[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 161 (Tuesday, November 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12051-S12052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TITLE I TARGETING


                           Amendment No. 2058

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am proud to have joined Senators 
Landrieu, Cochran, and DeWine in offering a truly historic amendment, 
which will for the first time specifically target new title I funding 
directly to our nation's poorest communities and schools. In doing so, 
this amendment will help us move closer to realizing the original 
promise of title I and, more importantly, help us move closer to 
realizing the promise we have made to give every child in America a 
high quality education.
  The compromise reached today will provide $1 billion for the targeted 
grant formula under title I, which was enacted into law by Congress in 
1994 but unfortunately has never actually been funded by appropriators. 
This agreement ensures that no state, or local school district will 
lose any funds, but at the same time ensures those school districts 
with the greatest need and with the greatest challenges will receive a 
significant boost in resources.
  For example in my own State of Connecticut, this would mean our three 
communities with the greatest poverty and educational needs including 
Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven would receive increases of 25, 35, 
and 31 percent, respectively, over their current funding levels for a 
combined increase of over $12.4 million. That is $12 million more worth 
of educational services provided and high quality teachers hired to 
ensure that title I children may achieve academic successes. I would 
also mean substantial increases in investment for many other 
communities serving low-income students.

  This agreement is by no means perfect. It leaves in place a 
distribution system that remains badly diluted and seriously 
inefficient. However, it represents a dramatic change in policy, one 
that Senator Landrieu and I, and the members of the Senate New Democrat 
Coalition have been fighting for for some time. And we are optimistic 
that we can build on his breakthrough in the future to really put our 
education money where our mouth is, and concentrate our resources and 
our resolve on lifting up our most disadvantaged schools.
  Most immediately, this amendment makes a strong statement, 
acknowledging that title I is just not working as it was intended. The 
original goal of this critical program was to compensate for local 
funding inequities within States and help level the playing field for 
low-income children. But the truth is that this well-intentioned 
program is not nearly as focused on serving poor communities as it is 
perceived to be, leaving many poor children without any aid or hope 
whatsoever.
  As my colleagues know, Federal funds for poor children are currently 
distributed through two grants, basic and concentration. In order to be 
eligible for basic grants, which comprise the bulk of current title I 
funds, local districts only need to have 10 school-age children from 
low-income families, and these children must constitute only 2 percent 
of the total school-age population. Under the concentration grants, 
districts with a child poverty rate of 15 percent are eligible to 
receive funding. As a result of these low threshold, title I funding 
has been spread too thin and too wide. In fact, according to a 1999 CRS 
report, title I grants are provided to approximately 90 percent of all 
local school districts, and 58 percent of all public schools. Even 
worse, because title I has not been close to fully funded, these 
diluted formulas have left little aid available for many of the 
country's poorest students. CRS found that one fifth of all schools 
with concentrations of poverty between 50 and 75 percent do not receive 
a dime of title I funding.
  In examining these inequities we also cannot ignore the growing 
impact that concentration of poverty is having on the academic 
achievement of our nation's school children, particularly those who 
live in disadvantaged communities. America's top 150 highest poverty 
cities have 40 percent of our all title I students. Students in these 
cities face many challenges, none greater that the pervasive poverty 
that surrounds them. Studies show that, even after controlling for 
student's socioeconomic background, concentration of poverty has an 
important negative effect on student achievement.
  For example, a U.S. Department of Education study found that ``The 
relationship between family poverty status and student achievement is 
not as strong as the relationship between school poverty concentrations 
and school achievement averages.'' An Urban Institute study of public-
housing students in Albuquerque, NM found that, after controlling for 
home environment, if a poor child lived in a neighborhood and attended 
school with 20 percent poverty rather than 80 percent poverty, that 
child's standardized test scores were likely to improve by 13 
percentage points.
  Concentration of poverty does create a barrier to educational 
achievement, but that barrier is not impenetrable. University of 
Tennessee's William Sanders found that high concentrations of poverty 
do not on their own preclude or prevent schools from raising student 
achievement. Low-achieving students are often the first to gain, and 
experience the greatest gains, from quality instruction. Unfortunately, 
only a small share of our federal resources are getting to the 
districts most in need of critical funds, which limits the ability of 
those districts to hire the most qualified instructors and provide the 
best services.
  The Federal Government alone cannot solve this grave inequity. We can 
only supplement state and local funding, but cannot supplant those 
resources, and states and localities must do more to target their own 
resources. A recent Education Trust analysis of funding inequities 
reveals that school districts with the greatest numbers of poor 
children have less money to spend per student than districts with the 
fewest poor children. And a growing body of research shows, according 
to the Education Trust report, that additional dollars, if directed at 
the most critical activities, can significantly raise the achievement 
of poor and minority students.
  But the Federal Government can make a real and consequential 
contribution, both in terms of leadership and of leverage of national 
resources, and this amendment aims to do both. As I have noted, it will 
significantly improve the targeting of Federal dollars. But it also 
includes a second piece that will help reduce the inequities within 
states. In addition to funding the targeted formula for the first time, 
this amendment also funds the State finance and incentive grant formula 
for the first time, a formula intended to reward states that have made 
real strides in eliminating funding gaps with their own resources.
  The amendment calls for channeling $500 million through this fourth 
formula, which is commonly known as the ``Effort and Equity'' formula. 
Although I share the concerns raised by many

[[Page S12052]]

that the current design of this formula has substantial flaws and 
should be modified so that truly meets its intended goal, I also share 
the belief of my colleague from Iowa that we should do more at the 
federal level to prompt states to better equalize their own funding.
  That is why I am committed to seeing improvements made to the effort 
and equity formula through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
conference that is currently pending. I commend Senator Harkin for his 
willingness to reexamine and overhaul this formula so that it better 
targets funds within states to the districts with the highest 
concentrations of poverty. And I look forward to working with him and 
with a common focus to improve the fairness and the performance of 
title I. In achieving this goal, I believe that we can further work 
together to see even more funds appropriated to the targeted formula as 
the appropriations process moves forward.
  The compromise we have struck today might not be politically popular 
or perfect, but it is a great beginning and a way to draw our attention 
back to the original intent of the ESEA and the primary function of the 
Federal Government in education. It is a bold step forward, one that I 
believe that we can only enhance as the appropriations process as well 
as the ESEA conference moves forward, and I urge my colleagues to join 
us in supporting it.

                          ____________________