A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Preliminary Report

Analysis and Highlights

Background
Study Methodology
Key Findings

• Targeting of Funds
• Use of Federal Funds for Instruction, Instructional Support, and Program Administration
• Improving the Skills and Knowledge of Teachers
• Increasing Access to Technology
• Helping Students At Risk of Failing to Meet Educational Standards
• Standards-Based Reform and the Goals 2000 Program
• Title VI-Innovative Education Program Strategies
• Safe and Drug-Free schools and Communities

Background

The Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding (SERFF) examines the allocation and use of funds provided to school districts and schools through Goals 2000 and five of the largest programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In addition, the study explores similarities and differences between Title I and state compensatory education programs. The six federal programs included in this study are:

• Title I, Part A: Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards, Grants to LEAs
• Title II: Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Elementary and Secondary Programs
• Title III, Section 3132: Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
• Title IV: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, State and Local Agency Programs
• Title VI: Innovative Education Program Strategies
• Goals 2000: Educate America Act, State and Local Systemic Improvement

The study examines the extent to which program funds are used for various strategies for improving student achievement, including professional development, technology, extended time, and schoolwide reform and improvement, and how the use of resources varies across schools and districts. The study examines the proportion of funds used for instruction, instructional support, administration, and other purposes, as well as the proportion of funds used at the district and school levels. The report also examines the targeting of these program funds at the district and school levels and how targeting has changed since the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This preliminary report presents initial findings from the SERFF. A more comprehensive report will be completed later in 1999.

Study Methodology,

Key Findings

Targeting of Federal Funds

• Federal education programs in general were much more targeted to high-poverty districts than were state and local funds. Districts in the highest-poverty quartile, which have 25 percent of the school-age children and 49 percent of the nation's poor children, received 43 percent of federal funds but only 23 percent of state and local funds. In contrast, districts in the lowest-poverty quartile, which have 25 percent of the children and 7 percent of the poor children, received 11 percent of federal funds but 30 percent of state and local funds.

• Title I targeted the most funding to high-poverty districts, but other federal programs also targeted significant shares of funding to these districts. Districts in the highest-poverty quartile received 49 percent of Title I funds and about one-third of the funds from Title II (35 percent), Title III (36 percent), Title IV (33 percent), Title VI (34 percent), and Goals 2000 (33 percent).

• The 1994 reauthorization had little impact on district-level targeting. For all five programs in this study that existed in FY 1994, the distribution of funds among district poverty quartiles was virtually the same in FY 1997 as in FY 1994. Title I funds continue to go to 93 percent of all school districts, the same percentage as in 1987-88.

• At the school level, Title I targeting increased considerably after the 1994 reauthorization. Title I funds now go to nearly all (95 percent) of the highest-poverty schools (where 75 percent or more of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches), up from 79 percent in the 1993-94 school year.

• The highest-poverty schools received 46 percent of Title I funds allocated to schools in the 1997-98 school year, although they accounted for only 27 percent of Title I schools. Schools with poverty of 50 percent or more received 73 percent of Title I funds. Low-poverty schools received only 18 percent of the funds, but they tended to receive much larger allocations per low-income student ($773) than the highest-poverty schools ($475). Across all Title I schools, allocations averaged $472 per low-income student.

• The above school allocation data underestimates total school-level spending for Title I, because 16 percent of Title I funds are used for districtwide programs and services related to instruction and instructional support -- services that affect teachers and students in schools throughout the district, although they are not allocated to individual schools. In addition, because the allocation data are based on FY 1997 appropriations, the average allocation amounts may seem low compared to current (FY 1999) appropriations levels, which are 7 percent higher than in FY 1997. If the school allocation estimates are adjusted to take both of these factors into account, the average school funding level rises from $472 to $613 per low-income student for the 1999-2000 school year, and ranges from $617 in the highest-poverty schools to $1,001 in the low-poverty schools.

• Secondary schools received 15 percent of all Title I funds allocated to schools, substantially less than their share of the nation's low-income students (33 percent). In part this is because secondary schools were less likely to receive Title I funds than elementary schools; in addition, secondary schools that did receive Title I funds tended to receive smaller allocations ($372) than elementary schools ($495).

• However, the highest-poverty secondary schools received allocations that were comparable in size to those in the highest-poverty elementary schools ($446 and $479, respectively). Moreover, changes made in the 1994 reauthorization resulted in a dramatic increase in the proportion of the highest-poverty secondary schools that receive Title I funds, from 61 percent in 1993-94 to 93 percent by 1997-98.

