The Historical Role Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Title I deals with grants for the purpose of granting financial assistance to economically backward children in schools and other LEA’s (Local Educational Agencies). “This program provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools with high numbers or high percentages of poor children to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.” (Program description).
Title I program provides four types of grants, namely basic grants, concentration grants, targeted grants, education finance Incentive Grants. This program was started 40 years ago by President Lyndon B Johnson as a part of an initiative named “war on poverty”. The program when it started only intended as a general assistance to schools and it did not have many of the current provisions existing today. “Initially, funds were sometimes used as general school aid. Amendments tightened up the program to require it to focus on disadvantaged students.” (Roza et al, 2005). The government would review the Act every five years.
Changes, additions and new Acts have been introduced about eight times since its inception. There were two major Acts intended to improve the effectiveness of the ESEA and Title I. The first was the Improving America’s School Act (IASA) in 1994.
The second one in 2001 was a major revamp by the Bush Administration bearing the name ‘No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)’.So now the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is known as ‘No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)’ From inception in 1964 till date, the government has spent about USD 130 billion for Title I. “The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the fundamental federal law governing K-12 education”. (No Child Left Behind/ESEA). The main criticisms in the implementation of Title I funds are that its directives are too complex and that there is no equitable distribution of funds according to actual needs.
The effectiveness of Federal Initiatives under President Bush
In 2002, the Bush Administration Bush brought forth extensive reforms in the US education through the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act with the purpose of improving general school quality and performance levels. Its main focus is on four areas of education.
- Student knowledge: Schools are expected to give additional coaching to students who perform poorly in academics.
- Flexibility. States and school districts now have more flexibility to transfer funds received, for programs to improve teacher quality, develop new programs, reduce the presence of drugs and use new technology for students.
- Proven methods of education: Efforts have been made to identify or develop new proven educational methods and implement the same in schools
- Choice: Giving more choice for parents to transfer students from poorly performing schools to better ones, funds for poor students to avail additional coaching, and create parallel educational establishments. “President Bush today signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act – the most sweeping reform of federal education policy in a generation.” (Fact Sheet, 2002). Accountability is the strongest provision that is showing visible results of the implementation of this Act. This is true not in the case of education alone.” In a host of policy areas inside and outside of education, history shows that clear federal prescriptions accompanied by real consequences bring results.” (Rotherham, 2008).
Analysis: The problems that could arise from the implementation of this Act are given below.
- There seems to be a bias in the curriculum because those children who need assistance get to study a poorer curriculum than those who are more affluent. Moreover, the quality and quantity of support provided are uneven and are not made available according to actual needs.
- Stress on improving the grades of students. This thrust has lead to coercion and fear being used to increase grades. More testing means less time for instruction which has forced some schools to reduce subjects not considered essential by the Act.. “…….others have complained the unfunded federal requirements cost too much, that reforms have turned teachers into test coaches, and classroom creativity has been squelched.” (Effectiveness of No Child Left Behind Debated, 2007).
- The system of accountability applied is uniform without considering different standards among students.
- The real experts on education are those who work directly with the child and not the policymakers. But policies are made by the latter without due consultation with those who matter.
- Lack of initiatives in implementing certain directives like handing over underperforming schools that have failed to show results for more than six years to the state or other private organizations. Directives of total restructuring of such schools in terms of staff and curriculum have not been taken seriously.
“HAVE YOU ever considered that the remedy for being lost is not to drive faster? You have to stop and change direction.” (The Seven Deadly Sins of No Child Left Behind).
Unless the shortcomings mentioned above are taken into consideration, the results of this Act will remain unsatisfactory, and expected results would remain only on paper. It would be better to say that the Federal policies have not succeeded in rescuing failing schools in the country. “No Child Left Behind, like the Wizard of Oz, has turned out to be more powerful in shadow than in substance.” (Ramarez, 2007).
References
Program description, Improving basic programs operated by local education agencies (title i, part a), ED.gov. US Department of Education, Promoting Educational Excellence for All Americans. Web.
Roza, Marguerite., Miller, Larry., & Hill, Paul. (2005). Two provisions, “comparability” and “supplement, not supplant” were added as the foundation of Title I funds allocation, How Title I Funding is Supposed to Work, l Strengthening Title I to Help High-Poverty Schools. Web.
Roza, Marguerite., Miller, Larry., & Paul Hill. (2005). Introduction, Strengthening Title I To Help High-Poverty Schools. Web.
No child left behind/ESEA: It’s time for a change. (2002-2008). NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. Web.
Fact sheet: No child left behind. (2002). The White House, President George W Bush. Web.
The Seven Deadly Sins of No Child Left Behind, PDK – PHI DELTA KAPPA International. Web.
Rotherham, Andrew. (2002). A New Partnership, PPI – Progressive Policy Institute. Web.
Effectiveness of No child left behind debated. (2007). the Online NewsHour. Web.
Rotherham, Andrew J. (2008). Forum – Education next: A new partnership, Why Federal Accountability?, Hoover Institution. Web.
Ramarez, Eddy. (2007). Education: Failing Schools are hard to fix, UN News & World Report. Web.