increase in funds. This would severely dilute the amount and impact of funds now targeted to the neediest students. The concentrations of resources to such students and their schools would be reduced to a scale so small as to provide little or no instructional benefit.

Portability diminishes the benefits and success of schoolwide programs and research-based school reform models. The highest-poverty schools often take advantage of economies of scale to combine federal resources for schoolwide services and whole school reforms. These programs facilitate the integration of supplemental federal funds as part of the school's overall reform efforts, and focus on the fact that the most disadvantaged students will not succeed unless their entire school improves. Portability proposals would shift Title I funds away from schools that operate schoolwide projects and erode their effectiveness.

PORTABILITY WOULD CREATE UNNECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS AND DECREASE ACCOUNTABILITY.

Portability would be extremely difficult to administer. School budgets must be set far in advance to allow for the extensive planning needed to hire teachers and arrange classes. In fact, federal programs are forward-funded to enable schools to plan accordingly. Portability proposals would cause continuous disruptions in school planning and budgeting because the large numbers of students changing school during the school year would require constant reassignments of the funds from one school to another. This will increase the administrative burden on schools, while adding no value for students.

Portability would reduce or eliminate Title I program accountability for the achievement of eligible students. The House and Senate Title I bills would strengthen the emphasis on standards and accountability. Yet, portability's exclusive focus on Title I as a funding mechanism undercuts these provisions. For example, current provisions hold schools accountable based on disaggregated achievement data, but this important provision would be rendered unworkable in light of the movement of students and Title I funds among schools and districts. Similarly, mid school year transfers of Title I funds and students would impede integration into the school's standards-based instructional programs and reforms.

Portability would reduce accountability for Title I funds by shifting oversight for those funds from the public to the private domain. For more than thirty years, Title I has followed a carefully crafted, constitutional process by which eligible public and private school children are served, but all resources and services are overseen by the public local educational agency. Portability proposals allow Title I money to follow a child to a non-public school in a way which would undermine the important principle of having a public agency serve as "trustee" of federal funds. Portability would shift oversight of public resources to the private domain, reducing both the accountability for such funds and the assurances that eligible children are the beneficiaries of Title I funds and services.

PORTABILITY DOES NOT ENHANCE SCHOOL CHOICE FOR TITLE I STUDENTS.

Portability would do nothing to increase student choice among schools. Current Title I law does not restrict a student's ability to attend the public or private school of their choice and students in both sectors in eligible schools receive Title I services. Under portability, a student's choice among public schools would remain limited by state and local enrollment policies. Whether Title I services were available would depend on the overall poverty level and eligibility of the school. Unless a portability proposal fundamentally reshapes Title I into a voucher program, a student's financial access to a private school would also be unchanged. Title I is directed toward supplemental instructional assistance and cannot be used for tuition costs at the private school.

March 2000
Council of Chief State School Officers One Massachusetts Avenue, NW · Suite 700 · Washington, DC 20001-1431 voice: 202.408.5505 · fax: 202.408.8072