Use of Federal Funds for Instruction, Instructional Support, and Program Administration

• For Title I, districts used 92 percent of their funds for instruction and instructional support. School districts allocated 75 percent of their Title I dollars to individual eligible schools. The remaining funds were used for district-wide programs and services (16 percent), program administration (8 percent), and services for students in private schools (1 percent).

• Districts also used high percentages of the funds from other federal programs for instruction and instructional support (97 percent for Title II, 96 percent for Goals 2000, 94 percent for Title VI, and 92 percent for Title IV). These funds were used primarily for districtwide services and resources that affect teachers and students throughout the district and were not usually allocated to individual schools.

• Administrative costs at the district and school levels ranged from 3 to 8 percent of program funds. Program administration accounted for 8 percent of spending under Title I and Title IV, 6 percent under Title VI, 4 percent under Goals, and 3 percent under the Title II Eisenhower program.

Improving the Skills and Knowledge of Teachers

Four ESEA programs and Goals 2000 provided an estimated $771 million in support for professional development in the 1997-98 school year. The Title II Eisenhower Program comprised 40 percent of these funds ($310 million). Title I expenditures on professional development at the district and school levels amounted to $191 million, and Goals 2000 expenditures provided an additional $187 million. Districts also used Title VI ($43 million) and Title IV ($41 million) for professional development activities.

• Topics of professional development supported by federal programs were generally aligned with the purpose of the programs. Professional development focused on curriculum or instruction specific to reading or language arts was the highest priority for Title I directors, two-thirds of whom (66 percent) reported using funds "a great deal" for this topic. Goals 2000 funds predominantly supported activities related to content or performance standards, enabling students to meet proficiency standards, and assessments linked to standards. Title II funds were most often used for activities focused on math and science curriculum and instruction, followed by content and performance standards.

• Teachers participated in professional development activities focused on specific content areas such as mathematics or reading more than any other topic. Classroom teachers reported participating in 13 hours of professional development on this topic in the 1997-98 school year (23 hours for teachers in the highest-poverty schools). Other activities included parent or community involvement (7 hours), teaching academically, ethnically, or linguistically diverse learners (7 hours), integrating technology into instruction (6 hours), developing teachers skills in using technology (5 hours), and content or performance standards (5 hours).

• Two-thirds of districts and schools reported that professional development activities focused "a great deal" on content and performance standards. In general, schools and districts in the study supported similar professional development topics.

• Many teachers also reported some participation in less traditional and more collaborative forms of professional development. Teachers spent the most time on planning lessons or courses with other teachers (25 hours in 1997-98). Teachers spent an average of 8 hours on developing curriculum, 7 hours on developing content standards or student assessments, and 3 hours observing other teachers in their classrooms. While many schools, districts, and federal program coordinators reported supporting teacher involvement in collaborative work, few teachers reported receiving release time to participate in activities.

Increasing Access to Technology

Four ESEA programs and Goals 2000 provided an estimated $647 million in support for technology in the 1997-98 school year. About $257 million (40 percent) came from two programs focused on technology, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology Innovation Challenge Grants. Title I expenditures on technology at the district and school levels amounted to an additional $237 million (37 percent). Significant support for technology was also provided through Goals 2000 ($84 million) and Title VI ($69 million).

• Federal funds paid for one-fourth (24 percent) of the new computers that schools received during the 1997-98 school year. State and local funds paid for two-thirds (64 percent) of the new computers, and private sources provided 12 percent of the new computers.

• Federal funds were a much more significant source of support for new computers in high-poverty schools. In the highest-poverty schools, Title I funds alone paid for 26 percent of the new computers and federal funds from all sources paid for 49 percent of the new computers. In contrast, low-poverty schools received a relatively small proportion of their new computers either from Title I (4 percent) or from federal funds overall (15 percent).

• Overall, however, high-poverty schools had less access to technology than low-poverty schools in terms of the quantity, quality, and connectivity of computers. Even after using Title I and other federal funds, the highest-poverty schools received fewer new computers in the 1997-98 school year (12.6) than did the low-poverty schools (16.4). Consistent with this finding, the highest-poverty schools had only one computer for every 17 students, while low-poverty schools averaged one computer for every 12 students. Computers in the highest-poverty elementary schools were less likely to be more advanced multimedia computers (39 percent of computers, vs. 52 percent in low-poverty schools) or to be connected to the Internet (22 percent vs. 34 percent).

