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

What the New Provisions Are

School-level flexibility and accountability. Title I gives teachers and principals (in collaboration with parents) more freedom to make decisions about how to best use program funds to help students achieve more.

• Title I expands the schoolwide program feature, thus allowing a greater number of high-poverty schools to engage in fundamental improvements focused on high standards, so they can better serve the entire school with Title I resources. The decision to adopt a schoolwide program is made by the school, not the district.

  Schoolwide program status also enables schools to commingle Title I, Part A funds with other federal resources (e.g., Title I, Part C Migrant Education, Title II Eisenhower Professional Development, Title VI Innovative Education Strategies, and Title VII Bilingual Education funds) as long as the needs of targeted populations are addressed in the schoolwide plan.

• Title I promotes increased school-level accountability based upon whether students are making adequate progress--that is, showing improvement as defined by state assessments and other measures. For example:
  • Each Title I school will be required to demonstrate adequate yearly progress in narrowing the gap between disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers in attaining state performance standards. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress will be identified for improvement and receive technical assistance through districts and states.

  • Local school districts will publish performance profiles of individual Title I schools to promote increased accountability to families and communities.

System supports for flexibility and accountability. Districts, states, and the federal government support Title I schools through information, guidance, and technical assistance in developing and implementing plans for educational reform designed to help disadvantaged students meet high standards. For example:

• States and districts are responsible for implementing a performance-based accountability system, using "high-quality" state assessments. States will establish requirements for adequate yearly progress for schools and school districts, based on those yearly student assessments and other measures such as dropout, retention, and attendance rates. Districts must take corrective actions to help a school if it fails to make adequate progress after two years. States and districts also will reward progress and high performance in Title I schools.

• The federal government, states, and districts will help schools understand the purpose and requirements of Title I. Congress directed that federal regulations governing standards and assessments in Title I be distributed to the field by July 1995. This mandate was successfully fulfilled. Beyond this, federal officials are responsible for developing and disseminating clear, coherent guidance.

• At the federal level, a new authority enables the U.S. Department of Education to waive various statutory or regulatory provisions, at the request of states, districts, or schools. In addition, "Ed-flex" provisions in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act extend the federal waiver authority to six states.

Ed-Flex in Kansas Kansas has tied its Ed-Flex plan to the state's comprehensive overall reform strategy, which includes Quality Performance Accreditation. Results of waivers granted will be evaluated against locally-determined indicators and the state's assessment system.

What the National Assessment of Title I Has Learned

Schoolwide Improvement A.G. Hilliard Elementary School North Forest Independent School District, Houston, Texas Five years ago, Hilliard Elementary School, which serves about 535 African American students in grades 1-5, became a Title I schoolwide program (about 95 percent of students receive free or reduced-price school lunches). Instructional decisions made by school staff are informed by continuous evaluation and feedback, which focuses on students' progress in reading, writing and math. The school's annual instructional plan includes a timeline for covering priorities based on the state's standards, "Essential Elements" in reading, writing and math. Social studies and science are integrated within the other disciplines. These standards are linked to the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). The priorities set forth each fall in the timeline are based on students' scores on the TAAS that was administered the preceding spring. Every six weeks, teacher teams select the essential elements of the curriculum that they plan to cover, based upon the annual schoolwide plan. At the end of each six-week period, students take tests developed by school administrators to measure their mastery of the essential elements. The tests are scored within 24 hours; the principal, instructional specialist, and teachers then discuss strategies for addressing students' needs during the next six weeks of instruction. Teachers continually introduce new curriculum, reteaching skills as necessary. The principal and instructional specialist spend time in the classroom and model teaching strategies for staff. Every day, 50 minutes are devoted to staff training and collaboration. Occasionally outside experts visit the school to provide additional support; the district provides $2 per student annually to fund such activities. According to Principal Rufus Allen, the emphasis on continuous evaluation and feedback on student progress has resulted in teachers setting higher expectations for both students and themselves. Staff recognize success and also re-examine strategies for teaching and professional development. Principal Allen attributes the success of this approach to the principle that "what gets monitored, gets done." Hilliard students have succeeded. In spring 1995, 80 percent of Hilliard third graders met the state's expectations on the TAAS in reading, an increase from 20 percent five years prior; eighty-one percent met expectations in math. Ninety-three percent of the fourth graders at Hilliard met the expectations in writing. Most recently, Hilliard was recognized as one of six outstanding schools in the nation by the National Alliance of Black School Educators. (R. Allen, personal communication, December 4, 1995)

The low level of participation in schoolwide programs can be attributed to limited awareness of the option. A 1991-92 survey of principals in eligible elementary schools found that 45 percent were unaware of the option (Millsap, Moss, & Gamse, 1993). Indeed, many of these principals reported that they were not informed of the option by their school districts, which may have received little or no information from their state educational agencies.

