Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
February 09, 2000
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 6387 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY February 09, 2000 EARIN M. MARTIN, ED.D SENIOR DIRECTOR TEXAS
EDUCATION AGENCY HOUSE EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE EARLY
CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND FAMILIES INOVATIVE EDUCATION
BODY:
TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND
FAMILIES COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ESEA TITLE VI, INNOVATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
STRATEGIES February 9, 2000 Earin M. Martin, Ed.D. Senior Director, Contracts
and Grants Administration Texas Education Agency And Past Chair, Title VI
National Steering Committee Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Youth and Families: Good morning. I am very pleased to have
the opportunity to visit with you this morning to discuss Title VI, Innovative
Education Program Strategies from a national perspective on behalf of the Title
VI National Steering Committee. The Title VI National Steering Committee is made
up of the state coordinator from each of the 50 states and territories. I am
pleased to share information with you about the impact Title VI is having in
public schools and districts, private nonprofit schools, and state educational
agencies across the nation. Much of this information I am going to share with
you this morning has only recently been made available publicly. I will address
the following major points: 1. The Tide VI statute as currently written provides
for services to districts, schools, and student populations no other formula
federal education program provides. II. Based on survey data representative of
45 states, Tide VI is effective in meeting the purposes of the statute. III..
Elimination of Tide VI would severely impact the ability of schools, districts,
private nonprofit schools, and state educational agencies to initiate and/or
complete reform initiatives that impact student performance. IV. Recommendations
and Conclusions Each of these points is outlined in the prepared testimony,
submitted for the record. 1. The Title VI statute as currently written provides
for services to districts, schools, and student populations no other formula
federal education program provides. Everyone who is familiar with Title VI has
heard the rhetoric often espoused about the "flexibility" of Title VI. It is
important to reiterate. All of the formula federal education programs serve an
absolute purpose in targeting limited resources toward specific student
populations and areas where they are needed the most. These programs are,
indeed, critical to the success of the children. The primary advantage of Title
VI, however, is that it has the ability to serve all the student populations in
a variety of areas. Title VI is the only formula entitlement program that allows
recipients to use funds to benefit any and all student populations, in any and
all schools. Title VI is the only formula federal education program that may
serve the entire range of a schools' student population, including: -
educationally disadvantaged students; - students with limited English
proficiency; - students at risk of dropping out; - students with
disabilities; and - gifted and talented students. Most
importantly, Title VI is the only formula program that may serve the "average or
slightly below average" student, the student who doesn't quite qualify for
programs under Title 1, Part A, but still may need assistance to succeed, the
students who are between 'failing" and "satisfactory" performance. It is often
these students who fall through the cracks of the educational system. It is
often these students whose parents must resort to assistance from other than
their public schools, through additional tutoring or perhaps even enrollment in
private schools. Additionally, Title VI is the only formula federal education
program that has the capacity to: - Enable all students to have access to
technology; - Enable all students to read by the end of the third grade; -
Enable all students to achieve challenging content standards; - Enable all
schools and districts to engage in comprehensive reform; - Provide library and
media resources to all schools; and - Strengthen parent and family involvement
in all schools. Many of these goals have been attainable only for schools and
districts that receive competitive grants through Title HI, Technology Literacy
Challenge Funds; The Reading Excellence Act; and the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act. Title VI and its predecessor, Chapter 2, was "ahead of its time" with the
notion of local decision-making to meet local needs. The key to this
"flexibility" lies within the statute itself, in existence since 1981 with the
former Chapter 21. Title VI programs are to be designed and implemented by local
school districts, school superintendents, principals, teachers, and supporting
personnel because they have the most direct contact with students; they are most
directly responsible to parents; and they are most likely to be able to design
programs that meet the educational needs of their own students. Congress was
wise to recognize that this flexibility to meet local needs is critical to
enabling recipients of Title VI funds to accomplish educational goals; implement
local reform efforts; improve education; and meet the educational needs of M
student that requires assistance in meeting challenging content and performance
standards. II. Based on survey data representative of 45 states, Title VI is
effective in meeting the purposes of the statute. An evaluation of effectiveness
of Title VI was conducted by states in FY 1998 pursuant to the requirements in
Title VI statute. The objective of the evaluation was to determine the
