STATEMENT OF PAUL T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NIE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION AND LABOR, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Paul Hill, Chief of the Compensatory Education Division of the National Institute of Education, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the hearings on the services provided under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For the past three years, I have directed a major study of Title I, requested by the members of this Committee in 1974. I am accompanied this morning by three colleagues who played major roles in the implementation of that study: Dr. Iris Rotberg, the Associate Director of the Study, Dr. Joy Frechtling, who assumed major responsibilities for examining the services provided under Title I and the effects of those services upon student achievement, and Dr. Margot Nyitray, who directed the studies focusing exclusively upon Title I services. Mr. Chairman, before Dr. Rotberg discusses NIE's specific findings regarding the services funded with Title I, I do want to say a few words about the overall study. I do so because the information we will present today represents but one part of the NIE evaluation, and I consider it essential that our findings on Title I services be placed in the context of the broad program of research we have completed. As many members of this Committee are aware, when Congress extended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1974, there was considerable debate about whether or not Title I had achieved the goals Congress intended when the legislation was enacted in 1965. This Committee, feeling the need for additional information on the effectiveness of Title I, requested that NIE conduct a comprehensive three-year study of Title I. I think it significant that, in order to insure that an adequate and objective report be presented, the Committee stipulated that $5 million for each of three years be provided for the study out of the regular Title I appropriation, and that NIE be the agency responsible for the evaluation. Were I required to compress all of the data and information we have collected into one sentence, I believe it would be safe to say that Title I is working as Congress intended it should. Congress intended that Title I direct funds to areas with high numbers of low-income children. We found that the program is effective in doing so. Indeed, Title I is more effective than other Federal or state aid programs in increasing educational expenditures at the local level. Congress intended that Title I funds be used to provide special additional services to eligible children. We found that Title I does make an important contribution to the educational experience of educationally disadvantaged children.· Congress intended that the end result would be to promote the development of students receiving services, particularly in increasing their academic achievement. Our studies indicate that well-planned, stable compensatory instructional programs can indeed enhance student achievement. The picture is not completely positive. There are problems in the Title I funds allocation process; Title I services could be improved in many places; and the program could be more effective in enhancing students' achievement. But the problems we have identified show that the program can be improved and indicate some promising areas for change. I should point out that the evaluation strategy we followed differed considerably from most prior efforts to evaluate Title I. As you know, most prior Title I evaluations have concentrated almost exclusively upon the question of whether or not the achievement of Title I children. improved. That is clearly an issue of central importance in any evaluation of Title I. Although the statute itself says very little about student achievement, the evaluation requirements, which former Senator Robert F. Kennedy incorporated into the legislation, made it plain that the improvement of student achievement was one of the program's primary goals. However, Mr. Chairman, it appeared to us that evaluators have erred in at least two ways by concentrating exclusively upon student achievement. First, evaluating achievement alone does not give a full accounting of whether or not the program has met all of the goals intended by Congress. Second, it is impossible to validly assess the program's effects on student growth without first having documented that the children whose achievement growth is measured actually received a special instructional service. Many Title I students receive special mathematics instruction, and not reading. Thus, for example, measuring their reading gains is not a useful way of assessing what Title I has done for them. In general, it is essential to document the ways in which Title I programs are implemented before deciding how to measure their effects on children's growth. Our approach to evaluation has been to try to understand how the Title I program operates, in order to assess its accomplishments and to identify areas in need of improvement. We examined four major areas in evaluating the Title I program as it now exists: (1) Funds allocation--do Title funds actually flow to the kinds of places which Congress intended? (2) Services--are special services that can be considered additional, or distinctive, or improved, actually provided to participating children? (3) Student development--does the program have any effect on the achievement of participating children? (4) Administration--do administrators at the Federal, State, and local levels share a common perception of what they are trying to accomplish? We also investigated two additional questions which were of great interest in the 93rd Congress: the effects of altering the definition of poverty used to allocate Title I funds, and the effects of using counts 99-865 - 78 -- 6 of low-achieving children, and not low-income children, to allocate funds to and within school districts. Mr. Chairman, I know that today's hearing will focus on Title I services, and that future hearings will be concerned with funds allocation and administration. The rest of NIE's testimony in today's hearing will be delivered by Dr. Iris Rotberg, who will report our main findings about the services provided under Title I and their effects upon student The supplemental statement attached to our testimony gives achievement. a broad summary of the results of our whole study. STATEMENT OF DR. IRIS ROTBERG Mr. Chairman, my discussion of Title I services will focus upon: the nature of the services provided with Title I funds; and the effects upon the achievement of participating students. Many of our findings in these three areas are positive. I shall first note our positive findings in each area, and then identify some of the problems in the implementation of Title I services which our research revealed. SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM Our analysis of Title I services focused upon the manner in which local educational agencies used the grants they received under Part A of Title I, which was funded at $2.25 billion in Fiscal Year 1978. |