Order Code IB10029
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Education for the Disadvantaged:
ESEA Title I Reauthorization Issues
Updated April 19, 2002
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 107th Congress
Highlights of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110
Pupil Assessment
Adequate Yearly Progress Requirements
Corrective Actions
Allocation Formula Provisions
Staff Qualifications
Other Provisions Regarding Title I
Original Bush Administration Proposal
P.L. 107-116 (H.R. 3061), FY2002 Appropriations
Bush Administration Budget Request for FY2003
P.L. 107-20 (H.R. 2216), FY2001 Supplemental Appropriations
Legislation Enacted in the 106th Congress
P.L. 106-554 (H.R. 4577), Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001
Selected Title I Issues
Standards and Assessments
Adequate Yearly Progress, Program Improvement, and Technical Assistance
Schoolwide Programs and Other Forms of Flexibility
Waivers and Ed-Flex
Optional Flexibility Demonstration or Transferability Authorities or 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 Issues
School Choice and Title I
Teacher Aides
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10029
04-19-02
Education for the Disadvantaged:
ESEA Title I Reauthorization Issues
SUMMARY
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
110. Highlights of P.L. 107-110 include: (a)
Education Act (ESEA) authorizes aid to local
all participating states will be required to
educational agencies (LEAs) for the education
implement standards-based assessments for
of disadvantaged children. Title I grants are
pupils in each of grades 3-8 in reading and
used to provide supplementary educational and
mathematics by the 2005-06 school year, and
related services to low-achieving children
to develop and implement assessments at three
attending schools with relatively high concen-
grade levels in science by the 2007-08 school
trations of pupils from low-income families.
year; (b) all states will be required to partici-
pate in National Assessment of Educational
Title I has detailed provisions regarding
Progress tests in 4th and 8th grade reading and
allocation of funds, selection of schools, fiscal
mathematics to be administered every 2 years;
accountability, pupil assessment, program
(c) adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards,
improvement, and parental involvement, but
with a goal of all pupils reaching a proficient
there are very few constraints on LEAs in
or advanced level of achievement within 12
selection of curriculum and staff, instructional
years, will be applied to each public school,
approach, and other major aspects of Title I
LEA, and state; (d) pupils at schools that fail
programs. Title I is essentially a “funding
to meet AYP for 2 consecutive years must be
mechanism,” with encouragement, but no
offered public school choice options, and if a
requirements, to employ any specific educa-
school fails to meet AYP for a third consecu-
tional techniques or strategies.
tive year, pupils from low-income families
must be offered the opportunity to receive
Recent information on the effectiveness
instruction from a supplemental services pro-
of Title I is based primarily on selected states
vider of their choice; (e) “corrective actions”
and LEAs that have implemented standards-
must be taken with respect to schools that fail
based reforms. While these results are gener-
to meet AYP for 4 consecutive years, and
ally positive, they may not be applicable to the
those that fail for 5 consecutive years must be
program nationwide. Title I amendments
“restructured”; (f) Title I allocation formulas
adopted in 1994 attempted to improve effec-
are modified to increase targeting on high
tiveness through greater targeting of funds on
poverty states and LEAs under the Education
high poverty LEAs and schools; requiring
Finance Incentive Grant formula, move Puerto
states to adopt curriculum content and pupil
Rico gradually toward parity with the states,
performance standards, and assessments linked
and increase state minimum grants; (g) states
to these, for Title I students; a renewed focus
must ensure that all of their teachers are
on program improvement; and increased
“highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-06
flexibility. The extent to which these major
school year; (h) within 4 years, all
elements of the Improving America’s Schools
paraprofessionals paid with Title I funds must
Act have been implemented varies widely.
have completed at least 2 years of higher
education or met a “rigorous standard of qual-
On January 8, 2002, the No Child Left
ity”; and (i) the authorization level for Title I-
Behind Act of 2001, a bill to extend and revise
A is $13.5 billion for FY2002, increasing to
ESEA Title I, was signed into law as P.L. 107-
$25 billion for FY2007.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10029
04-19-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On January 8, 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, a bill to extend and revise
ESEA Title I, was signed into law as P.L. 107-110.
On January 10, 2002, FY2002 appropriations legislation for ESEA Title I was signed
into law. P.L. 107-116 provides for the allocation of $1,018 million as Title I Targeted
Grants and $793 million as Education Finance Incentive Grants, within a total FY2002
appropriation for Title I, Part A of $10.35 billion.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Title I, Part A, of the ESEA authorizes 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 10-12. The 106th Congress
extensively considered bills that would have reauthorized Title I, but no Title I reauthorization
legislation was adopted, and this issue remained on the agenda for the first session of the 107th
Congress, which has adopted the No Child Left Behind Act, P.L. 107-110 (described below).
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 the Department of Education’s (ED) 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 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 that 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.
CRS-1

