Is Allocating Millions in Support of the Reauthorization

Elementary and Secondary Education Act with

A national commitment to educate economically and educationally disadvantaged students began to arise in the early 1960's. The United States Government was about to take its place in the national education system. The establishment of schools had been supported by the federal government hundreds of years ago, but never in such a way that would forever change their mark. In 1965, Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would be the legislation to give economically deprived students an opportunity for a significant education. Underprivileged students would receive federal funding in order to close the gap between them and their middle to upper counterparts. Throughout Title 1's 37 years in existence, we are now seeing the prodigious amounts of capital being pumped into the fund. Furthermore, students who are at risk of failing the system due to mitigating factors (such as poverty, migration, low reading skills, delinquency and neglect) will see significant increases in federal funding to specifically target their

closely monitor students, teachers, administrators, and school districts by holding them accountable for student success on state achievement exams. Dodge (2002) stated that this is the first time a state will be required to administer an annual test to students in grades 3-8. The Texas Education Agency (2002) has clearly set froth the provisions of the law on their website:

Part B: Students Skills Improvements Grants

Definitely this can be considered a sizable increase from previous years. Other than the expectation of closing the gap for impoverished students, the education agency will

Another implication of Title 1 is that when impoverished children move from district to district, state to state, etc., the money does not follow the student. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) (2002) stated that this occurred because the U.S. Census estimated the poor students per area. The GAO discovered differences between urban and rural areas. The report (2002) stated that rural districts overall had about $705 per student, while urban areas had $610 per student. This happens because states base their information on populations greater than 20,000 (GAO, 2002). Along with this follows the fact that districts may put in place the funding where they see the need and there may be discrepancies with the "true" need. Many times funds will begin at the elementary level because that is the initial stages of a child's education, but a middle or high school may have a dire need for those funds. The GAO found that the actual funding per child varied between states that had students with the same characteristics. The number of poor students has also changed among the states. For example, California had 9% of the poorest children in the country and was therefore awarded

2002). The implication to this is that schools that really needed the money were not getting the proper amounts because the school was

Title 1 will also give the Local Education Agency (LEA) more flexibility and authority in the decision making of the funds so that the government may ask for increased accountability of student success. If incredulous sums are awarded to low performing campuses that constitute over 50% of poor students, then it is only justifiable to expect achievement gains in student learning. Students who qualify for free or reduced lunch are considered to be Title 1 recipients according to the Government of Accounting Office Report (2002). The Public Law 107-110-Jan. 8, 2002, also known as the reauthorization of ESEA, will provide grants to several parts under Title 1 (115 STAT. 1439.):

Some common words found in the essay are:
Left Act, Education Agency, Office GAO, Dept Ed, Child Left, LEA Provide, Education Act, Conclusions Title, Jennings Title, Throughout Title, title 1, federal government, child left, secondary education act, elementary secondary, elementary secondary education, education act, secondary education, federal funding, public law, poor students, jennings 2000, title 1 funds, title 1 title, 1 title 1,
Approximate Word count = 2322
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)