Title I

Title I is a federally mandated program administered by the federal government to provide funds to local education agencies (LEAs) for individuals who are economically disadvantaged. According to the US Department of Education, in the 2009–2010 school year, approximately 21 million children in public and private schools received assistance through Title I programs. This article presents the history and applications of the Title I program in the United States. Additionally, this essay will discuss Title I programs in terms of proponents and critics, effectiveness, early intervention, and special education.

Keywords Economically Disadvantaged; Even Start; Head Start; Improving American's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA); Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); Limited English Proficient (LEP); Local Education Agencies (LEA); Low-Income Families; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Socially Disadvantaged; Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); War on Poverty

Overview

In the 1960s and 1970s, several programs were launched to assist children who were educationally at a disadvantage and living in poverty. According to Ornstein and Hunkins (1998), many of the programs developed by the reform movements targeted specific populations, educational strategies, educational settings, and policy. Ornstein and Hunkins (1998) further reported that President Johnson's administration began the practice of funding personnel and services that targeted the educational minority and economically disadvantaged under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Title I is a federally mandated program administered by the federal government to provide funds to local education agencies (LEAs) for individuals who are economically disadvantaged. The majority of LEAs distribute funds to schools with the highest number of children from families who are low-income. According to the US Census Bureau in 2012, an individual making less than $11,720 per year or a family of four making less than $23,492 per year is considered to be below the poverty income level (Institute for Research and Poverty, 2013).

According to the US Department of Education, in the 2009–2010 school year, more than 56,000 public schools in the United States received Title I funds, with over 21 million children receiving assistance through Title I programs (US Department of Education, 2011). Three percent of these children were in preschool, 59 percent were in Kindergarten through fifth grade, 21 percent were in grades six through eight, and 17 percent were in grades nine through twelve. In 2011, the US. Department of Education provided approximately $14.5 billion in financial support for children in preschool through high school. Trends in high-poverty schools include the widening gap in achievement scores between high and low poverty schools as well as rising scores, particularly in math, in the highest poverty schools (US Department of Education, 2002).

The additional monies provided by Title I funds must focus on children who are at the most risk of failing the academic curriculum. However, if the school has more than 40 percent of children considered to be low income then the funds can be used school wide for all of the children in school. Statistics from the US Department of Education (2007) indicate that 60 percent of Title I funds provide school-wide assistance and 40 percent are targeted funds for specific programs.

Additionally, children enrolled in private schools can have access to Title I funds. According to the US Department of Education, approximately 1 percent of the children enrolled in private schools receive Title I assistance (US Department of Education, 2002).

History & Purpose of Title I

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was established by President Johnson's proposal of the Great Society, which lead to the introduction of legislation known as War on Poverty. The intent of the Great Society was recognition of the need for domestic programs to eliminate poverty and racial or social injustice by promoting equal opportunity for all citizens. The phrase "War on Poverty" was coined by Johnson in 1964 and was considered to be in response to the economic conditions of that era. In terms of education, the goal of Title I was to narrow the achievement gaps between middle class and poor children.

Borman (2000) stated that Title I was unparalleled in establishing a federal obligation to equal educational opportunity for all children. Since 1965, Title I of ESEA has been the primary federal financial resource for schools. As the primary compensatory education program in the United States, Title I aims to break the cycle of poverty by closing the achievement gap between poor and more advantaged peers (Borman, 2000; LeTendre, 1996; Ornstein & Hunkins, 1998; Ysseldyke, Betts, Thill, & Hannigan, 2004).

According to the US Department of Education, the purpose of Title I is to improve the educational opportunities of the disadvantaged by ensuring that all children have equal access to education and the skills to achieve proficiency in terms of state academic standards. The US Department of Education states that the intent of Tile I can be accomplished by holding educational systems at the local and state level accountable by:

• Having measurable outcomes;

• Meeting the educational needs of all children (i.e., children who are disabled, neglected, limited English proficient, etc.) in high poverty schools;

• Closing the achievement gap for high and low performing, minority and nonminority, and disadvantaged and advantaged students;

• Providing educational alternatives and resources to students in low performing schools;

• Providing teachers and schools with greater decision making authority to improve education standards;

• Allowing schools with a predominately high poverty level to opt to use resources school wide to design supplemental services or programs to enhance the educational services;

• Providing staff development financial assistance; coordinating services with other service agencies; and,

• Involving parents in the education process.

