Order Code IB10029
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Education for the Disadvantaged:
ESEA Title I Reauthorization Issues
Updated January 12, 2001
Wayne Riddle
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Program Effectiveness
Legislation in the 106th Congress
P.L. 106-554 (H.R. 4577), Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001
Title I, Part A Amendments in H.R. 2, the Student Results Act
H.R. 2300, Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s Act)
ESEA Title I Amendments in S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act
H.R. 4141, the Education Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation’s
Students (Education OPTIONS) Act
Clinton Administration Proposal
Selected Title I Reauthorization Issues
Standards and Assessments
Program Improvement and Technical Assistance
Schoolwide Programs and Other Forms of Flexibility
Waivers and Ed-Flex
Optional Performance Partnership/Grant Consolidation Proposals
Greater Targeting of Funds on High Poverty LEAs and Schools, and Other Allocation
Formula Issues
Grants to LEAs
Population Updates
School Selection
Other Allocation Formula Issues
Other Reauthorization Issues
School Choice and Title I
Teacher Aides
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10029
01-12-01
Education for the Disadvantaged: ESEA Title I Reauthorization Issues
SUMMARY
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
tiveness through greater targeting of funds on
Education Act (ESEA) authorizes aid to local
high poverty LEAs and schools; requiring
educational agencies (LEAs) for the education
states to adopt curriculum content and pupil
of disadvantaged children. Title I grants are
performance standards, and assessments linked
used to provide supplementary educational and
to these, for Title I students; a renewed focus
related services to low-achieving children
on program improvement; and increased
attending schools with relatively high concen-
flexibility. The extent to which these major
trations of pupils from low-income families.
elements of the IASA have been implemented
varies widely.
The 106th Congress extensively consid-
ered bills to reauthorize Title I, but no Title I
An overarching question for reauthoriza-
reauthorization legislation was adopted, and
tion of Title I is whether the 1994 amendments
this issue remains on the agenda for the 107th
are moving the program toward substantially
Congress. Congress has continued to provide
increased effectiveness. More specific
appropriations for FY2001.
reauthorization issues include: (a) whether to
continue supporting the application of
Title I has detailed provisions regarding
standards-based reform concepts to Title I; (b)
allocation of funds, selection of schools, fiscal
how to improve the coherence and effective-
accountability, pupil assessment, program
ness of activities to identify and disseminate
improvement, and parental involvement, but
information about effective practices, and
there are very few constraints on LEAs in
provide incentives for adoption of these, while
selection of curriculum and staff, instructional
recognizing limits on federal influence and
approach, and other major aspects of Title I
maximizing state and local flexibility; (c)
programs. Title I is essentially a “funding
whether increased flexibility is being used in
mechanism,” with encouragement, but no
ways that are increasing the achievement of
requirements, to employ any specific educa-
disadvantaged pupils, and whether there is an
tional techniques or strategies.
appropriate balance between flexibility and
associated accountability requirements; and (d)
Recent information on the effectiveness
with respect to allocation of funds, what level
of Title I is based primarily on selected states
of targeting of Title I funds on high poverty
and LEAs which have implemented standards-
LEAs and schools is desirable, and what is the
based reforms. While these results are gener-
appropriate balance between use of the most
ally positive, they may not be applicable to the
up-to-date census data versus stability of
program nationwide. Title I amendments
grants to lower-growth states and LEAs.
adopted in 1994 attempted to improve effec-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10029
01-12-01
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On December 21, 2000, the President signed into law P.L. 106-554 (H.R. 4577),
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001. In addition to providing FY2001 appropriations
for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I programs, P.L. 106-554
extends, in somewhat modified form, a requirement initiated in FY2000 appropriations
legislation for LEAs to offer to pupils attending public schools determined to be in need of
improvement the option to enroll in different public schools within the same LEA.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Through the end of FY2000, Title I, Parts A and E, of the ESEA have authorized federal
aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title
I grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving children
attending schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families in
pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Title I is the largest federal elementary and secondary
education assistance program, with services provided to approximately: (a) 90% of all LEAs;
(b) 45,000 (58% of all) public schools; and (c) 11 million (22% of all) pupils, including
approximately 167,000 pupils attending private schools. Four-fifths of all participating pupils
are in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, with only 5% of participants in grades 10 through
12. Title I was last reauthorized and substantially revised in 1994, by the Improving
America’s Schools Act, or IASA. For FY2001, the total funding for Title I, Parts A and E,
is $8.8 billion.
The 106th Congress extensively considered bills which would have reauthorized Title I,
but no Title I reauthorization legislation was adopted, and this issue remains on the agenda
for the 107th Congress. In the meantime, Title I appropriations for FY2001 have been
provided by P.L. 106-554.
This issue brief covers only Parts A and E of ESEA Title I. Part A of Title I, grants to
LEAs, constitutes over 90% of total Title I funding, while Part E authorizes program
evaluation and demonstration projects of innovative practices, including the Comprehensive
School Reform Program. Other Parts of Title I authorize the Even Start program of joint
services to young disadvantaged children and their parents (Part B), plus aid for the education
of migrant (Part C) and neglected or delinquent youth (Part D).
Program Effectiveness
All of the comprehensive studies currently available on the effectiveness of Title I
programs in improving the educational achievement of disadvantaged children are based
primarily on the program as it existed before substantial changes incorporated in the 1994
amendments began to be implemented; therefore, these studies are of very limited relevance
to the current program. The most current information on the achievement of Title I
participants comes from ED’s 1999 report, Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: Final
Report of the National Assessment of Title I. This report examined recent achievement trends
in six states, a separate group of 13 large urban LEAs, and a representative sample of high
CRS-1

