|
Title I Funding
Update as of July 30, 2004
The
U.S. Department of Education
has released its newest figures in regard to Title 1 funding
late in May of 2004 indicating less Title 1 monies for states
regardless of increased costs in providing the mandates related
to NCLB.
Pennsylvania will be one of ten states designated to receive
less Title 1 money this coming 2004-05 year along with Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Kansas. Why is this? According
to the Center on Education Policy’s report of June 2004,
one-fifth of the states losing up to 10% of their original
Title 1 funding is due to the annual data collected from the
U.S. Census Bureau, in addition, to the manner in which the
allocations are distributed. Pennsylvania, for example, is
becoming a more affluent state with less poor children demographically
according to the 2002 census figures. While the figures point
out that Pennsylvania’s schools have fewer enrolled
poor students than in past years, schools are still serving
significant numbers of low-income, high need children, especially
in urban school districts such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
While many opponents of NCLB
argue that the federal government’s education reform
is making more demands of accountability of schools and providing
less funding to make it happen, the U. S.Dept. Of Education
is consistently adamant in suggesting otherwise, saying the
funding is more than adequate.
Title 1 was
implemented as legislation in 1965 under President Lyndon
Johnson, based on the laudable idea that recognized there
are areas and pockets of concentration where there are high
levels of poverty where students who do not have the support
and funding that well funded students in suburban school districts
possess, therefore creating a climate unequal in opportunity
for students in receiving an equal and appropriate education.
In an effort to level the playing field, the government funded
and directed money in the lower socio-economic areas to address
the student achievement gaps racially and academically. Since
it is recognized that Pennsylvania will receive less for Title
1 funding, it is likely what will result will be increased
costs in other social programs through legislative efforts,
such as the Student Achievement Funding Bill, and Parent Involvement
Programs, such as the Parents as Teachers proposed legislation,
Tutoring and Remediation Programs through the Block Accountability
Grants….all support areas that will be forced to make
up the shortfall lacking in Title 1 funding….this is
where the state will force the local taxpayer via raised taxes
to provide and sustain these education initiatives, some of
which are currently already in place. One will see an increased
need for more money to be directed into these funding streams.
So, once again, the wealth will be redistributed
to the poorer school districts throughout the Commonwealth.
In addition, it’s significant to note that many of these
programs are designed to support the “non-academic”
needs through non-academic means, with a history of showing
no evidence in improving student achievement. Furthermore,
most schools will not qualify for all of the educational funding
initiatives unless they have a high aid ratio, high percentage
of free and reduced lunch students, a high percentage rate
of students scoring below basic on the PSSA, a student population
under 1500, or other criteria as outlined under the Student
Achievement Bill of Governor Rendell’s administration.
Title 1 of NCLB
and not to be confused with Title 1 Funding…are two
distinct aspects of the education climate. However, where
the two become intertwined as one is with NCLB.
Title 1 of NCLB
requires states and schools to be held accountable in meeting
Adequate Yearly Progress in helping all students meet proficiency.
Schools receiving Title 1 Funding who do not meet the performance
benchmarks and criteria set out by the state accountability
plan to make AYP begin a series of serious sanctions once
identified for needing improvement. Such sanctions involve
notifying parents of students who attend the school needing
improvement, providing school choice if need be after two
consecutive years, providing tutorial and remediation through
supplemental services and providing technical assistance to
the school districts themselves to get their district reorganized
to meet the accountability criteria demanded.
One aspect of this troubling
and current scenario of Title 1 and schools’ challenges
to meet the demands of NCLB,
is the fact that while poor student enrollments may have decreased
across the board, schools in general, continue to have significant
numbers of low-income students with high needs. In fact, most
of the initiatives in Governor Rendell’s Plan for a
New Pennsylvania are for “high need” schools,
which are referred to as schools with high poverty, high minority,
low performing, or a culmination of all three factors. Nationwide
evidence in numerous examples suggest giving more funding
to poorer districts does not correlate or guarantee improved
student achievement as already demonstrated through the efforts
of Title 1 spending $120 billion and little results since
1965 in bridging the achievement gap. 94% of the nation’s
schools are Title 1 schools.