Through the provision of Title I funding, state and local education agencies can provide additional services to individuals from low-income families. The provision of services is a mechanism that allows all children the opportunity to receive quality educational services and be proficient on state assessment (US Department of Education, 2007). As stated earlier, if the poverty rate is above 40 percent at the individual school, the school may use Title I funds to provide school-wide programs for all students. If less than 40 percent of the school population is below poverty, then the school must use the funds to target activities to students who are at risk or who are failing the school curriculum or failing to meet the education standards. Additionally, the programs must be based on strategies that will improve student achievement and support parental involvement.

Applications

Reauthorizations of Title One

The ESEA has required local education agencies to provide services to eligible children, teachers, and parents enrolled in either public or private schools (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1998; Ysseldyke, Betts, Thill, & Hannigan, 2004). In 1994, ESEA was reauthorized as the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA). The reauthorization maintained its original provision to provide services to those in poverty. However, the focus of the program was to provide school-wide reform measures instead of remedial-only services (Le Tendre, 1996). The movement toward school-wide research demonstrated that all children in a poverty school are negatively affected, not just the students who are living below the poverty level (Kopels, 1995; Le Tendre, 1996; Ratcliffe & Willard, 2006).

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) amended the ESEA to continue this mandate (Ratcliffe & Willard, 2006). As part of the accountability measures required by NCLB, states using Title I funding must develop timelines for increasing student performance and ways to increase parental involvement in education. For example, states are now required to publish achievement data by different groups (i.e., low income, disabilities) and make certain that students meet the state educational proficiency standards. Educational testing must occur every year in grades three to eight and once in grades ten to twelve (Ratcliffe & Willard, 2006; Ysseldyke, Betts, Thill, & Hannigan, 2004).

Accountability

In terms of accountability, if a school that does not meet performance standards set by the state, a child’s parent or guardian is given the right to transfer the student to a higher performing school (Le Tendre, 1996; Ratcliffe & Willard, 2006). One of the requirements of NCLB is that highly qualified personnel must teach students, particularly the disadvantaged and disabled. Teachers must be qualified to teach in the academic area for which they are assigned. Schools are limited in the use of noncertified teachers in shortage areas such as special education.

Throughout the history of education, particularly in Title I programs, there has been limited longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of the programs funded (Borman, 2000). However, in response to accountability demands, Congress has recognized and required a longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of Title I.

Types of Programs Available through Title I

The different types of programs offered by Title I typically center around

• Smaller class size;

• Extensive professional development opportunities for staff;

• Parent/family training opportunities;

• Variety of teaching methods and materials in the classrooms; and,

• The use of cutting edge strategies and technology.

Additional services that may be available include direct health services, dental services, speech and hearing assessment, or social services (Kopels, 1995; Ysseldyke, Betts, Thill, & Hannigan, 2004).

According to Le Tendre (1996), schools that develop school-wide programs must include the following components:

• A comprehensive needs assessment of student performance;

• Educational strategies that increase the achievement of all children in the school;

• Instructional approaches that address quality teaching components;

• Teacher preparation/in-service;

• Increased parent involvement;

• Transition services from early childhood programs to the elementary school; and,

• Provision of services in a timely manner (p. 110).

However, Title I does not have to provide funding for each of the seven elements required in school-wide programs (Le Tendre, 1996).

In terms of effective education, it has long been recognized that involvement of parents in the educational process is considered best practice for all students to be successful. Thus, parent involvement is an important component of the Title I program. Parents can facilitate the learning process by supporting teachers and administrators in educating children (Kopels, 1995; Le Tendre, 1996). Additionally, it is recognized that in order to break the cycle of poverty many parents need instruction in how to provide educational stimulation to children.