---

IB10029
01-12-01
poverty schools serving 4th grade pupils. While the results for high poverty schools are based
on a nationally representative sample of such schools, the states and LEAs examined include
only a selection of areas which have had standards-based reforms (curriculum content
standards, pupil performance standards, and assessments linked to these) in place for at least
3 years. It cannot be assumed that results for these selected states and LEAs are
representative of either current Title I performance nationwide or performance in all states
and LEAs when they reach a similar stage of implementing standards-based reforms.
The major findings of the 1999 National Assessment report include the following:
! The average achievement of students in high-poverty elementary schools
increased between 1995 and 1998 in 5 of 6 states in reading and 4 of 5 states
in mathematics;
! The percentage of students in high-poverty elementary schools who met
LEA or state performance standards in reading and mathematics increased
between 1995 and 1998 in 6 of 13 large urban LEAs, and in reading or
mathematics in 10 of these LEAs; and
! The average reading and mathematics achievement of a national sample of
9 year old pupils in high poverty schools increased between 1992 and 1996,
but the 1996 achievement level in reading is no higher than in 1990.
When considering the effectiveness of Title I programs, it is important to note that while
the aggregate effectiveness of Title I programs may be modest, a number of local programs
are especially effective in serving disadvantaged children, and most of these are dependent on
Title I funds. Further, it is very difficult for a supplementary program, such as Title I, to
increase pupil achievement unless there are substantial improvements in pupils’ overall
instructional program, whether or not that schoolwide change is stimulated by Title I.
Since aggregate evaluation results combine local Title I programs with large differences
in instructional methods and varying effectiveness, it may be more constructive to identify
specific effective practices in Title I programs, rather than attempting to measure aggregate
effects. The final report of ED’s Prospects study, released in 1997, did attempt to identify
effective practices. It found that high poverty schools that perform exceptionally well tend
to have: Title I schoolwide programs that are based on well-implemented, comprehensive,
and research-based school reform strategies; low rates of teacher and pupil mobility; very
experienced principals; a balance of remedial and more challenging curriculum and instruction;
and high levels of parent and community support and involvement.
Legislation in the 106th Congress
P.L. 106-554 (H.R. 4577), Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001. P.L. 106-554
provides FY2001 appropriations of $7,237,721,000 for Basic Grants (including $225,000,000
in Accountability Grants for school improvement), $1,364,000,000 for Concentration Grants,
and $210,000,000 for the Title I portion of the Comprehensive School Reform Program.
Under P.L. 106-554, each LEA and state will receive the greater of 100% of its FY2000
Basic and Concentration Grants, or its grants as calculated under the hold harmless and other
provisions of the authorizing statute but based on the slightly lower total funding levels of
$6,883,503,000 for Basic Grants and $1,222,397,000 for Concentration Grants. It is not
CRS-2

---

IB10029
01-12-01
currently clear whether the available appropriation will be sufficient to pay these amounts in
full, or how a possible insufficiency will be resolved.
In addition, P.L. 106-554 extends, in somewhat modified form, a requirement initiated
in FY2000 appropriations legislation for LEAs to offer to pupils attending public schools in
need of improvement the option to enroll in different public schools within the same LEA
(unless it is not possible, consistent with state and local law, to offer such choice options to
all eligible pupils). P.L. 106-554 clarifies the intent of Congress that this requirement should
apply to all LEAs receiving Title I, Part A grants, not just those which directly receive any
of the separately-appropriated Accountability Grant funds. However, the FY2001 legislation
exempts all LEAs in several small-population states (those receiving a minimum state grant
under either the Basic or Concentration Grant formulas) from this requirement.
Title I, Part A Amendments in H.R. 2, the Student Results Act. Major Title I, Parts
A and E amendments in H.R. 2, as passed by the House on October 21, 1999, include the
following:
Accountability, Corrective Action, and Incentives. The current Title I provisions
regarding standards, assessments, and corrective action would be continued and expanded
under H.R. 2. LEAs would be required to offer public school choice options, consistent with
state and local law, policy, and practice, to pupils attending schools determined to be in need
of improvement or who have been victims of violent crime at school. Current provisions
regarding “school performance profiles” would be expanded in new requirements for
publication of state and LEA “report cards.” Assessments of pupils would require that pupils
who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for at least 3 years would generally be conducted in
the English language. Further, states would be required to adopt standards and assessments
in science, in addition to reading/language arts and mathematics. In addition, states would
be authorized to reserve 30% of future increases (over the preceding fiscal year) in their Title
I grants for performance bonuses to especially effective Title I schools and teachers.
Teacher Aides. The requirements regarding use of Title I funds to hire teacher aides or
paraprofessionals would be modified in three ways: (1) there would be a “freeze” on the
number of aides which LEAs could hire with Title I funds — new aides could be hired, but
only to replace aides who leave their jobs (except for LEAs in which all teachers are “fully
qualified”); (2) aides newly-hired 1 year or more after the bill’s effective date, and all aides
(except those employed as translators or for parental involvement activities) within 3 years,
would be required to have completed at least 2 years of higher education, or to “have met a
rigorous standard of quality that demonstrates, through a formal assessment, knowledge of,
and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing, and math;” and (3) the instructional
and other services which aides hired with Title I funds may provide would be broadly
specified. The bill would also require each state receiving Title I funds to develop a plan
under which all public school teachers must be “fully qualified” by December 31, 2003.
Allocation Formulas. With respect to the share of Title I, Part A funds to be allocated
under the Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grant allocation formulas, H.R. 2 provides that
an amount equal to the FY1999 appropriation would be allocated under the Basic and
Concentration Grant formulas (85% Basic Grants and 15% Concentration Grants). Next, any
increases over the FY1999 appropriation for Part A would be allocated one-half under the
Targeted Grant formula and one-half under the Basic and Concentration Grant formulas
CRS-3