• Most teachers reported that their lessons require students to use computers, but relatively few incorporate the use of computers on a daily basis. About one-fourth (28 percent) of elementary classroom teachers reported that their students use computers daily, as did 8 percent of secondary classroom teachers.

• Teachers typically did not integrate use of the Internet into instructional activities. About 62 percent of elementary classroom teachers and 71 percent of secondary teachers reported that their lessons "never" or "hardly ever" required students to use the Internet, and most others reported that using the Internet was relatively infrequent.

• A major barrier to the effective use of technology was insufficient teacher understanding of ways to integrate technology into the curriculum, according to 70 percent of principals and 45 percent of classroom teachers. However, teachers were more likely to express concern about an insufficient number of computers, lack of software integrated with the school's curriculum, and insufficient technical support. To address the knowledge barrier, more than 80 percent of districts indicated that professional development has focused "a great deal" on developing teachers' skills in using technology.

Helping Students At Risk of Failing to Meet Educational Standards

Title I, the largest federal education program, provided $7.3 billion in FY 1997 to support district and school efforts to help disadvantaged children meet high standards. In addition, many states also fund compensatory education programs to provide additional resources to schools with economically or educationally disadvantaged children.

• Schoolwide programs accounted for nearly half (45 percent) of Title I schools and an even higher share (60 percent) of the funds. Over four-fifths (82 percent) of Title I schools that were eligible to operate schoolwide programs were doing so, and an additional 12 percent were considering doing so.

• Although 36 percent of targeted assistance schools reported that they had reduced their use of pullout programs in recent years, this model continued to be widely used. About three-fourths (72 percent) of elementary targeted assistance schools served Title I students in pullout programs, and these programs served 63 percent of the Title I students. However, in-class models were almost as prevalent, used in 66 percent of elementary targeted assistance schools and serving 65 percent of the Title I students. About 38 percent of elementary targeted assistance schools offered both pullout and in-class services. Schoolwide programs were less likely to use the pullout model, with 48 percent of elementary schoolwides serving students in pullout settings.

• Title I teachers spent two-thirds of their time working with students. Title I teachers reported that they spend 66 percent of their time in instructional activities. This instructional time was primarily spent in resource rooms (i.e., pullout) and departmentalized classes, which accounted for 49 percent of their time. Title I teachers spent 14 percent of their time teaching students in in-class settings, and another 3 percent on informal tutoring. The remaining time was used for planning, preparation, and grading (19 percent); consulting with other staff (6 percent); interacting with parents (3 percent); and administrative duties (6 percent).

• Paraprofessionals were used in many Title I schools for teaching and helping to teach students, although their educational backgrounds did not qualify many of them for such responsibilities. Half of the instructional staff supported through Title I were paraprofessionals. Title I teacher aides reported that 60 percent of their time, on average, was spent on teaching or helping to teach students. Moreover, 41 percent of Title I teacher aides reported that half or more of the time they spent teaching or helping to teach students was on their own, without a teacher present, and 76 percent spent at least some time teaching without a teacher present. Although 99 percent of Title I teacher aides had a high school diploma or a GED, only 19 percent (and 10 percent in the highest-poverty schools) had a bachelor's degree.

• Two-thirds of all schools offered before-school, after-school, or weekend instructional or tutorial programs during the school year. Secondary schools were more likely to offer extended-time programs (79 percent) than elementary schools (54 percent). High-poverty schools were also more likely to provide extended-time programs (74 percent of the highest-poverty elementary schools, compared with 36 percent of low-poverty elementary schools). . One-fourth (23 percent) of Title I targeted assistance schools reported that their use of extended-time programs had increased since the 1993-94 school year.

• Schools that offered extended-time programs typically served a small percentage of their students in these programs. Extended-time programs during the school year served only 16 percent of the students in the highest-poverty schools that offered such programs and 11 percent of the students in Title I schools. Elementary and secondary schools served similar proportions of their students in extended time programs (12 percent and 10 percent, respectively). Additional instructional time provided through these programs added about 10 percent to the amount of time students spent in school during the school year.