Viewpoints

Proponents & Critics of Title I

With any program that attempts to level the educational field, there are proponents and critics. The proponents for Title I services maintain that children of minorities, most notably African American, are increasing their test scores as a result of Title I services in comparison to other ethnic groups. Another point of support is that early intervention provides the foundation to be successful in later grades. Programs such as Head Start and Even Start are heralded as success stories in closing the achievement gaps for children in poverty. Proponents of early educational intervention have advocated for the need to develop basic skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic as the educational foundations that allow children success in future educational endeavors.

However, critics of Title I services often report that the program is a failure. Opponents agree that education allows one to overcome economic disparities. However, many of the funded programs are not established on evidence-based practices. Due to the ever-changing political environment, the full implementation of longitudinal research studies has not been conducted. Thus, politicians and not educational experts often fund programs based on educational trends. Often times, the programs are not evidence based in terms of effectiveness.

Another criticism of Title I is that the majority of services are based in elementary schools. Critics state that achievement gains in the lower grades does not translate into achievement gains in the middle or high school grades. Another condemnation is related to the thought that older children cannot benefit from help. In other words, older children have fallen so far behind in achieving the curriculum standards that programs cannot accelerate learning in order to meet the minimum requirements.

Effectiveness of Title One

As the largest funding mechanism for local elementary and secondary education agencies, Congress has begun to question the effectiveness of Title I programs. Overall, the results are positive; however, reports have been based on selected states and cannot be interpreted on a nationwide scale.

One reason for the lack of generalization to all schools is that the interpretation is limited due to the differences between urban and rural youth. For instance, a child living in an urban setting will have very different life experiences in comparison to youths who reside in rural areas. While many states have focused efforts on reading and math, widespread testing within and outside of the respective states has not been conducted. In other words, testing has been conducted in states in certain geographic areas (i.e., grant sites) and not widespread in any particular state(s).

Borman (2000) stated that the research base of services provided by Title I have changed. The need to change has been continuously evaluated as the federal government has placed increasing demands on determining the effectiveness of the program. Borman provided an overview of the research that has been conducted on the goal of Title I "closing the achievement gap." He stated two definitions have primarily been used by researchers to answer the question of effectiveness of Title I services. The definitions have centered on the narrowing of the achievement gap between educationally disadvantaged and advantaged or the widening of the achievement gap without services. According to Borman, the research base indicates that Title I has not met the goal of decreasing the achievement gap between the educationally disadvantaged and advantaged. However, the research literature does recognize that without the program the achievement gap would be even more significant (Borman, 2000).

Le Tendre (1996) and Borman (2000) urge state and local education agencies to transition from a fiscal intermediary monitor to an implementer of best practices. For instance, teachers need to be supported and allowed to be creative in using inclusive practices within the school environment instead of using the traditional pullout remedial services. Additionally, schools should be allowed to join with parents in creating an educational environment that is valued by all stakeholders. By allowing flexibility in school approaches, services can be strengthened by addressing the needs of the school as a whole (Le Tendre, 1996).

Title I Programs & Early Intervention

If the purpose of Title I is to improve the academic achievement of individuals who are economically disadvantaged, then it makes sense for funds to be spent in early intervention. One program funded with Title I monies is Even Start (Bergeson, 2007). The purpose of this program is to improve academic performance by targeting parents and young children. There are four parts to the program:

• Parenting education,

• Adult basic education;

• Interactive literacy activities; and

• Early childhood education.

Each program component promotes the development of literacy skills (Bergeson, 2007). Additionally, this program assists limited English proficiency speakers by promoting the acquisition of English language and reading skills with parents and young children.

Another reading program is Reading First, whose purpose is to have all children reading at grade level in English by the beginning of the fourth grade. Unlike other programs, funding is geared toward promoting research-based programs at selected schools (Bergeson, 2007).