---

IB10029
01-12-01
(again, 85% Basic Grants and 15% Concentration Grants). The ESEA currently provides that
all increases over the FY1995 Part A appropriation are to be allocated as Targeted or
Education Finance Incentive Grants, but this provision has been overridden by annual
appropriations acts, and no funds have ever been provided for these formulas.
Other allocation formula provisions of H.R. 2 are the same as under current law, except:
! An 85% hold harmless rate would be applied to Concentration Grants for all
LEAs, including those which do not meet that formula’s minimum thresholds
of 6,500 or 15%; currently, the ESEA provides a hold harmless rate of 85-
95% of previous year grants for Basic and Targeted Grants, but no hold
harmless for Concentration Grants. The expenditure factor would be
increased for Puerto Rico in stages to at least 85% of the minimum
expenditure factor for the states (for FY1999, it is 71.5% of this minimum),
but this provision would not be implemented if it would result in any state
receiving less than its previous year grant.
! Provisions would be deleted for a fourth Part A allocation formula which is
authorized, but not funded — Education Finance Incentive Grants. The
current provision for reservation of $5 million each year for the freely
associated states (Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic
of the Marshall Islands) would be replaced, through FY2001 only, with a
requirement for a similar amount to be distributed through a competition
among these areas and other outlying areas.
Potential Impact of Formula Amendments in H.R. 2. The potential impact of these
allocation formula changes would be small, and highly dependent on assumptions made about
the provisions of future appropriations legislation. Two scenarios illustrate this point:
! Scenario A: No provisions in appropriations legislation which override the
authorizing statute, combined with modest growth in total Part A funding.
! Scenario B: Continuation of recent (FY1998-1999) patterns of high (100%)
hold harmless provisions for Basic and Concentration Grants to all LEAs,
no funding for the Targeted or Education Finance Incentive Grant formulas,
and modest growth in total Part A funding.
Under Scenario A, adoption of H.R. 2 would result in relatively small annual increases
in grants to Puerto Rico, small reductions in grants to the highest poverty LEAs nationwide
(due to the reduction in the share of “new” money to be allocated as Targeted Grants),
significant increases in Concentration Grants to a relatively limited number of LEAs which
were eligible for such grants in FY1998 but are no longer eligible, and virtually no change for
other LEAs, in comparison to the grants these areas would have received under the current
provisions of the ESEA if these also were not overridden by appropriations act provisions.
However, under Scenario B, which may be more likely in the near term, there would be
virtually no change in grants to LEAs if H.R. 2 were adopted, because the assumed
provisions of the appropriations acts (the 100% hold harmless and failure to provide any
funds for Targeted or Education Finance Incentive Grants) would either counteract, or
already incorporate all, or virtually all, of the revisions in H.R. 2.
CRS-4

---

IB10029
01-12-01
School Selection. In the selection of schools to conduct Title I programs, H.R. 2 would
authorize LEAs to place priority on elementary schools, even among schools in the highest
poverty (75%+ low-income pupils) category. Currently, LEAs may place priority on selected
grade levels only among lower poverty (below 75%) schools. In addition, the enrollment size
threshold for the exemption from school selection requirements would be increased from the
current 1,000 pupils to 1,500 pupils. Finally, the low-income pupil percentage threshold for
schoolwide program eligibility would be reduced from 50% to 40%.
Services to Private School Pupils. Title I provisions for services to eligible private
school pupils would be revised to increase requirements for consultation between public and
private school authorities over a variety of issues, including the selection of third party
contractors to provide services. H.R. 2 would clarify rules for determining the share of LEA
funds to be used to serve private school pupils. The bill would also authorize private schools
to request from the Secretary of Education a “by-pass” of the LEA to provide these services
if pupils in the private school who are served under Title I fail to make “satisfactory
progress.” Finally, H.R. 2 would extend the authorization for “capital expenses” related to
serving private school pupils only through FY2002.
Use of Funds for Administrative Costs. The bill would, for the first time, place a limit
of 4% on the share of Title I grants which LEAs could use to pay administrative costs (and
requires the Secretary of Education to define such costs). It also would provide that any
increases in Title I funds for state administration over the FY1999 level must be provided
through specific appropriations, not automatic reservations from state total Title I grants.
Other H.R. 2 Provisions. H.R. 2 would authorize the Comprehensive School Reform
Program as Part E of Title I. The bill would require LEAs to obtain parental consent to the
instructional methods used to teach English to limited English-proficient pupils in Title I
programs (unless instruction is “exclusively or almost exclusively” in English). Unlike
previous Title I legislation, H.R. 2 does not provide for a national assessment of the program;
this is expected to be included in a subsequent bill to reauthorize the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI). Finally, H.R. 2 would apply to public schools receiving
Title I grants a requirement which currently applies only to Title I instruction for private
school pupils — that such instruction must be “secular, neutral, and nonideological.”
H.R. 2300, Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s Act). Also on October
21, 1999, the House passed H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s
Act). This proposal, sometimes referred to as “Super Ed-Flex,” combines elements of
traditional block grants and the Ed-Flex program, under which SEAs may waive many
requirements under several federal education programs. Overall, H.R. 2300 embodies a
concept of deregulation, rather than the regulatory waiver concept embodied in the Ed-Flex
program — under H.R. 2300, most federal program requirements would be waived, not just
made subject to waiver. H.R. 2300 would authorize up to 10 states, or individual LEAs in
other states (if the state does not object), to administer one or more federal education
programs under a performance agreement, whereby no requirements under the affected
programs would apply, except those related to civil rights, participation of private school
pupils and teachers, and certain fiscal accountability and Title I requirements regarding
curriculum content and pupil performance standards plus assessments linked to these
standards. In participating states or LEAs, funds appropriated for Title I and other affected
programs could be used for any educational purpose authorized under state law.
CRS-5

