It has been only 41 years since the Congress and the Johnson Administration
moved to help eliminate the large educational gaps that had long
persisted among students from different socioeconomic levels in our
society, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965. The notion was bold and courageous because, at that
time, no country in the world was in possession of proven strategies
for quickly closing such gaps. Indeed, here in the United States,
educators and policymakers did not yet have good national data on
the extent of the academic achievement differences among groups.
However, the data that were available suggested that disadvantaged
students from all racial and ethnic groups were experiencing much
less academic success than they should or could. Congress and the
president had the wisdom to make substantial new investments in the
education of disadvantaged children, with the expectation that more
effective strategies could be developed over time. Though the Act
was originally authorized through 1970, it has been reauthorized
every 5 years since. It is important to note four significant
changes in this Act:
1. 1970: In response to widespread
reports of misused federal funds, the law clamped down on how Title
I was spent. The legislation added a requirement that federal
aid “supplement, not supplant” money spent by states
and localities and that Title I schools receive state and local aid “comparable” to
that received by other schools in the state.
2. 1978: In a reauthorization,
Title I aid for the first time can be spent “school wide” if
at least 75 percent of children in the school are eligible for the
aid. Required that parent advisory committees sign off on local
Title I plans.
3. 1988: The law takes important
steps toward the kind of student testing and accountability later expanded
upon. Districts must annually assess, based on standardized-test
scores, the effectiveness of Chapter 1 programs in schools. Program
improvement plans are required for each school that does not make
substantial progress toward raising student achievement. Increased
use of school wide by dropping requirement to 50 percent.
4. 1994: President Bill Clinton
signs the Improving Americas Schools Act, a reauthorization of the
ESEA that requires states to develop standards and aligned assessments
for all students. Districts also must identify schools not
making “adequate yearly progress” and take steps
to improve them, though the law is far less strict than the 2001 version
in defining AYP and applying consequences to schools that don’t
make it.
It is important to note that Title I was and still is an anchor of
the bill. Title I was (and is) technically racially and ethnically
neutral. Many educators and policymakers at the time undoubtedly recognized
that these programs would be of disproportionate value to African American,
Hispanic and Native American children and youth, because much higher
percentages of these youngsters were growing up in poverty than was
the case for Whites. That, ladies and gentlemen, remains true today.
In fact, states with the highest percentage of African Americans in
schools is also where we find the highest levels of poverty.
At the core of NABSE's recommendations for the reauthorization of Title
I of the Elementary .and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the notion
that parity and equity in student achievement, and excellence in educational
attainment for all citizens is first, dependent on the equitable targeting
of federal dollars based on need and second, a substantial investment
in other education-relevant resources' that positively affect the ~~
educational experience of students. The popular press and much of the
country's polity equate poor Black and Latino students only with urban
communities. The reality is that a significant number of African-American
children attend schools in very poor rural communities. Of the current
300 African-American Superintendents in the country, two- thirds head
either poor rural or newly re-segregated school district in suburban
rings. The latest poverty study from the Carsey Institute at
the University of New Hampshire reports that 22% of all children now
live in poverty. It has gone up 4% since 2000 and remains most
severe in the South. Though we believe our recommendations will benefit
every student in America, we speak specifically to the needs of poor
students of African descent who reside in rural and inner-city America
or in the recently re-:-segregated suburban rings of America's metropolises.
The stated purpose of the 1965 Title I Act included the following:
In recognition of the special educational needs of low-income families
and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on
the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational
programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United
States to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies
serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families
to expand and improve their educational programs by various means (including
preschool programs) which contribute particularly to meeting the special
educational needs of educationally deprived children.
In short, Title I was designed to compensate for or overcome the disadvantages
in children's economic status, and learning associated with home, school,
or community experience. We recommend the inclusion of the above
language as one of the stated purposes of the Title I Act, coupled
with a call for high challenging academic standards that focus on the
achievement for students and accountability at the state and local
level for results.
We applaud the efforts of the Congress and the Administration to look
at research as a lever for policy and legislation. But we would request
that you review all of it, in a bi- partisan way, not just at the research
that supports a particular perspective. We ask you also to look at
the widespread research and reports that cut across all policies and
philosophical perspectives from James Coleman in 1966 to L. Scott Miller
in 1995 that purport: in order for the poor, the disadvantaged and/or
the under-served in our society to achieve robust educational advancement
at both individual and group levels there must be a long term opportunity
structure in place; a structure that assures that educationally- relevant
resources are part of the federal construct.
We believe that the elimination of the educational achievement gaps
between America's poor children and its other children is as significant
to national defense as “smart bombs”, stealth fighters,
and worldwide military bases.
