Federal Title I Program

The study estimates from principal reports that about two-thirds of all public schools (66 percent) received some Title I funds in school year 1995-96 (Table 6 and appendix table B-17). Principal reports of funding were higher for elementary schools (75 percent) than for middle schools (53 percent) and high schools (50 percent).

Principals reported that their schools used Title I funds for specific activities, including serving targeted children in a pull-out or in-class setting (88 percent), providing extended-time learning opportunities (64 percent), operating schoolwide programs (36 percent), or providing summer learning activities (37 percent) (Table 7 and appendix table B-18). Title I-funded schools may operate schoolwide programs if they meet certain eligibility criteria and devise a comprehensive plan to ensure implementation. For high poverty schools, schoolwide programs combine Title I funds with other federal program funds to support comprehensive reform and improve the entire educational enterprise for all students at the school, not just targeted students. The percentage of principals of Title I schools who reported operating schoolwide programs was higher for elementary schools (51 percent) than for middle schools (19 percent) and high schools (11 percent).

In addition, principals of Title I elementary schools with 75 percent or more of their students eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program reported least often that they served targeted children in a pull-out or in-class setting (70 percent) and most often that they ran schoolwide programs (85 percent) (Table 8 and appendix table B-18). Principals of Title I schools with schoolwide programs were more likely to report that their schools were identified as in need of improvement under Title I (Table 9 and appendix table B-17), as were principals of Title I schools with 75 percent or more of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

To gauge their familiarity with recent legislative changes to Title I, principals in Title I-funded schools were asked the extent to which they were familiar with eight specific provisions (Table 10 and appendix Table B-19 Part 2). Forty-three percent of principals in Title I funded schools reported they were familiar with all eight provisions to a moderate or great extent. More principals in schools with schoolwide programs (54 percent) than other Title I schools (34 percent) said they were familiar with all eight provisions. This finding holds true as well for all the specific provisions, with principals in schools with schoolwide programs more likely to report familiarity.

Note that we do not have objective measures of familiarity with the eight provisions. However, other evidence indicates that principals are overly confident about their level of familiarity with Title I. An indirect measure of principals' understanding of Title I are their reports of eligibility to operate a schoolwide program. As shown in Table 6 and appendix table B-17, 52 percent of Title I principals in low poverty schools report that they are eligible for schoolwide programs, even though they probably are not. Findings about familiarity should be interpreted cautiously.

Principals reporting familiarity with the provisions were also asked to gauge how much of a change would be required in their schools in order to implement the provisions (Table 10 and appendix Table B-20 Part 2). Generally, between 40 and 50 percent of principals reported that moderate or great changes would be required in their schools to implement each provision. There were no substantively interesting differences in reports of difficulty of implementation between schools with schoolwide programs and other Title I schools.

Generally, schools have found that making these changes requires substantial effort, and that the level of effort required is not anticipated at the start of the process. Figures presented above provide evidence that even principals who claim they are familiar with the provisions are probably not fully aware of what implementing the changes would entail, and that they are not very far along in the process of implementation.

Top