Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
On-site impacts of Title I and Title III grant flexibility
(USC Thesis Other)
On-site impacts of Title I and Title III grant flexibility
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ON-SITE IMPACTS OF TITLE I AND TITLE III GRANT FLEXIBILITY
by
Julia Johnson
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Julia Johnson
ii
DEDICATION
This manuscript is dedicated to my father,
the inspiration of my learning,
and
to my husband, my true partner.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many thanks go to the members of my committee for their constructive guidance:
Chairperson Dr. Gisele Ragusa, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores, and Dr. Larry Picus. I am
indebted to the participants of this study, who provided valuable insights; they were
generous with their experience and time. Credit also goes to Dr. Linda Fischer, writer
extraordinaire, and Phyllis Parmet, for, among other things, helping to shape the
presentation of the data coherently. On a personal note, I would like to express my
gratitude to my family and friends who nurtured me throughout this journey.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Research Questions 3
Significance of the Study 4
Limitations of the Study 5
Definitions of Terms 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review 9
Discussion 9
Policy History 9
Policy Management and Implementation at the School Level 18
Control of Funding 22
Theoretical Framework 26
Conclusion 36
Chapter 3: Methodology 38
Research Questions 39
Unit of Analysis 40
Sample 40
Instrumentation 43
Questionnaire 43
Interview 47
Data Collection 49
Data Analysis 50
Chapter 4: Results 55
Participants 56
Emerging Themes 60
Theme 1: Decision Makers at School Sites Have Fundamental Knowledge
Gaps Regarding Title I and Title III Regulations 60
Process of Funds Disbursement 62
Title I and Title III regulations 62
Fund coordinators 64
District-level fiscal specialists 67
Knowledge Confidence 68
v
Discussion of Theme 1 73
Theme 2: Balance of Influence 74
Federal Influence on Spending 76
District-Level Influences on Spending 78
School-Site Influences on Spending 80
Visions 82
Expenditures 84
Influences within school-site decision-making committees 89
Discussion of Theme 2 91
Theme 3: Underfunding 93
Insufficient Title I and Title III Funds 93
Insufficient Core/Basic Educational Funding 94
Discussion of Theme 3 97
Summary of Results 98
Knowledge Gaps of School-Site Decision Makers 98
Balance of Influence Over Expenditures 99
Underfunding of Education 100
Chapter 5: Discussion 102
Summary of Results 105
Knowledge Gaps of School-Site Decision-Makers 106
Balance of Influence over Expenditures 107
Underfunding of Education 109
Implications for Practice 111
Recommendations 113
Conclusion 115
References 119
Appendices
Appendix A: Electronic Questionnaire 122
Appendix B: Interview Protocols 125
Appendix C: Invitation to Participate 132
Appendix D: Research Protocol Forms 133
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Confluence of Research Question Topics and Emerging Themes 61
Table 2: Title I and Title III Grant Questionnaire: Responses to Item 2,
Title of Position, Cross-Tabulated With Responses to Item 14,
Confidence in Dealing With Regulations 71
Table 3: Title I and Title III Grant Questionnaire: Responses to Item 12,
―Generally Speaking, How Satisfied Are You With the Range
of Expenditures Allowed?‖ 77
Table 4: Title I and Title III Grant Questionnaire: Responses to Item 11,
Cross-Tabulated With Expenditure Satisfaction 79
Table 5: Title I and Title III Grant Questionnaire: Responses to
Items 5 Through 8 and 12 87
Table 6: Responses to Interview and Questionnaire Item 9: ―What
Items (If Any) Did You Want to Purchase for Your School
But Were Unable to Purchase Due to Grant Regulations?‖ 96
Table 7: Confluence of Research Question Topics and Emerging Themes 105
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Historical summary of Title I initiatives 11
Figure 2: Historical summary of Title III initiatives 14
Figure 3: Participant Identification/Recruitment Summary 41
viii
ABSTRACT
This study measures poverty-level and second-language grant fund flexibility by
detailing the process of fund dispersion, how funds are being used, and measuring the
satisfaction rate of school-site fund coordinators with what they are able to purchase for
their schools using these funds. A qualitative approach for data collection, synthesis, and
analysis was used. Data originated from 6 interview scripts and 20 online questionnaires,
all conducted with school-site fund coordinators. The study‘s population was from a large
school district in California.