First, we unequivocally recommend that the financial
capital that the federal government makes available for the reauthorization
of Title I be targeted to the poorest children in the poorest schools
in the poorest school districts. We adhere to the theoretical
framework on education-relevance resources as explained by L. Scott
Miller in his book, An American Imperative: Accelerating Minoritv
Educational Advancement. Yale University Press. 1995.
Education-relevant resources encompass the idea that the amount
of educational resources varies from school to school across the
country, and the amount of resources available from students' families
varies even more. So, even a school with excellent resources may
not be able to fully ) help some students. Education-relevant resources
include:
-
Human capital (the acquired knowledge, skills,
and experience that a person has accumulated in his/her
lifetime that can be a benefit to others through education):
-
Social capital (the relationships ad personal
bonds that people share in addition to the networks, groups and communities
that grow out of these relationships);
-
Health capital (amount of access that a student
has to quality health treatment, and the health conditions in which the student
lives);
-
Financial capital (the income and savings of
the family of the student); and
-
Polity capital (how much society is committed
to educating the student).
Secondly, there is broad support among NABSE members for the
comprehensive use of federal resources so that the resource
provides significant input on achievement. We, however, believe
that the current 50% poverty population threshold for Title
I funding does not adequately guarantee that all poor children's'
education will be sufficiently impacted in a school or school
district. We further believe that too many school wide programs
that simply became general aid dilute the purpose of Title
I as a funding stream for the neediest and most disadvantaged.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that the legislation move
the threshold for school wide programs to schools with children
with at least a 60% poverty rate in 2000 and 75% in subsequent
reauthorizations to assure greater accountability of the use
of the funds.
Third, NABSE membership does support high standards for all
students. The membership also supports a commitment to standards-based
reform and a federal role in its implementation. In order to
determine efficacy of the federal impact, NABSE, recommends
that new language on accountability and assessment be carefully
reviewed: We
support the notion that data reporting, data collection, and data analysis be
disaggregate by a cohort of such based on significant indicators. However,
we urge you to eliminated the language of sub-groups..it is insulting. (e.g.,
race, income, English language proficiency, etc.). If Congress and/or the States
attach high stake consequences to assessment for schools and/or school districts,
then Congress and States must be sure that they have provided a vehicle for assigning
education-relevant resources, education-relevant strategies, education-relevant
safety nets and techniques to schools and school districts for addressing high
stake issues.
Fourth, though Title I has been treated as a funding stream, it is
much more. There must be language that is not punitive, but resolves
not to fund classrooms where failing teachers continue to reside. The
provisions in the current law require that, school wide, there be good
teachers, effective strategies, and most importantly, timely and effective
individual assistance for students struggling to meet standards. These
provisions must be enforced and strengthened. We do not need to dwell
on the fact that there are a large and growing number of national studies,
observations and reports which reveal that the least qualified, the
most under-qualified and the least competent teachers are most often
assigned to classrooms comprised of the most academically needy, the
poorest achieving and the traditionally under-served student populations.
In order for America's poor children to meet challenging standards
and to close the achievement gap among them and middle class
and wealthy students, they must have extensive access to
adults who are competent in subject matter, employ multiple
instructional strategies, who know or understand the diverse
population they serve, and who serve as advocates for their
students' right to grow, to learn and to be academically
successful. Our membership supports measures designed to
assure that both highly qualified teachers are in America's
classrooms of the poor and that measurable improvement in
student achievement be a factor in the performance assessment
of those teachers.
Finally, we need no other studies to inform us that parents
and family input are critical education-relevant resources.
Sufficient studies exist which provide us with this knowledge.
It is NABSE's view that it is in the interest of national defense
for the federal government to assist localities in increasing
the opportunities and level of critical parent input that continues
to be illusive for the parents of poor children.
The requirements of the original legislation must be enforced with:
a) accompanying language for a better dissemination construct to inform
parents as to the basic requirements and benefits of parent involvement;
b) appropriate technical assistance strategies to implement parent
involvement requirements currently in the law; and c) appropriate measures
that require that states provide guidance and direction to local districts
as to the importance of complying with parent involvement requirements.
It is not enough to talk about parent involvement. In order to really
level the playing field at the parent level, we believe that poor parents
must have access to the same awareness, insights and understanding
as their middle class cohorts. To that end, we advocate Title I parent
programs to support independent, locally based and culturally relevant
family training centers that partner with local school districts to
help poor parents identify, analyze and value the processes of
education in support of their children receiving a high quality education.
As one of the leading African American advocates and implementers of
strategies for children of African decent has posited: “Access
to well resourced education is a civil right.” We continue
to support many aspects of the elementary and secondary act including
some of the provisions of its current incarnation in NCLB. We
strongly urge Congress to stop simply authorizing language, but to
also provide for well-resourced education (including the “dollars” that
includes rich and repeated opportunities for teaching and learning,
in school and out of school.
Our position on the reauthorization is consistent with the legislative
agenda that we have set for FY 2007. It is as follows as attached:
