Eliminating Title I funding would reduce federal outlays in the 1997-2002 period by about $35 billion measured from the 1996-1997 school year funding level. The savings from the 1996-1997 school year funding level adjusted for inflation would be more than $38 billion over that period.

The primary justification for eliminating Title I funding is that it does not improve the academic progress of students who receive its services. Comparisons with similar groups of students (by grade and poverty status) show that program participants do not improve their academic achievement relative to other students. Moreover, a recent study by the Department of Education found that the test scores of students receiving Title I services actually declined between the third and fourth grades, whereas those of nonrecipients rose slightly. (Many education researchers consider that time to be a critical transition period because by the fourth grade, students should have sufficiently mastered reading skills to enable them to learn by reading.)

According to its supporters, the main justification for continuing Title I funding is that it has become a

major federal instrument for fostering school reform to improve learning for all children. States applying for Title I funds must show that they have, or will develop by 1998, standards for challenging academic content (for purposes of instruction) and for student performance (for assessing the outcomes of instruction), at least in the areas of mathematics and reading or language arts. Those standards, which specify what children are expected to know and be able to do, must apply to Title I participants as well as to all other pupils in the state.

An alternative approach would be to reduce funding for Title I to 50 percent of the 1996-1997 school year funding level. That option would save about $18 billion in the 1997-2002 period, or about $21 billion when adjusted for inflation. On the one hand, Title I could still be an effective instrument of school reform with only half of its current funding. On the other hand, it would probably continue to be ineffective in improving the academic skills of students who received its services.

Bilingual education projects funded through title VII provide a range of services to students with limited proficiency in English. In 1993, they aided about 350,000 pupils; in addition, title VII funds supported programs to train teachers and other educators that in 1991 could be found at 81 colleges and universities in 27 states. Most of the students served were taught by using a method of instruction called transitional bilingual education, which involves teaching children in each of their classes jointly in English and their native language. No more than 25 percent of federal funding for bilingual education programs may be used to support instruction only in English.

Eliminating federal bilingual education programs would reduce federal outlays in the 1997-2002 period by about $640 million measured from the 1996 funding level. Savings from the 1996 level adjusted for inflation would be about $690 million over the sixyear period.

Proponents of this option contend that transitional bilingual education programs under title VII largely perpetuate and reinforce native cultures rather than advance literacy in the English language. The result, they maintain, is that the integration of students into American society is retarded.

Supporters of this federal program assert that transitional bilingual education, which introduces students to the English language while continuing instruction in their native language, helps students in two ways: they acquire knowledge in a variety of academic subjects as well as become literate in English. As a result, supporters argue, students will not fall behind their schoolmates in other subjects by the time they make the transition to classes taught only in English.

Impact Aid (previously known as School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas) is intended to compensate school districts affected by activities of the federal government. Payments are made to districts for federally connected pupils and for school construction in cases in which the federal government has acquired a significant portion of the district's real property tax base, thereby depriving the district of a source of revenue.

Impact Aid goes to school districts having a minimum of 3 percent (or at least 400) of their pupils associated with activities of the federal government, including pupils whose parents both live and work on federal property (Indian lands are part of that designation); pupils whose parents are in the uniformed services but live on private property; and pupils who live in low-rent housing that is federally subsidized. In addition, aid goes to a few districts enrolling at least 2,000 pupils (and 15 percent of enrollment) whose parents work on federal property. In 1995, Impact Aid went to approximately 2,500 school districts spread across all of the states. As a result of the program's reauthorization in 1994 (as title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended), Impact Aid is likely to be more targeted in the future toward pupils whose parents live and work

on federal land. Because of hold-harmless provisions, however, most school districts will not be fully affected by the changes in the law until 1997.

Eliminating all funding for Impact Aid would reduce federal outlays in the 1997-2002 period by about $4.0 billion measured from the 1996 funding level and by about $4.4 billion measured from the 1996 level adjusted for inflation. Proponents of eliminating the program argue that the economic benefits from federal activities outweigh the demands placed on the schools, making Impact Aid unnecessary. Those economic benefits are considered so substantial that local jurisdictions compete vigorously for new federal activities and lobby intensely to forestall losing existing ones. Opponents counter that the presence of federal activities does not adequately compensate local governments and school districts for losses in property tax revenues. (Additional revenues resulting from federal activities are collected primarily by the state through income and sales taxes.) Moreover, some school districts--especially isolated ones that have military installations with large numbers of children residing on federal property--would face severe financial hardship if such funding was eliminated.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funds grants to states for programs to prevent drug abuse and violence. To be eligible for funds, states must assess their need for such aid and articulate measurable goals and objectives for reducing and preventing drug abuse and violence. Funds are allocated to states based on the number of children of school age and the share of federal Title I funds they receive. (Title I is the main federal program for educating disadvantaged children.)

The vast majority of those federal funds are allocated by states to school districts. Districts that receive funds must implement comprehensive programs to prevent drug abuse and violence among students and employees and must include activities to involve parents and community groups.

Eliminating funding for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act would reduce federal outlays by about $2.3 billion over the 1997-2002 period measured from the 1996 funding level. Savings from the 1996 level adjusted for inflation would be about $2.5 billion.

Critics of this program argue that it has not been successful in reducing drug and alcohol abuse among teenagers. The proportion of adolescents who say they use illicit drugs has risen from 20 percent to 31 percent in the past three years. Opponents also maintain that federal efforts to reduce drug use and violence should focus on law enforcement activities rather than on education and prevention efforts. Federal involvement in education and prevention programs in schools and communities, critics believe, undermines the accountability and responsibility of parents, teachers, and community leaders in combating drug abuse and violence.

Supporters of this program cite the increasing drug use among teenagers as evidence of the need for the program. Drug abuse and violence are so pervasive, they argue, that parents, teachers, and leaders in local communities lack both the time and the knowledge to be effective in opposing them. Proponents consider it necessary to employ expert guidance and additional training to help teachers, counselors, and others take action to deal with the problems associated with drug abuse and violence.

About $325 billion will be spent educating children in elementary and secondary schools in this country in school year 1995-1996. The federal share of that total is expected to be almost 7 percent, or about $22 billion. The largest federal programs funded through the Department of Education are Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which funds services for economically and educationally disadvantaged students; Impact Aid, which compensates school districts affected by certain federal activities; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which funds services for disabled students; and the Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, which funds vocational education.

Because the federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is relatively small, some analysts have suggested that funding for such programs in the Department of Education be decreased to help reduce federal spending (see, for example, DOM-42 through DOM-45 and DOM-47). Over the 1997-2002 period, holding funding for those programs at 50 percent of the 1996 level would save about $35 billion measured from the 1996 funding level and over $41 billion measured from the 1996 level adjusted for inflation. This option would reduce the appropriation by nearly 60 percent, in real terms, in the sixth year.

If the funding for these programs was reduced, the Congress might also consider modifying them to enhance the flexibility of state and local governments in adjusting to those decreases. One possible change would be to fold the programs into a block grant that specified purposes for which the funds could be spent but left decisions about how to use the funds to the states and the school districts. Since some of the programs are associated with federal mandates regarding services that children must receive (for example, for disabled students), the Congress might also want to modify those mandates.

The primary argument in favor of this proposal is that the federal government cannot afford to fund these programs at their current levels. If funding was reduced, state and local governments might offset some of the cuts to the extent that they found the programs useful or required by federal mandates. Enhancing the flexibility of states and school districts in adjusting to possible cuts could reduce some of the negative consequences of reductions in funding.

The main argument for maintaining funding for these programs is that the effects of cuts would be concentrated among the special populations of students that the programs serve. Those populations in