New Title I Rules Due By January

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

Those concerned about the education of disadvantaged children are anxiously monitoring the changes being made this year in Title I of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Representatives of organizations that favor a prominent federal role in education, as well as state administrators to whom more responsibility for education was passed this year, are concerned that new Title I legislation could reduce the gains made in the past 16 years of federal leadership in meeting the educational needs of poor children.

Some critics of the changes argue at the new Title I law, which Congress passed early this summer, is "ambiguous," "vague," and is "lacking in the size, scope and quality" of the current law.

The $3.1-billion Title I program--the largest federal education program--has grown more specific and prescriptive through amendments passed since it began in 1965. Until it was radically altered and deregulated this year, Title I was governed by 54 pages of legislation.

Congress, in response to complaints that Title I was too intrusive and time-consuming to administer, simplified the law. Legislators shortened the governing legislation to only six pages, through passage of e Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA), which became law Aug. 13.

The new law is designed to reduce paperwork and administrative burdens, while providing states with financial assistance to meet the special needs of educationally deprived children. It is identical to current law in the way it distributes funds to states and counties, but it is much less specific in monitoring and accountability requirements.

The law also changes the official name of Title I. Although most educators and legislators continue to refer to the program by its 16-year-old name, the federal education program for disadvantaged students is now officially known as

"Chapter I of ECIA"

The Education Department, aware of the confusion Congress created, has established a consolidation task force to study problems arising from the new law, and to issue new regulations.

William Cheatham, deputy assistant secretary for compensatory education, said last week that preliminary regulations would be issued by January 1982.

But for now, the issue of who will have the authority to make rules and to administer the programs--states, local school systems, or the federal government--is still a question.

Jack W. Hanson, president of the National Association of State Coordinators of Title I, said it is important for states to know what the Administration expects of them under the new law, which he calls a "stripped-down" version of the current law.

The states need to receive "working papers" from the Education Department, covering fiscal reports and program management, Mr. Hanson said. He added that "in order to plan, we need more direction. We're not opposed to the reduction of the law, but we want to know what will be required."

Mr. Hanson said his organization would like to see a technical amendment added to the new law that would give the states the power to make necessary rules for administering the program.

Bette Hamilton, education-program director of the Children's Defense Fund, a legal defense and lobbying group that favors large-scale federal funding of education programs, said her organization would prefer more stringent federal regulation of state practices, such as those the previous Title I law contained. Without oversight of state action, she said, there is no assurance that states have lived up to the federal government's intent.

Mrs. Hamilton predicted that some states will be uncomfortable with the new arrangement. She said the new law might create an "identity crisis" for some of the state agencies. "You've got to realize the state bureaus [of education] grew up with the current law," she said.

Varying Policies

"What we'll have is 50 different [state] policies under Chapter I," she added. States such as New York have strong state-mandated compensatory education programs in addition to the federal program, while others have only minimal statutes governing education of the disadvantaged, she said.

Congress's changes represent a philosophical as well as a programmatic shift for Title I, experts agree. Since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, subsequent federal laws have mandated a large-scale federal involvement in educating the nation's disadvantaged children, who proponents of the program believe have traditionally under-served by state and local programs.

Amendments to ESEA required the involvement of parents of disadvantaged children in such programs; set up guidelines for program accountability; mandated procedures for federal monitoring; and established a national Title I advisory council.

Under the new law, which responds to the Reagan Administration's proposal for less federal entanglement in state and local administration of education programs, parental involvement is not mandatory; provisions for program accountability and federal monitoring are to be rewritten; and the national advisory council has been abolished.

Elimination of such provisions has resulted in criticism that the new legislation will undermine the educational-achievement gains disadvantaged children have made.

Alice Baum, executive director of the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children, which was eliminated by the ECIA, said she believes that weakened laws, diluted federal participation, and smaller federal appropriations will only serve to undermine the intent of the program.

Mrs. Baum said the new law is "very loose, ambiguous, and with very few monitoring and federal-enforcement provisions."

What is forgotten, adds Mrs. Hamilton, "is that children are the consumers of these laws, not the states and not the agencies."

Vol. 01, Issue 03, Page 8, 10

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories





Sponsor Insights

Effective Ways to Support Students with Dyslexia

Stop cobbling together your EdTech

Integrate Science and ELA with Informational Text

To Address Chronic Absenteeism, Dig into the Data

Can self-efficacy impact growth for ELLs?

Disruptive Tech Integration for Meaningful Learning

5 Game-Changers in Today’s Digital Learning Platforms

Keep Your Schools Safe and Responsive to Real Challenges

Hiding in Plain Sight - 7 Common Signs of Dyslexia in the Classroom

The research: Reading Benchmark Assessments

Shifting Mindsets: A Guide for Training Paraeducators to Think Differently About Challenging Behavior

All Students Are Language Learners: The Imagine Learning Language Advantage™

Shifting Mindsets: A Guide for Training Paraeducators to Think Differently About Challenging Behavior

How to Support All Students with Equitable Pathways

2019 K-12 Digital Content Report

3-D Learning & Assessment for K–5 Science

Climate Change, LGBTQ Issues, Politics & Race: Instructional Materials for Teaching Complex Topics

Closing the Science Achievement Gap

Evidence-based Coaching: Key Driver(s) of Scalable Improvement District-Wide

Advancing Literacy with Large Print

Research Sheds New Light on the Reading Brain

3 Unique Learner Profiles for Emerging Bilinguals

Effective Questioning Practices to Spur Thinking

Empower Reading Teachers with Proven Literacy PD

Student Engagement Lessons from 3 Successful Districts

Response to Intervention Centered on Student Learning

The Nonnegotiable Attributes of Effective Feedback

SEE MORE Insights >