While there are forty states that will receive increases in
Title 1 funding this year, specific districts within those
states will see generally less funding and lose that funding
to districts across the state, as well as, nation, to districts
with larger concentrations of low-income and high need student
populations.
Congress should fund the $500
million authorization under NCLB
for a dedicated stream of money under Title 1 to help schools
not meeting AYP, regardless of a specific subgroup. This critical
program has not been funded for three years and would ensure
that school improvement funding does not drain Title 1 budgets.
While many believe the current Title 1 state set-aside funding
for school improvement is sufficient to cover costs of expenses,
this is simply not the case in Pennsylvania. This 2004 year,
NCLB
requires the state of Pennsylvania to reserve 4% of a school
district’s funds for school improvement once identified
upon not meeting AYP. In PA, that amount represents approximately
$17.2 million of the statewide Title 1 allocations. 214 school
districts lost Title 1 funding for the 2003-04 school year.
Add to that equation, the declining poverty levels based on
the new census data, and the Commonwealth will lose $7.5 million
in Title 1 funds next year. Consequently as a result of districts
having to utilize 20% of their Title 1 funding to implement
school choice and improvement funds are diverted from our
most vulnerable students and school programs to outside providers.
It is difficult for states to challenge the federal level
on all the various federal mandates and reforms being hammered
down upon their respective state and onto the local level.
History through the years has demonstrated that while states
are displeased with the federal intrusion of government into
education at the state, as well as, local level, few are willing
to challenge reforms for fear of risking or jeopardizing Title
1 funding. The federal government has intertwined Title 1
into almost each and every reform since it’s inception
in 1965.
More recently
so in 1994 with the passage of Goals 2000 (a.k.a. Outcomes
Based Education) which was originally presented to the states
as “voluntary” with money as an inducement. At
that same time, HR6 was passed and told the states “No
Title 1 money unless you take the Goals 2000 money.”
Having being accustomed to Title 1 funds and programs, every
state then implemented Goals 2000. By doing so, the states
all surrendered their local control of state academic standards
and curriculum content in order to obtain the Title 1 funding.
So, in 1994, local control as we knew it was totally eviscerated
and states relinquished all their authority to the federal
government.
That same
year, Congress went on to pass the School to Work
Act. Currently, in 2004, no state can get or receive
NCLB
money or federal funding, unless they (the state) have Goals
2000 and School to Work in place. Furthermore, no state can
receive federal Title 1 money unless they have Goals 2000
in place. Therefore, for a state, any state, to challenge
the federal government in implementing any of the above mentioned
reforms, such as NCLB,
or to provide legislation to allow school districts to challenge
state or federal funding that is “inadequate”
because of failure to meet AYP in all schools….PA would
need to strive toward incorporating language into all education
legislation and reauthorizations that clearly allows states
to refuse money from this federal education program without
jeopardizing funds from any other program, such as the case
with Title 1 funding.
Federal law
has lost all its credibility with its language about “voluntary”…which
really means “mandatory”. There should be no legislative
loopholes or hammers of mechanism held above school district’s
heads. Therefore I believe that once one state works toward
achieving that laudable goal, others will quickly follow.
I would recommend collaborating with the ten states mentioned
above that will lose up to ten percent of their Title 1 funding
and challenging the federal level as to “inadequately”
funding schools creating a climate of schools failing to meet
AYP because of inadequacy in funding streams and inadequacies
in allocation formulas, inclusive of Title 1 funding, not
conducive to helping schools to meet the challenges of NCLB,
as well as, the demands of accountability in achieving AYP.
Kim Geyer
Mars School Director
<
Back to No Child Left Behind
|