Changes due to flexibility and accountability in schools. Despite increases in the early 1990's, the number of schools with schoolwide Title I programs remained relatively low in the antecedent Chapter 1 program. Less than half (47 percent) of eligible schools (those with poverty rates of 75 percent or higher) implemented schoolwide programs in 1994-95, although this was a large increase from the 19 percent of eligible sites that offered schoolwide programs in 1989-90 (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Compensatory Education Programs, 1995).

Although some sites embraced the schoolwide program option early on to promote improved opportunities for all children, most schools that chose the schoolwide option did not undertake fundamental instructional reforms. Instead, they pursued only incremental and administrative changes such as lowering class size, without accompanying changes in instruction.

In addition, most schoolwide program schools surveyed for the National Assessment of Chapter 1 did not use their flexibility to implement whole-school reform, instead opting for more limited strategies. There was little evidence of rethinking or overhauling programs, even among schools that were well along in implementing state and local reforms. Most schools continued to focus instead on targeting services to specific populations (Schenck, 1993). The forthcoming report Integrating State Systemic Reforms and Chapter 1 Programs: Insights from Early Initiatives (Pechman & Turnbull, in press) concludes that if policy makers want to see schoolwide programs stimulate reform, they will have to emphasize this goal in their message.

Changes due to new roles in supporting flexibility and accountability. Schoolwide programs did not achieve their full potential under the antecedent Chapter 1 program. This is due, in part, to concerns about commingling of funds and because states and districts were reluctant to encourage them. Many states and districts are now placing a higher priority on promoting schoolwide reforms through information-sharing and technical assistance.

A focus on compliance and regulatory matters, rather than on improved student performance, occupied much of states' and districts' efforts in administering Chapter 1. In large part, this mirrored the focus of federal monitors during state visits. According to a 1992 survey, almost every state Chapter 1 director noted that federal monitors emphasized compliance issues, while less than half noted that the monitors were concerned about the quality of Chapter 1-supported instruction (Turnbull, Wechsler, & Rosenthal, 1992).

An examination of Chapter 1 in the context of state and local reforms offers suggestions for state and local assistance of Title I-supported school reform efforts: Title I policy makers and program managers might want to clarify roles for the program in state or local efforts to develop or adapt curricula for low-achieving students. Some source of leadership in curriculum development is needed if Title I students are to escape their traditional diet of low-level basic skills. Title I policy makers and program managers could strongly encourage states and districts to focus professional development on the practical application of new standards, curricula, and instruction with disadvantaged students. Currently, more peripheral instructional programs dominate professional development in districts. (Pechman & Turnbull, in press, pp. 60-63)

The early responses to the general waiver provision in ESEA, which gives the Secretary of Education the authority to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements, suggest that districts and states are aware of the option but are unaware of the opportunities for flexibility that already exist. By the end of January 1996, of 197 waiver requests submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, 48 were withdrawn because the requested action was possible without a waiver. Most waiver requests sought flexibility to continue existing Chapter 1 programs in schools that became ineligible due to new targeting requirements. Very few of the early waiver requests have supported innovation (U.S. Department of Education, unpublished summary of waiver requests, 1996).

Waivers to Speed Improvement Highland Elementary School Clarkston School District, Washington A schoolwide planning team composed of teachers, parents, the principal, the Title I teacher, and the school librarian conducted a thorough needs assessment at Highland Elementary School. Based on the results of this needs assessment, the team developed a plan for a schoolwide program. Subsequently, the district requested and received a waiver that allows Highland to implement a schoolwide program one year before it would be eligible under the statutory poverty threshold. (U.S. Department of Education, unpublished summary of waiver requests, 1996)

Performance Criteria for the National Assessment
of Title I

• An increased number of schoolwide programs might indicate that schools are using Title I and other federal dollars to implement comprehensive reforms that meet the needs of all students to reach high standards in high-poverty schools.
  • An examination of the extent to which principals and teachers are aware of and take advantage of the flexibility available through Title I and other federal programs will provide a key indicator of progress.

  • Evidence of the effective implementation of schoolwide programs includes the extent to which schoolwide program plans and implementation efforts use resources strategically to meet identified student needs. The extent to which the needs of targeted student populations (e.g., migrant children, students with limited-English-proficiency) are addressed will also be considered.

• To complement an examination of school-level flexibility, the NATI will report ways in which schools are determining whether students are achieving standards of progress linked to assessments and other measures, and the extent to which schools use that information for improvement.

