The Reauthorization of ESEA Title I

A Forum — April 12, 1999

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) is the largest compensatory education program in America. As part of President Johnson’s "War on Poverty," the program was rooted in the notion of attaining social justice through equal opportunity. Title I, the educational centerpiece of this policy, was designed to narrow the educational gap between middle class and poor children by providing extra funding to schools with a large representation of low-income students. Critics say that Title I was a failure and should be radically changed. Supporters show the increase in test scores for minorities, particularly for African American students, as evidence of the program’s success. Hard Work for Good Schools: Facts not Fads in Title I Reform, published by The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, is a collection of studies that use solid research findings to discuss the successes and shortcomings of Title I.

Gary Orfield, Co-Director, The Civil Rights Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education, explains that society must pay attention to the relationship between race and poverty. This is a Civil Rights’ issue that has the potential to cause a serious crisis in America’s future. Education is a tool to overcome poverty, but educational reforms have mostly been guided by fads and sound bites, without thorough assessment of their impact on all students. Most reforms are proposed by politicians who have a predetermined idea of what they want, but no real knowledge or experience in the field of education. The current emphasis on test scores, for instance, has the potential of increasing dropout rates among minorities, who are concentrated in impoverished, low-performing schools. Texas is an example of the many problems related to this "high stakes" policy. The state has made striking progress toward increasing test scores, but has yet to show that students’ academic performance is indeed improving as a result of this policy. Moreover, while minorities are 50 percent of Texas’ student body, they represent 70 percent of the students who flunked the 1996-97 tests. A survey of state departments of education shows that most states that adopted testing policies do not collect data on the race of those who flunked and were denied diplomas because of the tests. States have much weaker civil rights enforcement than the federal government and, with the end of desegregation and affirmative action, the risk that minorities will be hurt by school reforms is high. It is then imperative that schools are accountable for minority progress, while equity provisions must be in place to protect the most vulnerable students.

State accountability systems that fail to look at performance of minority and low-income students are incomplete, says Elizabeth DeBray, The Civil Rights Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education, and the federal government should enforce better accountability. An analysis of instructional and curriculum practices in Californian schools shows that student social status is still the best predictor of academic achievement. High quality curriculum and professional development are influential to improving the educational opportunities of these students. States and localities are asking for higher levels of decentralization and flexibility in the use of federal money, including Title I funds. Research has shown that too much decentralization does not work. Actually, it may decrease student achievement, particularly in schools where poverty is prevalent. Before schools are allowed to develop a school-wide project, they should assess not only students’ needs, as the law requires, but also their own needs and resources. The new Title I legislation should require thorough assessments, and the federal government should provide resources so that schools can conduct such evaluations.

James McPartland, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, observes that high school students rarely receive federal compensatory resources, although most problems with dropout rates and student achievement occur in the upper grades. During the School Years 1993-94 and 1994-95, 28 percent of public school students were in grades nine through 12, but only 8 percent of these students received Title I aid. The concentration of Title I funds in elementary grades is justified by two seriously flawed assumptions. The first is the "inoculation" assumption. Following the vaccination model, it is assumed that concentrating support in elementary grades will build a foundation for poor students to move successfully through their upper grades. Research on early intervention has found that achievement gains tend to fade away when the children move onto upper grades, particularly when they are left in low-performing schools. The second assumption is that when students reach the upper grades, they are apathetic and can no longer benefit from help. Again research shows otherwise. McPartland describes the experience with Johns Hopkins’ Talent Development Model, which was implemented in an inner-city school in Baltimore. The model divides the school in smaller schools-within-a-school units and provides a comprehensive transition program for ninth graders. When compared with a matched comparison group, the target students showed increased attendance rates, promotion rates and test scores, including reading and math scores. McPartland notes that high school problems are more severe than what is being reported. Dropout rates are underestimated and African American graduation rates are overestimated by including GED participants and excluding incarceration rates.

It is extremely important to retain Title I funds. However, more of these funds, or other supplemental resources, must be redirected toward middle and high schools to improve school safety, create an environment that motivates learning, enhance curriculum and instructional methods, and raise professional development. The country is investing so much money and energy in the Y2K problem. The same must be done for education, because the situation is just as critical.

Public education faces many challenges and must address a growing variety of needs, including poverty and cultural diversity. Involving the public in issues of accountability and continuing research on what works and does not work in school reforms efforts across the country is crucial. The public must know about the gaps in achievement for race, gender and social status, the potential consequences if these gaps are not narrowed, and the solutions proved successful in reducing the gaps. To punish schools that do not perform in standardized tests will only hurt schools that are already underfunded and under stress. What is needed is a concerted, consistent effort to help schools to overcome deficiencies in funding, staff quality and resources, and empower teachers and students to achieve, while maintaining the diversity of the student population. The federal government has an important role in this process, both through funding and monitoring how states are using these funds to help minorities and low-income students. A general waiver process, as advanced by the states, if not carefully monitored can have disastrous consequences.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org