Committee on Education and the Workforce

Hearing On "Title I: An Overview"

Wednesday, April 14, 1999

2175 Rayburn House Office Building

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN GINSBURG, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. *

STATEMENT OF DR. MARIS VINOVSKIS, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN *

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL CASSERLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS, WASHINGTON, D.C. *

STATEMENT OF DR. DIANE RAVITCH, NEW YORK, NEW YORK *

APPENDIX A -- THE OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL GOODLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA *

APPENDIX B -- THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN L. GINSBURG, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. *

APPENDIX C -- THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. MARIS VINOVSKIS, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN *

APPENDIX D -- THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL D. CASSERLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS, WASHINGTON, D.C. *

APPENDIX E -- THE COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF ESEA REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSALS *

APPENDIX F -- THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. DIANE RAVITCH, NEW YORK, NEW YORK *

APPENDIX G -- THE OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS J. KUCINICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO *

Table of Indexes *

Committee on Education and the Workforce

Hearing On "Title I: An Overview"

Wednesday, April 14, 1999

2175 Rayburn House Office Building

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:30 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William Goodling [chairman of the committee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Goodling, McKeon, Castle, Greenwood, Souder, Schaffer, Upton, Deal, Ehlers, Tancredo, Fletcher, DeMint, Isaakson, Clay, Miller, Kildee, Martinez, Andrews, Roemer, Scott, Woolsey, Romero-Barcelo, McCarthy, Tierney, Kind, Sanchez, Ford, Kucinich, and Wu.

Staff present: Robert Borden, Professional Staff Member; Castleman, Office Manager; Pam Davidson, Legislative Assistant; Cindy Herrle, Professional Staff Member; Victor Klatt, Education Policy Coordinator; Reynard, Media Assistant; Kent Talbert, Professional Staff Member; Kevin Talley, Staff Director; Kirsten Duncan, Professional Staff Member; Gail Weiss, Minority Staff Director; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; Cedric Hendricks, Minority Deputy Counsel; June Harris, Minority Education Coordinator; Marshall Grigsby, Minority Senior Legislative Associate/Education; Cheryl Johnson, Minority Counsel/Education and Oversight; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate/Education, and Roxana Folescu, Minority Staff Assistant/Education.

Chairman Goodling. [presiding] I would suggest that we go and vote quickly, and get back quickly, so that we can get started. Let us all be ready to go at quarter of twelve. That will give us five minutes to get over to the floor and five minutes to get back.

[Recess.]

Chairman Goodling. It would appear that we have a couple hours during which we should not be interrupted.

It is a privilege to welcome all of you here today. We have had one very lengthy hearing with the Administration, and now we have a hearing with all of you who are going to tell us what we need to know to provide a total quality program all over the United States. My emphasis has always been that, when we are dealing with the most educationally disadvantaged youngsters in the country, a mediocre program doesn't help them at all; a good program isn't good enough. When you are dealing with the most disadvantaged educationally, it has to be better than good; it has to be excellent; it has to be quality.

I know there is some confusion as to how much we have accomplished since the 1994 reauthorization, and we can argue that over and over again. I mentioned that the SAT scores, unfortunately as we discovered in some areas, they excuse a lot more from taking the test than they used to excuse. That doesn't help us get any kind of concrete information that we need if we are really going to make this program a totally successful program. I don't want to take a lot of time because I want to hear from all of you, and with that, I will proffer my statement that Kent worked hard in preparing for entrance into the record, and turn to the ranking member.

Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, last Sunday marked the 34th anniversary of the signing of the historic Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The moral imperative to give poor children quality educational opportunities is what motivated Congress to enact this critical piece of legislation.

During consideration of the original act, Adam Clayton Powell, a distinguished chairman of this committee, reminded us that a nation cannot remain both ignorant and great. He spoke eloquently of education for all without regard to poverty, cultural deprivation, or race. Powell cited a deplorable experience of one state, where 49 percent of the young men drafted for the military service were refused enlistment because they lacked academic skills necessary to perform as privates in the Army. As we begin deliberation on Title I of ESEA, hopefully, we will not get seduced by simplistic solutions for addressing the serious problems confronting us. Dumping money on the states without imposing standards, or requiring accountability is not the answer.

Originally, Title I permitted precisely what some ideological zealots are proposing today -- no standards, no regulations, no supervision. That type of policy will usher in improper and illegal use of funds for supervision by state bureaucrats and unprofessionally designed education programs. Before standards were imposed, Title I funds were diverted to support general expenditures and civil rights protections were rarely enforced. The use of block grants under Chapter II showed that state and local governments had not addressed the needs of poor and minority students. Under Chapter II, the Reagan Administration consolidated a number of education programs under block grants but failed to target funds to poor and minority districts and callously ignored advanced funding and equities among school districts. Enemies of public education launched a public relations campaign to repeal Title I and use its funds for parochial and private school vouchers.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the majority will not be bullied by far right ideologues, whose primary goal is to destroy our public education system. Mr. Chairman, with the help of Title I, fourth graders in high poverty schools are making significant gains in reading and math. Ten of thirteen urban school districts, and five of six states reviewed showed increases in the percentage of students in the highest poverty levels who met district or state standards for proficiency in reading or math. This should serve to broaden our commitment to increase investment in public schools, and continue targeting the poorest children, to insist on greater accountability for results.

Mr. Chairman, again, I request that you work with Democrats on a bipartisan education agenda as we reauthorize Title I and the rest of ESEA. I believe that the model we used to pass the Higher Education Act and IDEA will serve us well because these Acts were accomplished through negotiations of a bipartisan education agenda, without either side dictating to the other.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Goodling. I always love to take the opportunity to remind all that we do our best to target on this side (the House), and my colleagues' side over in the other body that messes up our targeting. So, I want him to use his influence over there.

I would ask that everyone else put your statement in the record, and make all of your statements during your five minute question and answer period.

The distinguished panel includes Dr. Alan Ginsburg, Director of Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of the Under Secretary, Department of Education, Washington, D.C. He coordinates the development of annual evaluation of federal education programs, and has co-directed along with the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Development Implementation of the Department's Strategic Plan. He was responsible for the preparation of the national assessment of Title I, for which we will hear testimony today.

Dr. Maris Vinovskis, Senior Research Scientist, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, is a Professor of History and a Senior Research Scientist at the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan. He is a member of the independent review panel, a panel set up by the statute which is responsible for commenting upon the impact of federal education legislation enacted in 1994.

Dr. Michael D. Casserly, one of the pork brothers and Executive Director, Council of Great City Schools, Washington, D.C., is the more slender one of the pork brothers. He is the Executive Director of the Council of Great City Schools, a national organization that represents large, urban public school districts. For over 20 years, he has represented the interests of urban public schools on Capitol Hill, responsible for convening the first ever public education summit for mayors and superintendents of the nation's biggest cities.

Dr. Diane Ravitch, New York, New York, is a historian of education at New York University and a member of the National Academy of Education. We are especially happy to have her this morning as she has just come from presenting testimony in the Senate, the other body, I think I am supposed to say. She serves as a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and is a Fellow at both the Manhattan and Progressive Policy Institutes. In the past, she has served as Assistant Secretary of Education in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and was appointed to the National Assessment Governing Board in 1997 by Secretary Riley.

We will begin with Dr. Ginsburg. The light will be on for five minutes. We hope that you can summarize you written statement and then save time for our Members to ask questions. It looks like there is a pretty good crowd here, so there will be a lot of questions asked. Dr. Ginsburg.

Mr. Ginsburg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you, and present the findings from the National Assessment of Title I. I also want to thank my staff that are scattered around this room for all the efforts that they put into it. I also want to acknowledge that the National Assessment benefited greatly from the involvement of the Independent Review Panel that had prepared its own report, Measured Progress. The open discussion and exchange of ideas generated by the Independent Review Panel is invaluable to the work of the Department. My fellow panelist, Maris, can testify, I think, to the openness of the panel debates that we had.

I would like to briefly highlight the methodology we used. The 1994 Amendments of Title I intended that the Title I program be targeted on the highest poverty schools, and that it not operate in isolation from state and local education systems which it was meant to support. Consequently, it was not possible to establish a control group of high poverty schools and not receive Title I funds. They are not affected by state reforms. What we did is, we applied a performance measurement approach that relied on multiple measures to assist paramentation. It is really quite similar to the government Performance and Results Act, measures that the Department submits annually.

We had two questions that we looked at. In particular, the Title I target population, especially the most disadvantaged demonstrating better results, and its implementation of the legislation at school districts and state levels changing in the directions intended. The degree of confidence in our findings is enhanced by the fact that we relied on multiple sources of government information. So, we didn't rely, say for example, only on the NAEP results.