effectiveness of Title VI in meeting its statutory purposes. Forty-four states
(plus one private nonprofit school bypass agent, Missouri) participated on a
voluntary basis in a "national summary" of effectiveness of Title VI. The
details of this national effort are provided in the Title VI Evaluation of
Effectiveness, National Summary, 1998. The Executive Summary from this document
is provided as an attachment to this testimony. This national compilation of
survey data summarizes the impact of Tide VI on: 19,140,496 students in 5,247
public school districts; 1,391,668 students in 1,701 (known) private nonprofit
schools; in 45 states and territories across the nation. These data indicate the
use of Title VI funding has been effective (as defined by the recipients of the
funds) in meeting the purposes of Title VI as stated in statute. According to
survey participants, Title VI: - Provides flexibility to meet local needs -
Promotes local, state, and national reforms - Provides funding for critical
activities - Contributes toward the improvement of student achievement and other
areas of student performance. Highlights from the National Summary of the
Evaluation of Effectiveness: - Public school districts, as well as private
nonprofit schools, allocated the majority of their Title VI funds for library
services and materials, including media materials. The second highest use of
funds was for computer software and hardware for instructional use. - State
educational agencies allocated most of their state- reserved funds for school
reform activities that are consistent with Goals 2000 and for promising
education reform projects. - The majority of Title VI funds spent by districts
on personnel funded in full or in part by Title VI were for teachers and teacher
assistants/tutors who provided instruction directly to students. - The greatest
benefit provided by the flexibility of Title VI at the local level is the
ability to use funds to meet locally identified needs without the restrictions
inherent in some other programs. Also beneficial is the ability to
purchase/upgrade computer hardware and software to enhance school reform. - The
flexibility of Title VI allowed state educational agencies to provide
professional development in areas of locally identified needs and to assist
schools/districts in identifying their improvement goals and/or efforts toward
local, state, and/or national reforms. - If Title VI funds were not available,
public school districts would not be able to purchase/upgrade computer hardware
and software and provide professional development. Private nopprofit schools
would not be able to upgrade library and media services and purchase/upgrade
computer hardware and software. State educational agencies would not be able to
provide professional development to meet district needs and to facilitate local
district improvement/reform efforts. - The majority of students who benefited
from Title VI were in Grades 1-5. - Title VI had a "moderate" to 'significant"
impact for the 79% or more of districts and private nonprofit schools that used
Title VI funds to Enable all students to meet challenging content performance
standards and to Improve language arts (reading, writing, and communication)
skills in students and/or adults. - 58% of the districts that used Title VI to
improve student attendance reported improvement in student attendance. - 54% of
the districts that used Title VI to increase promotion rates reported promotion
rates improved. - 65 % of the districts that used Title VI funds to decrease
dropout rates reported a decrease in dropout rates. - 57% of the districts that
used Title VI funds to decrease student suspension/expulsion rates reported
decreases in suspension/expulsion rates. - 84% of the districts that used Title
VI funds to increase the circulation of library/media materials reported an
increase in the circulation of library/media materials. - 67 % of the districts
that used Title VI funds to increase SAT scores reported an increase in SAT
scores. 67% of the districts that used Title VI funds to increase ACT scores
reported an increase in ACT scores. - 82 % of the districts that used Title VI
funds to increase scores on norm-referenced tests reported improved test scores.
- 79% of the districts that used Tide VI funds to increase scores on
criterion-referenced tests reported improved test scores. - The greatest impact
of Title VI funds on improving instructional services through the provision of
professional development was in the areas of.- - Improving the quality of
instructional materials; - Developing new curricula, thematic units, or
instructional materials; - Increasing teachers ability to use technology; and -
Increasing teachers' knowledge of a variety of instructional strategies. - Title
VI had a 'moderate" to "significant" impact on the use of funds for local reform
efforts and educational innovation. Funds were mostly used by districts to: -
Make progress toward achieving local, state, and national education goals; -
Improve their ability to create and implement programs that address local
education needs; - Develop innovative instructional programs and practices; and
- Implement local education reform initiatives. - The major recommendations made
by recipients of Title VI were to increase funding and continue the flexibility
to meet local needs. Congress is to be commended for having the foresight to
require that states conduct an evaluation of effectiveness of Title VI. This
requirement served as a catalyst in encouraging and allowing states, local
school districts, and private nonprofit schools to collect data that
demonstrates the effectiveness of Title VI in: - Improving student performance;
- Improving instructional services through the provision of professional
development; - Providing educational innovation; and - Fostering school reform.
