![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Chapter 101
Purpose: Chapter 1 provides financial assistance to local education agencies (LEAs) to meetthe special needs of educationally deprived children who live in areas with high concentrationsof children from low-income families. The 1988 Hawkins-Stafford amendments seek to improve further the educational opportunities of educationally deprived children by helping them succeed in their regular school program, attain grade-level proficiency, and improve achievement in basic and more advanced skills.
Funding History
| Fiscal Year | Appropriation | Fiscal Year | Appropriation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1967 | $1,015,153,000 | 1986 | $3,062,400,000 |
| 1970 | 1,219166,000 | 1987 | 3,453,5000,000 |
| 1975 | 1,588,200,000 | 1988 | 3,829,600,000 |
| 1980 | 2,731,682,000 | 1989 | 4,026,100,000 |
| 1981 | 2,611,387,000 | 1990 | 4,768,258,000 |
| 1982 | 2,562,753,000 | 1991 | 5,557,678,000 |
| 1983 | 2,727,588,000 | 1992 | 6,134,240,000 |
| 1984 | 3,003,680,000 | 1993 | 6,125,922,000 |
| 1985 | 3,200,000,000 | 1994 | 6,336,000,000 |
More than 53,000 schools--over half of all those in the country--receive Chapter 1 funds (III.3). Among them, 71 percent of public elementary schools and 30 percent of public secondary schools (grades 9-12) participate in the program. In addition, 53 percent of Catholic schools, 9 percent of other religious schools, and 9 percent of secular private schools enroll students who participate in the Chapter 1 program (III.3).
Despite widespread participation of schools in Chapter 1, some high-poverty schools and poor-performing students go unserved. Indeed, at the elementary level, almost half of the schools serving fewer than 10 percent poor children participate in Chapter 1, while 14 percent of schools serving more than 50 percent poor children receive no Chapter 1 funds (III.4). In addition, Prospects study data on first- and fourth-graders indicate that about one-third on the low-achieving children (who score at the 35th percentile on reading tests) in schools with poverty rates over 75 percent do not receive Chapter 1 services (III.2).
Chapter 1 Participants
In school year 1991-92, Chapter 1 served over 5.9 million children; 95 percent were enrolled in public schools. Chapter 1 participation is concentrated primarily (69 percent) in the elementary grades, and 8 percent of participants are enrolled in kindergarten and prekindergarten. Minorities are disproportionately represented in the program; 40 percent of participants are white, 27 percent are black, 28 percent are Hispanic, and the remaining 5 percent are American Indian/Alaska Native, or Asian/Pacific Islander. There has been a small but steady increase in the percent of Hispanic participants since 1985-86 with a concomitant decline in white participants over the same time period (III.6).
The wide participation in the Chapter 1 program results in a varied profile of students and schools. While Chapter 1 students represent a large proportion of enrollment in high- poverty schools they are also served in relatively well-off schools. Indeed, 38 percent of all Chapter 1 students are enrolled in schools with 0 to 34 percent poverty. At the same time, the average achievement of all students in high-poverty schools is about the same as Chapter 1 participants in low-poverty schools (III.1).
Chapter 1 students, do however, reflect a greater level of socioeconomic disadvantage than others. According to parents of fourth-graders, surveyed for the Prospects study (III.2):
Instructional Services
Subjects Taught. While there are no statutory or regulatory limits on the subjects taught using Chapter 1 dollars, services are most commonly offered in reading, mathematics, and language arts. Chapter 1 reading is offered in more than 95 percent of elementary schools and 69 percent offer mathematics. Services are almost identical in middle/secondary schools (III.8). The provision of Chapter 1-supported instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL), however, has increased over time, and is more prominent in the middle/secondary grades than in elementary schools (III.8).
In 1991-92, more than 72 percent of all Chapter 1 participants received reading instruction, and 48 percent received mathematics instruction. Twenty-three percent received other language arts instruction and 16 percent received other instructional services (III.6).