---

IB10029
04-19-02
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 107th Congress
Highlights of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110
On January 8, 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, a bill to extend and revise
ESEA Title I, was signed into law as P.L. 107-110. Major ESEA Title I-related provisions
of this Act follow.
Pupil Assessment. P.L. 107-110 substantially expands current Title I assessment
provisions. All participating states will be required to implement standards-based assessments
for pupils in each of grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics by the 2005-2006 school year.
States will also have to develop and implement assessments at three grade levels in science
by the 2007-2008 school year.
Annual grants for assessment development would be authorized, and the states could
delay administration (but not development) of the expanded assessments 1 year for each year
CRS-2

---

IB10029
04-19-02
that minimum amounts are not appropriated for this purpose (the minimum is $370 million
for FY2002).
All states will be required to participate in National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) tests in 4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics to be administered every 2 years,
with costs to be paid by the federal government. The bill will require pupils who have been
in U.S. schools for at least 3 years to be tested (for reading) in English, and require states to
annually assess the English language proficiency of their limited English proficient (LEP)
pupils.
P.L. 107-110 requires assessments to be of “adequate technical quality for each purpose
required under [this] Act,” and authorizes grants for the development of enhanced
assessments. The Department is to contract with an independent organization for a study of
the assessments and accountability policies used by states to meet Title I requirements.
By the 2002-2003 school year, assessment results and certain other data for individual
public schools, LEAs, and states overall must be reported to parents and the public through
“report cards.” These report cards are to include information on pupil performance
disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency,
and status as economically disadvantaged.
Adequate Yearly Progress Requirements. Current requirements for state-
developed standards of adequate yearly progress (AYP) are substantially expanded in scope
and specificity. Such standards will now have to be applied specifically to economically
disadvantaged pupils, LEP pupils, pupils with disabilities, and pupils in major racial and ethnic
groups, as well as all pupils, in each public school, LEA, and states overall. They will have
to incorporate a goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or advanced level of achievement
within 12 years.
A “uniform bar” approach will be employed: states are to set a threshold percentage (of
pupils at proficient or advanced levels) each year that is applicable to all pupil subgroups. The
“uniform bar” must generally be increased once every 3 years, although in the initial period
it must be increased after 2 years. The minimum level for the “uniform bar” in the initial
period is to be based on the greater of the percentage for the lowest-achieving pupil group
or the threshold percentage for the lowest-performing quintile of schools statewide in the base
year. Averaging of scores over 2-3 years is allowed. Under a “safe harbor” provision, a
school that does not meet the standard AYP requirements may still be deemed to meet AYP
if it experiences a 10% reduction in the gap between 100% and base year for pupil groups
that fail to meet the “uniform bar.”
Corrective Actions. Schools that fail to meet AYP for 2 consecutive years must be
identified as needing improvement; technical assistance is to be provided and public school
choice must be offered to their pupils by the next school year (unless prohibited by state law).
LEAs are generally required only to offer public school choice options within the same LEA;
however, if all public schools in the LEA to which a child might transfer have been identified
as needing improvement, then LEAs “shall, to the extent practicable,” establish cooperative
agreements with other LEAs to offer expanded public school choice options.
CRS-3

