Title I Proposals:

Improvements Over Current Law

In addition, subject to review of actual legislative language, the following proposals of the new Administration may be improvements over current Title I law:

• The addition of state content standards in science and history.  For students in Title I schools to be prepared to be effective citizens and to contribute to the global economy, they must be provided with challenging and effective instruction in these subjects, as well as math and reading.  (We note, however, that the Administration has not proposed that states develop aligned assessments in these subjects, include them in accountability systems or take steps - including providing qualified teachers and equipping labs - to ensure that students in Title I schools have meaningful opportunities to attain these new standards.)

• The emphasis on closing achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students.  Specific proposals include: a) requiring “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) for disadvantaged students, as well as for the overall student population;[5]  b) providing rewards to states and schools that make progress in closing the achievement gap; and c) withholding some state administrative funds to states that fail to narrow the achievement gap.[6]  The 1994 Senate Report accompanying the Improving America’s Schools Act noted:  “The Committee does not intend … for a school or LEA to be deemed to have made adequate progress if its overall students’ performance is acceptable but the performance of disadvantaged students served is not satisfactory.”  The Citizens’ Commission has chastised states and the U.S. Department of Education for failing to enforce provisions in current law requiring separate accountability for poor and LEP students.  Although other proposals for ESEA reauthorization may go further than the President’s plan, his insistence on a clear mandate that disadvantaged students as a group make adequate progress is an improvement over current law, as it has been implemented.

• State accountability plan.   The President has proposed requiring states to submit a state accountability plan for improving student achievement to the Secretary for approval in order to receive ESEA funds.  The Citizens’ Commission agrees it is important for the Department to determine whether states have a credible plan for turning around low-performing schools. We note, however, that a major component of the accountability plan - the state definition of “adequate yearly progress”- is a requirement of current law with which states must comply this school year.  In the fall of 2000, the Department issued draft criteria for reviewing state accountability systems and told states they would be asked to submit evidence of compliance by this spring.  To date, however, the Bush Administration has given no indication it would follow through and review plans for compliance with current law.

• Parents’ right to transfer their child out of a failing school.  Current law includes a right to transfer (including transportation costs) on the menu of corrective actions a local educational agency is authorized to take against failing schools.[7] The law now also permits states, as a remedy for parents in whole districts in need of improvement, to provide a right to transfer to other school districts.[8]   The reauthorization bill approved by the House of Representatives during the last Congress, however, would have made this remedy mandatory during the corrective action phase of school improvement.  The President’s proposal endorses this concept, which had also been embraced by the Clinton Administration and would extend the right to transfer to another public school after two years’ failure to make adequate progress.  The President, however, has muddied the waters by proposing further to offer parents vouchers for private school tuition, or to pay for their private services, after three years of school failure. [See discussion of vouchers.]

• The enhancement of public reporting requirements. While the President’s proposals do not go as far as others in providing information to parents and the public, they are improvements over current law.  Parents need to have good information on their children’s schools.  They also want to understand how their own child’s school compares to other schools and school districts and whether the school is progressing or moving backwards.  When a school’s overall achievement is substandard, parents need to understand that their own child’s academic struggles may not be the child’s or parent’s fault, but the result of deficiencies in the school as a whole or in the system.  When parents have good “consumer” information, they can make better decisions for their children and take action where appropriate.  In cities and towns across the country, where states and districts have agreed to provide the information, parents are using it to be effective advocates for school improvement and to participate in the democratic process.

• The use of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  The concept of using NAEP as a check on states’ standards and assessments and to guard against states’ adopting watered-down standards or tests is a positive step.  NAEP is a well respected assessment and could serve as a measuring rod for states without becoming a “national test.”  (We note, however, that study is needed to ensure technical and policy concerns about the appropriate uses of NAEP, and steps are taken to ensure the appropriate inclusion of LEP students in those assessments.  The Citizens’ Commission recommends the Administration request the assistance of the Board on Testing and Assessment in providing guidance and expertise.) 

Back to contents