Social capital, second-language learner literacy acquisition, and Maslow‘s
hierarchy of needs were used as theoretical frameworks, together indicating that enhanc-
ing students‘ social capital, using students‘ primary language, and fulfilling students‘
survival needs to the best of our abilities lowers affective filters and helps students to
access English, thereby raising their learning capacity. The student capabilities used by
educational programs to scaffold second-language learners‘ acquisition of knowledge, as
well as how their abilities are measured, have been affected by a lack of diversity in state
and federal leaders to the degree of invalidating assessments for many participants. By
not acknowledging all capabilities of these student groups, a cycle of subjective social
capital becomes cemented.
Elasticity is needed to enhance the response to students‘ needs when planning
supplemental teacher training, purchasing learning materials, and developing student
academic programs. For this reason, policies and funding structures supporting students
with poverty and literacy challenges should respond to the needs of each specific school
ix
population while enforcing district and school-site accountability for the quality of aca-
demic support and stakeholder representation in decision-making processes.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Many on-site educational leaders complain that there is not enough money for
programs that are geared for students at poverty level and those classified as English
Learners (ELs). Is this truly the case, or are there plenty of funds, just too many con-
straints? The goal should be a finely tuned finance mechanism that assures a high-quality
education while being flexible enough to fund a wide variety of programs, depending on
the individual school site‘s needs. Title I and Title III protocols of how students‘ needs
are identified in addition to grant flexibility are explored. These two sets of grant monies
were paired because they are often used in conjunction; therefore, their effects cannot be
measured individually with any reasonable sense of validity. Findings from this study are
discussed using three theoretical frameworks: Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs, social
capital, and best practices for ELs.
California‘s Quality Education Commission, established in 2002, was given a
daunting but attainable goal: to determine an adequate level of funding for California‘s
schools. Historically, California‘s education budget has been based on a deductive
funding model starting with the funding base: First, the total dollars available to be
allocated for education are tallied, followed by a reasoned dispersion to districts based on
a complicated set of awards. This deductive funding model does not address students‘
needs but focuses on perceived available resources. An inductive funding model that
builds context around the varied needs of the state‘s students is necessary to meet
California‘s education needs. There is a decision system that can illuminate possible
problems with the current system and indicate how California‘s educational funding
2
system can be changed to be more supportive of current research-based pedagogy while
enhancing utilitarian aspects.
In School Finance: A Policy Perspective, Odden and Picus (2004) presented a
simulation that can be used proactively in designing new funding systems or tweaking
existing ones. Their inductive adequacy funding model includes six elements,
summarized here as follows: (a) define what an adequate education is for California‘s
students; (b) calculate the funds necessary to provide an adequate education for a student
without special needs; and (c) after deriving the funding level for a ―normal‖ student,
attribute additional funding costs for specific special needs identifications such as Title I
(low-income), Title III (English Language Learners [ELL]), and special education. The
conclusions discussed in Chapter 5 indicate new needs and resources that can be inte-
grated into Odden and Picus‘s simulation to portray possible alternatives to California‘s
present funding system.
A major impact regarding the enactment of research-based programs is political
climate. Currently, the political climate in the United States commands more accounta-
bility measures and has an anti-bilingual stance, and fewer funds are allocated for
supporting assessment, curriculum, and staff changes necessary to fulfill the federal
government‘s more rigorous mandates. On-site educational leaders state that their control
of funding dwindles as funds are dispersed from federal to state agencies, then to county
agencies, and finally through district offices. This phenomenon should be examined
systematically, along with the impacts of its results.
