' CONGRESSIONAL i % ‘ sti V E lg H A I ' ~ . V ‘ « ' Universi of Missouri - Columbia ‘* A’ . ’ ‘ ‘ ' i . ' ! I i i llllllllflllllliil llllllllll lllflllllllllllllllll CONGRESS L € " i ’ ‘ % ‘i ; A 010-103 6086 8 conpznsnrony Enucmrxon: TITLE I or rag ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ARCHIVED--OZ/25/80) ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB77107 AUTHOR: Lyke, Robert F- Education and Public Welfare Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE HAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE OBIGINATED 19493411 DATE UPDATED gzgggggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0729 CRS- 1 IB77107 UPDATE-07/25/80 —lS5U§.2§£lElll9! V— Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the largest sFederal program for elementary and secondary education. During the current school year it is providing more than $2.77 billion for compensatory education to 14,000 local educational.agencies (about 90% of the Nation's school districts) and an additional $435 million to State agencies for administrative expenses and for programs for children of migratory workers, neglected and delinquent children, and handicapped children. Approximately 6 million public and private schoolchildren are participating in local educational agency programs, while about 650,000 are participating in State agency programs. Although the 95th Congress revised and extended Title I in P.L- 95-561, the Education Amendments of 1978, several issues continue to attract legislative attention. There is annual debate about how much money should be appropriated for the program and under which formula it should be allocated (currently debate is focusing on the President's proposals to rescind previously appropriated FY80 money and to reduce the FY81 budget request announced earlier in January. There is also discussion about the regulations that the Office of Education is writing to take account of changes Congress made in the 1978 legislation. Evaluation studies still generate concern about whether the program is effective. Before turning to the issues, it.would be useful to explain‘ how Title I funds are allocated and used. Money for local educational agencies (LEAs) is for the most part provided through LEA bg§ig_q§gnt§ ($2,630,022,667 in the school year 1979-1980). These grants are allocated on the basis of two separate and different estimates of the .number of certain’ children. The first estimate, which is used for allocating $2,329,030,652 (a sum equal to the FY78 appropriation) and 50% of the amount appropriated for basic grants above that, is the total number of children aged 5 through 17 in the following three groups: -- the number of such children in poverty (based on 1970 census data using the Orshansky measures of poverty); -- the number of such children in families receiving aid to families for dependent children (AFDC) payments in excess family of four ($6,191 for the 1979-1980 school year); - the number of such publicly supported foster children and the number of such institutionalized neglected and delinquent children (other than those counted for a Title I State agency program). The second estimate, which is used for’ allocating 50% of the amount appropriated for basic grants above $2,329,030,652, is the total number of children aged 5 through 17 in families with income less than 50% of the cns- 2 11377107 UPDATE-0 7/25/eo national median income for a family of four. These latter estimates are made using data from the 1976 Survey of Income and Education. Since SIE data are available only for States and not for smaller jurisdictions, the statute specifies that the share each LEA is to get of this money is to be proportional to the share each has of its State's total LEA basic grant money. To calculate the dollar amount of the LEA basic grants, the total number of children counted is multiplied by a cost factor of 00% of the State average per pupil expenditure, the latter figure being held within limits of 80% and 120% of the national average per pupil expenditure. If appropriations are not sufficient to fund all grants fully, each is ratably reduced (though each LEA is guaranteed at least 85% of its preceding year's allocation). In practice, the 0.5. Office of Education has been allocating LEA basic grant money only to counties; State educational agencies have been delegated the responsibility for making the appropriate LEA allocations. some LEAs might also receive ggnggn§;at;Qn_g;gnt§ ($107 million) in school year 1979-1980. These grants are allocated to counties which either have 5,000 children counted for purposes of LEA basic grants, as described above, or in which the number of such children constitutes at least 20% of all children aged 