Have outcomes improved? The general tenor of our findings is summarized by the title of our report, Promising Results, Continuing Challenges, and as we summarized it, it was a mixture of some clear improvements in student outcomes since the early 1990s, combined with substantial continuing performance shortfalls that the Independent Review Panel found in their report, Measured Progress.

More specifically, we did find NAEP improvements did occur since reauthorization, but we also found that very large gaps remain. The NAEP math improvements, by the way, are not effected at all by this most recent issue with respect to the NAEP reading assessments. My understanding from NAEP, so far, is that while the gains will be less, there will probably be gains that will be substantial during the period between 1992 and 1994 to 1998.

Along with looking at NAEP, we found, generally, positive outcomes on state assessments for the highest poverty schools. We looked at the six states that could provide us data, interesting enough, most states cannot provide three years' worth of test score data on high poverty schools. It is a real problem for Title I accountability. In those six states, five out of the six reported improved trends. We also looked at improvements with respect to the big city districts that have, maybe, our most severe education problems due to high poverty. We found that a majority of those results also improved. We looked at one-year longitudinal changes for students in high poverty schools, and were able to tie the outcomes to instruction, although I caution you that we only have one-year data on this.

Our preliminary findings are that student learning is related to content exposure. It is associated with standards-based reform, but that average students also need focused instruction, and that includes workbooks, skill sheets, and the kinds of things that I think might be consistent with some of the work of NICHD out of the reading effort.

We, then, looked at whether Title I is being implemented effectively to contribute to improved student results. The summary of our findings is that it is moving in the overall direction intended, but implementation is highly uneven. On a positive note, we found improved targeting to schools of greatest need, quite a change actually. Increased flexibility, greater use of standards, increased use of extended time strategies, although not as much during the summer as we would like.

On a negative side, we found weak Title I accountability. As I said, few states can actually report. In two consecutive outcomes, we found dual accountability systems that are operating in states. You have the Title I system that is parallel to the state system. We have limited technical assistance to schools in need of improvement. We have inappropriate use of teacher-aides, and that is a major problem.

Just to summarize briefly our options for consideration, we do recommend staying the course with respect to standards. But, we also have to reassess where Title I's capacity and effectiveness could be improved. We would like the indicators written into the legislation; we are having a lot of trouble; we still don't have some of the states reporting their Title I performance reports to us. This is April, and we don't have last year's data. We want to eliminate the dual accountability system. School report cards that are put out sometimes require a Ph.D. to understand.

In terms of strengthening instruction, we would phase out paraprofessionals, although offering them career ladders. Professional development is absolutely key to reform. We find some of our other programs, though, such as Eisenhower, really do not target on the highest poverty school districts disproportionately, as intended. That is in another report that you have, 14,701. We would recommend greater funding, particularly to the highest poverty schools, though 75 percent or more poor, they have the most severe problems in the country. We are calling for catch-up grants that could be used for after school for family literacy, for the Reading Excellence Act, and not necessarily require these schools to come in for separate competitions. But, they would be subject to accountability.

Moving to the last recommendations, parent involvement, we would particularly strengthen involvement in the early grades. We think parent involvement is actually getting lost in a lot of this debate that is going on. We would worry about the role of parents, particularly, for reading and family literacy where the role of the home is so important.

Early childhood, Title I actually serves five times the number that Even Start does. We know almost nothing about Title I early childhood efforts and there is very little accountability. We would like to see common standards with respect to Title I and Head Start, and some definition of readiness that both could work off of.

Our final recommendation is to worry about the special populations, the migrant, the private schools, and to make sure that they are fully included in the program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. Dr. Vinovskis, I pronounced your name properly in the back room, and one of our young ladies, who must be of Polish descent, told me I was wrong, that it was Dr. Vinovskis. Now, I am told by Kent that I was right in the first place, so it is now Dr. Vinovskis.

Dr. Vinovskis. It is Dr. Vinovskis. I was born in Latvia, and that certainly has had a lot of different pronunciations in this country. But, I never have trouble recognizing that I am being addressed.

[Laughter.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to participate. This is a very important beginning. This is one of the most important programs, as Mr. Clay and others have pointed out to us. Title I is really at the heart of much of our endeavors in education.

My testimony is based on a paper that I have done. It is called, ``Do Federal Compensatory Education Programs Really Work?'' It is submitted for the record. It is coming out in The American Journal of Education next month. I am not actually going to summarize too much of that paper, but I use the opportunity to reflect what it may suggest for your deliberations as we go forward.

As all of you know, historically, K-through-12 schooling was mainly a state and local responsibility. But, as part of President Johnson's War on Poverty, the federal government created several of these compensatory education programs such as Title I and Head Start. They symbolized, and it is important, they symbolized America's commitment to help the poor and disadvantaged, and that is something we want to maintain.

At the same time, I think most of the studies now suggest that at the time we promised more than we were able to deliver. Certainly some of the Title I and Head Start programs have provided a better education for at-risk children, and without them we would be worse off. The frustration that those of us who believe in these programs is that after these three decades and $150 billion at least on these programs, we still don't know what particular programs really work or don't work.

In 1994 the Congress took a major step forward, and reauthorized Title I and approached it with systemic reform, standards-based reform. I won't go through that with you. And you are now looking at it again. People are asking, should we stay the course? Should we make changes? How well have things gone?

As I say, most of my paper is more about the earlier evaluations, but let me make some comments that you might want to consider as you go through your deliberations.

First, given the pattern of exaggerated hopes at the beginning of early reauthorization and then the limited, often great disappointments four or five years later, be skeptical of any claims that large improvements in academic achievement for at-risk children are going to be easily achieved. They are not; they are going to be small and incremental; they are worth doing. But I think you have to have realistic expectations.

At the same time, the past suggests we should closely scrutinize any claims for success of the current Title I programs. Again, we tend to say, ``Oh, these are working, just keep at it,'' and then later reports show that often it isn't. So, as you listen to evidence, I think a lot of us want to have solid, scientifically sound evidence of the program's effectiveness. All of us want to make these programs work, but if they are not working, they are not going to help anyone.

Second, when systemic or standards-based reform was instituted legislatively in 1994, it was a plausible but empirically unproven approach. I want to remind you of that. We did not know what we were doing; we had a good hunch; it is a good hunch; it may be right, but we don't know. So, as you think through the legislation, it is not enough to say, ``Stay the course.'' Those of you who want to stay the course ask, ``What was that assumption in the course?'' Do you have the same assumptions? I think some of you are going to back to a situation and say, as Alan was saying, ``There are some good things about standards-based approached, but it is not enough by itself.'' We need to supplement it, but with what? Go back and think about these big issues. It is not enough to stay the course; we have got to do more.

Some people are going to say, ``We need to go much further, and try out new things.'' I think we are going to hear from Diane; we have heard from Chuck at another meeting yesterday. Don't be afraid to explore these things. Given where we are, be flexible in trying to say, ``How are we going to be better off four or five years from now when we have the same hearings than we are today?''

Third, whatever one believes about the successes or limitations of Title I, you need to remember it has been implemented very slowly. So, whatever we are talking about is not mainly a result of the 1994 legislation. It hasn't been put in place. That is one of the things that we have to be very careful about.

Fourth, national and state NAEP scores, which assess the progress of students, are useful and should be continued. I am a great believer in NAEP, and I would even expand them. But, they are not going to tell you much about the success or lack of success of what is going on. The programs haven't been fully implemented; the federal government plays a small role. Be wary of anybody who comes and says that NAEP is going to do these things for you, especially attributing causality.

Fifth, we need better evaluations ongoing reform. We simply haven't done a good job. Though five-year Longitudinal Study of School Change and Performance is something we may want to come back to and talk to. There are some real limitations to it, but we haven't seen the results. We did better on prospects in terms of evaluating reform than we are doing today. We can do better tomorrow.

Finally, we do have to put that investment in which programs work best. We haven't done that, and we ought to ask ourselves, ``Why not?'' We have got labs; we have got centers; we have got Alan's shop; we have got OARI. What are they spending their money on? Who is watching them? I am sure Alan will join me wanting to look at that one closely. To conclude, given the overall disappointing results of many federal compensatory education programs, some have argued that we should reduce our expenditures in this area, and return the money to taxpayers. While more than sympathetic to the needs to eliminate government waste whenever possible, I do believe that the federal government potentially has a very important role to play in working with states and local school districts to help disadvantaged children.