The problem examined in this study is, How can educators and policy makers
help poverty-level and second-language students to succeed academically? Maslow‘s
3
hierarchy of needs, social capital, and best practices for ELs provided the theoretical
frameworks to analyze what resources are being brought to these 20 student groups at
their school sites. Student performance is a direct function of the amount of resources
available to the student, the student‘s characteristics (including poverty influences,
English language ability, and other special needs), and the characteristics of the student‘s
teachers, school, and district (Odden & Picus, 2004, p. 49). Each student has a distinct set
of resources and needs, inherent to his/her particular situation and circumstance. Federal
policy makers want funds earmarked for poverty-level and second-language learners to
support those students in the best way possible, but also want to protect tax dollars from
being spent irresponsibly or without input from all stakeholder groups. In answer to this
problem, accountability protocols and fund flexibility are examined in this study, in
addition to how federal money is used to support poverty-level and second-language
students.
The purpose of this study was to measure Title I and Title III grant flexibility for
on-site educational leaders by detailing the process of fund dispersion, as well as how
funds are being used. The discussion centers on how fund expenditures support the social
capital values and specific needs of poverty-level and second-language students.
Research Questions
1. How do local school sites interpret regulations prescribed by Title I and Title
III legislation?
2. What are the instructional visions and corresponding expenditures associated
with Title I and Title III at local school sites?
4
3. What are the effects of fund coordinators‘ knowledge and execution of funds
(including fund coordinator confidence and expenditure satisfaction ratings) when
investigating flexibility issues surrounding Title I and Title III grants?
Significance of the Study
By identifying the range of programs and practices utilized by the elementary
schools in the study‘s target large urban school district, educational leaders will be able to
use the findings from this study to enhance the utility of Title I and Title III funds at their
individual sites. Schools will have a record of learning solutions being actualized at
similar school sites. Implications for stakeholders at the school, district, state, and federal
levels are discussed.
Policies and funding structures supporting students with learning challenges
should be responsive to each school‘s student population and site-specific needs while
enforcing district and on-site accountability for the quality of academic support and
direction. Providing the elasticity to enhance the response to a specific site‘s population
will illuminate currently undervalued, therefore untapped, gifts of social capital. Positive
social capital is known to lower affective filters, thereby raising learning capacity.
Capabilities used to scaffold second-language learners‘ acquisition of knowledge,
as well as the way in which their abilities are measured, have been affected by govern-
ment leaders, who are predominantly non-Latino Caucasian males. These leaders control
the purse strings of education and have invalidated educational curriculums and assess-
ments by ignoring the contexts of Title I and Title III schools. By not acknowledging
all capabilities of these student groups, a cycle of subjective social capital becomes
cemented to fit the mold of the culture in power. Educators can turn perceived negative
5
social capital into positive social capital by using grant resources (turned into teacher
training and appropriate materials) to reinforce students‘ skills that historically have been
buried during the academic day.
Limitations of the Study
The study population included all elementary schools within a specific large
urban district in southern California (herein The District), as well as elementary charter
schools under its auspices. Therefore, direct external validity does not extend further than
The District‘s charter and noncharter elementary schools. While findings from charter
schools can be contrasted with those from noncharter schools, findings from both types of
organizations cannot be generalized together. To ensure measures of external validity
among noncharter schools within The District, stratified random and cluster sampling
within the non-charter school population set during the survey stage allowed a broad
range of data from multiple sources, raising the external validity of the study‘s findings.
The District has several distinguishing features: Its student population includes a
high percentage of second-language students (32%) and the total number of students
served is second in the nation (there are 578 elementary schools in The District). While
these statistics set this district apart from other districts, many other school districts in
California are affected by the same educational challenges and will find the results of this
study pertinent to their schools.
Definitions of Terms
Terms that are outside common academic language or have technical connotations
are operationally defined for use in this dissertation. The definition epistemology is based
on education research when possible.
6
Academic Performance Index (API):
API measures the academic performance and growth of schools based on a variety
of tests and establishes a statewide ranking of schools according to those scores.