5-17. The authorized dollar amount of the grants is calculated by counting the number of these children above 5,000 or above 20%, whichever is greater, and multiplying by a cost :factor which is similar, but not identical, to the cost factor described above for LEA basic grants. An annual appropriation of $300 million was authorized for concentration grants for FY79, while for succeeding years, an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary is authorized.T If appropriations:are not sufficient to fund all grants fully, each is to be ratably reduced. County grants are in turn allocated among LEAs in proportion to the number of children counted for LEA basic grants, though in districts where such children constitute less that 20% of all children aged 5~17 the number is to be reduced by the proportia that they are of that 20% (for example, if an LEA has 100 students counted for LEA basic grants, and that number constitutes 15% of all ‘children aged 5-17, the number counted for concentration grants would be 100 times 15/20, or 75). In States that have no counties qualifying for concentration grants, money is allocated according to Office of Education regulations (the Title I statute gives each such State 1/u of 1% of the annual concentration grant appropriation). Beginning in the 1980-1981 school year, some LEAs might also have received money from igggngiyg grants given to States having State-funded programs for educationally deprived children. Originally there was an FY80 appropriationm of $14.7 million for these grants, but the entire amount was rescinded by P.L. 96-304 (see Chronology for July 8, 1980). According to the statutory requirements for incentive grants eligible States must have, among other things, State-funded programs providing supplementary services only to educationally deprived children; the program must also be based on peformance objectives related to educational achievement. Federal payments to States are limited to 50% of the amounts States spend; Federal money in turn is allocated to LEAs in proportion to the LEA basic grant money they receive. LEAS are eligible for incentive grant money only if during the preceding fiscal year at least half of the State program money they received was spent in school attendance areas with high concentrations of children from low—income families. The Title I statute authorizes such appropriations as may be necessary for incentive grants. other Title I grants are made to States for certain State agency programs CBS- 3 IB77107 UPDATE-07/25/30 and for adainistration. There are three State agency program grants: - for migratory children, or formerly migratory children, of migratory fishermen and agricultural workers ($209.6 million); - for neglected and delinquent children in State operated or supported institutions, including adult correctional institutions ($33.2 million); - for handicapped children in, or formerly in, programs of State agencies directly responsible for their education ($143.0 million). Allocations are made on the basis of the total number of eligible children multiplied by 40% of the State average per pupil expenditure, the latter figure being held within limits of 80% and 120% of the national average per pupil expenditure. Each State is guaranteed at least 100% of its preceding year's migrant grant allocation (though in FY83 this will be reduced to 85%) and 85% of its neglected and delinguentaand. its handicapped grant. State agency grants must be fully funded before appropriations are used to pay for LEA basic grants. a State administration grants ($u8.6 million) are provided through separate authorizations under a new Title V ESEA, though if appropriations are not ~ sufficient to fund such authorizations fully, then SEAs are to receive 1 1/2% of the total Title I money allocated to their respective States and local educational agencies, or $225,000, whichever is greater (this would result in v a Vubstantial increase over the level of such grants in prior school years). Not more than one-half of one percent of the total Title I appropriation may be used for program evaluation ($16.5 million). ‘ Use of funds Title I money is to be spent only for programs “which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children." Local educational agencies are restricted to using funds in school attendance areas having a relatively high number or proportion of children from low income families; within these areas, however, funds are to be used for any students, regardless of family income, who are educationally disadvantaged. Such students, who may be attending public or private schools, are selected principally on the basis, of scores on standardized‘ achievement tests and the judgment of teachers. LEAS