When existing federal education programs, well-intentioned though they may be, are not as effective as they could or should be, the problem is not just wasted tax dollars but wasted chances to help those most in need. We raised the expectations of those who have the least to look forward to, and then dashed their hopes by failing to really help them escape from their poverty. The overall experiences of Title I and Head Start also have been frustrating for the American public, who have been willing to sacrifice for the achievement of lofty goals but now find that little progress has been made. For many of the at-risk students who pass through these programs, and who are not significantly helped, however, the results are more than frustrating. They are opportunities lost forever. Thank you.

Chairman Goodling. Dr. Casserly, I would remind you the big man is watching right behind you.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Casserly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Michael Casserly. I am Executive Director of the Council of Great City Schools. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before this critical committee, and thank you for the opportunity to see so many good friends once again.

The Council, as you know, is a coalition of the nation's largest urban public school systems and the beneficiary of many of the programs funded under the Title I Act. In addition to my statement this morning, I provided the committee a copy of the Council's recommendations for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and a copy of our recent report, ``Reform and Results,'' an analysis of Title I in the Great City Schools, 1994-1995 to 1997-1998. I would ask they be included in the record.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus my brief remarks this afternoon, to discussing what the Council has learned about the implementation of the 1994 amendments. I am pleased to report to this committee that indicators of progress in our cities look hopeful and encouraging. We trust that the committee will find a report on Title I particularly helpful, although there are limitations to the data. The study is a preliminary status report in the absence of data, other than NAEP scores, on high poverty schools, on how the last reauthorization affected services and achievement in the Nation's major urban public school systems.

We collected Title I test score data over a four-year period on both norm-referenced and criterion referenced assessments for both grades four and eight. Results were analyzed by examining the numbers and percentages of Title I students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25th and 50th percentile in the case of the norm-referenced exams, and above passing levels in the case of criterion referenced exams. The trends were particularly heartening, Mr. Chairman, as 21 of 24 responding districts posted Title I reading gains, and 20 of 24 districts showed math gains. Improvements were particularly strong in fourth grade reading. The percentage of Title I fourth grade students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25th percentile in reading increased from 41.1 percent in 1994-1995 to 55.5 percent in 1996-1997 to 57.6 percent in 1997-1998. Conversely, the percentage of students under the 25th percentile went down.

The percentage of Title I eighth grade students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25th percentile in reading increased from 40.8 percent in 1994-1995 to 51.1 percent in 1996-1997 to 56.3 percent in 1997-1998.

Likewise, gains were realized in fourth grade and eighth grade scores in math. Achievement, as is clear from these numbers, is still low. But trend lines are, clearly, moving in the right direction. Page 4 of my written testimony has the graphs from the report that indicate the percentage of students over that four-year period in both reading and mathematics.

To get to these results, urban schools have been implementing higher academic standards for Title I and non-Title I students alike. Despite the focus on state standards development, most cities have not waited for the states to act and for state standards to be completed. Urban school districts have actively embraced the standards movement on their own, helping to boost results for Title I students. Some 94 percent of all urban school systems across the country now report having contents standards of some form or another in reading at the elementary and middle school level, as they do also at the high school level. Some 78 percent also report having content standards in both reading and mathematics.

In addition, the 1994 amendments to Title I for family altered the number of schools and students served by Title I in the major cities. The number of urban school students receiving Title I services increased by about 71 percent over that four-year period. The percentage of all urban school students receiving services from Title I jumped from 31 percent to 51 percent, meaning that Title I was serving a substantially higher number of urban school students across the country. In addition, we found that the number of school students receiving services under Title I in the cities for private schools actually went up, which was a finding which was contradictory to the national assessment.

These results appear to be consistent with a number of other indicators from across the country including NAEP scores for African American, central city, and poor students, our own ACT scores and the ``Promising Results, Continuing Challenges'' report that the Department of Education put out.

Our report also explores a number of the strategies that our urban school systems are using to produce these results, including reducing class sizes, implementing more research-based reforms, better professional development, after school activities, and parental involvement. Unfortunately, we found that state involvement in our school systems did not prove to be very helpful. I also have data in my written remarks about test scores and programs in individual cities.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, we have submitted a number of recommendations to the committee. Despite the encouraging achievement gains for many urban school districts across the country with the Title I dollars, too many of our school districts are not providing the education that our children deserve. We need to move faster for urban school districts are not satisfied with where we are.

The Council of the Great City Schools proposes changes in Title I that are aimed at accelerating improvements in student achievement in the urban schools, building the capacity of urban schools to meet the needs of our students, and strengthening local accountability for results. Our recommendations are in those areas.

We look forward to working with the committee, and hoping that this committee works together in a bipartisan fashion to craft the most constructive program to meet the needs of our many Title I students. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Castle. [presiding] Thank you very much, Dr. Casserly. We had a coup in the committee while you were speaking, and Chairman Goodling is now in another committee to which he has to tend to business. So, we may have some rotations from time to time today.

Our final witness is a person, esteemed in education across the country. Most people know who she is, and a lot of what she has done. Dr. Diane Ravitch.

Dr. Ravitch. Thank you, Mr. Castle, and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to testify today. I should mention that I am associated with various organizations but I am not speaking for any of them. I am speaking, solely, as an individual.

Let me say, first, that Title I is a vitally important federal responsibility. It represents the nation's promise to help poor children achieve equal educational opportunity. I would add, also, that I totally agree with the administration's emphasis on standards and accountability for children in both Title I and non-Title I schools. It does poor children no good to allocate federal funds to districts and to states without paying close attention to whether children are actually learning, and whether the achievement gap between poor kids and others is shrinking.

I want to point out that Title I, as it operates today, is not actually a federal program with a coherent strategy and uniform activities. It is a funding mechanism to channel federal dollars into districts that have significant numbers of poor children. Consequently, it is confusing to refer to it as a program because the money is used in so many different ways for so many different purposes. So, when we say, whether Title I is working or not working, it is usually impossible to generalize, and always difficult to know what is working and what is not working because you are talking about all kinds of different approaches and methods and programs.

One of the things that I think has to continue to concern us is that the 1999 National Assessment of Title I pointed out that nearly 70 percent of fourth grade children in high poverty schools are below basic on NAEP's test of reading, as are nearly 60 percent on NAEP's test of mathematics. In low poverty schools, only 23 percent are below basic in reading and in math. In other words, despite recent gains, poor kids are still far behind in the fourth grade. And, when children can't read and do math in the fourth grade, they tend to fall farther and farther behind as they get older. So, I suggest we have to continue to press to reduce the large achievement gaps between poor kids and others.

The current system has many problems. One of them is that it breeds bureaucracy. It is so complicated; it involves so many regulations that it requires large numbers of state and local administrators to run the program, decide which school gets what, and manage the flow of paper. Because of the complexities of the formula, millions of poor children are not now receiving any Title I services because they are not in a Title I school.

I was told yesterday by a district administrator that in Houston, schools that are 60 percent poor are not Title I schools. I was told last night that schools in Philadelphia that are 62 percent poor are not Title I schools. I would assume this may well be a representative figure for many of our big city districts. It means, as I said, millions of poor children are not served at all. They get not a dollar of Title I services. When poor children in Title I schools move to a school that is not a Title I school, they lose Title I services. If they should decide to enroll in a public charter school set up specifically for kids with their particular problems, their Title I funds may or may not follow them. At present, Title I dollars fund school districts, not school children.

What I suggest is that states be allowed, if they wish, to turn Title I into a portable entitlement. This would mean that the federal Title I money would follow poor children to the school in which they are enrolled, consistent with the state's laws and federal constitution. Instead of sending the money to the states and districts, it would go to the school where the poor child is enrolled. This would mean the Title I would be available to every poor child in a state that tried portable entitlements. This would mean the Title I funding would support the education of every poor child in those states, not just those who happen to attend schools that are designated Title I schools by district officials. If the eligible child changed schools, the federal funds would follow her to the new schools.

This would mean, of course, an increase in federal dollars for Title I. Turning Title I into a portable entitlement for poor children would reduce bureaucracy. With a portable entitlement, the whole process is simplified and automatic. Schools would get money depending on how many poor kids are enrolled, period.

Let me be clear about what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am not proposing to voucherize Title I. I am not suggesting that Title I funds should go to the family to use as they see fit. I am not saying that Congress should initiate this kind of change overnight, but rather that it should allow some states, if they choose, to try out this approach, and evaluate its effects on schools and children.

Accountability requires good information. One way to improve information about performance would be to provide incentives for every State to participate in NAEP and to continue to disaggregate NAEP results by income levels. This information would function as an external audit for Title I and for other efforts to increase the achievement of poor kids.

I would also suggest that this committee might consider recommending that districts be allowed to administer NAEP on a district level basis. With this information, state and local officials would continue to be responsible for overseeing schools accrediting, reorganizing, and even closing schools where necessary. My goal here in making this proposal is twofold.