Most schools have an API, a state ranking (by elementary, middle, or high
schools), a ranking in comparison to 100 similar schools, and growth targets for
the following year. (EdData, 2010, para. 1)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):
A goal of the 2001 federal law of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that requires
schools and districts to measure and report students‘ annual progress toward
proficiency in English/language arts and mathematics by 2013-14. Progress is
based on whether the school or district met its Annual Measurable Objectives and
demonstrated 95% participation on standardized tests, achieved its target on the
Academic Performance Index and, for high schools, met target graduation rates.
(EdData, 2010, para. 3)
Affective filter hypothesis: ―Affective variables do not impact language acquisi-
tion directly but prevents input from reaching . . . the part of the brain responsible for
language acquisition‖ (Krashen, 1992, p. 6). The affective filter hypothesis was used in
the study to explain some of the barriers to student learning.
Block/general/unrestricted general grants: These grants ―increase a school
district‘s revenue, but do not place restrictions on the use of that revenue‖ (Odden &
Picus, 2004, p. 128). These grants (and their corresponding policies) were used in the
analysis as a contrast to categorical grants (including Title I and Title III).
Categorical grants: These grants ―are provided to school districts for a specific
reason or purpose, and often come with strict application, use, and reporting require-
ments‖ (Odden & Picus, 2004, p. 130). Title I and Title III are categorical grants;
therefore, a common understanding of the purposes and policies of categorical grants is
built in this paper.
7
Discretionary instruction spending: The difference between a district‘s instruc-
tional spending rate and the average instructional spending rate in a state (Huang & Yu,
02, p. 26).
Foundation program: An adequate base level of per-pupil revenues (Odden,
1998).
Grant flexibility: The built-in capability to ―adapt funded activities to fit the state
or local context‖ (Westin, 1998, p. 3). This study used customer (school leader) satisfac-
tion with grant expenditures as an indicator of grant flexibility. Customer satisfaction was
rated by this study‘s questionnaire (Appendix A) and interview protocols (Appendix B).
Grounded theory: ―Theory is created during the data collection process rather
than is preconceived and used to guide data collection‖ (Thomas, 2003, p. 8).
Monitor hypothesis: Conscious learning serves as an editor; the ―monitor‖ can
be used to correct likely mistakes even after the errors are made; it serves as a self-
correction device (Krashen, 1992, p. 3). The discussion regarding the monitor hypothesis
leads to understanding how learners can improve their communication skills through
active engagement during formal and informal communications.
Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP): A status that designates that the
student fulfills the criteria to make the transition to a nonsheltered status. This label is
used in the calculations that indicate the level of Title III funding for which districts and
school sites are eligible.
Social capital:
Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked
to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships
of mutual acquaintance and recognition—or in other words, to membership in a
group—which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively
8
owned capital, a ―credential‖ which entitles them to credit, in the various senses
of the word. (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 249)
Social capital theory was used as one of the three central lenses in the program-align-
ment-to-research analysis of school sites‘ programs funded with Title I and/or Title III
funds.
Title I:
Programs aimed at America‘s most disadvantaged students. Title I Part A
provides assistance to improve the teaching and learning of children in high-
poverty schools to enable those children to meet challenging State academic
content and performance standards. Title I reaches about 12.5 million students
enrolled in both public and private schools. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006,
para. 1)
Title III: Immigrant Education Program funds to be used by eligible immigrant
students and their families through the provision of supplementary programs and services
for the underlying purpose of assuring that these students meet the same challenging
grade-level and graduation standards as mainstream students (California Department of
Education, 2006).
A theoretical basis in social capital, second-language acquisition, and Maslow‘s
hierarchy of needs is used in this study to help explain challenges and possible solutions
for raising academic achievement in poverty-level and second-language students. Title I
and Title III grant flexibility is examined to determine in what ways grant regulations are
supporting and/or hindering in narrowing these students‘ learning gaps.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to review the knowledge base and point of
reference necessary to build a nomological net. This nomological net is essential for
contextualizing the findings, meaning, and significance contained in the study. The two
main subjects of this literature review are policy issues surrounding Title I and Title III
and the theoretical framework used to address the findings. Topics explored in this
chapter regarding Title I and Title III policy include a brief history of the legislation,
policy management and implementation at the school site, and control of funding issues.