III. Elimination of Title VI would severely impact the ability of schools,
districts, private nonprofit schools, and state educational agencies to initiate
and/or complete reform initiatives that impact student performance. The
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 You may recall that the administration's
proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1993) eliminated the former Chapter 2. This
is important to note, given that this proposed reauthorization called for
"reshaping the investment in America's future so that all children in America
will develop the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind we once expected of only
our top students'. Prevalent throughout the proposed reauthorization were the
notions of helping all children reach high standards and helping all teachers
teach to high standards through intensive, on-going professional development.
The 1994 reforms also emphasized flexibility to stimulate local school-based and
district initiatives for improvement. However, in spite of the administration's
recommendations to eliminate Chapter 2, in the final version of the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994), Congress, in its wisdom, realigned the focus of
the former Chapter 2 to serve as a catalyst for reform through Title VI. The
Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 The Clinton administration's
current proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act retains these same foci on enabling all children to reach high standards and
enabling all teachers to teach to high standards through the provision of high-
quality professional development. Added is the initiative to reduce class size
for students in grades 1-3 (Class Size Reduction) and the proposed
reauthorization of the Reading Excellence Act. But how can a school or district
be enabled or expected to provide educational excellence for all children in the
absence of a program like Title VI? How can a school or district have the
resources to enable all children to achieve to high academic standards? With the
exception of the provision for schoolwide programs, this is a difficult concept
to grasp. The current administration continues to "zero out" Title VI from the
proposed budget. Most recently, the Department of Education cut the $380 million
agreed upon in conference for Fiscal Year 2000 by $14,250,000 in order to comply
with the mandated .38 percent rescission of the Fiscal Year 2000 education
budget (pursuant to H.R. 3425, Section 301). This is the maximum any one program
could be reduced under the rescission. Title VI suffered this maximum cut in
spite of the fact that the National Summary of Evaluation of Effectiveness
clearly illustrates Title VI is effective in meeting its purposes. Members of
Congress and other interested parties have become increasingly aware of the
value of Title VI to education reform and, in spite of the position of the
current administration, Congressional appropriations for Tide VI have increased
over the last three years. Congress "attempted" to increase appropriations for
the fourth year, but failed due to the Department of Education's rescission of
Title VI. As evidenced in the national summary of the evaluations of
effectiveness, Title VI provides critical funds that would not otherwise be
available to all schools and all districts that wish to participate in Title VI
to initiate reform. Only with a program like Title VI does every student in
every school in every district in every state have the potential to achieve to
the same high standards as those served under the other titles of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. Only with a program like Title VI with sufficient
appropriations can schools, districts, and states "fill in the missing pieces of
reform" and truly be provided with the resources and capacity to achieve
"educational excellence for all children". IV. Recommendations and Conclusions
Recommended Changes to Legislation The Committee is requested to consider the
following changes to the Title VI legislation: - Eliminate the
supplement-not-supplant requirement in Title VI and retain the Maintenance of
Effort requirement to allow for greater flexibility in the use of funds while
ensuring the level expenditures of state and local funds does not diminish. -
Given the fact that the year 2000 will have already begun when the reauthorized
Elementary and Secondary Education Act is implemented, it is recommended the
references to Goals 2000 and to the National Education Goals in the Title VI
statute be revised to include more global language that ties the purposes of
Title VI to local, state, and national reform efforts in achieving educational
goals established by such local and state agencies. - Strengthen the
accountability and reporting requirements for states and local districts to
provide for collection of information on the use of Title VI funds and the
impact on educational improvement that can be used to monitor the effectiveness
of Title VI on an annual basis. Conclusions The findings outlined in the
national summary of the evaluation of effectiveness of Title VI demonstrate that
the absence of Title VI funds would severely impact the ability of schools,
districts, private nonprofit schools, and state educational agencies to initiate
and/or complete reform initiatives that impact student performance. Congress is
strongly encouraged to review the findings presented in the national summary and
to use these important findings in making decisions with regard to the
reauthorization of Title VI. States, local school districts, and private
nonprofit schools that receive benefits of Title VI continually call for
increased funding and the retention of the flexibility provisions inherent in
Title VI. In the absence of a program like Title VI with sufficient funding, it
will be next to impossible:
LOAD-DATE: February 11,
2000 
