2001CRS12051 TITLE I TARGETING
no...@senate.gov
[Congressional Record: November 27, 2001 (Senate)]
[Page S12051-S12052]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr27no01-132]
TITLE I TARGETING
Amendment No. 2058
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am proud to have joined Senators
Landrieu, Cochran, and DeWine in offering a truly historic amendment,
which will for the first time specifically target new title I funding
directly to our nation's poorest communities and schools. In doing so,
this amendment will help us move closer to realizing the original
promise of title I and, more importantly, help us move closer to
realizing the promise we have made to give every child in America a
high quality education.
The compromise reached today will provide $1 billion for the targeted
grant formula under title I, which was enacted into law by Congress in
1994 but unfortunately has never actually been funded by appropriators.
This agreement ensures that no state, or local school district will
lose any funds, but at the same time ensures those school districts
with the greatest need and with the greatest challenges will receive a
significant boost in resources.
For example in my own State of Connecticut, this would mean our three
communities with the greatest poverty and educational needs including
Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven would receive increases of 25, 35,
and 31 percent, respectively, over their current funding levels for a
combined increase of over $12.4 million. That is $12 million more worth
of educational services provided and high quality teachers hired to
ensure that title I children may achieve academic successes. I would
also mean substantial increases in investment for many other
communities serving low-income students.
This agreement is by no means perfect. It leaves in place a
distribution system that remains badly diluted and seriously
inefficient. However, it represents a dramatic change in policy, one
that Senator Landrieu and I, and the members of the Senate New Democrat
Coalition have been fighting for for some time. And we are optimistic
that we can build on his breakthrough in the future to really put our
education money where our mouth is, and concentrate our resources and
our resolve on lifting up our most disadvantaged schools.
Most immediately, this amendment makes a strong statement,
acknowledging that title I is just not working as it was intended. The
original goal of this critical program was to compensate for local
funding inequities within States and help level the playing field for
low-income children. But the truth is that this well-intentioned
program is not nearly as focused on serving poor communities as it is
perceived to be, leaving many poor children without any aid or hope
whatsoever.
As my colleagues know, Federal funds for poor children are currently
distributed through two grants, basic and concentration. In order to be
eligible for basic grants, which comprise the bulk of current title I
funds, local districts only need to have 10 school-age children from
low-income families, and these children must constitute only 2 percent
of the total school-age population. Under the concentration grants,
districts with a child poverty rate of 15 percent are eligible to
receive funding. As a result of these low threshold, title I funding
has been spread too thin and too wide. In fact, according to a 1999 CRS
report, title I grants are provided to approximately 90 percent of all
local school districts, and 58 percent of all public schools. Even
worse, because title I has not been close to fully funded, these
diluted formulas have left little aid available for many of the
country's poorest students. CRS found that one fifth of all schools
with concentrations of poverty between 50 and 75 percent do not receive
a dime of title I funding.
In examining these inequities we also cannot ignore the growing
impact that concentration of poverty is having on the academic
achievement of our nation's school children, particularly those who
live in disadvantaged communities. America's top 150 highest poverty
cities have 40 percent of our all title I students. Students in these
cities face many challenges, none greater that the pervasive poverty
that surrounds them. Studies show that, even after controlling for
student's socioeconomic background, concentration of poverty has an
important negative effect on student achievement.
For example, a U.S. Department of Education study found that ``The
relationship between family poverty status and student achievement is
not as strong as the relationship between school poverty concentrations
and school achievement averages.'' An Urban Institute study of public-
housing students in Albuquerque, NM found that, after controlling for
home environment, if a poor child lived in a neighborhood and attended
school with 20 percent poverty rather than 80 percent poverty, that
child's standardized test scores were likely to improve by 13
percentage points.
Concentration of poverty does create a barrier to educational
achievement, but that barrier is not impenetrable. University of
Tennessee's William Sanders found that high concentrations of poverty
do not on their own preclude or prevent schools from raising student
achievement. Low-achieving students are often the first to gain, and
experience the greatest gains, from quality instruction. Unfortunately,
only a small share of our federal resources are getting to the
districts most in need of critical funds, which limits the ability of
those districts to hire the most qualified instructors and provide the
best services.
The Federal Government alone cannot solve this grave inequity. We can
only supplement state and local funding, but cannot supplant those
resources, and states and localities must do more to target their own
resources. A recent Education Trust analysis of funding inequities
reveals that school districts with the greatest numbers of poor
children have less money to spend per student than districts with the
fewest poor children. And a growing body of research shows, according
to the Education Trust report, that additional dollars, if directed at
the most critical activities, can significantly raise the achievement
of poor and minority students.
But the Federal Government can make a real and consequential
contribution, both in terms of leadership and of leverage of national
resources, and this amendment aims to do both. As I have noted, it will
significantly improve the targeting of Federal dollars. But it also
includes a second piece that will help reduce the inequities within
states. In addition to funding the targeted formula for the first time,
this amendment also funds the State finance and incentive grant formula
for the first time, a formula intended to reward states that have made
real strides in eliminating funding gaps with their own resources.
The amendment calls for channeling $500 million through this fourth
formula, which is commonly known as the ``Effort and Equity'' formula.
Although I share the concerns raised by many
[[Page S12052]]
that the current design of this formula has substantial flaws and
should be modified so that truly meets its intended goal, I also share
the belief of my colleague from Iowa that we should do more at the
federal level to prompt states to better equalize their own funding.
That is why I am committed to seeing improvements made to the effort
and equity formula through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
conference that is currently pending. I commend Senator Harkin for his
willingness to reexamine and overhaul this formula so that it better
targets funds within states to the districts with the highest
concentrations of poverty. And I look forward to working with him and
with a common focus to improve the fairness and the performance of
title I. In achieving this goal, I believe that we can further work
together to see even more funds appropriated to the targeted formula as
the appropriations process moves forward.
The compromise we have struck today might not be politically popular
or perfect, but it is a great beginning and a way to draw our attention
back to the original intent of the ESEA and the primary function of the
Federal Government in education. It is a bold step forward, one that I
believe that we can only enhance as the appropriations process as well
as the ESEA conference moves forward, and I urge my colleagues to join
us in supporting it.
____________________