This study‘s theoretical framework is discussed next, including Maslow‘s hierarchy of
needs, social capital, and best practices for ELs.
Discussion
Policy History
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is the most recent body of
federal legislation governing education, succeeding previous renditions of the original
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. While both ESEA and NCLB
are charged with increasing the investment in low-income and minority students‘
education, core changes in NCLB include detailed directives regarding assessment,
teacher quality, and accountability measures. NCLB specifically addresses 10 areas of
concern distinguished as Title I, Title II, and so on to Title X. One of the primary goals is
to raise achievement by disadvantaged pupils, including ELs and poverty-stricken
students, through support of innovative programs. A family‘s right to choose their child‘s
school is ensured and facilitated by the law.
10
Title I funds are to be used to support economically disadvantaged students,
including migrant workers‘ children. Parents are to be involved not only in deciding Title
I expenditures but also in evaluating the success of Title I expenditures. Title I, successor
to ESEA‘s Chapter I, is divided into Parts A through I, which target specific challenges
faced by economically challenged students and their learning environments, including
physical school improvements, reading program improvement, and dropout prevention.
Historical knowledge regarding Title I and Title III legislation sheds light on the
political and legislative context that impacts how grant monies are regulated (Figure 1).
Puma‘s chapter titled ―A Brief History of Title I,‖ from the paper Exploring New
Directions: Title I in the Year 2000 (Puma & Drury, 2000) was used to establish the
contextual footing to discuss results of this study.
The ESEA‘s Chapter I was titled ―Better Schooling for Educationally Deprived
Children‖ and had the purpose to
provide financial assistance . . . to local educational agencies serving areas with
concentrations of children from low-income families; and to expand and improve
their educational programs by various means . . . which contribute particularly to
meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children. (PL 89-
10, Section 201)
Each time Chapter I was reauthorized (every 3 years), resource accountability was more
strictly measured.
As the purpose and funding began to narrow in focus, two functions became
defined: (a) to support poverty-level students, and (b) to instill standards-based reform in
the public education system. The federal government recognized that expenditures should
be varied to the degree that students‘ needs varied, so the legislation left most of the
decisions to the school district and site leadership teams. Minus environmental factors
11
Title I Historical Summary
ESEA 1965
Supported children from low-income families within the realm of educational reforms driven
by deprived children
ESEA 1988
Unsuccessful reform for improving instruction of disadvantaged students
ESEA 1994
IASA focuses on accountability, aligned resources and policies with reforms driven by states
and local schools
NCLB 2001
Detailed directives for assessment, teacher quality, and accountability measures
Figure 1. Historical summary of Title I initiatives. ESEA = Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, IASA = Improving America‘s Schools Act, NCLB = No Child Left
Behind Act.
(psychoemotional and physical well-being, stable home environment, etc.), student
learning could then truly become a function of meeting student needs through the skills
of administrators and teachers. Unfortunately, funds did not improve disadvantaged
students‘ learning. Results from the 1993 National Assessment by the U.S. Department of
Education included the following:
The progress of Chapter I participants on standardized tests was no better than
that of non-participants with similar backgrounds and prior achievement levels;
Students in high-poverty schools were exposed to ―watered-down‖ and non-
challenging curricula as compared with other students;
Chapter I often worked at the margin, adding an average of only 30 minutes of
extra instructional time per week;
A focus on compliance and regulatory matters occupied much of states‘ and
districts‘ efforts in administering Chapter I; and
12
Many high-poverty high schools and middle schools went unserved as districts
focused their funds on elementary schools, including those with lower poverty
rates. (Puma & Drury, 2000, p. 3)
The Improving America‘s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 supplanted Chapter I and
caused federal support of disadvantaged students to undergo major restructuring. Many of
these reforms are continued in current policy and funding mechanisms. The new Title I
aligned its policies and funding to support reforms already under way at the local school
and state levels.