---

IB10029
01-12-01
Performance agreements under H.R. 2300 would cover a 5-year period, and would
include state-established student performance goals incorporating increased performance by
all pupil groups while reducing achievement gaps among pupils of different groups. State
total grants would be determined under current allocation formulas, but funds could be
allocated within states as determined by the state, except that if Title I, Part A is included,
LEAs may not experience a reduction in grants under that program. Requirements regarding
the allocation of funds to schools within LEAs, such as the Title I requirements to target
funds on each LEA’s highest poverty schools, would no longer apply. States would be
allowed to use up to 3% of total grants for administrative purposes (1% of the total if Title
I, Part A is included). States and LEAs substantially meeting their performance goals would
be eligible for an extension of their performance agreement; states failing to meet at least 50%
of their goals would be subject to a 50% reduction in their federal program administrative
funds. States which reduce by 25% or more the gaps between their highest and lowest
scoring population groups in the percentage of pupils at the “proficient” level over the 5-year
span of the performance agreement would be eligible for bonus funds.
Key aspects of H.R. 2300 include: (a) authority for participating states and LEAs to
combine funds from Title I and other affected programs, and to use them for any educational
purpose authorized under state law; (b) certain types of program requirements that cannot be
waived under Ed-Flex, such as requirements regarding allocation of funds within states or
LEAs, would be waived under H.R. 2300 (with the Title I minimum grant limitation); (c)
outcome accountability requirements would be more specific than those under Ed-Flex,
although still essentially defined by the states themselves; and (d) bonus grants would be
authorized for states that reduce achievement gaps among different groups of pupils.
ESEA Title I Amendments in S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act. Major Title
I amendments in S. 2, as reported on April 12, 2000, include the following:
Accountability, Corrective Action, and Incentives. Current Title I provisions regarding
standards, assessments, and corrective action would be continued and expanded under S. 2.
Provisions regarding “school performance profiles” would be expanded through requirements
for annual performance reports on each school and LEA receiving funds under Part A.
Schools or LEAs identified as needing improvement would be required to institute “research
based instructional strategies.” SEAs and LEAs would be required to take at least 1 of a
series of corrective actions with respect to schools or LEAs which do not improve after being
identified as failing to meet adequate yearly progress standards. In addition, assessments in
reading must be in English for pupils who have attended school in the United States for 3 or
more years.
School Choice. As under H.R. 2, LEAs would be required to offer public school choice
to pupils attending Title I schools which are identified as needing improvement or corrective
action, as well as schools where violence has occurred. In addition, up to 10 states, plus up
to 20 LEAs in other states, would be authorized to provide Title I aid to pupils in the form
of portable grants. Title I funds received by a state or LEA, including additional incentive
grants, would be distributed on a per pupil basis. Parents of the pupils who are eligible to
receive these grants would be allowed to use them to procure supplementary educational
services at a public school or a tutorial services provider. For details on this concept, see
CRS Report RL30372, ESEA Title I “Portable Grant” Proposals: Background and Issues.
CRS-6

---

IB10029
01-12-01
Allocation Formulas. S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act, was ordered to be
reported by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on March 1,
2000. S. 2 would make only a small number of changes to the Title I, Part A allocation
formulas. S. 2 provides that an amount equal to the FY2000 appropriation would be
allocated under each of the Basic and Concentration Grant formulas, and any increases over
the FY2000 appropriation for Part A would be allocated under the Targeted Grant formula.
However, S. 2 also provides that 50% of any Part A appropriations in excess of
$8,076,000,000 would be reserved for a separate allocation to the states to be used for
program improvement and corrective action with respect to schools or LEAs not meeting
state standards of adequate yearly progress. These program improvement/corrective action
grants would be allocated to states on the basis of the Basic Grant formula, but with an
increased state minimum of 0.5% (rather than up to 0.25%). There would be no allocation
formula for distribution of these funds within states. (If Part A appropriations are less that
$8,076,000,000, then the current law authority for states to reserve up to the greater of 0.5%
of grants, or $200,000, for program improvement activities would apply.)
Combining these provisions, the share of Part A grants to be allocated as Targeted
Grants under S. 2 (by implication, 50% of appropriations above $8,076,000,000, plus 100%
of the difference between FY2000 Part A appropriations and $8,076,000,000, which is
$122,603,000) is similar to that under H.R. 2 (50% of appropriations above FY1999), but
much less than under current law (all appropriations above FY1995) or the Administration
proposal (the greater of all appropriations above FY1995 or 20% of total Part A
appropriations). For example, if the total FY2001 appropriation for Part A were to be
$8,200,000,000, then the amount to be allocated as Targeted Grants would be $184.6 million
under S. 2, $123.3 million under H.R. 2, $1,640.0 million under the Administration proposal,
and $1,432.7 million under current law.
S. 2 also provides that a hold harmless rate of 85-95% of previous year grants, now
applicable to Basic Grants (and the unfunded Targeted Grant formula), would be applied to
Concentration Grants. Like H.R. 2, it would apply to all LEAs, not just those which currently
meet the eligibility criteria for each formula, except that if a LEA fails to meet such criteria
for 5 successive years, then the hold harmless would no longer apply. The Education Finance
Incentive Grant formula would be retained, with a separate authorization of $200 million for
FY2001. The final S. 2 amendment regarding the allocation of funds to states and LEAs is
identical to the H.R. 2 provision (described above) regarding grants to the freely associated
states and outlying areas. Regarding school selection, the only amendment in S. 2 would
allow LEAs to provide Title I grants to schools which were eligible for, and received grants,
in the preceding year, even if they are not eligible in the current year.
Potential Impact of Formula Amendments in S. 2. As with H.R. 2, the potential impact
of these allocation formula changes would be small, and highly dependent on assumptions
made about the provisions of future appropriations legislation. Referring to Scenarios A and
B, as described above with respect to H.R. 2 — under Scenario A, adoption of the allocation
formula provisions of S. 2 would result in small reductions in grants to the highest poverty
LEAs nationwide (due to the reduction in the share of “new” money to be allocated as
Targeted Grants), significant increases in Concentration Grants to a relatively limited number
of LEAs which were eligible for such grants in FY1998 but are no longer eligible, and
virtually no change for other LEAs, in comparison to the grants these areas would have
received under the current provisions of the ESEA if these also were not overridden by
CRS-7

