The Use of Funds in Title I Schools

• In Event: Results From a National Study of Title I School-Wide and Targeted Assistance Schools

Abstract

The use of funds is central to understanding the implementation of Title I and its implications for educational quality and equity. Furthermore, we might hypothesize that schoolwide (SWP) and targeted assistance (TAP) schools would use funds differently given the differences in the scope of the programs, additional flexibility provided to SWP schools regarding use of funds, and the additional requirements for planning for SWP schools.

Based on a needs assessment grounded in the school’s vision for reform, SWPs must develop an annual comprehensive plan in which they set goals and strategies, and monitor outcomes of all students through an annual review. TAP schools, conversely, are required to identify Title I–eligible students, target program resources to this group, and annually monitor their outcomes separately from the noneligible students. Statutory and regulatory provisions are also relaxed for SWP schools provided that schools can show that the program funding spread over the entire school’s enrollment was spent on intervention strategies that align with the intentions of Title I, which is not the case for TAP schools. These policy provisions are intended to enable SWPs to design the types of educational programs that, according to decades of research on school improvement, are more likely to benefit students.

Historically, Title I funds have been used to support staff: in 2004-05, 59 percent of Title I funds were spent on salaries and benefits for instructional staff, with another 14 percent devoted to other instructional expenditures (Chambers et al., 2009). However, previous studies have not sought to identify differences between practices in SWP and TAP schools, nor did they explore the activities in which Title I staff engage. That is, although we know that Title I is paying for staff time, what do these staff actually do? Nationally-representative survey data, in conjunction with case study interviews enable us to address these important questions.

All of the analyses for this presentation are complete, but findings are currently embargoed pending final approval of the study’s funding organization. In this presentation, we will describe differences in the types of Title I funded personnel and non-personnel resources and activities; and contextual factors – such as school level and urbanicity – related to differences in the use of Title I resources. We also describe variation in per-pupil Title I allocations, and how they relate to the choices schools make in terms of using their Title I resources. In addition, we delve into the activities in which staff paid through Title I spend their time, using both survey and case study data. We also explore the stability of Title I resources: that is, do schools change the focus of Title I or do they default to the same interventions year after year – and if so, how does this vary by SWP and TAP schools? In summary, this study will provide one of the most detailed depictions of how Title I funds are used across the country, and whether SWP and TAP schools’ approaches are measurably different.

Authors

• Jesse D. Levin, American Institutes for Research

• Drew Atchison, The George Washington University

• Karen Manship, American Institutes for Research