Service Arrangements. The most common service arrangement continues to be pullout, that is, students are pulled from their regular classrooms in order to receive Chapter 1 services . However, the 74 percent of elementary schools that used pullouts in 1991-92 represent a decline from 84 percent in 1985-86. During the same period, the percentage of schools offering in-class instruction increased from 28 percent to 58 percent. The use of computer-assisted instruction also saw a dramatic increase from 31 percent of all Chapter 1 elementary schools to 51 percent, during the six-year period. Finally, while extended time programs (before- and after-school and summertime) are more common, they remain a small percent of the service models used (9 and 15 percent, respectively) (III.8).
Time Spent in Instruction. Chapter 1 instruction is typically offered for 30 minutes a day, five days a week. However, it only contributes about 10 additional minutes of academic instruction to each child's day. During 1991-92, 70 percent of elementary classroom teachers reported that students missed some academic subject during Chapter 1 reading/language arts instruction. Of this 70 percent, 56 percent indicated that students were missing regular reading/language arts activities during their Chapter 1 reading/language arts instruction (III.8).
Curriculum and Instruction. While the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments emphasized the need to teach more "advanced" skills, basic skills continue to dominate Chapter 1 instruction. In the 1991-92 school year, 84 percent of elementary school teachers reported that basic skills drill and practice was a major focus of Chapter 1 reading instruction--nearly three times the 29 percent who said higher-order thinking skills was a major focus. The discrepancy was even greater in mathematics, where the focus tended to be on mechanics and memorization found in traditional approaches to education (III.8).
Coordination of Chapter 1 Services with the Regular Program. Coordination between Chapter 1 and regular school teachers at both the elementary and middle/secondary grade levels most often takes place through informal discussions. Ninety percent of Chapter 1 teachers and 75 percent of elementary teachers reported having at least one discussion weekly. The frequency of informal meetings at the middle/secondary levels, however, is a bit lower as 73 percent of Chapter 1 teachers and 45 percent of regular teachers reported having weekly discussions. Elementary school teachers were more likely than their middle/secondary school counterparts to rate the quality of coordination between Chapter 1 and regular instruction as good or excellent. However, a majority of teachers from all grades reported that Chapter 1 staff participated in decisions on student progress in the regular school program (III.8).
Chapter 1 Instructional Staff. In 1991-92, Chapter 1 supported approximately 77,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers and 70,000 FTE aides (III.6). Between 1985-86 and 1991-1992, the proportion of Chapter 1 teachers with a master's degree and above increased from 51 percent to 62 percent (III.8). In addition, a survey of principals found that Chapter 1 teachers compare favorably with their regular classroom counterparts. Approximately 37 percent of Chapter 1 school principals rated the quality of Chapter 1 teachers as higher than that of the average classroom teacher.
Aides plan a significant role in providing Chapter 1 instruction--particularly in the highest-poverty Chapter 1 schools. During 1990-91, 63 percent of aides provided instruction when supervised by a Chapter 1 teacher, and 20 percent provided instruction on their own. Yet, most aides have only a high school diploma. Only 17 percent have a B.A. or B.S., or more advanced formal education (III.8).
Schoolwide Projects
Schools are increasingly taking advantage of the benefits available through schoolwide projects, that is, the option of serving all students in high-poverty schools with Chapter 1 funds. Indeed, they have become much more common since the enactment and early implementation of the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments. In 1988-89, there were approximately 200 schoolwide projects. That number tripled both in 1989-90, and two years later in 1991-92. Of the approximately 9,000 schools eligible for schoolwide project status, on the basis of poverty, more than 2,300 were operated in 1991-92 (III.6, III.9).
Of note is that while the numbers of schoolwide projects are increasing, 45 percent of principals in eligible elementary schools reported that during 1991-92 they were unaware of the schoolwide project option. Among those who knew about schoolwide projects, 57 percent said they were still considering the option (III.8).
Scope of Activities. For the most part, schoolwide projects are not undertaking fundamental instructional reforms. Instead, they have been pursuing more incremental changes such as lowering class size. Indeed, those that choose to assign Chapter 1 teachers to regular classrooms reduced their average class size from 27 to 19 students (III.8).