must spend Title I money only for the excess cost of these special programs for educationally disadvantaged students; moreover, they must ensure that services paid for by State and local funds in Title I program schools are at least comparable‘ to services in the LEAS non-Title I schools (exceptions are made for LEAs with State or locally funded compensatory education programs meeting specified standards). In addition, all LBAs must f gfill requirements for planning, evaluation, program coordination, assessment of educational needs, participation by parents and teachers, and training of education aides. CRS- 4 IB77107 UPDATE‘07/25/80 According to a 1977 study by the fiational Institute of Education (NIE), compensatory instruction funded with Title I money (and in some places with State money as well) emphasizes basic skills in reading, language arts, and mathematics. Eighty-five percent of all compensatory education students receive such instruction in reading or language arts, and HS% receive it ' math. many students are taken out of their regular classrooms ford compensatory education: they are taught in small groups (reading classes have an average of nine pstudents), often by highly trained professional teachers. Compensatory education students spend an average of 5 1/2 hours per week in special instruction. According to the NIE study, about 75% of Title I money is used for instruction. Approximately 5% is used for auxiliary services such as parent activities, libraries, health services, couseling, etc., while the remaining 20% is used for such things as additional salaries, fringe benefits, equipment, operation and maintenance, and capital outlays. Passage of P.L. 95-561, the Education Amendments of 1978, did not end legislative debate over how much money should be appropriated for Title I. The FY79 appropriation for LEA basic grants is not sufficient to fund such ygrants fully in the 1979-1980 school year; in fact, the appropriation is providing approximately only 50% of the money needed to do so. Some people contend that appropriations for LEA basic grants shold be increased to the full funding level; only then, they claim, would local school districts have the money necessary to support quality compensatory education programs frt all students who need them. These people could point to the fact that many children who apparently need compensatory instruction do not receive it (some estimates indicate that perhaps as few as one-half or only one4third of such children are in Title I programs); they could also point out that children receiving compensatory instruction sometimes do not get all the assistance they should (relatively few, for example, have the opportunity to continue their lessons over the summer). other people argue that full funding of LEA basic grants would be both impractical and ineffective. The additional money required for full funding of these grants would currently be about $2.6 billion annually, an amount that could not be provided without altering present budget priorities. As a practical matter, these people claim, such money is likely to be made available only at the expense of appropriations for other education programs. Moreover, opponents of providing full funding for LEA basic grants could argue that the additional money might not be well spent. LEAs might simply put more money into existing programs, increasing their cost but enhancing neither their scope nor effectiveness. Opponents could also argue that most evaluations of Title I do not seem to justify spending more money on the program (see below)- The is also legislative debate over which of the Title I LEA grant programs -- with their differing allocation formulas - should receive greater funding. Disagreements have been particularly noticeable over how much money should be appropriated for concentration grants, with some peop urging that these grants should be fully funded and others saying they should have minimal funding, or even no funding at all, and that equivalent money should be used for LEA basic grants. Some of this debate is apparent in the CRS- 5 IB77107 UPDATE-O7/25/80 appropriations legislation for FY80. In H.R. 4389, the FY80 Labor=HE¥ appropriations bill, the House originally approved $345.8 million for concentration grants while the Senate originally approved $200 million; the tconference committee subsequently recommended that $200 million be approved. I H-R. 7502, making supplemental appropriations and rescissions for FY80, the House originally approved a rescission of $35 million of the $200 million ,for concentration grants, while the Senate originally approved a rescission for the entire $200 million. The conference committee subsequently recommended that