---

IB10029
04-19-02
If a school fails to meet the state AYP standard for 3 consecutive years, pupils from low-
income families must be offered the opportunity to receive instruction from a supplemental
services provider of their choice. States are to identify and provide lists of approved
providers of such supplemental instructional services, which might include public or private
schools or commercial firms, and monitor the quality of the services they provide. The
amount spent per child for supplemental services is to be the lesser of the actual cost of the
services or the LEA’s Title I-A grant per poor and other children counted in the national
allocation formula (approximately $1,000 on average for FY2002). Transportation must be
provided to pupils utilizing public school choice options. LEAs are to use up to 20% of their
Title I funds for such transportation and supplemental services costs, although the grant to
any particular school identified for corrective action or restructuring may not be reduced by
more than 15%; LEAs are also authorized to use funds under the Innovative Education
Program Strategies program (ESEA Title V-A) to pay additional supplemental services costs.
States are also authorized to use funds they reserve for program improvement or
administration under Title I-A, or funds available to them under Title V-A, to pay additional
supplemental services costs. If insufficient funds are available to pay the costs of
supplemental services for all eligible pupils whose families wish to exercise this option, LEAs
may limit services to the lowest-achieving eligible pupils. The requirement to provide
supplemental services may be waived if none of the approved providers offer such services
in or near a LEA.
One or more of a specified series of “corrective actions” must be taken with respect to
schools that fail to meet AYP for 4 consecutive years. These “corrective actions” include
replacing relevant school staff, implementing a new curriculum, decreasing management
authority at the school level, appointing an outside expert to advise the school, extending the
school day or year, or changing the internal organizational structure of the school.
Schools that fail to meet AYP standards for 5 consecutive years must be “restructured.”
Such restructuring must consist of one or more of the following “alternative governance”
actions: reopening as a charter school, replacing all or most school staff, state takeover of
school operations (if permitted under state law), or other “major restructuring” of school
governance.
Procedures analogous to those for schools are to apply to LEAs that fail to meet AYP
requirements. Both an increased state reservation (rising from 0.5% currently to 4% by
FY2004) and a separate authorization of funds ($500 million for FY2002) are provided for
school improvement grants.
ED will also establish a peer review process to evaluate whether states overall have met
their statewide AYP goals. States that fail to meet their goals are to be listed in an annual
report to Congress, and technical assistance is to be provided to states that fail to meet their
goals for 2 consecutive years. Provisions for more extensive performance bonuses and
sanctions for states, which were contained in the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R.
1, are not included in the conference version.
Allocation Formula Provisions. In the allocation of Title I-A funds, P.L. 107-110
provides that an amount equal to the FY2001 appropriation would be allocated under the
Basic and Concentration Grant formulas, and any increases would be allocated under an
updated version of the Targeted Grant formula, or under a substantially modified version of
CRS-4

---

IB10029
04-19-02
the Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formula. A hold harmless rate of 85-95% of
previous year grants (the higher a LEA’s child poverty rate, the higher is the hold harmless
percentage), now applicable to Basic and Targeted Grants, will now apply to each of the four
Part A allocation formulas. The Concentration Grant hold harmless provision will apply to
all LEAs, not just those that currently meet the eligibility criteria for this formula, except that
if a LEA fails to meet such criteria for 4 successive years, then the hold harmless would no
longer apply.
The relative share of funds allocated to Puerto Rico will increase over time as a result
of two P.L. 107-110 amendments. First, the minimum expenditure factor for Puerto Rico will
be increased in stages to full parity with the minimum applicable to states (it is now
approximately 75% of the minimum for states). Second, a cap on Targeted Grants to Puerto
Rico is marginally raised.
State minimum grants are increased from up to 0.25% under current law to up to 0.35%,
but only with respect to funds above the FY2001 level. P.L. 107-110 provides for the use
of population data on school-age children in poor families that is updated annually, rather than
every second year currently, although the Census Bureau does not now publish such data.
Finally, major changes are made to the EFIG formula.1 In the allocation of funds to
states, the population factor is changed from total school-age children to the same count of
poor and other children used to calculate Basic Grants. Second, a variant of the state
expenditure factor used in the other three Part A formulas would be added to the EFIG
formula. Third, the EFIG formula will now have a distinct intrastate allocation formula,
which is based on the Targeted Grant formula except that the degree of targeting will vary
based on a measure of disparities in spending per pupil among each state’s LEAs (the greater
the disparities, the greater will be the degree of required targeting).
Staff Qualifications. P.L. 107-110 requires LEAs participating in ESEA Title I-A
to ensure that, beginning next school year, teachers hired with Title I-A funds are “highly
qualified.” In addition, participating states must establish plans providing that all public
school teachers statewide in core academic subjects meet the bill’s definition of “highly
qualified” by the 2005-2006 school year. LEAs are to use between 5% and 10% of their Title
I-A grants in FY2002-2003, and at least 5% of their grants thereafter, for professional
development activities.
In addition, all paraprofessionals newly hired with Title I funds after the date of
enactment of P.L. 107-110, and within 4 years of the date of enactment, all paraprofessionals
paid with Title I funds must have completed at least 2 years of higher education or met a
“rigorous standard of quality” established by their LEA. Exceptions are provided for
paraprofessionals engaged in translation or parental involvement activities. The types of
responsibilities to which paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds may be assigned are
outlined; these include tutoring of eligible pupils, assistance with classroom management,
parental involvement activities, translation, assistance in computer laboratories or
library/media centers, or instruction under the direct supervision of a teacher.
1 For additional details, see CRS Report RL31256, Education Finance Incentive Grants Under ESEA
Title I, by David P. Smole.
CRS-5