Family Involvement in Chapter 1
Districts and schools have expanded their parental involvement activities under Chapter 1, since the enactment of Hawkins-Stafford.
Activities commonly available at both high- and low-poverty schools include parent-teacher conferences (90 percent), parent advisory councils (68 percent), home-based education activities (55 percent), and parent resource centers (29 percent) (III.8).
Chapter 1 Services to Private School Students
In 1990-91, Chapter 1 served about 174,000 private school students, an increase of almost 50,000 since the 1985 Supreme Court ruling, Aguilar v. Felton. In that year, approximately 30 percent of participating private school students received services in mobile vans or portable classrooms; 30 percent were served through computer-assisted instruction in their schools, 20 percent were served at other neutral sites, and 12 percent were served in public schools (III.1, III.11).
Concerns among members of the private religious school community exist regarding the increase in the use of computer-assisted instruction in private, religiously-affiliated schools. The concern centers on the restrictions applied after the Supreme Court's Felton decision, that prohibit teachers from teaching private school students in Chapter 1-funded computer laboratories located in religiously affiliated schools.
The implementation of provisions authorized under the 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Amendments required new responsibilities at the State and local levels. The impact of the new requirements varied and often reflected State and local leadership decisions regarding a perceived role for Chapter 1 in the context of broader State and local reforms. Other factors have included limited resources expended for technical assistance, knowledge development, and dissemination for promoting improved practices under Chapter 1. Finally, while the law focused on program quality and accountability, Federal and State monitoring efforts that continued to concentrate on ensuring that funding recipients focused on compliance, rather than educational guidance, limited innovative reforms (III.10, III.12).
Pre- and post-tests administered to the same groups of students (through the Prospects study) show little progress among Chapter 1 students. Comparisons of similar cohorts by grade and poverty show that program participation does not reduce the test score gap for disadvantaged students. Indeed, Chapter 1 student scores (in all poverty cohorts) declined between the third and fourth grades (III.2).
The Prospects study found, for example, that--regardless of their grade level--large differences exist in reading and math scores between students in low- and high-poverty schools, especially in higher-order skills. Typically, "students in low-poverty schools score from 50 to 75 percent higher in reading and math than students in high-poverty schools." "(And) the average reading and mathematics achievement of all students in high-poverty schools is almost the same as that of Chapter 1 students in low-poverty schools" (III.1, III.2).
These data, however, differ from the gains reported annually to the Department, by States, through the mandated State reports. Nationally, for the 1991-92 school year, States reported a gain of 7 percentile points for third graders in both advanced skills reading and math (III.6). These annual scores, based on norm-referenced achievement tests, are also used for student eligibility and identification, instructional feedback and diagnosis, and local, State and national accountability (III.1, III.13). The National Assessment of Chapter 1 found, however, that while norm-referenced achievement tests have a number of strengths, they have "drawbacks as tools for diagnosis and decisionmaking." Moreover, the national aggregation of scores--without a clear understanding of the level of services that students receive or their individual characteristics--does not provide a useful measure of the program's effectiveness, and concerns exist regarding the appropriate use and interpretation of the data (III.14).
Chapter 1 Idea Books. A series of practitioner-oriented idea books is planned to highlight special features of Chapter 1, including schoolwide projects, parent involvement, and opportunities for extending learning time with Chapter 1 resources.
New National Assessment Studies. PES plans to conduct a set of studies to prepare baseline information for the new National Assessment of Title I. These studies will focus on key elements of the reauthorized program: alignment with high State standards, professional development, flexibility, parent involvement, and targeting of funds. A set of formative studies will be launched to gather information at the State, local, and school levels on implementation of the new program requirements--particularly regarding the expansion of schoolwide projects, new school improvement requirements, targeting at the district and school levels, parent compacts, and program administration and technical assistance needs. Early studies to inform the National Assessment of Title I include the following:
[Migrant Education Program (MEP) (Chapter 1, ESEA) Formula Grants to State Education Agencies to Meet the Special Education Needs of Migratory Children, and Migrant Education Even Start Program (MEES)]