the rescission be $100 million. In large part, the debate over. funding of concentration grants simply reflects efforts to control where Federal funds are allocated throughout the country. Compared to LEA basic grants, concentration grants generally give more money to States with large urban populations. For example, in the 1979-1980 school year New York State is getting approximately 9.7% of all LEA basic grant money and about 13.6% of all concentration grant money, while in contrast, Oregon is getting about 0.9% of LEA basic grant money and about 0.3% of concentration grant money (note that these percentages are valid gnly for the particular amounts appropriated for’ these grant programs in FY79 appropriations acts; they might change if different amounts were appropriated or if appropriations were for other years). Within States, the, difference between the two formulas is even greater, with some counties (in particular, urban counties and those rural counties with high percentages of children from low-income families) getting concentration grant funds but other counties not qualifying for any concentration money at all. Debate over funding of concentration grants also reflects disagreement 1 over whether the extra money will be used effectively. Proponents claim that schools in which there are many children from low-income families need — a“itional money, over and above regular Title I grants; opponents, on the 0 her hand, argue that giving schools such additional funds is both inequitable and ineffective. on Apr. 16, 1980, President Carter requested a rescission of previously appropriated FY80 Title I money. He asked that concentration grant funds be reduced from $200 million to $150 million and that the $15 million in State incentive grant funds be entirely rescinded.(such money would for the most part be spent in the 1981-1982 school year). The President also announced that the FY81 budget request for concentration grants was reduced from $300 million to $150 million. (Included in the above figures for both of these programs is additional money for State administration and evaluation and studies.) Proponents of these reductions argue that they are necessary to help the Federal Government attain a balanced budget. They point out that the cuts in concentration money would not reduce spending below what is currently available for these grants, and that the cut in incentive money would simply delay the time these grants are first funded. Opponents of the reductions argue that regardless of whether or not the vFederal budget should be balanced, cuts should not be made in compensatory education programs. Even level funding, they point out, amounts to a reduction in constant dollars during periods of uinflation. moreover, some ‘States are counting on increases in concentration grant money to offset r uctions in LEA basic grant funds they will receive for school year 1581-1982 (these reductions are the result of larger than usual increases that will go to two States under the statutory formula at a time when the total amount of funds available for LEA basic grants remains constant - one cns- 6 IB771 07 UPDATE-0 '7/25/80 State that had a large increase in the number of AFDC children counted and another that had at greater than average increase yin average [per pupil expenditure). GnJuly 8, 1980, President Carter signed.into law H.R. 75u2 (P.L.i96-304), which makes supplemental appropriations and rescissions for FY80. Amor other things the law rescinds $100 million in Title I concentration grant money (leaving a $100 million appropriation for this program in FY80) and $15 million in Title I State incentive grants (leaving no FY80 appropriation for this program). §eg2la£i2n§-I§§2s§ In May, June, and July 1979, the Office of Education published proposed regulations in response to changes in Title I made by P.L. 95-561, the Education Amendments of 1978. The proposed regulations provoked much controversy. They were publicly criticized by State departments of education, local school officials, and by such organizations as the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Education Commission of the States, and the Lawyers‘ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. At the end of September, Representative Carl Perkins, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, introduced a resolution calling for the Secretary of HEW to review and revise the proposed regulations (see LEGISLATION below). In October, the Assistant Secretary for Education stated that they would be rewritten and expanded. aany people believe regulations play a critical role in Title I programs. For one thing, regulations influence how important policy questions get resolved in local school