Nation's top education researchers offer advice on Title I

That was the consensus of a dozen of the nation's top education researchers who participated in a conference sponsored by NSBA's Advocacy and Issues Management Section.

NSBA Associate Executive Director Michael A. Resnick says the conference is part of "a lengthy process initiated by NSBA to solicit recommendations on how Congress can improve Title I and the other programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is up for reauthorization this year."

So far, NSBA has met with school board members, Title I administrators, other school officials, and the leaders of the Appalachian Educational Laboratory. Further meetings are planned with the other regional education labs. NSBA also commissioned an evaluation of Title I policy issues by Michael Puma of the Urban Institute.

At the Feb. 12 conference, Peg Goertz, co-director of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Pennsylvania, said, "There is still a perception that Title I is for poor kids." That is no longer true, she says. "We have changed the law, but how do we change the perception?"

Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Educational Policy, says Congress will take a hard look at whether targeting more money to the poorest schools has resulted in high student achievement.

That is not the real issue, Jennings says. "The key question is: 'Is Title I helping states and school districts give more attention to disadvantaged students and how?' This is the right question to ask, not whether these schools are meeting standards and raising test scores."

Some poor districts are succeeding better than others, even though all have the same problems, Goertz says. The reason is because some districts give more help to teachers in the classroom in the form of guidance, encouragement, recognition, and, especially, "channeling teachers to higher levels of leadership."

Noting that a locally based coalition is being formed to channel more money to local districts and less to states, Jennings says, "If you don't give money to states, who is going to provide technical assistance to local school districts?"

State role crucial

States are taking the lead in standards and accountability, so states need to provide help to school districts, he says.

But state capacity has been "plummeting in recent years," notes Andrew Porter, director of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin.

Susan Fuhrman, dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, notes that the federal government wants the state education agencies to do more, while states are cutting the budgets for these agencies. And, she says, states need to provide curriculum development for school districts, as well as technical assistance.

While Porter called for more "standards-based systemic reform," he says most standards are too vague and the tests aren't aligned with them, so "we need the right kind of standards."

We need a new way to show progress, because "standardized tests aren't a measure of what is actually taught in the classroom," says Eva Baker, director of the Center for the Study of Evaluation and co-director of the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Accountability urged

A key question posed by Baker is, "How can we figure out how the federal government can have an effect on instructional practices without interfering with local prerogatives?"

Baker offered the following recommendations to improve accountability and reporting in Title I:

• Require samples of student work as part of the reporting system.
• Include incentives to reward schools that hire only teachers who are proficient in the subject matter they are assigned to teach.
• Ensure assessments meet standards of technical quality.
• Support the development of technology-based, content-focused instructional curricula.

This can be used as a "default opportunity" and as a "safety net" for children when teachers have insufficient knowledge of the subject matter.

Teacher quality

According to Fuhrman, the two key elements that need to be addressed in the legislation are accountability and capacity.

Noting that "teacher quality is a critical issue," Fuhrman called for more money for professional development and more guidance of what is good professional development.

Another critical issue to Fuhrman is that classes often are taught by "horribly unqualified" instructional aides. There are two options to deal with this, she suggests: Either require professional development for aides, or prohibit aides from teaching classes.

Also important is the assignment of teachers, Fuhrman says. "Teachers assigned to lower-income schools should be of as high quality as teachers in other schools."

Joyce Epstein, director of the Center on Schools, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University, called for increased funding so teachers can be paid during the summer months to participate in professional development.

Money also should be provided for summer programs for students, for enrichment as well as remediation, she says, because students forget so much during the summer.

Porter says Title I programs should be "more evenly focused across schools," and there should be a broader emphasis on all the core subjects, not just reading. These changes would require more federal funding, he acknowledges.

Porter also would like to see "a more ambitious curriculum with more of a stress on problem-solving."

Epstein says Title I should be used to teach writing skills, linking writing to reading. In her work with inner-city children, Epstein says she found the writing of eighth graders "abysmal." Making dramatic improvements in students' writing skills "really would pay off."

And, Epstein says, we need more productive family involvement. While the 1994 legislation called for comprehensive family involvement, she notes, the Education Department interpreted this to require a "school-parent compact." She says "no one knows what this is. It has no meaning in the real world."

And while school districts are supposed to use 1 percent of their funds for parent involvement, Epstein says "this is not enough for full partnerships." What is needed is $5 to $10 per year per child, she says.

Reform models

Epstein also recommends a new process to expand the "list of comprehensive school approaches" that are used most widely across the nation, such as Success for All or her own program, the National Network of Partnership Schools.

Those programs are on the list of 27 research-based comprehensive school reform models supported by the U.S. Education Department. Epstein says, "Schools should be able to select components of comprehensive school models rather than have to use the whole package."

Darrel Drury, director of policy research at NSBA, says, "The conference and the detailed report that will follow offer NSBA an invaluable opportunity to develop a truly research-driven Title I/ESEA reauthorization strategy, something uncommon in today's highly politicized education policy environment."

SIDEBAR

Riley proposes more accountability in ESEA

"States should take immediate corrective action to turn around the lowest-performing schools," Riley told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. He says there are more than 6,500 schools and 1,300 school districts designated as needing improvement because they have made little progress over two years.

"If any school continues to show no improvement," the secretary says, "states should take bold action, such as reconstituting the school or closing the school down entirely and reopening it as a fresh, new school."

Riley recommends annual report cards at the state, district, and school levels as a requirement for receiving funds under ESEA. The report cards should include "information on student achievement, teacher quality, class size, school safety, attendance, and graduation requirements."

He called for "all states receiving ESEA funds" to end the practice of social promotion and "adopt challenging competency tests for new teachers." Riley proposed additional resources to help the lowest-achieving Title I schools and phase out the use of teacher aides as Title I instructors.

The Administration "strongly opposes efforts to divert public funds to private schools through vouchers or similar proposals," Riley says, but wants to "encourage the development of new choices within the public school system," such as charter schools, inter-district magnet schools, and work-site schools. The Education Department plans to submit a detailed legislative proposal on ESEA in March.