The Importance Of Title I School

Title I, a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is a program created by the United States Department of Education to distribute funding to schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families. “This title has received the most attention from policy and lawmakers, as it accounts for 5/6ths of the total funds authorized by the ESEA” (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (2017, March 02). Retrieved April 23, 2017). Title I was designed to close the gap in reading, writing, and mathematics between children from low-income households and children from the middle-class

The Ordinances of 1785 and 1787 provide land grants to states for the maintenance of public schools. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, supply funds for compensatory education programs for economically disadvantaged students attending public and non-profit private schools. The No Child Left Behind Act, requires states to implement accountability systems with higher performance standards in reading, mathematics, and science. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 barred sex discrimination against participants in education

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the Title I funding program is depicted as a policy that “provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards” (“Title I, Part A Program”). The program was intended to close the gap between low income students and others with sufficient income. The policy was introduced January 12, 1965 and passed on April 9, 1965. Throughout time, Title I funding has been thought to be efficient ad successful, however, there is new evidence and data contradicting this statement. Title I funding negatively affected students because it

In 1965, Lyndon B Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in an attempt to achieve more equity among minority groups within the education system. Along with the numerous attempts to close the achievement gap came America’s first federally funded state assessments, created with the intention of holding the nation’s schools accountable for providing a quality education for every student. This legislation was revisited in 2001 by the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Act, which saw the achievement gap that still existed among ethnic minority groups, but also recognised a prominent gap within poverty- stricken communities. With this came state tests that were more difficult and more frequent in an attempt to further

Education is one of the most important aspects of the United States and it is highly regarded, but, many years ago it wasn’t. In 1887 President Andrew Johnson signed legislation creating the Department of Education. Although Andrew Johnson a president, created this department it was still looked down upon. It was one of the departments that might’ve been considered a joke to the cabinet because it wasn’t allowed to be represented in the cabinet. And when thinking about it, having the education department not in the cabinet where the bills are created, was a crazy thought , especially to think that people who weren’t really in the education system other than being a student is allowed to call the shots in attempts to make it fair for the education

The Response to Intervention program came into existence as a result of various federal legislative mandates. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) emphasized the responsibility of schools to ensure academic progress from all students, including English-language learners, students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and those in special education (NCLB, 2001;) Then, In 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) was signed into effect as

Bush in January of 2002 (Ginsburg 2013). The idea behind No Child Left Behind was the fact that in different regions of the country with different economic and racial backgrounds there was an achievement gap between children of these different groups and something must to be done to fix the problem. The act is voluntary on a state-by-state basis but to receive title I funding the state must be enrolled in No Child Left Behind. The goal of No Child Left Behind was to have every child that attended school in public schools in America would be 100 percent proficient in math and reading by 2014. The public schools that held there standards to the highest quality are rewarded with extra money and the schools whose standards were failing were given less, in a hope to hold schools accountable for the quality of education they were providing. To gauge the schools quality of education participating schools must participate in standardized testing that shows the schools are meeting academic proficiency. In 2012 President Obama announced that states would be able to receive a waiver on the 100 percent proficiency by 2014 part of the act. States that receive a waiver must set state-specific, federally approved goals for education.

The ESEA Act of 1965 was enacted to offer equal educational opportunities to children from low income students with the help of Title 1 being the largest source of funding. With the help of Title 1 the schools would be able to provide supplemental services to these children. In Contrast, The NCLB Act requires states to use standardized test to test students in reading, math and science to see if academic progress is made and the students are proficient in grade level of these subjects. The NCLB Act also focused on eliminating socioeconomic and racial differences providing quality education to all students of America regardless of ethnic, socioeconomic and racial background. Whereas the ESEA Act only focused on low income family students, the NCLB Act included low- income students, students with disabilities, major racial and ethnic groups and English language learners by providing test results to show improvement and that each student reach the appropriate grade level performance. (Thomas & Brady, 2005, p. 51-56). Furthermore, A blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the ESEA differed by focusing on “moving from a punishment based system to a system that rewarded students and teachers for excellent teaching and student growth” (Woolfork, 2014, p.X). In Comparison, all of these educational policies have the same goal which is to improve the educational experience of students in all areas and populations. These policies help with the effectiveness of teaching learning

Title III provides grants for Language instruction for English learners and Immigrant students. As mentioned previously, the act is aimed for English Learners (ELs) as they are now required to meet a certain standard of English proficiency. Through their development, that is how the quality of the school is measured (Migration Policy Institute). States would need to generate programs that allow English learners to achieve English proficiency and how they could further be assisted. Title IV focuses on 21st Century Schools in which is divided in different sectors; Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, Community Learning Centers, Charter Schools, Magnet Schools

In 1965, it was the first government initiative toward a practical solution in attempting to contain this uprising income achievement gap as they issued the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Unsurprisingly, this act gained lots of popularity among education reformers at that time as its objective was to provide equal education opportunities to all students nationwide whether they are rich or poor. Nonetheless, the ESEA was just a quick, ready solution to provide funds to schools at that time but not one that was extensively studied to ensure true equality in distributing those funds. Title I of the Act, which is still implement in the new version of the ESEA that’s now called the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, was the most important part which contained the initiative of providing funds to eligible schools and the way they would be distributed. According to Phyllis McClure, a civil rights activist who also served in the U.S. Office of Education’s Title I Task Force, this Title I in particular contained a “loophole” that allowed for poor schools to still not get their equal share of the funds (McClure). The problem lied in what was called the "comparability provision" law of Title I which allowed Title I schools, that uses a traditional budgeting system based on their average teacher salary, to show a comparable expenditure of their teachers’

President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) on December 10, 2015 to “reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the nation’s education law and longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.” (Every Student Succeeds Act, n.d.) ESSA has nine titles that “retains many of the original provisions of (No Child Left Behind) NCLB.” (Russo, 2016, p. 35) The nine titles in order, are as follows: Title I: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and Local Educational Agencies, Title II: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-Quality Teachers, Principals, or Other School Leaders, Title III: Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students, Title IV:

1. According to the law, states had the flexibility to define yearly progress but had to include certain federal guidelines.Teachers and administrators compared the results to prior years, and, based on state-determined AYP standards, determine if the school had made adequate progress toward the proficiency goal (Education). Schools receiving Title I funds generally fall within those where at least 35% of students are from low income families. More than half of all public schools can be classified as Title I schools.

Categorical formula grants are used to assign grants to succeeding state or local government on the basis of a method set out in lawmaking or by federal administrators. Although those grant programs generally include rules or directions that specify the types of projects on which the funds can be spent, recipients usually determine the specific projects that receive funding. For example, the largest education grant program of this type—Title I funds for the education of disadvantaged children—leaves decisions about how best to spend those funds up to state and local agencies, within certain guidelines. That approach is consistent with the traditional practice in which state and local authorities set education policies and choose curriculums

Moving forward, the United States public schools funding comes from the state, the federal government, and local communities. The appropriation of these funds varies according to several factors; however, the federal government only gives a fraction of these funds compared to the local and state governments. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the United States, about 93% is funded via the state and local governments (Bayer & Sampat, 2016).

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, President George W. Bush's education reform bill, was signed into law on Jan. 8, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act says that states will develop and apply challenging academic standards in reading and math. It will also set annual progress objectives to make sure that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. And the act also says that children will be tested annually in grades 3 through 8, in reading and math to measure their progress. The test results will be made public in annual report cards on how schools and states are progressing toward their objectives.