---

IB10029
01-12-01
appropriations act provisions. However, under Scenario B, there would be virtually no
change in grants to LEAs if S. 2 were adopted, because the assumed provisions of the
appropriations acts (the 100% hold harmless and failure to provide any funds for Targeted
or Education Finance Incentive Grants) would either counteract, or already incorporate
virtually all, of the revisions in S. 2.
School Selection and Schoolwide Programs. S. 2 would allow LEAs to provide Title
I grants to schools which were eligible for, and received grants, in the preceding year, even
if they are not eligible in the current year. This authority, which would be available for only
1 year, was provided in Title I previous to the 1994 amendments. In addition S. 2 would
reduce the eligibility threshold for schoolwide programs from 50% in general to 40%.
Services to Private School Pupils. As under H.R. 2, the Title I provisions for services
to eligible private school pupils would be revised to increase requirements for consultation
between public and private school authorities over a variety of issues, including the selection
of third party contractors to provide services, and to clarify rules for determining the share
of LEA funds to be used to serve private school pupils. The bill would also authorize the
Secretary of Education to take into consideration the “quality, size, scope, or location” of
Title I services provided by a LEA to private school pupils when deciding whether to institute
a “by-pass” of the LEA to provide these services. Finally, S. 2 would extend the
authorization for “capital expenses” related to serving private school pupils through FY2003.
Parental Involvement. States would be required to collect information on effective
parental involvement practices and disseminate this information to schools and LEAs. The
Parental Information and Resource Center Program, authorized through FY2000 under Title
IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, would be added to Title I as Part D.
Other S. 2 Provisions Regarding Title I. The Comprehensive School Reform Program
would be authorized as Title I, Part E. Title I provisions for services to prekindergarten age
children would be expanded under S. 2. Finally, S. 2 would authorize the appropriation of
$15 billion for Title I, Part A for FY2001.
Optional Performance Partnerships/Grant Consolidation. S. 2 provides two different
authorities under which federal education program requirements may be eliminated in return
for outcome-based accountability. First, the bill includes a “Straight A’s” authority which is
essentially the same as that of H.R. 2300, as passed by the House (see above), except that it
would be available in up 15 states (rather than 10). Second, S. 2 includes a somewhat less
flexible “Education Performance Partnerships” optional grant consolidation authority, which
differs from that under H.R. 2300 (or the first authority in S. 2) in the following respects: (a)
there would be no limit on the number of states which could participate; (b) current ESEA
Title I, Part A allocation formulas would continue to be applied in the distribution of these
funds to LEAs (rather than H.R. 2300's more limited Title I, Part A LEA hold harmless
provision); (c) the current statutory provisions would generally apply in the allocation of Title
I, Part A funds to schools within LEAs, except that the degree of flexibility in this process
which is now allowed in Ed-Flex states would be provided to participating states; (d) the Safe
and Drug-Free Schools program and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act would not be subject to consolidation under performance partnership
agreements; (e) all states, not just those participating in the grant consolidation option, would
be eligible for “closing the achievement gap bonus awards,” for which $2.5 billion would be
CRS-8

---

IB10029
01-12-01
authorized, in addition these awards would be based on state performance gains on NAEP
tests, not varying state assessments, and would go to states where the gap between the
average scores of low-income and other students is reduced to a greater degree than for the
nation as a whole; (f) the Governor is specified as the state official who would decide whether
a state is to participate in this option (H.R. 2300 refers only to the “state”); (g) provision is
made for negotiations between the Secretary of Education and applicant states over the
conditions for proposed state participation in this option, including peer review of state
applications; (h) all current law provisions with respect to services for pupils and staff of
private schools would continue to apply, while H.R. 2300 would replace many of these with
a simpler requirement “for the equitable participation of students and professional staff in
private schools, “and due to this and other reasons, it is unlikely that funds could be used for
private school vouchers); (i) an illustrative list of purposes for which funds may be used is
provided, which includes “constructing schools” and “supporting special education,” but does
not include H.R. 2300's broad statement that funds may be used for “any elementary and
secondary educational purposes permitted by State law;” (j) participating states would be
required to comply with current requirements regarding fiscal accountability and parental
involvement; (k) states that do not include ESEA Title I, Part A in their performance
partnership agreements would be allowed to use a higher share of grants for administration
(approximately 5% versus 3% under H.R. 2300); and (l) a written performance review would
be prepared for each participating state at the end of 3 years.
H.R. 4141, the Education Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation’s
Students (Education OPTIONS) Act. On May 4, 2000, the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 4141. Among other provisions, this bill contains
authority for states and LEAs to transfer funds among selected ESEA programs. The
programs affected by the authority are the ESEA state-administered formula grant programs,
except that funds may only be transferred into, and not away from, ESEA Title I, Part A.
States may transfer all of the program funds over which they have authority, except for
administrative funds. LEAs may transfer up to 35% of funds they receive without obtaining
state permission, and all funds under such programs if their state approves.
Clinton Administration Proposal. The Clinton Administration’s reauthorization
proposal for the ESEA and related legislation, the Educational Excellence for All Children
Act (EEACA), was introduced as H.R. 1960 and S. 1180. For Title I, the EEACA would
support full implementation of the 1994 amendments regarding standards, assessments, and
program improvement. In addition, the Administration’s bill would:
! attempt to increase the share of funds provided to high poverty LEAs by
providing that at least 20% of Title I funds must be allocated under the
Targeted Grant formula, and increasing funds allocated to Puerto Rico;
! address concerns about the quality of teachers and other resources in Title
I schools by requiring newly-hired Title I teachers to be fully certified in the
subjects they teach, prohibiting teacher aides with less than 2 years of
postsecondary education from providing instructional services, requiring that
a minimum share of Title I grants be reserved for professional development,
and expanding Title I/non-Title I school comparability requirements to
encompass such matters as pupil-teacher ratios, teacher qualifications,
curriculum, range of courses, instructional resources, condition of school
facilities, and access to technology;
CRS-9