Standards-based reform (SBR) became one of four main thrusts. As part of SBR,
each state was to establish at least mathematics and reading/language arts standards and
to detail expectations that would indicate success, termed as adequate yearly progress
(AYP). AYP was to be used with other measures to distinguish successful schools and
districts from unsuccessful ones, identifying to whom supplemental support should be
funneled.
IASA‘s schoolwide program reform gave more curricular and financial flexibility
by allowing combinations of monies from various grants to facilitate the entire school
site‘s student population to benefit from Title I. Schools were also able to operate a
school-wide program with a minimum of 50% instead of 75% of poverty-level students.
Philosophical change also occurred. The ideology presented by IASA was that all
students can succeed in attaining higher-level thinking skills. Resources to facilitate high
achievement included more learning time by providing school during vacation time, as
well as before- and after-school learning programs.
The general purpose of Title III is to fund language instruction for ELs and
immigrant students. Accountability measures include assessment requirements and
support of stakeholder involvement. Title III has three parts: (a) Part A: English
13
Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act;
(b) Part B: Improving Language Instruction Educational Programs for Academic
Achievement Act; and (c) Part C: General Provisions.
Documenting the changes in support for various pedagogical methodologies
illuminates possible factors involved in analyzing Title III policy implementation
(Figure 2). The current study used information from the National Clearinghouse for
English Language Acquisition (NCELA; 2007) and Language Instruction Educational
Programs website to capture the legislative trail to the current policy.
Title VII, The Bilingual Education Act, was added to ESEA in 1968, validating
bilingual education as a pedagogical method for economically disadvantaged language
minority students to succeed academically and acknowledging the unique educational
challenges faced by second-language student populations. Title VII funds became avail-
able to all ELs (regardless of socioeconomic status) in 1974 and money was mandated for
training bilingual teachers. In 1978 Title VII was reauthorized, emphasizing the transi-
tional nature of bilingual education and allowing Limited English Proficient (LEP) and
English Only (EO) students to enroll in bilingual education programs. Family English
literacy, academic excellence, early start, and special education students were further
supported with new grant programs when Title VII was amended again in 1984.
Twenty years after Title VII‘s inception in 1988, additional funding for state
agencies, schools using monolingual approach curriculums, and more teacher training
started the present momentum of support directed away from bilingual programs. Title
VII was restructured again in 1994 to reinforce teacher training, ensuring that state,
district, and school site research and evaluation were used to dictate instruction needs.
14
Title III Historical Summary
ESEA Title VII 1968
Bilingual education fully supported
ESEA Title VII 1978
Transitional nature of bilingual education emphasized
ESEA Title VII 1984
Holistic approach: family literacy, early start, and special education also supported
ESEA Title VII 1988
Schools with monolingual programs for English Learners get additional monies
ESEA Title VII 1994
Key components of programs include research and student assessments
NCLB Title III 2001
Incentives for English acquisition by English Learners, state standards and
assessments are mandatory
Figure 2. Historical summary of Title III initiatives. ESEA = Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, NCLB = No Child Left Behind Act.
Merely retaining students‘ native language skills (versus enhancing them to scaffold
skills for English) was supported, as well as immigrant education programs.
In 1996 the interests of California‘s politicians turned to lowering the teacher-to-
student ratio. Governor Pete Wilson put state money toward this end while protecting it
from teachers unions by passing AB 1777, a categorical policy authorizing and funding
classroom size reduction (CSR) in grades K-3. Editors Bohrnstedt and Stecher (2002)
from the CSR Research Consortium worked with American Institutes for Research,
Rand, Policy Analysis for California Education, EdSource, and WestEd to produce a
comprehensive analysis of California‘s CSR program.
15
While CSR is in direct contrast to many other categorical programs due to its very
direct purpose and implementation, program incongruities were discussed and unintended
effects were examined in the 2002 study. For example, some school districts and
individual school sites were unable to implement CSR as quickly as other sites and
districts. Also, Bohrnstedt and Stecher (2002) found that teacher qualifications were
lower, particularly in lower socioeconomic areas, once teacher demand grew outside of
the fully credentialed pool.