First, to concentrate federal funds on poor children, on their teachers and their schools rather than on state and district bureaucracies. The immediate effect of this proposal would be to increase federal funding to every school that enrolls poor children.

Second, to use the Pell Grant program in higher education as a model for supporting poor kids in elementary and secondary schools. In 1972, there was a great debate in these halls about how to direct federal funding for higher education. On one side was Congresswoman Edith Green, Democrat from Oregon, who said, ``Fund the institutions based on the number of students they enroll.'' On the other side was Senator Claiborne Pell and Congressman John Brademus, both Democrats, who said, ``Fund needy students and let the funds follow them to the institution they attend.'' It is now widely recognized that Senator Pell's grants promoted the democratization of higher education.

The basic principle, I suggest, is more federal dollars for the schools that all poor kids attend, fewer federal dollars for administration and compliance. Under the current system, Title I is an entitlement for districts. I suggest it should be an entitlement for poor children and their schools. Thank you.

Chairman Goodling. [presiding] Now, we will begin the question period. I will remind all members we have a lot of members here today, so don't get windy. I will start with Mr. Castle.

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my first question, which I hope Dr. Ginsburg will be able to answer, I must say that I was really disturbed by the articles I read yesterday with respect to the NAEP testing and the fact that perhaps, certain kids who might have scored lower in the test were excluded by a factor of several percentage points in some states, including my own state. It is a problem if we are trying to improve education by determining if Title I or other education funds are working, and our methodologies for testing, analyzing, and having accountability for this is not questioned.

I happen to have been on that National Assessment Governing Board for a term, and I believe they are very straight players with respect to this. Where this happened or whether it happened unknowingly to people or the press misrepresented it, I don't know. But I just think that is a problem. Maybe we could argue that in this case, it is not particularly significant. I personally think we should have a hearing on this, either in full committee or one of the subcommittees, to get to the bottom of it.

I say it only because, in some of your testimony in some of the testimony touched on by the other witnesses, there are references to test scores, and this concerns me. You can comment on that, if you will. I can't speak for anyone else in this committee, but I was really bothered by that. I don't know how it happened, or why it happened, and there was a lot of boasting about very diminutive increases in test scores, all of which in my judgment, has been thrown out of a cocked hat as a result of this.

Secondly, let me say that I am all for the Title I program. I am all for the Title I funds. I believe it is $7.7 billion this year, and I think there is a soft increase to $8 billion next time. If that money is working properly, then that is a good use of federal money. But frankly, I am not convinced, and the testimony I have heard here today doesn't necessarily convince me too much more, that we really have a grip on whether these Title I funds are working. My inclination is that if you are putting extra money into a school, it is probably working.

Dr. Ravitch makes the point that some of the kids aren't benefiting at all because they are going to places that don't get this money, which is an interesting issue that I think we need to discuss. But, I am just not convinced our analysis of all this is in order. I have to raise those concerns. I want to reauthorize this and I want to do it promptly, but by God, this is a time to not just to reauthorize it the way it is but to make changes to make these programs work better. It is what I think this committee really has to do.

Let me just ask a question. You can comment on any of those other things I said, if you wish. As I understand it, there are schoolwide programs. Some of the Ed-Flex states have used the schoolwide programs, but other districts have been able to obtain waivers from the Department of Education to get them, and I suppose there are not as many schoolwide programs as there are individual programs for under-achieving students. But my question to you is, is there any analysis between those programs?

There seems to be under the Ed-Flex program. There seems to be some indication that the schoolwide programs that are just having the money go to the schools and run programs in general versus specific classes for under-achieving students may be working better. Has anyone actually studied that particular issue?

Dr. Ginsburg. There are a number of parts to what you ask. First, let me correct you on the NAEP. NAEP does not run out of my office; it is run out of OARI.

Mr. Castle. I wasn't actually getting on you. I was just making that statement in general.

Dr. Ginsburg. I understand that, but in terms of the findings that we had, there is something called a main NAEP, and trend NAEP that we could spend all day trying to distinguish. But, what we used for our findings only go up to 1996, so that the findings as to the 1998 readings that were affected by the variable inclusion of language minorities and special education in some of the particular states. So, our findings, because we stayed with the trend NAEP, weren't affected by these results. So, that, roughly, we found about a grade level increase over the period. It still leaves a huge gap, though. Diane quotes from what we did, and nobody is disagreeing about the size of the gap that remains, it is an enormous gap, but there still is progress that did occur.

Mr. Castle. I would point out, too, I know my time is up and you need to answer the question, but I would also point out that there were still mistakes made in that, that we still have to review it to see what it did.

Dr. Ginsburg. Oh, yes.

Mr. Castle. They impacted the state results, not the trend results.

Dr. Ginsburg. Right. What we are finding with respect to schoolwides is that really much of it depends upon whether they take advantage of the school-wide opportunity or not. We are finding a lot more attention in the school plans to the alignment with state standards, and how instruction will re-enforce standards in those schools. We also have models that have been documented.

There is a recent study by AIR, that has been documented as being effective, and they really are school-wide models. I am thinking particularly of, say, Success for All, it is in about a thousand schools. You couldn't do that kind of model very easily under the old Title I.

But, what we also find, that is what Diane says, it is not a single program. We also find that there are still many schools that really don't take advantage of the schoolwide provisions, and they are still doing things the old way. And, in particular, what we find with respect to aides, half the Title I money goes to them. Of all of the teachers hired, half are aides under Title I. Almost none of those aides have a college degree, and about half of the aides are spending most of their time doing, or at least half of their time doing, direct instruction.

So, the answer is it offers the opportunity; some places are taking that opportunity. We are seeing it in their plans; we are seeing it in adopting schoolwide models. But a lot are not.

Chairman Goodling. Thank you, Dr. Ginsburg.

Let me remind everyone, first round, the answers are also part of the five minutes. When we get to those of you who stay for the second round, we will be much more generous. Mr. Clay?

Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Casserly, what is your view on Title I portability, as described here today? If we were to enact it, what do you believe its effects would be?

Dr. Casserly. Well, I haven't heard too much more about the portability proposal than what I have heard this morning, and a little bit in various news clips over the last week or so. So, I don't know the details on it. I have to admit to wondering whether or not it will actually do what people want it to do.

My understanding from Diane's testimony is that the goal here is to further target the resources of Title I on the neediest of kids, using Philadelphia and Houston as an example that you can't serve students before a certain poverty level, and I think that is probably about right.

Setting up a portability system, however, I don't know necessarily solves that. As a matter of fact, I have to wonder whether or not it makes it worse. Because, a poor child moves to a school, for instance, that is not particularly poor, and would not otherwise be a Title I school, the money follows that kid, and the money is not necessarily used for services for the kid that generated the funds in the first place. So, I think what may end up happening is that rather than further targeting the money, you might actually result in further diluting the money.

Mr. Clay. Thank you. Dr. Ginsburg, in your testimony, you stated that according to the results of the NAEP Assessment, high poverty schools in nine states are exceeding the national average in mathematics. What are those states doing that other states are not?

Dr. Ginsburg. We haven't done a detailed analysis of the nine states. But, what we do know where there have been analyses, particularly the most successful reform states, in particular Texas and North Carolina, that are states in which we looked at, and we also looked at districts in Texas, for example, Houston. Test scores are going up. What we find is the assessment system is driving, in both Texas and North Carolina, is driving reform, and that they need consistent assessment systems over time. And, a lot of states are not doing that right now. There are consequences both to the school and to the child level for not meeting that.

They are also preventing lots of technical assistance. So, the key is, not only do you have to have contents standards, but they have got to have those assessment systems in place; and you have got to have them in place for a number of years; and you have got to hold schools accountable for that. A lot of states can't do that. As I said, we could only find about nine states that could give us three years of test scores on low-income schools, and that jeopardizes Title I school improvement process.

But, looking at Texas and North Carolina have been very carefully studied, the assessment system, the strong accountability, and technical and support is key.

Mr. Clay. You also mentioned that although the number of schools offering after school learning opportunities has increased from 9 to 41 percent, only 12 percent of Title I students are utilizing these programs. Did your study identify why this is the case?

Dr. Ginsburg. This is a whole new area that has been neglected. What we do know is that time matters for kids learning, and if the time is used productively. A lot of after school programs have not used time productively. Our new 21st century school program is focused much more on homework help, and on learning and on reading and math, and these core education services. So, we are about to launch the major expansion of the program just took place. We are going to be getting evaluation reports in the spring, and we will know more about that, to answer your question.