districts. They affect how much flexibility schor‘ officials have in allocating funds while ‘still meeting Federal statutoiy requirements about such things as using payments only. for excess costs or having comparability of services between Title I and non-Title I schools. They influence the way school officials select schools to have Title I programs, choose students to be in those programs, and decide what kinds of instruction and services to provide. some people believe that the way these questions get resolved in the regulations largely determines whether Title I money is used just for compensatory programs, instead of general education, and whether it is concentrated enough to be effective. A second reason many people believe regulations play a~ critical role in iTitle I programs is that they affect sensitive issues like parental. involvement, paperwork burden, and relations between public and private nschools. How the regulations are worded and how well they are enforced is sometimes considered an important indicator of future Federal policy. Perhaps the most common objection to the Title I regulations proposed last year was that in shortening and. simplifying the current. regulations, as encouraged by former HEW Secretary Califantfls "Operation Common psense," the Office of Education omitted much important information that would have to be -obtained elsewhere. Critics argued that local school officials. and parent advisory councils would not be able to get the information they need; they claimed that local school district programs would be beset by confusion and . arguments and that some legal provisions might not be obeyed. other objections to the proposed regulations were that the wording was ambiguou that certain critical standards were being relaxed {particularly theb requirement that Federal funds supplement and not supplant state ;and local cns- 7 1377107 UPDATE-07/25/80 funds), and that the proposed regulations were not widely circulated before they were published. In response, the Office of Education argued that the proposed regulations were shortened to carry out congressional intent and itbat they would be clearer and easier to use. What problems they had, it was c- imed, generally reflect problems in the legislation or in local school , district practices. on Apr. 3, 1980, the Office of Education began to issue the revised Title I regulations, and by June 11, 1980, a complete set had been published (for those provisions for which the revisions are newly proposed, final regulations may not be available until autumn). While it cannot yet be said whether this year's regulations meet the objections raised previously, there has been some congressional concern about how long it has been taking to make the revisions. §za;ua:i2n-1§§2e§ Recent Federal evaluation studies show that Title I programs can be effective. A large scale National Institute of Education study, for example, shows not only that "compensatory education students can make significant gains over a school year period" but also that they can maintain such gains during the summer months- ("Compensatory Education study: Final Report, September, 1978, p. 79) In addition, Gerry Hendrickson of the Office of Education has stated that "the recent studies, particularly the recent federally sponsored evaluation [of reading projects] do for the first time justify cautious optimism in the ability of Title I to raise the reading achievement level of disadvantaged children...." ("Review of Title I I .luation Stuies," reprinted in the June 3, 1977 Congressional Record, pp. E3511-E3513). Nonetheless, most previous major Federal evaluations of Title I have cast doubt on whether the program actually is effective. While no study unequivocally demonstrates what impact Title I has on educational achievement, taken as a whole the large-scale Federal studies have failed to demonstrate student gains of much significance. As one careful review of the approximately 20 major Title I evaluations completed through 1975 commented: "...Title I has not lived up to the expectations of the optimists of 1965....“ (Donald H. flcLaughlin, “Title I, 1965-1975: A Synthesis of the Findings of Federal studies,“ Palo Alto: American Institutes for Research, 1977, p. 60). No one reason can be given for these findings. Instead, as McLaughlin noted, the evaluations listed a number of major problems: “misuse of funds, lack of consistent federal regulations and guidelines, invalid evaluations, lack of parental involvement, lack of effective treatment methods, lack of a strategy for developing effective treatment methods, lack of knowledge about individual differences in the processes by which children acquire cognitive skills, and the exclusion of disadvantaged children not in low-income areas." (p. 85) According to1977., U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Human Resources. Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities- 1Hearings,»95th Congress, 1st session. Parts 1-2 plus appendix.1 dulysfi4,:19777fiar._8, 1978. Washington, 0.3. Govt- Print. Otfi., 1978. ~ 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Subcommittee on Education. ‘Hearings, 93d Congress,;Js£:session, on S. 1539 to amend and extend certain acts relating tp;g;gmentary and secondary education programs and for other purpasesa‘ 7 Parts- Apr. 16, 1973 - Oct. 31, 1973. 3218 p. ‘ Testimony on Title I is found on pages 167s351,c1025-1076, - 1089-1091, 1128-1133, 1504-1609,I1674-1783, 1819:3831,-1962r1978, and 2229-2537. V " -§2Q§2§_3ND §QE§§§55lQEAL_DQ§QflEE$§ Education naendnents of 1974, H.R. 69. (Debate and voteqinmthsyHOuSe)- Congressional record, v. 120: Mar. 12, 1974 ,.H " _1,~ (see especially pages 6267-6342 for debate and votes on Tifil£,I ESEA); mar. 26, 1974 (see especially pages 8229-8262); Mar. 27, 1974 (see especially pages 8523-8536); and July 31, 1974 ‘ (see especially pages 26103-26128). Education Amendments of 1974, S. 1539. (Debate and vsteminwihe» Senate). Congressional record, v. 120: yflay 8, 1974: (see especially pages 13740-13747 for debate and votes on Title I ESEA); say 13, 1977 (see especially pages 14320-14321, 14326-14327, 14330-14339, and 14350-14352); May 14, 1974 (see especially pages 14548-14579 and 1459?); may 15, 1974 (see especially pages 14834-14838); may 16, 1974; and flay 20, 1974 cns—11 IB77107 UPDATE-07/25/80 (see especialdyppages 15232—1529o, 15328-15329, 15u2u_isi2§,. and 1544a) and July 2a, 197a. a Education Amendments at 1978, H.R. 15 (Debate and vote in the) House). Congressional record:Ldaily ed.]fv. 12%;«« _ July 12-13, 1978: H6531-H6583 and H6592-H6687. (For debate and vote on Title I see especially pages H6531-H6553, H6557—H6583, H6592-H6602, and H6677-H6637.) Oct. 14, 1978: H13fl64—H13468. I 8 Education Amendments of 1978, S- 1753 (Debate and vote in the Senate). Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 12¢; Lug.¢22-24, 1978: S13999, s1uouo—s1uo95, S1u141-$14198, S1u2fl2-S1u266. (For debate and votes on Title I see L especially pages $14046-514047, sauoso, 514066. $1u16u-514165, S14185,‘and‘$1fl266.) Oct. 12, 1918: 318569-$18573. 0.3. Congress-"#Conference Connitteepi197u.,:Education Amendments of 1974.. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 209 p. (93d¥Congress;€2d session.; House. -Reporttno.a93-1211), U.s. Congress.:,Confierence Committee, 197&efaEducationy so Amendments of 1978. ;washington,vu5S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 323 p.%¥(95th congress,-2d session. ,House. Report no. 95-1753) 9.5. Congressgi House.= Committee on Education and Labor. Elementary and Seeendary Bdfiéation Amendments @f;1974; report to accompany H.R. 69- Washington, 0-3. GovtatPIint- Off-:.197u.y 250 p. (93d Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 93-805) ----*%«repbrthon the Education Amendments of 1978,sH.R. 15. 7Washington,?fl.s: Govt. Brint.—0ff.,gfl978. 455 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. Houseegpaeport no. 95-1137) ---- Bepotvtbéhccoipafiy S- 1753a,a:bifll to extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,eand for .. other purposes. Washington, U.S. Govt. 7 Print. Off., 1978. (95th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 95-856) 7 0.5. Congress. Senate. Connittee on Labor and Public Welfare. «fiducetibmpetehdnents o£w197u. Washington, U.s. Govt. Print. 0ff., 197a. 575 p.V (93d Congress, 2d session. Senate. 1nepert?no;:93e963) . * QE§Q§QLQ§X_QE-§!§E1§ 07/08/80 -e&Pnesidenticartervsigned into law H.R. 75u2 (P.L. 96-300), taking supplemental appropriations and rescissions for EE80-; Among other things the law rescinds $100 million infTitle I concentration grant toney (leaving a $100 ikillion appropriation for this program in FY80) and .515 million in Title.I State incentive grants (leaving 3fio:FY80 appropriation for this program). 06/11/80 - The last of the newly revised Title I regulations cns-12 1377107 UPDATE-O7/25/80 ‘were published (for some provisions the regulations _uere only proposed; final regulations maygnptybe, t‘issued until autunn). 04/16/soy-éf 04/03/80 -- 01/28/80 - 1Q/16/79 - appropriated FYBD'Title I apney. $3«f63“6ii77f.t20G7Q‘f9r _,. lfor:the”most”part’be7spen£ in the 1951-19§2{sch9ol year). yxncludéa in thié request Here the sfifiS}0f;$2.89&.168.000 for“LEAfbasici§IaHts{T$29Q,022,000Iforeconqentration The Presifientrequested d rescissibn 9£%P£s¥iously . y (, 1 Be‘ @5199 51;. that a concentration grant funds be reduced fron §2DQ,million to $150 million and that the $15 million State incentive grant fpnds be entirely rescinded (such;non§y would for the most partfhg spent in the 1981-1982,school year). 