---

IB10029
01-12-01
! increase the program improvement reservation of funds from 0.5% to 3.5%;
! encourage, but not require, increased use of comprehensive school reform
and extended learning time strategies;
! require assessments in reading to be conducted in English for pupils who
have been in U.S. schools for at least 3 years;
! extend the Reading Excellence Act as Part E of Title I; and
! regarding private school pupils, require inclusion of their parents and
teachers in parental involvement and professional development, expand
consultation, and eliminate the “capital expenses” authorization.
In addition, under a separate but related “Education Accountability Act,” the EEACA
would require all states and LEAs receiving funds under any ESEA programs to: (a) end
“social promotion” — i.e., establish policies under which all pupils would have to meet
academic performance standards before promotion to selected grades; (b) identify, assist, and
take corrective action with respect to low-performing public schools; (c) provide that at least
95% of all public school teachers are fully certified; (d) publish report cards, with information
on such topics as pupil achievement and teacher qualifications, on each school, LEA, and
state; and (e) adopt pupil discipline policies with specific characteristics.
Selected Title I Reauthorization Issues
Standards and Assessments
The IASA required states participating in Title I to develop or adopt curriculum content
standards, pupil performance standards, and assessments linked to these, at least in the
subjects of mathematics and reading/language arts. In general, these standards must be
applicable to Title I participants, as well as all other pupils in the state. These requirements
were adopted in part to raise expectations that Title I participants would be required to meet
challenging academic standards, and to link the program to standards-based reforms taking
place in most states. Typically, such standards-based reform involves the establishment of
explicit and “challenging” goals for state school systems, and alignment of curricula,
assessment methods, pupil performance standards, teacher professional development,
instructional materials, and other school system policies in support of the goals.
The deadline for adopting content and performance standards was the 1997-1998
program year, and for assessments is the 2000-2001 program year. States were given several
years to meet these requirements because many of them were at an early stage of standards-
based reform in 1994. Nevertheless, approximately one-half of the states did not meet the fall
1997 deadline for establishing content and pupil performance standards. As of Nov. 8, 2000,
48 states met the content standards requirement, 25 met the pupil performance standards
requirement, and 2 states met all requirements, including those for assessments. Two states
(Iowa and Nebraska) are finding it difficult to set statewide standards for all pupils in all
LEAs, and are attempting to develop hybrid systems that rely ultimately on state guidelines
for locally-selected standards. It should be emphasized that in reviewing these standards, ED
is not considering their substance, but only the procedures by which they were developed or
adopted by the states. States which have not yet adopted assessments linked to their content
standards are using a variety of transitional assessments, to which only limited requirements
apply, to evaluate the performance of pupils being served by Title I.
CRS-10

---

IB10029
01-12-01
While the Title I standards requirements are being implemented, and states are
continuing to adopt standards-based reform strategies in general, the pace at which
benchmarks have been met is slower than specified in the IASA, and it is not yet possible to
determine whether this strategy will improve the achievement of disadvantaged pupils.
Program Improvement and Technical Assistance
The IASA expanded previous Title I program improvement provisions, requiring each
participating school and LEA to conduct an annual review of its Title I program, applying
state standards for “adequate yearly progress” by pupils and schools. Title I schools that are
especially successful may be designated as “distinguished schools,” while Title I schools or
LEAs that do not meet state standards of adequate progress are to be identified as needing
“program improvement.” Eventually, if the performance of a school or LEA receiving Title
I grants does not improve, LEAs or SEAs would be required to take “corrective actions,”
consistent with state and local law; however, this requirement does not go fully into effect
until states adopt final assessments, so these provisions have not yet been implemented.
The IASA also included provisions intended to provide technical assistance on effective
practices, especially for schools or LEAs identified as needing improvement. These include
the authorization for states to reserve 0.5% of their Title I funds for program improvement
grants, consolidation of regional technical assistance centers, school support teams and
“distinguished educators” designated by the states, plus regional laboratories and research and
development centers funded by the OERI. Additional funds for state “accountability grants”
have been provided in FY2000 and 2001 appropriations legislation. Concern has been
expressed about the resources available to technical assistance providers and the effectiveness
of their services.
Questions for Title I reauthorization include how to better identify and disseminate
information about effective practices; and how to provide incentives for adoption of effective
practices while maximizing state and local flexibility in carrying out Title I programs. There
is sharp conflict between the desire to encourage the adoption of effective practices in Title
I, and the equally strong desire to maintain and possibly increase state and local flexibility.
Schoolwide Programs and Other Forms of Flexibility
One of the most distinctive changes in Title I since 1994 has been the rapid growth of
schoolwide programs, which currently account for approximately 45% of all Title I schools
and 60% of Title I funds spent at the school level. Schoolwide programs may be viewed both
as a mechanism to increase Title I’s focus on comprehensive schoolwide reform in high
poverty schools, and as an example of increased flexibility at the school level. The IASA
reduced the eligibility threshold for schoolwide programs from 75% to 50% low-income
pupils in general. The IASA also allows the use of funds under most federal aid programs,
not just Title I, on a schoolwide basis, if basic program objectives and fiscal accountability
requirements are met.
The rationale for limiting schoolwide program authority to relatively high poverty
schools is that: (a) in such schools, all pupils are disadvantaged, so most pupils are in need
of special assistance, and it seems less equitable to select only the lowest-achieving pupils to
receive Title I services, and (b) the level of Title I grants should be sufficient to meaningfully
CRS-11

