Secondary and elementary education has been the responsibility of the state and communities since the inception of the public school system with policies and funding coming from the cities, counties, and school districts for which they serve. The role of the federal government evolved gradually, but with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society,” programs to benefit schools were newly developed. Most notable was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (http://lobby.la.psu.edu/061_ESEA_Title_1/summary_esea.htm).
Title I
The Commissioner of Education, Francis Keppel, wrote the Elementary and Secondary School Act which was passed by the legislature on April 9, 1965. Considered by some to be “the most important educational component of the ‘War on Poverty,’” the special funding of Title I provided large amounts of money for the needs of “educationally deprived children, especially through compensatory programs for the poor” (Schugurensky, 2002). Developed to help students from low socio-economic status, the legislation stated, "In recognition of the special educational needs of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance…to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families to expand and improve their educational programs by various means (including preschool programs) which contribute to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children” (Section 201, Elementary and secondary School Act, 1965).
Title 1 allocated 1 billion dollars yearly to schools with at least 40% population of low socio-economic status. With Title 1 funds the initiation of Head Start, a pre-school program for disadvantaged children, began with the intent of preparing young children for first grade through equity of opportunity. Grants to schools were provided through Title I funding to aid economically and disadvantaged children through various programs such as Head Start. President Johnson believed that this legislation would provide hope to children from poor families whose greatest barrier was poverty itself. He stated, “for every one of the billion dollars we spend on this program will come back tenfold as school dropouts change to schoolgraduates” (http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/).
NCLB
In 2001 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Affecting almost every school district and charter school in Texas, the main goal of NCLB was “to close the achievement gap between groups of students by requiring greater accountability and offering increased flexibility and choice (http://www.tea.state.tx.us). Signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002, this legislation evolved to include federal education funding programs commensurate with increasing the performance of public schools, requiring accountability of states and local school districts while promoting parental choice. Certain conditions must be accepted for the states to receive the federal funding including Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), empirically based teacher practices, flexible local control of spending, expanded parental choice, and highly qualified teachers. As the heart of NCLB, Title 1 sets the goal of guaranteeing that “all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and State academic assessments” (Alexander & Alexander, 2009).
In 2001 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Affecting almost every school district and charter school in Texas, the main goal of NCLB was “to close the achievement gap between groups of students by requiring greater accountability and offering increased flexibility and choice (http://www.tea.state.tx.us). Signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002, this legislation evolved to include federal education funding programs commensurate with increasing the performance of public schools, requiring accountability of states and local school districts while promoting parental choice. Certain conditions must be accepted for the states to receive the federal funding including Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), empirically based teacher practices, flexible local control of spending, expanded parental choice, and highly qualified teachers. As the heart of NCLB, Title 1 sets the goal of guaranteeing that “all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and State academic assessments” (Alexander & Alexander, 2009).
ARRA
President Obama authorized the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 on February 17th of that year. Along with other measures to stabilize the U.S. economy, provide relief from high unemployment, and provide for other challenges in this country, this was also a reauthorization of Title I to enhance educational opportunities. Providing about 100 billion dollars for education and the other components of this legislation, the purpose of ARRA is to promote educational reforms and improvements to promote results of a lasting nature for students from pre-school through post-secondary levels. The principles directing the distribution and use of ARRA funds are based on the goal of stimulating the economy and investing in education along with other necessary services to strengthen the overall economic well-being in our country. With this act, funds are intended to be spent quickly with the intent to eliminate unemployment. School reform and improvement are intended to strengthen student achievement by helping students from all backgrounds. Rigorous reporting and accountability procedures are required with ARRA funds to document proper use of the funds. With the temporary nature of the ARRA funds, the means of investment should not be of an unsustainable nature after the funding has expired. Funds related to Title 1 ($10 billion) are distributed through local educational agencies. ARRA has given funding quickly to states and local educational agencies while providing time for a planned, thoughtful use of these monies. As of May 2010, there have been about 84 billion dollars in grants awarded through the Department of Education Recovery Act with $948 million having been awarded to Texas (http://www2ed.gov).
Because of Title I and the reauthorization programs over the years, disadvantaged students at-risk of failure or dropping out of school have decreased. Student achievement has improved due to the funding that has provided special programs to help students make progress toward academic achievement. The Title I, Part A funds to those schools with high concentrations of children living in poverty have the opportunity to apply for these monies “in order to help improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet state academic achievement standards” (http://www2ed.gov) through creating educator opportunities to incorporate creative teaching strategies to provide for better learning. Using these funds, teachers can be identified and trained to be highly effective, early childhood programs can be strengthened and expanded, and the use of high-quality supplemental math and science online software for secondary schools can be purchased. In addition funding is also authorized for the purchase of longitudinal data systems to help guide improvement focus, professional development services can be covered, reading/math coaches can be paid to provide training to teachers, and extended learning opportunities for before/after school and during the summer can be funded. These are a few examples of how the funding through Title I as delineated in ARRA are currently functioning to eliminate the achievement gap by enhancing the learning for disadvantaged children in our school systems with a high poverty rate.
President Obama authorized the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 on February 17th of that year. Along with other measures to stabilize the U.S. economy, provide relief from high unemployment, and provide for other challenges in this country, this was also a reauthorization of Title I to enhance educational opportunities. Providing about 100 billion dollars for education and the other components of this legislation, the purpose of ARRA is to promote educational reforms and improvements to promote results of a lasting nature for students from pre-school through post-secondary levels. The principles directing the distribution and use of ARRA funds are based on the goal of stimulating the economy and investing in education along with other necessary services to strengthen the overall economic well-being in our country. With this act, funds are intended to be spent quickly with the intent to eliminate unemployment. School reform and improvement are intended to strengthen student achievement by helping students from all backgrounds. Rigorous reporting and accountability procedures are required with ARRA funds to document proper use of the funds. With the temporary nature of the ARRA funds, the means of investment should not be of an unsustainable nature after the funding has expired. Funds related to Title 1 ($10 billion) are distributed through local educational agencies. ARRA has given funding quickly to states and local educational agencies while providing time for a planned, thoughtful use of these monies. As of May 2010, there have been about 84 billion dollars in grants awarded through the Department of Education Recovery Act with $948 million having been awarded to Texas (http://www2ed.gov).
Because of Title I and the reauthorization programs over the years, disadvantaged students at-risk of failure or dropping out of school have decreased. Student achievement has improved due to the funding that has provided special programs to help students make progress toward academic achievement. The Title I, Part A funds to those schools with high concentrations of children living in poverty have the opportunity to apply for these monies “in order to help improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet state academic achievement standards” (http://www2ed.gov) through creating educator opportunities to incorporate creative teaching strategies to provide for better learning. Using these funds, teachers can be identified and trained to be highly effective, early childhood programs can be strengthened and expanded, and the use of high-quality supplemental math and science online software for secondary schools can be purchased. In addition funding is also authorized for the purchase of longitudinal data systems to help guide improvement focus, professional development services can be covered, reading/math coaches can be paid to provide training to teachers, and extended learning opportunities for before/after school and during the summer can be funded. These are a few examples of how the funding through Title I as delineated in ARRA are currently functioning to eliminate the achievement gap by enhancing the learning for disadvantaged children in our school systems with a high poverty rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment