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

Introduction

The Title I program involves almost every school district in the country. New objectives in the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that link Title I with state and local reform efforts have the potential to increase the significance of this major program. Congress recognized the need to understand these important new features by mandating a national assessment of the program's performance. The National Assessment of Title I (NATI) is guided by a conceptual framework for improving student performance, a framework that also organizes the sections of this report.

This first mandated report on the new Title I focuses on essential features of the local education agency grants program (Part A); subsequent reports will concentrate on other parts of Title I, including the Even Start, Migrant Education, and Neglected and Delinquent programs. The ongoing NATI will attempt to show how these programs are linked and work together. This introduction outlines the significance and objectives of Title I, the role of the Independent Review Panel, and the framework of education improvement that Title I is intended to support.

The Significance of Title I

Title I serves students at risk of school failure who live in low-income communities. The program is the cornerstone of federal support for elementary and secondary education, with funds of nearly $7 billion reaching over half the schools in the country. More than 6 million students are served by Title I; most Title I programs support instruction in the early elementary grades.

For 30 years, Title I has helped improve education for students in low-income areas. As the National Assessment of Chapter 1 found, Title I focused the attention of policymakers and educators on the needs of poor and educationally disadvantaged children (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). The program helped equalize educational opportunities and support a national focus on basic skills in the 1970s, evidenced by a narrowing of the achievement gap through the 1970s and into the 1980s. Title I also recognized the importance of parents to the success of an educational program (U.S. Department of Education, 1993).

A recent RAND study (Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, & Williamson, 1994) concluded that federal programs and policies, including Title I, are at least partly responsible for improvements in performance by minority students between 1970 and 1990. Policies regarding equal educational opportunity and increased public investments in schools and families, which have targeted disadvantaged students, "provide the most likely explanation for the gains made by black and Hispanic students over and above those predicted by family effects" (Grissmer et al., 1994, p. 107; Smith & O'Day, 1991; O'Day & Smith, 1993).

At the same time, the National Assessment of Chapter 1 recognized that the achievement gap separating students attending high- and low-poverty schools is widening, and increases as students move through the grades. The study found that the program's structure--often operating in isolation from the regular school program as well as from state and local education reforms--could not adequately support children in achieving the National Education Goals (U.S. Department of Education, 1993).

The new legislation seeks to shift Title I from an outsider to a supporter of state and local initiatives--integrated with school, district, and state efforts to improve learning for all students. Indeed, the new legislation places Title I within a broader system of education improvement to boost the performance of disadvantaged students and schools. This is a significant advance; because of its size and scope, Title I has the potential to expand and stimulate state and local reforms and work in tandem with other federal programs to strengthen the impact of federal funds in high-poverty schools.

Objectives for the New Title I and for Title I Evaluation

In mandating the evaluation of Title I, Congress requested that the U.S. Department of Education assess the impact of the program in achieving its primary goal of helping to raise student performance. It identified as key objectives that the program:

• Ensure a focus on high standards for all children, including those at risk of failing to meet them



• Provide children with an enriched and accelerated educational program



• Promote schoolwide reform, effective instructional strategies, and challenging content



• Significantly upgrade the quality of curriculum and instruction



• Coordinate services with other education, health, and social service programs



• Afford parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school



• Distribute resources to where the needs are greatest



• Improve accountability



• Provide greater decisionmaking authority and flexibility to states, districts and schools in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance

The reauthorized ESEA requires several major evaluations of the impact of Title I, both as a discrete program and in the context of other federal programs (see Section 1501). The law calls on the U.S. Department of Education to examine the progress of Title I in an interim report due January 1996 and a final report due January 1998. The reports are to describe the progress of states, districts, and schools toward realizing the key objectives of the reauthorized Title I program. Also mandated are special studies of several key areas emphasized under Title I, including a longitudinal evaluation of schools, a study of the barriers to parent involvement, and an evaluation of services to migrant students in schoolwide programs. In addition to satisfying the Congressional mandate, the NATI will respond to the Department of Education's strategic plan and the Government Performance and Results Act, which requires performance accountability and the use of data on program effectiveness to inform funding decisions.