---

IB10029
01-12-01
affect overall school services in high poverty schools, since these funds are allocated on the
basis of the number of low-income pupils in these schools. Thus far, there is little direct
evidence of the achievement effects of this expansion of schoolwide programs.
Waivers and Ed-Flex. In addition to schoolwide programs, legislation adopted in 1994
and subsequently has authorized waivers of many Title I statutory and regulatory
requirements — case-by-case waiver authority exercised directly by the Secretary of
Education (ESEA Title XIV, Part D), and the delegation of waiver authority to SEAs under
Ed-Flex. A large majority of these waivers have applied to requirements under Title I. Under
the waiver authority exercised directly by ED, approximately one-half of the approved
requests were for waivers of the Title I school selection requirements, and an additional one-
fourth were to waive the minimum low-income pupil percentage for schoolwide program
eligibility. The third major category of waivers granted by ED was for the requirement that
SEAs adopt curriculum content and pupil performance standards for Title I programs. As for
the Ed-Flex states, waivers of the minimum percentage of pupils from low-income families
for schoolwide programs accounted for about two-thirds of all programmatic waivers granted
by SEAs thus far. Amendments to Ed-Flex adopted in 1999 (P.L. 106-25) limit the ability
of states to waive requirements regarding Title I school selection.
Proponents of the flexibility authorities argue that most of the schools affected have been
only marginally below the standard thresholds for eligibility for Title I participation or
schoolwide programs. In addition, supporters of increased flexibility argue that waivers can
remove federal regulatory barriers to local reform and initiative. However, some question the
value of increased flexibility if it is used largely to expand schoolwide program eligibility or
to postpone deadlines for adoption of standards. In addition, while schoolwide programs
offer a great deal of flexibility to use funds under not only Title I but also most other federal
programs in ways that might not ordinarily be allowed, an issue arises as to whether schools
with relatively low percentages of low-income pupils need or should have such flexibility.
Optional Performance Partnership/Grant Consolidation Proposals. These
proposals in H.R. 2300 and S. 2, described above, would provide much greater levels of
flexibility in state and LEA use of Title I funds than under any current authority, in return for
new forms of outcome-based accountability for the state overall. A major difference between
the two current varieties of this type of proposal is in the degree of flexibility provided to
states in the allocation of Title I funds within states and LEAs. Nevertheless, both versions
would give eliminate a very wide variety of requirements under Title I and other affected
programs, while holding the states as a whole (not just LEAs and schools) responsible for
meeting state-determined performance goals.
Questions for Title I reauthorization regarding flexibility provisions include whether the
current flexibility authorities are being used in ways that are increasing the academic
achievement of disadvantaged pupils; whether the accountability requirements of current or
proposed authorities are consistent with the increased flexibility; and whether there should be
any change in the 50% eligibility threshold for schoolwide programs. For additional
information on these and other accountability issues, see CRS Report RL30621, Aspects of
Accountability in ESEA Title I and Other Education Proposals in the 106th Congress.
CRS-12

---

IB10029
01-12-01
Greater Targeting of Funds on High Poverty LEAs and Schools, and Other
Allocation Formula Issues
A number of studies have found that the poverty of a child’s family is much more likely
to be associated with educational disadvantage if the family lives in an area with large
concentrations of poor families. The major elements of the IASA’s strategy to increase the
targeting of Title I grants included: (a) funding of the pre-existing Basic and Concentration
grant formulas up to the FY1995 appropriation level, then use of a new Targeted Grant
formula to allocate a share of appropriations in excess of the FY1995 appropriation, (b) use
of updated population data, (c) calculation of grants nationwide by LEA, rather than by
county, beginning in FY1999, and (d) a shift of funds toward the highest poverty schools
within LEAs. However, the only major allocation changes provided in the IASA that have
actually been implemented are: (a) partial application of the Census population updates; (b)
calculation of grants by ED on the basis of LEAs beginning in FY1999; and (c) somewhat
increased targeting of funds on high poverty schools within LEAs. A recent ED study (Study
of Educational Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report, Aug. 2000) found that there
has been virtually no change since 1994 in the targeting of Title I funds on high poverty
LEAs, although there has been a significant shift in funds from low- to high-poverty schools
within LEAs.
Grants to LEAs. Greater targeting of funds on high poverty LEAs was to be
accomplished through use of a new Targeted Grant formula to allocate a share of post-
FY1995 increases in Title I appropriations. The distinctive feature of this formula, in contrast
to other Title I formulas, is that it would provide increased grants per poor child as the
percentage or number of poor children in a LEA increases, reflecting an assumed increasing
educational disadvantage associated with family poverty when poverty is concentrated in a
locality. This was to be combined with a shift to calculating Title I grants by LEA, rather than
by county, to better pinpoint high poverty LEAs wherever they may be located. However,
while the calculation of grants by LEA was implemented beginning in the 1999-2000 school
year, annual appropriations acts have prevented use of the Targeted Grant formula, as well
as a second new allocation formula adopted in 1994 that would reward states with relatively
low expenditure disparities among their LEAs. This experience with the Targeted Grant
formula reflects the historical difficulty of providing funding for Title I formulas that
substantially focus funds on high poverty areas. Further, it has proven to be very difficult to
effect significant changes of any kind in the Title I formulas, particularly ones that would lead
to losses for any LEAs.
Population Updates. Better targeting of Title I grants on regions of the Nation with
the highest rate of growth in poor school-age children was to be accomplished through use
of updated population estimates for states, counties, and LEAs made available through a new
Census Bureau program, if the data were deemed reliable by the Secretaries of Education and
Commerce, as well as a National Academy of Sciences panel. This provision of the IASA has
been implemented, although its effects have thus far been highly constrained by supplemental
appropriations provided in FY1997, and 100% hold harmless provisions for both Basic and
Concentration Grants in the FY1998-2001 appropriations acts. These were adopted in
reaction to the unexpected scale and regional shifts in the first set of population updates, as
well as an apparent pattern of declines in share of poor school-age children for a number of
high poverty areas.
CRS-13