---

IB10029
04-19-02
Other Provisions Regarding Title I. P.L. 107-110 reduces the Title I schoolwide
program eligibility threshold to 40%. P.L. 107-110 establishes new or expanded requirements
for reporting to parents and the public on state, LEA, and school performance and teacher
quality in schools. It expands the existing authority to use Title I funds for public school
choice programs. It explicitly authorizes the Comprehensive School Reform program within
Title I, as Part F, and a new School Dropout Prevention program as Part H.
The appropriations authorization level for Title I-A is $13.5 billion for FY2002,
increasing to $25 billion for FY2007. Finally, P.L. 107-110 authorizes most LEAs to transfer
up to 50% of their grants among a number of different ESEA programs; under this authority,
LEAs could transfer funds into, but not out of, Title I-A.
Original Bush Administration Proposal
The original Bush Administration proposal for revision and reauthorization of the ESEA,
“No Child Left Behind,” included the following major features relevant to ESEA Title I:
! Expansion of pupil achievement tests. The current Title I assessment
requirements would be expanded substantially. These additional
requirements would be part of ESEA Title I, but would be applicable to all
public school pupils and schools. First, states would be required to adopt
assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics for all pupils each year
in grades 3-8. Second, standards and assessments (at three grade levels only,
as in current law) must be developed and implemented in history and science,
in addition to the current requirements for mathematics and reading or
language arts. Third, states receiving Title I grants would be required to
participate in NAEP 4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics tests, which
would be administered annually (rather than participating voluntarily in tests
administered once every 2-4 years currently).
! Enhancement of pupil outcome accountability requirements. Pupils
attending schools that consistently fail to meet Title I AYP standards, or that
are unsafe, would be given options to attend other public or private schools,
or to obtain supplementary educational services from a provider of their
choice. Bonus payments would be provided to especially successful states
and schools. New or expanded requirements would be established for
reporting to parents and the public on school performance and teacher
quality. It would be required that standards apply specifically to the
disadvantaged pupils in each school receiving Title I funds.
! Extension of flexibility. The Administration proposal included an optional
“charter” status for states or LEAs, allowing program requirements to be
waived in return for 5-year performance agreements (similar to the “Straight
A’s” provisions of H.R. 2300 and S. 2 in the 106th Congress). In addition,
the low-income pupil enrollment threshold for Title I schoolwide program
eligibility would be reduced to 40%.
! Establishment of new reading initiative. ESEA Title I, Part B (William
F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program) would be amended to
CRS-6

---

IB10029
04-19-02
authorize a new Reading First program to enhance reading and reading
readiness instruction in preschool and early elementary grades.
P.L. 107-116 (H.R. 3061), FY2002 Appropriations
Under P.L. 107-116, total Title I, Part A funding for FY2002 is $10.35 billion. This
legislation provides initial funding of $1,018 million for the Targeted Grant formula
(described below), which was first authorized in 1994 but not previously implemented. It
would also provide $793 million to be allocated under the second Title I formula, a version
of which was authorized first in 1994 but not previously funded — Education Finance
Incentive Grants. In contrast to appropriations acts of recent years, P.L. 107-116 has no
extraordinary hold harmless provisions.
Bush Administration Budget Request for FY2003
On February 4, 2002, the Bush Administration announced its budget request for ESEA
Title I-A and other federal programs for FY2003. The Administration has requested a total
of $11.35 billion for Title I-A grants to LEAs for FY2003, an increase of $1.0 billion (9.7%).
All of the increased funds would be allocated as Targeted Grants; the amounts allocated under
the other three formulas would remain the same as for FY2002.
P.L. 107-20 (H.R. 2216), FY2001 Supplemental Appropriations
Among other provisions, P.L. 107-20, the FY2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act,
adds $161 million in FY2001 appropriations for ESEA Title I, Part A. This is the amount
necessary to fully fund the “greater of the two” provision of the FY2001 appropriations act
for ED, P.L. 106-554 — see below for further information on this provision and the impact
of the supplemental funding.
Legislation Enacted 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. P.L. 106-554 provided that each LEA and state would 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. However, the total Title I, Part A appropriation provided by P.L. 106-
554 was insufficient to pay these amounts, and ED initially reduced the greater of the two
amounts for each LEA by approximately 2%. Subsequently, funds from the supplemental
appropriation in P.L. 107-20 (see above) increased the grant to each LEA in the nation by
approximately 2%.
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
CRS-7

