Flexibility and Innovation in Title I Schools

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

Abstract

Title I regulations offer schools that operate schoolwide programs two key flexibilities not afforded to schools with targeted assistance programs. First, SWPs may consolidate federal, state, and local funds with Title I funds into a single pot to support a comprehensive and integrated approach to improving its instructional program. Schools that consolidate funds from Title I and other programs do not need to track expenditures of funds by federal program nor are they required to meet most of the statutory and regulatory requirements of those programs, so long as they meet the intent and purposes of each program. Second, SWP schools are permitted to use Title I funds to improve instruction and education services for all students, rather than obligating funds to provide supplemental services to a subset of students identified as at-risk.

Despite the spending flexibility extended to schoolwide programs, previous research has found that many SWPs do not avail themselves of the opportunity to consolidate funds, with key reasons being conflicts with state or district policy that require separate accounting for federal program funds, fear of not obtaining a clean audit, insufficient training and understanding of program and finance issues, and lack of information on how to consolidate funds (Chambers et al., 2009). Beyond looking at the extent to which SWPs use consolidation, previous research has not examined the relationship between spending flexibility and the services and practices paid for through Title I.

Title I, by design, provides schools flexibility to fund activities that best meet their needs. Indeed, “the very purpose of a schoolwide program is to upgrade the entire educational program of the school in order to raise the achievement of the lowest-achieving students” (ESEA section 1114). And yet, wide-ranging misperceptions about the use of Title I funds in SWPs—including incorrect notions that Title I funds may be used only to support reading and math instruction, provide remedial instruction or pull-out services, and only serve low-achieving students (U.S. Department of Education, 2016)—have likely served to limit practices outside of these activities. Previous research, however, has examined Title I in aggregate spending categories only, suggesting that funds were used mainly for instruction, and, in particular, instructional staff (Chambers et al., 2009); there is scare literature on the specific activities funded through Title I, including potentially new or innovative practices.

The objective of this presentation is to share what we have learned about the use of the benefits afforded to SWP schools. Specifically, using both survey and case study data, we will discuss the extent to which SWP schools take advantage of the spending flexibilities, the school characteristics of SWP schools consolidating funds, how spending patterns may look different between SWP schools that consolidated Title I funds with funds from other programs and those that did not, and the common challenges to consolidating Title I funds. In addition, we will highlight cases using Title I funds to provide activities that are new or outside the traditional scope of Title I.

Author

• Steven Hurlburt, American Institutes for Research