Mr. Clay. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Schaffer?

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions, one for Dr. Ginsburg.

First of all, in your testimony and reading through the details of it, the Department seems convinced that replacing paraprofessionals and certified teachers is, somehow, part of the solution. I want you to tell us why, what makes us think that removing paraprofessionals and replacing them with certified teachers will result in improved test scores?

Dr. Ginsburg. I think probably the best report to look at would be the National Research Council report on reading that came out. Many of the children, at least 20 percent of the children, typically, nationally, and a higher percent in Title I schools, have very serious reading problems. If you can't read by the end of the third or fourth grade, you are not going to succeed. What that report says is that we need very well-trained professionals that understand how kids decode the alphabet, link it to words, can use measurement on the child, reading inventories. Most teachers can't do that, is what we have found. What you are getting are adults who may be very well intentioned from the community who may have no more than a high school education.

Mr. Schaffer. Let me stop you right there because, is your reform plan for replacing paraprofessionals predicated on not just certified teachers, but those who meet the kind of measurement expectations and expertise when it comes to these higher-risk children?

Dr. Ginsburg. Well, as a minimum, we would want certified teachers because if they're not…

Mr. Schaffer. Let me then just ask you about just the flow of logic here. First, the child is in the classroom with a certified teacher. What Title I does is actually takes the kid out and puts them somewhere else where there are not certified teachers today. Tell me why we just don't focus on the certified teacher who is with the child in the first place?

Dr. Ginsburg. It is a vestige of the old Title I. The old Title I initially, when Title I started back in the early 1970's, there were problems getting money to the schools. They were using it for building swimming pools, and we put in provisions to track the money within the school. Because they had separate tracking, what happened, one of the easy ways to track it would be to hire aides from the community. The schoolwides that Congressman Castle mentioned allow you now to not track the money, to use it for certified teachers. But, there is a built-up vestige of aides and paraprofessionals; it is almost an industry, and a lobby group for that. It has been very hard to change. We would recommend changing it.

Mr. Schaffer. Let me take off on that that it has become somewhat of an industry. I am curious how many federal employees are responsible for administering Title I?

Dr. Ginsburg. There are 43 employees in Mary Jean's office. Overall, there is less than 1 percent of the money goes, at our level, it is pretty small, less than 1 percent at the state level, and about 90 percent of the money goes in the classroom.

Mr. Schaffer. I would be curious, and it may be unfair to ask these numbers now, but I would be curious to know how many federal employees, how many state employees, and also how many local employees? How many people are employed in the industry of delivering Title I services?

Dr. Ginsburg. Okay. We will be happy to provide it.

Mr. Schaffer. Secondly, I want to go to Dr. Casserly real quick. You said your criticism of personalizing the entitlement is that it could dilute the money. I want to approach it from the inverse direction. It is very clear that the concentration of these dollars in some privileged school districts is not going far enough, and not helping children. I would assume, then, you would support concentrating the existing dollars even further to achieve the results that you must believe occur if personalizing these dollars results in some kind of harmful dilution?

Dr. Casserly. We are very much in favor of further targeting of the Title I program. The last reauthorization of Title I did an awfully good job of targeting funds within district. But, we really did not move the targeting of funds to states or across school districts as a result of the last reauthorization. We are in favor of additional targeting. Again, my concern is…

Mr. Schaffer. So, are you talking about raising the poverty measurement, then, for eligibility of school districts or how would you target? How would you determine which school districts would be eligible for the funds in a more targeted approach?

Dr. Casserly. As the chairman knows, this is a pretty complicated process of formula writing, and I was kind of hoping we would not get into formula changes in this reauthorization before the next census comes up. But, to target additional funds would mean changing the eligibility rules in the law to send additional money to school districts with the highest numbers and percentages of poor kids. The Title I Concentration Grants, for instance, does that in contrast to the basic program. There are a number of mechanisms for doing that.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Martinez?

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, in the last reauthorization, we actually did improve the way the monies were targeted. The only problem is that the appropriators are not using the other two new formula criteria, and they are using the same old one which was just a number of school-aged children in poverty, and the ADA that the state provides to that school district. So, if we go to that formula as we developed it, maybe we would have a better apportionment of money.

My concern is that if you target the kid, this money will go to schools that are not, as you said, high poverty schools, and in all probability, the parents are sophisticated enough to do that for the kid, to send them to a private school. That private school really doesn't need that money, and it dilutes the money that is going to the public school system even further. What this is is a foot in the door for vouchers, and I would completely disagree with it.

Dr. Ginsburg, I am going to ask you three questions because of the limited time, and then see how many of them you can answer. You stated in your testimony that in 1997-1998, the most ever high poverty schools received Title I funds. It seems to me that the money is finally going to the schools that really need it. But now we pass an Ed-Flex bill that is in conference now, and if that bill were to pass, the problem is that dependent on whether or not the Secretary of State gives a waiver to the state, and whether or not the Governor, then, allows schools to have waivers from the percentage requirement of poverty in the school to make it a Title I school, we could end up with funds going to schools with very few poverty students. Wouldn't that really deter the progress we have made over the last several years? That is one question.

The next question is Title I funds are used for professional development, and I am very concerned about professional development, particularly teacher training. What particular activities are these funds being used for?

The third question is, you stated in your testimony that the Eisenhower program does not appear to make special efforts to target teachers in high poverty schools, and I will attest to that from stories that I have heard from those kinds of schools. Do you have any suggestions how the Department or Congress can act to remedy this situation?

Dr. Ginsburg. Thank you. With respect to Ed-Flex, so far in our data, really, I can only speak to what has happened. With respect to the waivers the Department gives, and only about one percent of the schools have been affected right now by flexibility waivers. Those that have, though, they have mainly been coming in for targeting, or that has been one of the major ones. It reduces by about 18 percent the amount of money that has been going to the highest poverty schools in those districts. So, there has been some reduction based upon our experience in the targeting where there have been Department's waivers that we grant that I can speak to. On the other hand, it is still only affecting about one percent of the schools. I can't really predict beyond that.

With respect to professional development, what we are finding, we know a lot more, actually, about the Eisenhower program, is that the professional development provided through districts often is not very good. What we find under the Eisenhower is that the professional development provided by institutions of higher education is much higher quality. When we look at it, we find much more impact on instruction from the institutions of higher education. It needs to be targeted, much more intensive than the kinds of professional development that we are traditionally giving teachers. In fact, what we find for school improvement, schools that have been identified for school improvement, they get no more professional development or assistance, even though they have been identified.

So, we are not doing a very good job in professional development or assistance. We would write in something for the Eisenhower program to really put some teeth in the targeting. Supposedly, there is supposed to be disproportionate targeting, but there is not.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you. How is that for staying under five minutes, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Ehlers?

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Ravitch, I appreciate hearing your testimony. I have read some of your writings over the years and appreciate some of the ideas you have expressed. I particularly appreciate the proposal that you have brought here that the money follows the students, rather than follows the schools, and I think that is something we should explore, and most likely, apply.

I do have a couple of questions about that, but let me first relate some of my experiences with it. I have been involved in raising money for and administering scholarship funds for students from poor families whose parents desperately want them to attend private schools, and in particular, private religious schools. They are willing, in spite of their meager resources, to contribute what they can toward the tuition. But, we raise money to supplement that, to pay for the tuition. The results have been very good, as a matter of fact. I also noticed from your example of higher education, the Pell Grants, they follow the students, but they follow them anywhere to any school they choose, whether public or private, whether religious or non-religious.

Yet, I noticed in your testimony you seem to emphasize that the money should only go to public schools, whether they are public charter schools or traditional public schools. Is that simply something you didn't address, or do you feel strongly that it should not go to private schools or, in particular, religious schools?

Dr. Ravitch. Well, sir, I should say that what I suggested was that any kind of federal funding of individual students should be consistent with state law. So, for example, in my state there is very strong sentiment against any public funding to non-public schools for schooling. So, it would not follow the student's religious schools. But, I think it should be consistent with state law and the constitution. I think, in this area, there is still a lot of litigation going on.

But, I was not intending to propose, and I said, contrary to Congressman Martinez, I was not proposing to voucherize Title I. What I was saying is that 4.5 million poor children are not getting any Title I services today. In a school that is 62 percent poor, kids get not one dollar of Title I services in most of our big cities. I think this should concern both sides of the aisle. If you think that personalizing or individualizing the grant and letting the money follow the student is a bad idea, then I suggest you repeal the Pell Grants and fund universities where poor kids go. And, what you will find is an enormous segregating impact because you will be funding highly poor, highly segregated institutions, and not giving students the opportunity to move into better institutions or different institutions where poor kids are not in more than 62 percent.