1The President also announcedflthat the FTB1 budget request gprgcbnoentrationjgrants was reduoedgiron $300;n11lion\to $150 nillion., (Included inathe,above figuresffior both of these programs is additionalgnoney for State administration and evaluation and studies.) The Office of Education began to issue nealy revised k Title I regulations. The.Pre$identtreqnestedfan FY81 appropriation ofit mt a _ O . r V » ,- ”Titlep1:programs,Lsuchagoneyfigould grants; $16,661;000ffotiincentiveygrants; §fl60,§23,000‘ for the three State agency programs: $55,463,000 for State adninistration; and $15,835,QQQ,fgrfiegaluation and; studies.Ml Milan .wWMWm_.VL.L . HEW Kssistant Secretary for Eduoatiofi Mary Berry told a House Sn bcommitttete lthat. the @315. 1» regulations issued in tbs summer vouldgbeyggggitten Wand expanded.tiT 10/12/79 -- O8/06/79 -- 07/30/79 - The President signed into law H.J.Res. H12 (P.L."96-86), making continuiag epproaniationfi §°;mEx3QwaHfinQflQ othefitfii thifi§S1 the 1&3gqofitin@t$93PPr9P£iati9%$4£9£«edu9ation Programs.atythéf1evé1Xté¢d®@endédmingthsgponfenence repor t ‘“orr"‘t1ie Liabotr;é1’I,Eim, I19? tions. gflziyltl f0.I:=~ M8 0 (that _ .re9o.rt . t‘r.e.é0imién{5%é§1:§ fi*1':%-1:5 a§RP.’F9:yPIv;.ta f-:?;~i'-;.»‘33:':. of s3.330;s93.oo6t:or;;i£1g L pnagrans;§0£fithLs1%§Q§3931 S<=h<>'°1 “I iin"*=1tid7”;’LnééJ«} d"$'2fi9Z;;,Q0i° 009 <>.r;« t.a=.ati on grants [included in this latter figure is additional noeny for state administration and eyaluation;amd H studies] and $15}QO0,0QO tor inoentivgfgngptfifigygt The President signed into law H.R. 4591 (P.L. 94-46), which along othenmthings makes fi?¢§9§$@Aa9R§ne:$i@ns»mm&9 y-isice 1 la neons a nieiidiaehts 79‘. n =s:er,t~a.iJ1 ' es1.;yu,<=a ti91i:i‘::*:l;§«§5 contained 7i D‘ P ’ I’ " 9 5 1 F‘ 2?" E du C3 exnd m;§.;11§.S Of 1978. with respect to Title I, the law makes minor changes.in parent adv;s9rY,C0uP¢§J electionpnrassflureswbt and in the"reguirengnt,that¢all nenbers,9fs£he figfincils receive copies‘o;'theLstatnte,7regulations;_andyo¢her materials. ‘m”‘"‘”" " 5 The conferenée-conmitteeE$n§§.R. 4389, the FY§9: Labor-HEW appropriations bill, F?§9!@ended anggy 07/25/79' 07/24/79 07/20/79:‘ 07/13??? 07/11/79 06/27/19¢ 06/26/79 06/o5;7e5 1‘. ", - a-I 07/23/7900 The Senate passed H.Q.¢fl591,: i73P§f5§fii&§i§§S.biii:?wThe‘b cas-13 1377107 UPDATE-07/25/80 appropriation of $3;330,593,000 for Title I programs for the 1980-1981 school year. Included in this sun was $200,000,000 for concentration grants (this fugure, A inclfidés9additional money for Staté,admi§i$tration and evaluation and studfiesj and $15,Q00,000 fior incentive grants. .iu- * L 0 .w{¢ The Fresident signed?into law H.§:_fl289j12}L. 96-38), naking~$fipp1ementa1 appropriations for FY39} Among other thinds, the law appropriates $150,0Q9,000”fbr Title I concentration grantsifor use in the T979*@$§0;School year‘(this figure inclhdes additional Ifinefffor State nadninistration and evaluation and studiésggfii c-~_ iihe House passed H.R. 4591. The §efi&£éYp&§séd ézé; u§sg;5th§j§ia5;:a5§i;gzfi$3 f 1,c§fitaiflefln$§,328,593,000 %for?TitIe5Iiprogra&s;'ifi6ludingW$200,dO0,QQ0,£52; conéentration*grants"jtfiisffigurejincludesgadditiona1 éi aiin! fpiievail fiaitién aind iS¢ufiie$)”3fi@*539i°09z900}i9£CinCefitiY9rgtafitsé4 "*Tfié7§éfiate Appropriations éonfiittee reported fiifi: 4389, the FY80 Labor—HEfi appropriations bill, which“ contained $3.328.593¢0O0 fer Title I programs- 5’TEé7éofiférénéeicofimi€tee‘6n7H§R§”fl289, the 3179 7~sup§Eefienta1 appropriations bill, recommended that “rdpfiro§rfati6ns*bil1C‘ :wasrnfi¢1aaea*£o::incén¢ivé%gran:s;;iw -. *wmH§$H5nse passefifHZR3"fl289,pthe”F§79$supplenentai $150,000,000 be appropriated for Title I concentration grants.‘ r H slip ' ' The%fiouse”pas§ed+H;R;ifl309fi”tfiei§Y30iLahqfififi , Th§7fiif1X¢0nt§inedf ,_7c 4$3;uT8,382;000Wfor”TitIefTfiprograms,«including %$3a5,789,n0O for cahcentratinhyqrantsig. ,,*nn _ (t his ‘iirfiqiérriie »‘in‘c1'ud esff ajdifii‘ ,',‘;§o‘I1jey ’i‘ifio_,i‘i1:; Stat e ?a&£&nistratidn‘afid”%Ealu@tibH aHfi$StfidieSY-i”E9 E°neY ..,~'. . ,... » -, M 0 ‘ A ¥Ee?Senaté’pa§sed"H;R;‘fl239,“theIRY79"supplemental appropriations bi11;' The bill contained no money “tor concentration grants or other Title I programs. appropriations hi1l}”ihich included $200’ni11iongfor EitieWIsconcentration*grantsn_7 in 0 ” “ 0 K 05/05/79g;;g§fi@fiHbuse*lppropriations Cofifiittee reported H.R. 4389, i¢hepF¥30“Labor~fiEWpappropriationsjbijl; which included i$3,h?8,382,000 for-Title I programs.