In addition, Section 14701 of ESEA Title XIV (General Provisions) mandates a broader evaluation of the impact of federal programs on education reform. Specific areas of focus for the evaluation include: short- and long-term effects and cost efficiencies across federal programs, the use of the general ESEA waiver authority, and its impact on local administration and the educational achievement of participating students. The Section also requires that an independent panel of researchers, state and local practitioners, and other appropriate individuals advise the Department on how to carry out the assessments.

The Independent Review Panel

ESEA calls for the formation of a Title I Independent Review Panel and a Federal Impact on Reform Panel. The Department has combined the two groups into one panel that includes representatives of state and local education agencies and private schools, principals and teachers, parent representatives, education researchers, and policy experts. The mission of the panel is to advise the Department on the structure of evaluation activities, the coordination of multiple studies, and the synthesis and interpretation of findings, as well as to examine policy implications and make recommendations for future reauthorizations. The panel has met four times since it was convened in May 1995 and has identified issues for the NATI to address. These concerns, which reflect the objectives of the Congressional mandate, are incorporated throughout this report.

Title I in a Framework of Educational Improvement

More than 20 years of research and the experience of a generation of practitioners have pointed to fundamental principles that undergird the reauthorized Title I. Central to the program is the premise that aligning federal resources and policies with state and local reform will reinforce and amplify efforts to improve teaching and learning for students at risk of school failure.

At the state level, Title I requires states to develop or approve standards and assessments that will challenge all students to perform to higher levels. Research suggests that standards, when coupled with valid and reliable assessments and aligned support, can exert a powerful influence over what children are taught and how much they learn. By developing agreements about standards for what children should know and be expected to do, school systems, students, parents, and the wider community can focus their efforts on improving student performance. Under Title I:

• The standards approved by the state become those that apply to students served by the Title I program; the assessments that measure performance toward the standards become the yardstick for gauging the progress of Title I in districts and participating schools.



• The inclusion of all children (to the extent possible) in appropriate assessments is intended to hold school systems accountable for all children, whether or not they have limited-English-proficiency or disabilities.



• The publication of the evidence of children's progress is intended to motivate everyone involved to be more effective in supporting student learning. Establishing performance accountability mechanisms that provide continuous feedback throughout the system is designed to help improve implementation and results for students.

At the school and classroom level, challenging standards and assessments for all students are to raise expectations and guide other elements that support improvement, such as challenging curricula and intensive professional development. Title I provides additional funds to help the poorest school systems and the students who are farthest behind attain high state standards, and to support teachers and other school staff involved in upgrading curricula and teaching.

The new legislation calls for Title I to focus on approaches that encourage significant improvements in schools and increase instruction time for students. In particular:

• High-poverty schools can adopt schoolwide programs to upgrade curriculum and instruction throughout the entire school for the benefit of all children. Schools are held accountable for the achievement of those children most at risk of school failure.



• In targeted assistance programs, the new legislation de-emphasizes the pull-out model of instruction that schools typically used under the old law and encourages the use of strategies such as extended day (before- and after-school programs), extended year, and summer programs to increase learning time.

Teachers in Title I schools are to be prepared to teach the curriculum and engage their students in learning through sound, innovative approaches. They are to be supported in their efforts through a comprehensive network of technical assistance intended to build their capacity to improve teaching and learning. New flexibility in the program is intended to encourage school staff to make maximum use of resources and promising practices in their reform efforts.

Title I also recognizes that achieving high standards for all students requires a shared commitment from everyone concerned, including greater family and community involvement in education. Research and practice indicate that families can contribute greatly to children's learning and that, with encouragement, schools and families can work in partnership toward the mutual goal of improved student performance. Through Title I parent-school compacts, parent involvement policies, and support for training and capacity building, the program seeks to foster and maintain schools and parents working together as partners in improving learning.

Organization of the Report

This report is organized around the key components of Title I reform and the mandate for the NATI. Each component is described in terms of:

• The new provisions in Title I, and how they are designed to contribute to improved teaching and learning.



• What the NATI has learned from the antecedent program and research on effective strategies.



• Performance criteria for assessing early implementation and progress of the Title I provisions, along with any baseline information currently available.



• Plans for evaluating progress that synthesize information from several studies.

[Foreword]

[Section 1: Baseline Information on Student Performance and Title I Participants]