So, I think you have created a formula that really re-enforces segregation, keeps poor kids together, and after 30-40 years has 70 percent of fourth graders not reading. You heard Alan Ginsburg say, when you can't read in the fourth grade your chances of learning to read eventually are very slender. So, we have a program that is very diffused, has lots of different parts, some of it works well, and we don't even know what those parts are. What I am suggesting is not an overnight change in Title I, but rather think about allowing some States to do it differently.

Mr. Ehlers. Well, I certainly and strongly support that. What I see here, and I am relatively new in this committee, but what I see is a program that spent over $100 billion with results that cannot be measured in any quantitative way to show that we have achieved anything. So, clearly, major surgery is needed, and I think your approach is major surgery. But, I don't see any reason at all that our efforts would have to be bound by state law on this issue. We certainly don't adjust our Pell Grants to state law, and I don't see any reason why, if we would follow your suggestion of having the money follow the students, I think it should follow them wherever they go irrespective of what the states do with their money.

Dr. Ravitch. Well, even with Pell Grants, the institution has to be accredited, and some institutions are not permitted to receive students with Pell Grants. But, I take your larger point, and I think that is a decision for Congress to make.

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Kildee?

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Casserly, the study produced by the Council indicates that low-income children in urban schools are producing increases in student achievement, and that the achievement gap with their non-disadvantaged peers is closing. How critical do you believe that the standards in the assessment model in Title I and Goals 2000 has been to these results? Let me add to that that the Miller-Kildee Amendment to the Ed-Flex bill which was rejected both here in committee and on the floor is patterned after the systemic reform in Texas, and Houston seems to be doing better than other places. Could you talk to us about how the standards and assessment model in Title I and Goals 2000 have been related to those results?

Dr. Casserly. First of all, on issues of Ed-Flex, I share the concern of some about what the unintended consequences of Ed-Flex may be on the targeting provisions under Title I. But, on issues of standards, let me set Goals 2000 aside as a program, as such, because so much of that money actually went to the state level, and that money got spent for the development of content and the performance standards which was all a good thing. But, it didn't always happen that the program benefit, directly, Title I in our urban school systems.

But, I have to say that the standards movement itself has been an extremely helpful focus for urban education in renewing our emphasis on the bottom line, which was the achievement of the kids. I think there has been no substitute for the standards movement, and all of the philosophical discussions around raising the expectations of our urban school kids, no substitute for that at all. When we surveyed our own districts, I think there are results in the report that we are presenting here today that indicate that school districts credit the standards movement, and their rising expectations with some of the achievement gains in urban school systems across the country.

Mr. Kildee. Do you conclude that lessening the emphasis on standards and assessment could have a negative effect upon further increases in achievement for Title I students?

Dr. Casserly. Oh, I think so. I think if the country backs away from the standards approach to education, then we really could see a severe backsliding in the progress that we have made over the last several years. I think it is very, very critical that we maintain the standards focus of our activities, not just at the federal level but at the local level, as well.

Mr. Kildee. That is one of the reasons that Mr. Miller and I offered our amendment to Ed-Flex. We looked at what has worked and based it upon the Texas model. We didn’t see any backsliding in that area.

Dr. Casserly. The Texas model has been very useful, and it has been very useful for the big cities in Texas, San Antonio, Forth Worth, Houston, El Paso, and other big cities in Texas which are really getting unusually large gains in achievement in both reading and math. Part of the reason for that is, not only their own programming, but because of the assessment and accountability measures that the state has put into effect.

Mr. Kildee. One of the amendments that we were able to get here in committee on the Ed-Flex bill is that Ed-Flex would sunset when we completed our work on ESEA, and we would be forced to take another look at it.

Dr. Casserly. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kildee. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Goodling. Calling on Mr. Fletcher, I would suggest that all of you might take a look at what Kentucky is doing. I think they might be on to something. I was down there at a workshop in their capitol, and they apparently forced a marriage between four-year institutions, two-year institutions, and community colleges to deal with the whole issue of getting people prepared for the jobs that are in that area. I think they may be on to something.

I have to go vote, again, across the hall. I will be right back. Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make sure I understand some of the testing results. When we look at Title I students, the testing results and impossible progress that has been made, do we match those with controls that are not under Title I programs? Do we have any idea that the students that are in schools that are receiving funds are doing better than those in schools that are not?

Dr. Ginsburg. No, that is a very direct question. As I indicated in my testimony, Title I, because of the improved targeting, in fact, we cannot find control schools that are both high poverty and not participating in these districts have changed a lot.

Mr. Fletcher. Even if you couldn't match them that way, could you find students that, maybe demographically or at least economically were matched in different schools, that may be very close. I mean, very few percentage close, as far as school lunches, that one falls below the criteria, and doesn't receive that the others within the criteria?

Dr. Ginsburg. We haven't done that, but if you look at the target group schools, again, they are 75 percent, say, or more poor. They are the real problems in the country. All of them are really in Title I now. It is quite an extraordinary change. We could not find control group schools. We would have been happy to do it if we could find those.

Mr. Fletcher. Dr. Vinovskis?

Dr. Vinovskis. Let me add something to that. I think the Department does have something that they haven't talked very much about, and it hasn't produced very many results, that you are going to very interested in. That is the longitudinal study of school change in performance, which was to look at areas that are more attuned with systemic reform, have moved further along, places like Kentucky or elsewhere, and see how students there are doing.

Prospects which you did is to ask, ``Do high-risk students who are economically more disadvantaged, how are they doing compared to low?'' So, Alan is right. You can't simply say, ``Comparable students who are getting nothing, but all these other studies will tell us, ``Is this helping us in work?''

When we have prospects, when you made the decision in 1994, you had the interim report by 1993, which was crucial in convincing the Congress to go in a new direction. You now have, it is a year after the first year of results of this study, and if you don't pass this legislation this, and you may not, you will have two years of results. You ought to pay more attention to that, but you ought to pay careful attention. I don't think the Department is doing enough to utilize the study it has. Even with its limitations, it is much better than just talking about NAEP, and it is much better than talking about some of the State tests.

Mr. Fletcher. Thank you. I think it is going to be important, if we have any idea whether this Title I is working, that we have some sort of control. It is just essential that I see it.

Some of the concerns I have, too, are schools. I have got a lot of rural schools that may not fall in there, but actually there is more poverty in the rural areas, and yet fewer schools that qualify. So, we have a significant number of children that don't qualify, and the portability certainly is attractive from that standpoint.

The other question I have, let me use an example. We have got a housing project in Lexington, Kentucky, it is a Cheryl Court area, as it is called. We have a grant of about $19 million to basically tear it down, put these folks in new housing, scatter them out through the city. Now, when we do that, their children are going to be scattered out to the schools that are not low-income schools anymore. We are taking them out of Title I schools because we do have to qualify them. We are trying to improve their lives. Get them out, scattered, rather than in a housing project.

I am afraid that if we continue with this criteria for Title I in the schools that we are going to really encourage low-income families to stay in neighborhoods that are not safe. That is the reason this project is undertaken in Lexington, Kentucky, and that we are going to say that, ``We want you to go to schools that are in the poorer areas, which typically are less safe than those that may be out in some of the urban areas.'' And, we are going to say, ``You are going to have to send your students to the poorer schools; you are going to have to live in, possibly, unsafe neighborhoods for your children to get the benefits of Title I.''

So, I think we really need to look at testing, making sure we have got good prospective studies with cross controls, and that we look and make sure we have some equity here. Just because poor students live in the wrong area, and don't go to the low-income schools that we are going to deprive them of this privilege. I don't know if anyone has any comments on that, but I would welcome them.

Dr. Casserly. If I might comment on the issue of control groups in Title I. I share your frustration, in some respects, about the inability to have control groups, and to do an exact experiment on the effectiveness of the program. Alan is right, though, that particularly in communities in the big cities, it is very hard to find comparable, non-participating schools. But, the data is pretty clear, at least out of the major cities, that the schools in which Title I is concentrated, those schools seem to be having some of the greatest improvements. I don't know that it really matters a whole lot how much of that improvement was accountable to Title I, and how much was attributable to something else. Title I was part of the overall mechanism that brought higher achievement in those schools, and I think that is a good thing.

Mr. Fletcher. Thank you very much.

Chairman Goodling. Mrs. McCarthy?

Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. I represent a suburban area, but everyone forgets that my suburban schools have urban problems. We have seen Title I really work. Over the last five years, Hempstead, which is probably, unfortunately, the poorest of my schools, has started using Title I funds. In those five years they have developed and implemented innovative programs with amazing results. We have seen, especially with high school students, 97 percent of them going to college. So the Title I money has produced results, but it also came in because they set goals and standards to be achieved.