Another example of Title I programs is Title I-D programs. Title I-D allows funds to be directed towards incarcerated or previously incarcerated juveniles to twelfth grade (Bergeson, 2007). These funds are specifically used to allow juveniles the opportunity to meet states curriculum standards to assist them in completing their education.

Title I & Special Education

Title I services are moving toward holding schools accountable for the learning of all children, including children with disabilities. In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was implemented and has caused sweeping changes in educational policy at the national and state levels. In terms of special education, NCLB has included children with disabilities in its requirement for all children to meet state educational standards (Ratcliffe & Willard, 2006). The intent of NCLB is to ensure that all children receive fair and equal educational opportunity is well received by the educational community. However, there are concerns and pitfalls to this sweeping change in education.

Ratcliffe and Willard (2006) discuss the conflicts between NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For instance, IDEA calls for free appropriate individualized education that addresses the learning differences of students with disabilities. However, this provision is missing in NCLB (Ratcliffe & Willard, 2006).

Another debated conflict is the use of statewide assessment tests being given to children with disabilities who clearly are not benefiting from taking the test. Ratcliffe and Willard (2006) provide the example of a student who chronologically should be in the eighth grade but whose skills are on the fourth grade level (p. 1). The individual is receiving services and making progress as outlined on his or her Individualized Education Program (IEP). However, NCLB states that the individual must be proficient as measured by statewide assessment tests. Again, each mandate seems to be in conflict with each other and is not supported in the research literature.

Summary

Johnson's War on Poverty recognized the need for domestic programs to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. As part of this initiative, the federal government proposed that equal educational opportunity would close the achievement gap between poor and middle class groups. Since this time, Title I services have historically provided the single largest funding source for public and private schools in the United States. While the original ESEA has undergone changes over the years, the primary intent has remained to close the achievement gap by providing services for children who are economically and socially disadvantaged.

The types of programs offered by Title I are as varied as the individuals served by this legislation. Title I has many different types of programs that advocate for more one-on-one instruction via smaller class sizes, teacher education, parent/family involvement and training, and flexibility and use of evidence-based teaching methods.

Future trends that will shape Title I programs will include accountability measures and the increase in culturally and linguistically diverse children served in educational settings. As taxpayers demand accountability in the delivery of services, research must continue to investigate the effectiveness of programs and services in narrowing the achievement gap between the economic groups. Another influencing factor will be the diversity of the American society. Individuals who are English second language learners as well as other social groups will present challenges for school districts at the local, state, and national level.

As the landscape of American education continues to be changed by social advocates, parents, and politicians, there will certainly be reauthorizations of this landmark piece of legislation. The NCLB and IDEA are pieces of legislation that have influenced the services provided by Title I. While debates continue to shape educational practices and goals, it is recognized that without Title I services the gap in achievement between individuals who are social and economically disadvantaged and those who are not would be even greater.

Terms & Concepts

Economically Disadvantaged: Economically disadvantaged individuals are those individuals who cannot compete in the free enterprise system due to limited opportunities (i.e., economic) in comparison to others.

Even Start: Even Start is a Title I program that supports local family literacy projects by integrating early childhood education, adult literacy, parenting education, and interactive literacy activities.

Head Start: Head Start is a Title I program designed to address the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services.

Improving American's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA): IASA recognizes the important role families and communities in have in assisting students achieve high educational standards.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): IDEA 2004 is a federal law that continues to mandate special education and related services to individuals with disabilities age birth to twenty-one years.

Limited English Proficient: Limited English proficient refers to individuals whose primary language is not English. These individuals may have difficulty in learning to read, write, speak, or comprehend English.

Local Education Agencies: A local education agency refers to the community school district. For instance, Anywhere Elementary School in Baton Rouge is the local education agency in the State of Louisiana.