‘ 01/22/79 -- The President requested an FY80 appropriation of alnbst $3;5 bil1ioni£or”fit1e§I;‘ 0f“this amount, nearly $&00imil1ion uouid be used for concentration grants while the balance would be used for LEA basic 11/0 1/78 10/18/78 12/09/“ii "grants; State agency programs, _ the “>FY78;: iThe The President signédvinto lawV CBS~1Q E37710? UPDATE—07/25/30 State administration, and evaluations. was requested for incentive grants. N0 fiOfiéY The President signed into lee BERG i5pgE,L,M95fS61), the Education Amendments of 1973. anonq5ether”thingsw lav revises and extends Title I. ‘PresidentfsignedwP.L:R95¥fl80. making Lebor-HEfl“‘“V* appropriatiofisFforFFY79@ VThe act containsw$3,078;3fl2;©OO to be allocated for Title 1 programs in FY80. None ofp the honey asito be allocated for concentration grants?*”f uhichietflthisfltineeereinotiyet authorizedif J:-.-t I 5 , , ’ 1: I.~..‘~ .- ,\ 5.‘. n.J .Res“; 662-? (P.L. 95~205) appropriating LaborwHEW money for .The~laeWcontained-anVaPPr0priatioup9§r;:r;p { s2i:.l 735m orator;¢o0i0il“¥afr<-*i=‘ ‘ilfiijntle I V “ 12/02/77 09/30 09/2H/77 02/28/77 10/12/76 ms/3n/76 08/21/74 iThe Office of Education published proposed rules xior*hofiKsch@®1edistricts?eangapp1y“for“Energehcydf sch: iid . .:Actt.:ua.Afi1na st 71:o‘:i cofn?1:i‘nn‘e co ‘W9I°Y‘ ~$education*for7children¥wheV%®ansfersf%oewTitle”¥W¥ to non~Title I schools as part of a aeeegreqaeien plan. I=The Nea.ti.o:‘n’a«].§lIi1sti’tIute51 of EdK11~‘£:a«tii4_3I1d*?‘I:el«ee’§*ed in eff last of six reportsw6n3Title”I legislation ana~m%r programs it prepared as part of its $35 nillion_% study or coapensaeeryéedueatiah. " ” }"””dd” The President signedVinto law Sg’1752‘(P.LL“95~1W2F}“*~ which, among other things, authorized a 1nyear extension »ofwTitlebl1 The Bureau of the Census sent to Congress a preliminary W rep art on the = s"ua:%v ey lye In efcmfeg an d mate atjibnr. = tee ‘eBureaufisftentative“findingswias*that5sineeffl970*3“§“*9- ‘children in poverty have become sonefihat less aaeeeeeeeted in the South and lofler income States, while the more W industrialized and higherfiincene States~have%tendedTtd#p ‘uinereasie their I‘ae=s'1:e1a:ti‘»ve *ishd’a*'?re7.3" The Education Aaendaents of 1976 were enacted into lay as P.L- 9&éfl82L* section 323 easeartheafiseaipaeieeeeeneegqf effort~requirenents%for Tit1e+I*and¥other?pro§ran§%¢i**“ The Department of Health;«Edfieation,*anfliHe1fe%e“3 »Tsent to @engress3aVrepore‘on7the?fiéasure55f?pové§tf%§ Possible alternatives to the currently wideiyweseB5** Orshansky measure were discussed and their effieet onA Title I allocations was estimated. «” The Education Amendments of 197% were enacted into law as P.L. 93«380. These amendments made major changes in Title I legislation, particularly in the allocation formula» .-A“ 3 j £R$r15= IB77J07a;EPDATE~07/25/80 “IwzgyA;r3§z§n§§§.;§2-nssae Report #2: students‘ economic and selection for conpgnsa£Dm§:£flucation.% Deciga Research; 197&sv:fl5$§p. Breglio, Vincent J., et. al. educati9na1=s$9tns;and ;5a9$a Ana2,Cali£9rnia. Peldmessg;3fi3pbert,;.3g,mhe use;o£,test scoresyas a pasis fpr allocating edilcational : .3 an .51Y11.;;tIl;.?¢-"='»<.;ii;$;u and in ter_p:re.,tat::i;Qn. of knowledge and experience. Princeton, New Jersey, Educational Testing Service, 1975. W105mp; y{LR&1§’22?0§j. Heleniala Judith As.metxgalr:,£9P0It #9;;s$he’measu;es and variables in the sustaining effects study.figsantagfionicggfigglifgggia, System Development Corporation, 1978. 226 p. Larson, neredithflgyyandfirreyagap Dittmany;vmgompensaxorygedncation and early aéolescggcetp reyieging,ourynational;$¢r@teg$. Benlo PaFKaLC§li£9¥fli§1.SfianforfixfiflfieafigfluInstitmtemyflfifls. 1“2 P- mJ}99993wL§¥l s . x V i ncLaugh1in, Donald H. Title I, 1965-1975: a synthesis of the findingsugi;£%§@r§l:S$nfl§§s».nPnloaaltn.afialitnrniaa American Institutesgfigrggegearchm;1§1J;¢.91fip.;;; i net-aughlin. Hi1'b‘r”é’ii ti aiiin“-Q Esra as 1:: a problem of conpliance. Teachers college record, v. 77, Pebrparyynfiflfigs,§97rAfi5.’a(LRS76eJflZ55); Oghu,M3ohnwU:” Hinoritf education and caste. New Xprkgghgademic Press, 1978. 410 p. 3055 J - 2 §31n3..n§er:i .e§ ..°;=‘:.f ‘ Tiitle AI -!9V‘a;?!-‘la ti 095 1955“1975??mP@lQ:klt91.Calif0£ni§u~&§e£i§3B;I&$ti¢M$eS for -.i‘:‘:‘:~: P40 i . I ‘i A H “-5- D§P¥é§§f.fie§l$h.;E§neati9a.;anégfisuiage. ¢$he:§a$i9nal Institute of Education. Goupengagpgyhefiucatignrsergicgs. Washington, 1977. 100 p.i 7 an. .- C{9§i:*§§}§§$:§?‘3;.9§!:;~Y‘ .§@§;1;¢a.§’- 19 D; study at 1. -! Ire poz.‘.t:.i3%uf1:on the N&tiQ. i$£S§ii9$ss9f¢£éu¢ations 3@&Shi@Q§@n3;19?3».a390 P- 1 Mm: I’:.‘_-‘J--‘ ---- Eva1uat§§na99sBsn§at9:1:edn9at;9ns.w an tot?§§!m¥eP93$:99$$fies§1Eu§°$PeQ§§t°3¥&£dU§@$103 5$u§Y- was * 5} ----- mix‘. auaas**.11a.agi.n use current formula. Washington, 1977.“ i38 p. (i§§73-Qébéfl) LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY gr. Lqggs — MO.‘