System supports for flexibility and accountability. Performance criteria for measuring system supports for increased flexibility and accountability address planning support, guidance, and strategies for measuring progress and assisting and recognizing schools. For example:

• Evidence that Title I schoolwide programs, extended learning programs, charter schools, and comprehensive bilingual education programs are implemented in a way that reflects growing awareness and adoption of innovative and integrated approaches to teaching and learning will indicate that states and school districts are effectively using and supporting the flexibility option.

• The NATI will assess the scope and quality of guidance to schools in using Title I supports to address identified needs.
  • To assess planning support and accountability, the NATI will examine (1) the guidance from states to districts and schools on developing and implementing plans for education reform and (2) states' and districts' adoption of strategies, especially under Title I, to support reforms and implement program accountability.

  • The extent to which states and districts provide clear, coherent guidance and an integrated policy framework for school improvement--including alignment among standards, assessments, curriculum and instruction, and assistance--will indicate progress.

  • The impact of new federal/state monitoring practices will be reflected in the extent to which federal monitors exhibit a focus on reviewing quality, not simply compliance, and use effective systems of benchmarking, tracking, and reporting progress.

  • NATI will also examine strategies states and districts use to (1) give schools quick, helpful feedback that supports continuous progress, (2) reward high performance and (3) intervene in failing schools.

• Progress made at the federal level toward promoting flexibility by assessing the implementation of the Secretary's waiver authority and federal program monitoring.
  • The new waiver authority and flexibility are intended to encourage schools to adopt promising innovations and integrated approaches that respond to the needs of children, particularly those targeted for services, and not simply be requested for administrative convenience. Information on waivers requested and approved to encourage further innovation and improvement will be used to examine the impact of waivers on the program's ability to meet goals for targeted populations.

  • The NATI also will report on the U.S. Department of Education's efforts to monitor federal programs through regional service teams. Program monitoring is designed to take an integrated, customer-focused approach that encourages performance accountability and continuous improvement.

Plans for Evaluating Progress

Evaluations planned by the U.S. Department of Education at the school, district, state, and federal levels will examine the implementation of ESEA and Goals 2000, including strategies to promote flexibility for results. The evaluations must pay considerable attention to the way in which the program is implemented, focusing on the use of key strategies such as flexibility and comprehensive approaches. Research conducted through centers supported by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, private foundations, and other organizations will supplement these efforts. For example:

• The recently funded Study of State's Planning and Implementation of ESEA and Goals 2000 will provide information for addressing performance criteria with respect to state-level supports. Since it will be conducted in the first full year of the ESEA's implementation, the evaluation should provide a useful baseline--with respect to Title I, other ESEA programs, and Goals 2000--for measuring state-level planning support and accountability. The evaluation will examine established measures for adequate yearly progress; policy coherence; communication and technical assistance; monitoring of program improvement, better performance, and achievement; and the implementation of incentives among all 50 states. The evaluation also will use case studies to illustrate the links between state-level implementation and district-level supports to schools, including those in Ed-Flex states. Findings are anticipated in early 1997; follow-ups will be conducted in subsequent years.

• The Fast Response Surveys of Principals and Teachers will provide baseline data regarding what school staff know about the new provisions under Title I, other ESEA programs, and Goals 2000--particularly related to the implementation of effective schoolwide practices. More detailed follow-up information will be collected through the planned Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance. Findings from the Fast Response Survey will be available in 1996, when the Department of Education will award a competitive procurement for the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance.

• The Federal Implementation Study of ESEA and Goals 2000 will examine federal monitoring, the development of guidance and efforts to simplify regulations, the implementation of federal waiver authority, and federal support for technical assistance. Findings are anticipated in early 1997.

• The congressionally mandated Study of Migrant Student Participation in Schoolwide Programs will examine the impact of commingling program funds, targeted at a specific student population, with other federal, state, and local dollars to support schoolwide reforms. The study is scheduled to commence in 1996.

• To examine local-level planning, implementation, and supports for federal programs, the Department of Education plans to conduct a Study of Local ESEA and Goals 2000-Supported Planning and Implementation. The local study will be closely linked to the state- and school-level evaluations outlined above; it will address key indicators with respect to planning support and accountability, policy coherence, communication and technical assistance, training of staff, monitoring focused on program improvement, and incentives. The study will begin in 1996, with findings available in 1998.

• Studies conducted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education that are related to the implementation of systemic reforms, including incentives, should also provide useful background information for examining issues related to flexibility and accountability.

[Section 3: Focus on Teaching and Learning Title I Support for Enriching Curriculum and Instruction]

[Section 5: Title I Parent Involvement: Partnerships with Families, Schools, and Communities to Support Learning]