Low-Income Families: As defined by the US Census Bureau (Institute for Research and Poverty, 2013), an individual making less than $11,720 per year or a family of four making less than $23,492 per year is considered to be below the poverty income level.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA): President Bush signed NCLBA into law in 2002. It is an educational reform plan that requires schools to be accountable for what each student accomplishes.

Socially Disadvantaged: Socially disadvantaged individuals are individuals who are considered disadvantaged due to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias without regard to his or her individual qualities.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is part of President Johnson's War on Poverty. The goal of the program is to provide funding to schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families in order to reduce achievement gaps between the socially and economically disadvantaged.

War on Poverty: The term War on Poverty was coined by President L. B. Johnson in 1964 and led to legislation that provides funding for the economically and socially disadvantaged.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Bergeson, T. (2007). Title I Learning Assistance Program. Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved from website http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleI/default.aspx

Borman, Geoffrey D. (2000). Title I: The evolving research base. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5 (1/2), 27. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4792935&site=ehost-live

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).

Institute for Research on Poverty. (2013). What are poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines? Retrieved December 12, 2013, from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm

Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., & Phillips, K. R. (2013). Linking student achievement growth to professional development participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal study of elementary students and teachers in title i schools. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–46. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87707424

Isernhagen, J. C. (2012). A portrait of administrator, teacher, and parent perceptions of title i school improvement plans. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 17, 1–7. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85997593

Kopels, S. (1995). The Americans with Disabilities Act: A tool to combat poverty. Journal of Social Work Education, 31 , 337-346. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9511251442&site=ehost-live

LeTendre, M. J. (1996). Title I schoolwide programs: Improving schools for all children, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1 , 109-111. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7435857&site=ehost-live

McMahon, B., Hurley, J. E., Monasterio, E. A., McMahon, B. T., & West, S. L. (2012). Merit determinants of ADA Title I allegations filed by persons with mental illness. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 36, 171–185. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=76459189

Ornstein, A. & Hunkins, F. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ratcliffe, K. & Willard, D. (2006). NCLBA and IDEA: Perspectives from the field. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39 , 1-14. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25204799&site=ehost-live

US Department of Education. (2002). Fact sheet on Title I, Part A. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1-factsheet.pdf

US Department of Education. (2007). Improving basic programs operated by local education agenies (Title I, Part A) Retrieved November 11, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/gteptitleiparta.pdf

US Department of Education. (2011). Overview: Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved December 12, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

US Department of Health and Human Services (2006). The 2006 HHS poverty guidelines. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml

Ysseldyke, J., Betts, J., Thill, T. & Hannigan, E. (2004). Use of an instructional management system to improve mathematics skills for students in Title I programs. Preventing School Failure, 48 , 10-14. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14680687&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Bartel, V. B. (2010). Home and school factors impacting parental involvement in a title i elementary school. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24, 209–228. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=52038324

Billig, S. (2003). Book review of "Title I: Compensatory Education at the Crossroads," Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8 , 363-369, Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10130816&site=ehost-live

Harris, C., Kaf, M., Anderson, M., & Knackendoffel (2007). Designing flexible instruction. Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.), 7 , 31-35. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25298763&site=ehost-live

Matsudaira, J. D., Hosek, A., & Walsh, E. (2012). An integrated assessment of the effects of Title I on school behavior, resources, and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 31, 1–14. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74309800

McDill, E. & Natriello, G. (1998). The effectiveness of the Title I compensatory education program: 1965-1997. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3 , 317-336. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7432200&site=ehost-live

Kohl, J. P. & Greenlaw, P. S. (1996). Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act: The anatomy of a law. Public Personnel Management, 25 , p323-333, Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9611125780&site=ehost-live

Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students. Remedial & Special Education, 23 , 195 to203. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7072571&site=ehost-live

Summary of titles in NCLB. (2004). Arts education policy review, 106, 5-6. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15095787&site=ehost-live

Title I, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (1993). Journal of Sports Management 7 , 275. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16592568&site=ehost-live

Williams, J. (2004). The 1964 Civil Rights Act. Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities 31,(3), 12. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14242808&site=ehost-live