Standards-Based Reform and the Goals 2000 Program

The Goals 2000 program provided $476 million in FY 1997 funds to 6,700 school districts throughout the country to promote systemic educational reform. Districts sometimes targeted Goals 2000 funds to schools with low student achievement (23 percent), but more often used the funds to serve all schools in the district (35 percent) or all schools or teachers who wished to participate (39 percent).

• Districts most commonly used Goals 2000 funds to improve teachers' abilities to teach to high standards. Most districts (89 percent) used Goals 2000 funds "a great deal" to provide professional development linked to standards. Three-fourths (76 percent) used the funds for aligning curriculum and instruction with standards, and 70 percent used them for developing assessments linked to standards.

• Professional development supported with Goals 2000 funds most commonly addressed state or district content or performance standards and enabling students to meet state or district proficiency standards--each topic supported "a great deal" by 71 percent of districts. Other topics frequently supported include assessments linked to standards (46 percent), curriculum and instruction specific to reading or language arts (40 percent), and teaching academically, ethnically, or linguistically diverse learners (39 percent).

• Almost three-quarters of districts (71 percent) reported that the long-term district plan was "extremely influential" in making decisions about the use of Goals 2000 funds. Half (51 percent) reported that student performance data was "extremely influential." Decisionmaking was collaborative: almost half of district Goals 2000 coordinators (44 percent) reported that decisions about the use of funds were made jointly by districts and schools, while almost one-third of the districts (29 percent) reported making decisions at the district level, but with input from schools.

Title VI - Innovative Education Program Strategies

The Title VI program provided $310 million in FY 1997 to school districts to support local innovative strategies consistent with Goals 2000 and the National Education Goals. Resources and services were widely distributed to most or all schools within each district. Title VI programs were more closely coordinated with Title I programs than with any other federal program, in terms of both communication among district program administrators and the combining of funds to support professional development activities.

• Title VI funds were most often used to acquire educational materials, including library materials and software. Fifty-eight percent of the districts reported using Title VI funds "a great deal" for this purpose, followed by expanding the use of technology (39 percent) and providing supplemental targeted academic services (34 percent).

• Title VI funds were less likely than either Goals 2000 or Title I funds to be used for activities related to implementing standards, such as aligning curriculum and instructional materials with standards (13 percent), or providing professional development linked to standards (13 percent).

• When making decisions about how to use Title VI funds, districts were more likely to be influenced by long-term district plans (52 percent) and priorities of individual schools (52 percent) than by state policies (21 percent). About a quarter of districts cited student performance data (28 percent) and research showing that particular program models work well (24 percent) as factors that were "extremely influential" in making decisions about the use of Title VI funds.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

Title IV, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program, provided $425 million in FY 1997 to support school districts' efforts to prevent violence and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs in and around schools. In addition, Title IV funds administered by Governors' Offices provided an additional $106 million to serve children and youth not normally served by school districts and populations that need special services (such as runaway or homeless children, dropouts, teen parents, and youth in detention facilities); these funds are not primarily granted to school districts and thus were not included in this study.

• The clear priority for districts was to use Title IV funds for strategies that affected student attitudes. Most districts (83 percent) reported using funds "a great deal" to affect student attitudes related to drugs or violence. Districts also used Title IV funds to strengthen school communities through improving staff knowledge and skills (47 percent) and through building partnerships with parents and the community (26 percent of districts, enrolling 44 percent of students). Given the statute's 20 percent cap on the amount that districts may use for security hardware and personnel, it is not surprising that few districts (4 percent) used funds "a great deal" to improve school security.

• Title IV funds also supported student participation in drug and violence prevention efforts. Three-fourths of districts (74 percent) used Title IV funds to enable students to attend specialized training in drug and violence prevention. Many districts also used these funds to teach students how to serve as instructors or peer leaders in school-based projects related to drug and violence prevention (57 percent) or to support student participation in school committees, panels, or councils (48 percent).

Further Information

Copies of this report are available by contacting the U.S. Department of Education's Publication Center in the following ways:

• Toll-free phone calls to 1-877-4ED-Pubs (1-877-433-7827), TTY/TDD call 1-877-576-7734. If 877 is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327), TTY/TDD call 1-800-437-0833
• via internet at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html
• via e-mail at edpubs@inet.ed.gov
• via fax to 301-470-1244
• via mail to ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398

-###-

Return to Elementary and Secondary Education with Title I

mail to esed@ed.gov