Congress expands public school choice initiative in Title I

House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Bill Goodling (R-Pa.) successfully pushed to add the school choice measure during last-minute negotiations with the White House, as Congress finished the fiscal 2000 spending package and adjourned for the year.

"Republicans in Congress have been looking forward to this day for years," says Goodling. "This is a significant step forward for Title I parents and their children."

The provision will allow Title I students whose schools have been "in need of improvement" for at least two years to move to other public or charter schools, beginning next fall. It was included in the spending bill, tied to $134 million in new funds for schools identified as low performing under Title I. (Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides special funds to schools serving poorer students.)

Earlier legislation allowed such transfers, but it was not a requirement for schools receiving Title I funds nor was funding provided to ease the process. Also, transfers merely were on a list of possible corrective actions for troubled Title I schools.

Since the school choice measure was enacted, much debate has ensued about the particulars of the school choice requirement and use of the additional Title I funds. The $134 million was included as part of a $209 million increase for Title I basic grants.

The crux of the debate is how much of the $134 million will be available to turn around troubled schools and how much, instead, will go for transferring children to other schools.

The Education Department is in the midst of writing guidance for school districts on the use of the new funds for improving failing schools and on school choice. New guidelines must be ready by July 2000. A department spokesperson says it is not true–as some have worried–that the entire $134 million is earmarked for school choice.

But two cost-related aspects of choice that undoubtedly will be included, she says, are busing needs for transferring students and informing Title I parents about school choice.

NSBA and 19 other education associations have opposed the Goodling-White House action on school choice as "inconsistent with current efforts" to increase flexibility in the use of federal education dollars.

However, NSBA Federal Programs Director Daniel Fuller says NSBA's primary concern is that the final appropriation increases Title I funding by only $209 million, including $134 million for improvement. "The $75 million increase left for all of Title I programs won't even cover inflationary costs for the services provided," he says.

Among the nation's 46,000 Title I schools, about 7,500 were listed as "in need of improvement," and they could be required to offer public and charter school choice to their students under the new provision. Yet, especially in many urban districts, there won't be enough seats in the better schools to meet the demand.

For instance, in New Orleans, more than 30,000 of the 82,000 students are attending public schools recently labeled as "academically unacceptable" by the state and would be eligible to choose a new school.

But, in these instances, says an aide to Goodling, the law holds districts "still must offer transfers to as many students as possible using an equitable process, such as a lottery."

Another concern is whether it supercedes state and local laws. In fact, no state law prohibits open enrollment, 26 states and Puerto Rico have open enrollment laws allowing choice among districts (16 of them mandatory). Four states allow public school choice within a district. However, many districts have policies controlling enrollment.

Goodling has stressed that the new law "specifically states that transferring to another public school must be 'consistent with state and local law.'"