---

IB10029
04-19-02
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 that 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.
Selected Title I Issues
The following section provides a brief review of major issues that were debated during
the reauthorization of Title I in the first session of the 107th Congress, and that will likely
continue to be debated as the NCLBA is implemented.
Standards and Assessments
The IASA of 1994 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 and for at least one grade in each of
three grade ranges. 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 was 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. ED has been reviewing “evidence” that state standards and
assessments meet the requirements of the Title I statute (e.g., that assessments are linked to
state content and pupil performance standards, that disabled and limited English proficient
(LEP) pupils are assessed with appropriate accommodations, etc.), but is not considering the
substance of state standards and assessments. As of April 8, 2002, 18 states have been fully
or conditionally approved by ED as meeting all of these requirements of current law. For
most of the remaining states (29), “timeline waivers” have been granted, to allow them to
complete the process of developing and implementing necessary assessments over the next
couple of years. “Compliance agreements” have been negotiated between ED and 5 states
that are far from meeting these requirements. 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.
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
CRS-8

---

IB10029
04-19-02
determine whether this strategy will improve the achievement of disadvantaged pupils. As
is discussed above, the new NCLBA substantially expands the variety of assessments required
to be administered in states participating in Title I.
Adequate Yearly Progress, 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. A key
concept embodied in these proposals is “adequate yearly progress” (AYP): state standards
embodying expectations for increased academic achievement by all pupils.
As is described above, P.L. 107-110 extensively revises the provisions of Title I related
to AYP. CRS analyses based on school-level pupil achievement data in three states —
Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas — over the period of 1998-2000 indicate that between
21% and 60% of the public schools in these states would have failed to meet the AYP
requirements in P.L. 107-110 for 2 consecutive years — the period after which schools would
be identified as needing improvement.2
Both the IASA and the NCLBA also include 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 a share 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 Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI). Nevertheless, concern has been expressed about the
resources available to technical assistance providers and the effectiveness of their services.
Ongoing questions 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. Some of these concerns may be
addressed in efforts during the 2nd session of the 107th Congress to consider OERI
reauthorization legislation.
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, and the NCLBA has further reduced this threshold to 40%. The statute
2 See CRS Report RS21094, Adequate Yearly Progress Under ESEA Title I: Estimates for Three
States Based on Specifications in H.R. 1 Conference Agreement, by David P. Smole and Wayne C.
Riddle.
CRS-9

---

IB10029
04-19-02
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 providing 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
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. However, there is little direct
evidence of the achievement effects of this expansion of schoolwide programs, and the
NCLBA has reduced the eligibility threshold to a level that is approximately the national
average percentage of pupils from low-income families (using the common measure of
eligibility for free or reduced-price school lunch).
Waivers and Ed-Flex. In addition to schoolwide programs, legislation adopted
initially in 1994 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 plus related assessments 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 Flexibility Demonstration or Transferability Authorities or
Proposals. A number of provisions have been adopted or considered that would allow
most LEAs to transfer substantial shares of their funds among several ESEA programs, or
would allow a limited number of states and LEAs to combine funds under several programs
and use them for any purpose authorized under the ESEA (see CRS Issue Brief IB10066 for
information on these new authorities in the NCLBA). However, while some flexibility
proposals considered earlier in the 107th Congress might have had a significant impact on Title
I, the only impact on Title I of the authorities that have been adopted in the NCLBA should
be to potentially increase funding — the transferability authorities allow for the shifting of
CRS-10