---

IB10029
01-12-01
School Selection. The IASA contained 3 provisions intended to focus funds within
LEAs more on high poverty schools. First, while LEAs still have discretion, in general, to
select the grade levels at which Title I services are offered, they are required to provide Title
I services to any school, no matter its grade level, with a low-income pupil rate of 75% or
more. A second set of amendments raised the low income pupil rate at which a school may
be “automatically” selected for Title I from 25% to 35%, and deleted some options for school
selection which had facilitated the spread of funds among schools in some LEAs. Third, the
IASA also requires LEAs to allocate Title I funds among eligible schools solely on the basis
of pupils from low income families, and specifies a minimum grant per low income child to
each school. These amendments were intended to result in greater concentration of funds on
each LEA’s highest poverty schools. These provisions have been implemented in most LEAs,
and as a result the percentage of high poverty schools receiving Title I grants has increased
substantially, while the percentage of low poverty schools participating in the program has
declined.
In spite of this modest increase in intra-LEA targeting, the Title I grants per low-income
pupil are actually higher in low-poverty participating schools, many schools with high poverty
rates continue to face severe difficulties, and there is continuing interest in providing more
intensive assistance to these schools. Reauthorization issues with respect to targeting of Title
I grants include: What level of increased targeting on high poverty LEAs and schools is
appropriate and feasible to implement? What is the appropriate balance between use of the
most up-to-date Census data versus stability of grants to lower-growth states and LEAs?
Have the IASA’s efforts to increase targeting within LEAs provided sufficient funds to meet
the severe needs of schools with very high concentrations of poor pupils?
Other Allocation Formula Issues. Due to the expenditure factor in the current
allocation formulas, high spending states receive up to 50% more per poor school-age child
than low spending states. The rationale for this factor is that it reflects differences in the cost
of providing public education, and provides an incentive to increase spending. However, it
is a spending, not a cost, index; it reflects ability and willingness to spend on public education
as well as cost differences; it is crude (affecting all LEAs in a state equally); and the incentive
it provides to increase state and local spending for public education is relatively small. Major
alternatives include either eliminating the factor or substituting a different expenditure factor,
such as average teacher salaries.
Cost adjustment issues also have been raised regarding the federal poverty income
thresholds. A 1995 National Academy of Sciences study (Measuring Poverty: A New
Approach) recommended that the standard federal poverty measure incorporate a local cost
of living adjustment, based initially on variation in housing costs, and take into consideration
some of the benefits received by low-income families. Bills has been introduced (S. 165 and
H.R. 1902) to require application of cost-of-living adjustments to the poverty income
thresholds. Some have argued that the expenditure factor may be considered to be a cost of
living adjustment for the poverty thresholds, albeit a very indirect one.
Other Reauthorization Issues
School Choice and Title I. Provisions for use of Title I funds to expand school choice
options are currently somewhat limited. While funds are allocated on the basis of numbers
of poor children, Title I is structured as a “school aid” program, focused on serving
CRS-14

---

IB10029
01-12-01
concentrations of disadvantaged pupils, not an “individual pupil aid” program.
Appropriations legislation for FY2000 and 2001 requires states and LEAs to provide to pupils
attending schools identified as performing inadequately the option of attending other public
schools not so identified, unless it is impossible, consistent with state and local law, to
accommodate such transfer requests. Under H.R. 2 and S. 2, LEAs would be required to
offer public school choice options to pupils attending schools in need of improvement or who
have been victims of violent crime at school. In addition, S. 2 would allow a limited number
of states and LEAs to convert Title I into a portable grant that might be used to obtain
supplementary services at any public school or tutorial services provider chosen by a family.
(See CRS Report RL30372, ESEA Title I “Portable Grant” Proposals: Background and
Issues.)
Teacher Aides. Aides constitute approximately one-half of the staff hired with Title I
funds, and their salaries constitute about 15% of Title I funds; aides are especially prevalent
in many high poverty LEAs and schools. Aides whose salaries are paid with Title I funds
provide a variety of instructional and non-instructional services in both schoolwide and
targeted assistance programs. Some have criticized the performance of instructional duties
by aides who often lack educational credentials and sometimes receive little supervision from
classroom teachers. Others have questioned the appropriateness of using Title I funds to pay
aides who perform duties which are not directly related to instruction. The IASA required
teacher aides funded under Title I to be directly supervised by teachers, and in general to have
a high school diploma or equivalent within 2 years of employment. At issue is whether the
share of Title I funds used to hire aides and/or the authorized activities of aides should be
limited, the required credentials of aides should be increased, or career ladder programs be
encouraged so that more of them might become qualified for instructional responsibilities.
LEGISLATION
Only bills on which legislative action occurs during the 107th Congress will be listed
below.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report RL30621, Aspects of Accountability in ESEA Title I and Other Education
Proposals in the 106th Congress, by Wayne C. Riddle.
CRS Report RL30742, Assessment Requirements Under ESEA Title I: Implementation
Status and Issues, by Wayne Clifton Riddle.
CRS Report RS20311, Comprehensive School Reform Program: Background and Issues,
by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RL30492, Education for the Disadvantaged: Allocation Formula Issues in
ESEA Title I Reauthorization Legislation, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RL30491, Education for the Disadvantaged: ESEA Title I Allocation Formula
Provisions, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Issue Brief IB98013, Elementary and Secondary Education Block Grant Proposals in
the 106th Congress, by Wayne Riddle and Paul Irwin.
CRS-15

---

IB10029
01-12-01
CRS Report RL30372, ESEA Title I “Portable Grant” Proposals: Background and Issues,
by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report 98-676, Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Programs: Ed-Flex and
Other Forms of Flexibility, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report 98-945, The Federal Migrant Education Program: An Overview, by Patricia
Osorio-O’Dea.
CRS Report 97-848, The Implications of Agostini v. Felton for the Provision of Title I
Assistance to Nonpublic School Children, by David Ackerman and Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report 96-380, Title I, Elementary and Education Act: Funding and Implementation
Issues, 1995-1999, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RL30782, Where the Money Goes in Department of Education K-12 Programs,
by Wayne Riddle and Patricia Osorio-O’Dea.
CRS-16

---