Now, the question I want to ask is, do you think that there should accountability on where this money is going, and making sure that we are getting the best return for our dollar?

Dr. Vinovskis. Mrs. McCarthy, I think we have to remind ourselves what Diane Ravitch told us a little while ago. Title I is a stream of money, it is not a program.

What you did is you described a program that seems to be working well. One of the things that really impresses me is that out there, we have a lot of interest in local districts, and they are all different. What are the programs that would work in our area? What are the models that we could draw upon? So, one of the things is, I am not so sure we need as much regulation as we need consumer guide to models that have some validity in those areas. That is what we have not done.

So, one of the things that would fill this gap is if the Department of Education and I think this is a major federal role since the mid-19th century, if they would take the leadership and say, ``Does success for all work in all types of communities?'' ``Are schools better here or there?'' The problem is that OERI and PES have not been doing this.

In fact, there is a paper that I am doing for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is having a conference in May. It is called ``Missing in Practice? Systematic Development and Rigorous Program Evaluation,'' U.S. Department of Education.

So, part of the answer to Alan's is, it is not a question of who gets Title I monies or not. That is one issue, but the question is, what do you do when you get that money? We can test whether schools that use it a certain way in their context do a better job than others. That is the kind of the job we would give to the federal government if we came and said, for your suburban areas, ``Here are five programs, and here they seem to work.'' I think your school districts would be very happy to have that.

Mrs. McCarthy. Well, that is why I brought Secretary Riley out to my district to see my schools, so that he would have an idea of what we are doing in our area with Title I funds.

Dr. Vinovskis. The next time you talk with Secretary Riley, ask him why hasn't the Department been doing more to help us know which works, and which doesn't work in this approach.

Dr. Casserly. Part of the reason why Title I isn't the kind of coherent, uniform program from the federal level that people might like is that there really are restrictions in federal law on the ability of Congress and the federal government to set out curriculum and other mechanisms by which school districts abide. So, you can't really lay out a reading program or math program from the federal level. What you can do, however, from the federal level is set out standards promising practices, and a great deal more research on what works in technical assistance on how to meet it, or how to get to success. I am sure that you can't regulate success, but you can sure model success, and put more successful programs and practices out in front of school districts, and encourage their adoption of them, and to encourage them to do what works.

Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.

Dr. Ginsburg. Could I just add one addition? On targeting, right now it has a fixed pot of money, you are going to take it away from somebody to give to somebody else. I would only note that the Independent Review Panel called for full funding of Title I. I don't know whether we can fully fund Title I, but right now Title I is a share of the federal education budget for elementary and secondary education has been going down over time. So, another answer is to look at the recommendations from the Independent Review Panel with respect to increasing the total amount of money that is going for Title I.

Dr. Ravitch. Sir, if I can just add to what Alan Ginsburg said, and suggesting portability, and giving Title I funds to every poor child, I also suggested an increase in overall Title I funding rather than diminishing the amount of money available to everyone who now gets it.

Chairman Goodling. Thank you. Congressman DeMint.

Mr. DeMint. In my community, there is no shortage of folks who want to help the disadvantaged. Whether it is the United Way or literacy groups, there is a lot of energy behind it. But, as soon as you get out of these few schools with a concentration of poor kids, none of the money can help. There is no critical mass for the program. So, Dr. Ravitch, your proposal of portable entitlements makes a whole lot of sense to me.

What I would like to hear from Dr. Ginsburg, and maybe some of the other witnesses is that this is in theory. Can you think of a way that would make it work in such a way that would help the children? Rather than focus the money on certain schools and not being able to use the money to facilitate or act as a catalyst to combine community resources with public school resources to really help people? I will just start with you, Dr. Ginsburg. Is there a way to overcome your objections to this idea?

Dr. Ginsburg. Well, I haven't seen Diane's proposal until today. So, I don't want to comment directly on it.

What I would say, though, is there are other federal programs, in particular, the 21st Century School Program, in which the budget has gone up enormously. And there is a huge increase requested, in which community organizations are central to participating in that program; they had a very key role in terms of after school programs, much more traditionally than they do with respect to during the school day. That would offer them a tremendous increase in availability of funds, and I know they have had trouble before getting federal money for after school programs. So, this could be a terrific opportunity to look for.

With respect to Diane's proposal, I am going to have to look at the proposal, more specifically.

Dr. Vinovskis. Let me respond to your question, which I think is a very good one, and a couple of things coming back.

First of all, as you think about educational investments, the surprising thing is we are all up here talking about how important Title I is, but that is not where we are putting our money. The increases for next year are not slated by some people to go into Title I. There are great ideas, like social promotion programs, class size reduction, after school programs. Think about taking some of those monies, or most of those monies, and adding it to Title I, and get that concentration. The people who argue that we ought to focus the money, and target the money on the poor, I think, are right. And, I think Title I tries to do that, and does it better than most.

So, I would be very tempted not to start up four or five more federal programs, which are great, maybe, but adds to bureaucracy, and doesn't help this problem.

Secondly, in terms of portability, since we are not getting outstanding results in education in the last four or five years. We may quibble about how much we are getting, but no one is arguing it is outstanding. What about thinking about a compromise, where letting some of the states, as Diane suggested, letting some of the states stay the course because we don't want to abandon it if it works, but trying, like the welfare reform, trying a few areas these things to see what works and doesn't. It may be, for example, when kids are in a low-income area, and schools are worse, you may have to have additional supplements to that kid as you would, say, if you went to a wealthy suburb.

But, let's be creative, don't get stuck. For 30 years, we have been stuck. The problem is not the people who are administering the programs, we are still getting paid. The problem is the kids, so open your minds to some kind of experimentation in this round. I wouldn't want to see Diane's thing go all the way because, and she wouldn't either, because it is too early. We ought to try.

Mr. DeMint. Dr. Casserly?

Dr. Casserly. Yes, sir, thank you very much. I am all in favor of creativity. As a matter of fact, we get to be pretty creative in many urban communities across the country. But, what I don't want to do is harm, and what I am fearful of and concerned about, although Diane's proposal isn't in writing yet, is that it may unintentionally do exactly the opposite of what the intent was, and that was rather than targeting money, it may, in fact, dilute the money, and make it harder to get the kind of achievement result, and measure the kind of achievement results that this community has been after.

On the marginal nature of the results, actually from the achievement scores that we have been getting, and that I cite in my testimony, I view those as pretty substantial results. But, I think we have to keep in mind that Title I is still only about 5-7 percent of a school district's budget of seven percent of total average per-pupil expenditure for an individual kid. So, it is very hard to produce really, really, ``knock-them-dead'' results across the Nation when the total appropriation is so small. So, I think the truth of the matter is that we are getting pretty good results for the limited dollars that we have spent.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Castle said earlier that maybe we ought to slow down on this reauthorization when you look at the testimony this panel has given us this morning. It raises more questions, I think, than it does answers.

I am terribly concerned that if the best we can do is tout scores that bring us back to where we were in 1990 after a decade of funding, that is probably not the hallmark you want to take home to your constituents who are investing in this program and telling them that this is success. I am glad that we are making progress; we are making progress back to where we were.

I am also deeply disturbed that on the NAEP in reading, you see that in 16 states the gap grew between African-Americans and whites, in nine states the gap grew between Hispanics and whites in reading, and in two states the gap closed between African-Americans and whites, but only because the whites fell back, not because African Americans did better. And in the State of Wyoming, the gap closed, but that was because whites fell back against Hispanics. That is a pretty mixed bag to go bet another $100 billion on, and it is disturbing.

Of course, the flip side of the positive message is Dr. Ravitch's, which is 70 percent of the kids aren't even making the grade here. I don't know that we can have a fair discussion of your proposal, Dr. Ravitch, but a couple of things about it.

One, my immediate concern is for very young kids in very poor neighborhoods_ I don't know how I get those kids to another school. They can barely get to their neighborhood school because of lack of transportation, because of dangers, and because of the fact that their parents, in many instances, are working. That becomes just a pragmatic problem in some areas, like mine. There is no real good transportation system in those neighborhoods.

The other one is, and you answered part of this when you said you support increased funding, if each kid has an entitlement that is portable, that entitlement is worth today about $500-$700. Today, that is spread over a school-wide program. Does the child take with him or her the entitlement they brought to the school, or how the school used it which would dilute that to roughly half in a 50 percent school?

