[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5323-S5325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 1054. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to specify the purposes for which funds provided under part A 
of title I may be used; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to 
introduce a bill to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards 
instructional services to teach our neediest students.
  Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the 
country to serve children attending schools with high concentrations of 
low-income students, from preschool to high school.
  It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since 
its inception in 1965. Although it has always

[[Page S5324]]

been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for 
instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has 
never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should 
entail.
  This lack of federal guidance has become especially clear now, as 
States scramble to comply with the Title I accountability standards 
established in ``No Child Left Behind.''
  While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet 
these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to 
how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
  I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this 
process as clear to States as possible.
  In my view, as it relates to Title I, we have not lived up to our end 
of the bargain.
  During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to 
get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate 
version of the bill.
  Unfortunately, during conference consideration, my bill was stripped 
out and in its place language directing the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to report on how states use their Title I funds was inserted.
  In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to 
submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.
  What GAO found is that while districts spent a relatively small 
amount, no more than 13 percent, of Title I funds on administrative 
services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because 
there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative 
expenditures.''
  Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much 
of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.
  Because Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the 
states, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling 
aspects of state priorities to complete the report.
  You see, the very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should 
be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--
became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing 
conclusions to their report.
  The report highlights two concerns that I have with the absence of 
universal definitions in the Title I program: the lack of Federal 
guidance on effective uses of Title I funds. The government's inability 
to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low-income students 
are being met.
  My bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states to 
retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed 
to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.
  Current law on Title I is much too vague.
  It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds 
received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that 
would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from 
non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in 
programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''
  Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the 
``education of pupils.'' This is too nebulous.
  The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document 
that explains how Title I funds can be used.
  Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically 
prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. 
payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to 
reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental 
involvement'' meeting.
  I believe we should give the Department, states and districts a 
clearer guidance in law.
  This legislation does the following: defines Title I direct and 
indirect instructional services. Sets a standard for the amount of 
Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and 
administrative objectives of this program. Ensures that the majority of 
Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating 
that a local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of 
Title I funds received for indirect instructional services.
  By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on 
administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted 
from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic 
services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the 
remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I 
distribution.
  Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all states can 
apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.
  Examples of permissible Direct Services are: employing teachers and 
other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening 
and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. Extending 
academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including 
summer school. Providing instructional services to pre-kindergarten 
children for the transition to kindergarten. Purchasing instructional 
resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional 
equipment. Professional development. Developing and administering 
curriculum, educational materials and assessments.
  Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of 
Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering 
the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, 
janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of 
utility costs. Buying food. Paying for travel to and attendance at 
conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional 
development.
  My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe 
that states must use their limited federal dollars for the fundamental 
purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.
  Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without 
providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional 
service.
  I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for 
not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are 
simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.
  If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest 
children, Federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens.
  It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is 
only 8 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary 
education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for 
public schools.
  That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on 
academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping 
disadvantaged children achieve.
  Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for 
expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services 
and retain the majority of Federal funds to improve academic 
achievement.
  It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of 
education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that 
important goal.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly 
follow this statement in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1054

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Title I Integrity Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1120C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, a local educational agency shall use funds received 
     under this part only for direct instructional services and 
     indirect instructional services.
       ``(2) Limitation on indirect instructional services.--A 
     local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of 
     funds received under this part for indirect instructional 
     services.
       ``(b) Instructional Services.--
       ``(1) Direct instructional services.--In this section, the 
     term `direct instructional services' means--

[[Page S5325]]

       ``(A) the implementation of instructional interventions and 
     corrective actions to improve student achievement;
       ``(B) the extension of academic instruction beyond the 
     normal school day and year, including during summer school;
       ``(C) the employment of teachers and other instructional 
     personnel, including providing teachers and instructional 
     personnel with employee benefits;
       ``(D) the provision of instructional services to 
     prekindergarten children to prepare such children for the 
     transition to kindergarten;
       ``(E) the purchase of instructional resources, such as 
     books, materials, computers, other instructional equipment, 
     and wiring to support instructional equipment;
       ``(F) the development and administration of curricula, 
     educational materials, and assessments;
       ``(G) the transportation of students to assist the students 
     in improving academic achievement;
       ``(H) the employment of title I coordinators, including 
     providing title I coordinators with employee benefits; and
       ``(I) the provision of professional development for 
     teachers and other instructional personnel.
       ``(2) Indirect instructional services.--In this section, 
     the term `indirect instructional services' includes--
       ``(A) the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance, 
     gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the 
     payment of utility costs;
       ``(B) the payment of travel and attendance costs at 
     conferences or other meetings;
       ``(C) the payment of legal services;
       ``(D) the payment of business services, including payroll, 
     purchasing, accounting, and data processing costs; and
       ``(E) any other services determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary that indirectly improve student achievement.''.
                                 ______