---

IB10029
04-19-02
funds into, but not out of, Title I, and the broader flexibility authorities do not involve Title
I at all.
Ongoing questions for Title I regarding flexibility provisions include whether the
authorities are being used in ways that are increasing the academic achievement of
disadvantaged pupils; whether the accountability requirements are consistent with the
increased flexibility; and whether there should be any further change in the eligibility threshold
for schoolwide programs.
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 new Targeted Grant or
Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formulas to allocate appropriations in excess of
the FY1995 level, (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. Until the adoption of FY2002 appropriations legislation (see
the discussion of P.L. 107-116, above), the only major allocation changes provided in the
IASA that were actually implemented were: (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. An ED study
(Study of Educational Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report, August 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. However, as is discussed both above and below, the NCLBA and
FY2002 appropriations legislation for Title I have re-emphasized the strategy of allocating
future increases in Title I funds under either the Targeted or a substantially revised (and much
more targeted) EFIG formula.
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. While the
calculation of grants by LEA was implemented beginning in the 1999-2000 school year,
annual appropriations acts 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 (the EFIG formula). However, recently adopted
FY2002 appropriations legislation (P.L. 107-116) provides significant, first-time funding for
the Targeted Grant formula ($1,018 million) and a substantially revised version of the EFIG
formula ($793 million), overcoming the historical difficulty of providing funding for Title I
formulas that substantially focus funds on high poverty areas, or of effecting significant
CRS-11

---

IB10029
04-19-02
changes of any kind in the Title I formulas. Further, the Bush Administration has requested
an additional $1 billion in Targeted Grants for FY2003.
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. However, FY2002 appropriations legislation for Title I-A includes no
extraordinary hold harmless rates, so the lower (85%-95%) rates in the authorizing legislation
will apply, allowing more funds to shift to LEAs and regions with growing shares of the
nation’s poor children.
School Selection. The IASA contained three 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 that 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. Ongoing 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 will be the impact of the significant changes in
the mix of Title I formulas in FY2002 appropriations legislation, as well as the NCLBA’s
revisions to the EFIG formula? 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?
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
CRS-12

---

IB10029
04-19-02
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. 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 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
concentrations of disadvantaged pupils, not an “individual pupil aid” program.
Appropriations legislation for FY2000 and FY2001 required 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 P.L. 107-110, LEAs are 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, schools that consistently fail to meet state
standards of AYP will be required to offer to at least some of their pupils the option to
receive ESEA Title I services from supplemental services providers — public or private
(either non-profit or for-profit) entities other than the public school at which the pupil is
enrolled.
Teacher Aides. Aides (or paraprofessionals) 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 that 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.
Under the NCLBA, all aides newly hired with Title I funds after the date of enactment
of P.L. 107-110, and within 4 years of the date of enactment, all aides paid with Title I funds,
must have completed at least 2 years of higher education or met a “rigorous standard of
quality” established by their LEA. Exceptions are provided for paraprofessionals engaged in
translation or parental involvement activities. The types of responsibilities to which
paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds may be assigned are outlined; these include
tutoring of eligible pupils, assistance with classroom management, parental involvement
activities, translation, assistance in computer laboratories or library/media centers, or
instruction under the direct supervision of a teacher.
CRS-13

---

IB10029
04-19-02
LEGISLATION
Only bills on which legislative action occurs during the 107th Congress will be listed
below.
P.L. 107-20 (H.R. 2216, Young)
2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Increases FY2001 appropriations for ESEA
Title I, Part A by $161 million. Signed into law on July 24, 2001.
P.L. 107-110 (H.R. 1, Boehner, et al.)
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Signed into law on January 8, 2002.
P.L. 107-116 (H.R. 3061, Regula)
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
2002. Signed into law on January 10, 2002.
S. 1 (Jeffords, et al.)
Better Education for Students and Teachers (BEST) Act. H.R. 1 passed in lieu on June
14, 2001.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report RS21094, Adequate Yearly Progress Under ESEA Title I: Estimates for Three
States Based on Specifications in H.R. 1 Conference Agreement, by David P. Smole and
Wayne C. Riddle.
CRS Report RS20979, Adequate Yearly Progress Under ESEA Title I: Possible Impact of
H.R. 1 and Alternative Provisions in Three States, by Wayne Riddle, Richard Apling,
and David Smole.
CRS Report RL31035, Adequate Yearly Progress Under the ESEA: Provisions, Issues, and
Options Regarding House and Senate Versions of H.R. 1, by Wayne Riddle.
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 RL31256, Education Finance Incentive Grants Under ESEA Title I, by David
P. Smole.
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 Report RL30942, Educational Testing: Bush Administration Proposals, by Wayne
Clifton Riddle.
CRS Report RL30835, Elementary and Secondary Education: Accountability and
Flexibility in Federal Aid Proposals, by Wayne Clifton Riddle.
CRS-14

---

IB10029
04-19-02
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-15

---