Then the other would get further diluted because we don't fully fund Title I; we fund it at about $8 billion, and it would really be about a $25 billion program, if in fact, it were a real entitlement program for every poor child. If you don't increase the funding, now you are sending the poor kid wandering around looking for a good education with $200. I don't know many schools that would say, ``Oh, come on in, and we will increase class size because you are a rich little poor kid.'' I think, unless we really want to talk about an entitlement for poor kids, that they can then take and market that is worth something, I don't know that it pans out.

That is an impression of your program, and this is not the kind of hearing to have a full airing on it, but I would like to have you respond, or comment whether I am crazy or got it wrong, or what have you.

Dr. Ravitch. Well, Mr. Miller, first of all, I want to salute you for your courage. I have followed what you have been saying over the last couple of years, and I think you are one of the real independent thinkers in Congress, and I very much admire what you have done.

Mr. Miller. Stop right there, we…

[Laughter.]

Dr. Ravitch. I will stop.

[Laughter.]

So, I would look forward to having a further discussion with you. I just go back to saying that if the Pell Grant is right, then we ought to be thinking about a different way of delivering Title I, if the Pell Grant approach is right. Because, I am not suggesting taking the money away or diluting money that any poor child currently gets, so the child that you describe who now isn't able to move out of the neighborhood schools that they are in, still has the same amount of money, the school still has the same amount of funding, and might even have more because less would be taken off by bureaucracy.

Let me tell you an interesting fact about American urban education. About 50 percent of the dollars that are spent actually get to the classroom, and all the international studies that have been made, the United States is the only country where less than half our education workers are teachers. In every other country, it is 60-70-80 percent of the education staff are teachers. I would support greater spending on Title I, and even if you keep it at the same amount for each individual, many, many more children would be covered.

Mr. Miller. But, I am raising a point and we can have it for discussion. The other one is that, obviously, in those schools, there is a huge number of children who are near poor. There is a critical mass in that school.

Dr. Ravitch. But, then you are requiring that poor children have to go to school with lots and lots of other poor children, or get no services at all, and I think that is a mistake.

Mr. Miller. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that if you, then, do what you want to do, I have got to ask, what is the funding remaining in that school because those kids don't have a voucher to take somewhere else?

Chairman Goodling. And you will have to answer that when we come back because the vote is on the conference report on the budget.

[Recess.]

Chairman Goodling. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Greenwood, we will go to you since no one else is here at the present time.

Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Vinovskis, in your testimony you said, "As we proceed with the reauthorization of Title I this year, it may be prudent to reexamine some of the key assumptions underlying systemic reform to see if they are still plausible and convincing in light of the experience of the last five years." You also said in your non-written testimony that we need to think about the original assumptions in which the program was founded.

I have spent a lot of time in the last couple of years in Title I programs that have been in virtually every school district and most of the school buildings, the teachers, the students, and the administrators. I have seen firsthand the kids who have trouble reading. You can see the ache in their hearts, and you can see the predictions of failure in life from that early on. I was just in a school last week, and I asked a kid what would he like with this program. He said, ``I am a good reader now,'' and you could see a kid just turn around.

I have seen poor kids in poor schools with these experiences. I have seen rich kids in poor schools who have trouble learning and poor school kids in rich schools, and all of the different combinations. I want to get to the basic premise of why Title I, which is designed to help kids who are having difficulty with basic educational fundamentals, like reading, why we should begin with the premise than rather than follow the child with the disability or the difficulty, we should base this all on poverty.

The question I have, and others can respond to it as well, is, is the premise here that we should use poverty because it is a crude predictor of where you are going to find difficulty in learning, and only a crude predictor? In fact, if we could pinpoint per student, we wouldn't need such a crude predictor as poverty. Or is it, in fact, designed to be a transfer of wealth, in which we say, ``In those districts that have a lot of poor kids. They are going to lack resources, and they couldn't provide these extra services on their own. So, we will transfer wealth from wealthy taxpayers to poor taxpayers?"

I fundamentally believe that that latter function is a state function. My state of Pennsylvania does a pretty good job of transferring wealth from the rich areas to the poor. So, I would like to hear your response and others’ as to why we begin the day with the premise that this program should be poverty-based?

Dr. Vinovskis. An excellent question, and a very hard one to answer. I guess my start would be, I go back to Lyndon Johnson, and the vision that he had at the time in 1965, and much of that was based upon poverty, economic poverty. A transfer is to give these disadvantaged, economically disadvantaged kids an opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. So, it is an economic argument, in that sense. I don't think he was worried as much, at that time, about other kids who might not be thriving.

Over time, we have kept the rhetoric of poverty. We actually have a great deal of difficulty measuring it, and one of the things that I think is very important for you in the reauthorization to think about. For all this talk about poverty, NAEP does not measure it well. It is the school lunch, which is a very poor approximation. That is something that NCS and NAGDI ought to be working on. They should help us on that.

Mr. Greenwood. Let me give you an example of where I think you get an irrational result when you strictly use this poverty basis. I have several school districts, in which there may be four or five elementary schools, and based on the school lunch program, three out of the five or four out of the five qualify and the fifth one doesn't. I have actually had the experience of sitting with weeping parents who said, ``Our son struggled all through first grade, second grade he went into a Title I program, blossomed like a flower. We moved, within the school district, to an elementary school where they don't have the program, now he is failing again and he is miserable.'' Is that an irrational result that we should correct?

Dr. Vinovskis. It is an unintended one because the assumption in the 1960's was that every other school was thriving, and we just had these schools that were lagging because of this poverty issue. What we now know, and what your example suggests, are the difficulties. There are a lot of schools that are not doing well, and not just in high poverty areas.

Mr. Greenwood. I have poor kids from relatively wealthier districts that don't have the opportunity to get these services. And they are just as poor, they are struggling just as much, and their future is just as threatened. But by virtue of what side of Maple Avenue they live on, their fate is sealed.

Dr. Vinovskis. Right. And the question would be, then, and I think the 1994 reforms try to get at, is reform in all schools? How do we get all the schools, not just the Title I schools, not just those receiving those extra funds, because they are a small amount. How do we improve education throughout? We haven't gotten far enough, but what I do like about the 1994 is you have standards which are not high enough at the state level in many states, you have assessments in the states, which are a good idea, often not very well done yet, but a good idea. So, when students move from a high poverty school to a less poverty school or another school, they shouldn't be giving up quality of education.

Mr. Greenwood. Well, one way to do that, I think Dr. Ravitch would have us find billions of new dollars, put it all into Title I, make it an entitlement, and then in the situation where some kids who are from poverty stricken areas in Philadelphia whose school is maybe 62 percent poverty, not 82 percent poverty, and so they get nothing.

It is unrealistic that we are going to find the billions of dollars to do that any time soon. Another way to do that would be to give the school districts the money and say, ``You distribute this within your school district, as you choose'' because the parents in this particular elementary school can't transfer wealth within the school district to another school. What do you think about that?

Dr. Vinovskis. Well, a couple of things. First of all, and I am not against Diane's proposal, when that child moves to some other school and carries the money with them, that doesn't mean they are going into a good educational situation, either.

Mr. Greenwood. But the general question. I am sorry, I am running out of time. I would like each of you to respond to the general question, what about allowing each school district to decide how to distribute its allotment of Title I funds, rather than use the school lunch program, et cetera, to distribute it within a school district?

Dr. Vinovskis. Right. I will give you a quick answer so the rest can too.

That would be fine with me as long as you have an accountability system so that the monies get to poor kids, or that they do well. I am not so concerned about whether the monies get to them; I am concerned about their achievement. If you have an achievement system that says to pursue your plausible way, and poor kids are thriving. I have no problem, but I need to know that. If they are not thriving, I wouldn't be happy.

Mr. Greenwood. Dr. Ginsburg?

Dr. Ginsburg. The problem is where kids grow up in high poverty neighborhoods, they find they are doubly disadvantaged. You can look at what their scores would predictably be based upon family poverty. Then, we find they are below that, and they are below that because of the effects of the neighborhood and the community. So, a strong case could be made that the needs of schools that are serving those children are greater than the needs of other schools.

The problem you have is when you look at successful programs, say, like Success for All, there really is a critical mass of dollars, and you really run, it is common across all our federal programs, we try and serve an awful lot, we are under pressure to do that. When we look at district's monies, they really don't distribute disproportionately, nor states to high poverty schools. GAO has done a study of that, and we can provide that to you.

Mr. Greenwood. Could you repeat that last statement?

Mr. Ginsburg. That when we look at where state and local monies go compared to federal monies, they go in quite different directions. What we find is that state, and district monies are pretty much proportionate to the kid, while federal monies are about double the rate, say, to very high poverty schools. So, we target, it is a lot easier, politically, for us to target at the federal level. So, we would worry about dilution. You couldn't fund a program that would work, based upon our research.