The goal for CSR was to improve student learning, particularly in the areas of
reading and mathematics. Using data from the California Department of Education and
the California Basic Educational Data System, in addition to two surveys of principals/
superintendents and three surveys of teachers from a stratified random sample of districts,
their findings were inconclusive at best. Other initiatives (new language arts and mathe-
matics standards, the California Reading Initiative) were implemented congruently, so
student academic gains from CSR were difficult, if not impossible, to isolate. Notwith-
standing, Bohrnstedt and Stecher (2002) suggested that CSR has a positive impact on
learning, school culture, and teacher satisfaction and contended that CSR ought to be
mandatory in K-3 classrooms versus an optional reform program, with possible additional
funds to further lower enrollment in classrooms populated by predominantly poverty-
level and minority students.
The reauthorization of ESEA in 2001 (NCLB) renamed Title VII to Title III. The
new Title III program funds states based on a formula tied to the rate of ELs acquiring
English, teaching to rigorous state standards, and assessing students‘ learning with new
16
tests. The states currently award subgrants to school districts based on the extent to which
EL and LEP academic (especially English) skills advance.
According to An Overview: Public Schools in California (EdSource, 2003), all of
California‘s federal education funds, in addition to approximately one third of state fund-
ing, are allocated to categorical programs in an effort to improve learning for specific
student populations: ELs, special education students, kindergarten through third-grade
students (through CSR), and economically disadvantaged students. Title I and Title III
are the federal policies (with funds attached) targeting the improvement of access to
California‘s academic curriculum for students from low-income families and ELs,
respectively.
In 2001 NCLB replaced the ESEA, mandating that all students make AYP toward
proficiency in mathematics and English by 2013-2014. Significant ethnic, poverty, dis-
ability, and EL subgroups must meet the intermediate and 2013-2014 goals as well. The
federal government approves the plan for measuring proficiency, as well as the inter-
mediate educational goals, for each state. Schools receiving federal funds that do not
meet their state‘s AYP goals for 2 consecutive years or more follow a prescribed plan of
improvement. If the school is later successful in making AYP for 2 consecutive years, the
prescription plan is lifted.
Whether or not a particular school is following an imposed improvement plan,
categorical funds are to be used to supplement programs purchased with general
(unrestricted) funds, enhancing the opportunities of that school‘s challenged students
through additional educational programs, professional development for teachers, and
other program enhancements. Since each school has particular needs based on the
17
characteristics of their specific student population, decision power (or flexibility) at the
school site level is an important issue for all stakeholders.
Odden and Picus (2004) examined the dilemma of grant flexibility in their book
School Finance: A Policy Perspective. The extent of constraints that govern how grant
money is spent varies depending on the purpose of the particular grant. If the results of a
particular educational program are not positive, block grants are not advised, since block
and general aid grants hold no restrictions. The authors noted that ―unrestricted grants are
. . . effective tools for maintaining an equitable but decentralized decision-making
system‖ (p. 129).
In contrast, categorical funds reinforce the interests of the state or federal govern-
ments. Most of the funding targeted for Title I and Title III students is in the form of
categorical grants, for which districts are eligible based on their number of financially
needy and EL students. The more Title I and Title III students, the more funds for the
districts, although, as stated previously, the funds are restricted per the interests of the
state and/or federal governments. Accountability structures include audits and evaluations
to ensure that funds are being spent in accordance with the grant restrictions. The
rationale for categorical programs is that they ―encourage districts to treat needy students
differently by making additional resources available to produce similar, or hopefully
similar achievement outcomes‖ (Odden & Picus, 2004, p. 131) as students without the
hurdles of poverty and learning a second language. While Title I and Title III resources
support poverty-level and second-language learners‘ academic success, the extent of that
success is directly linked to both the degree that the purchased programs are implemented
with fidelity as well as serve the needs of that particular school‘s students.
18
Policy Management and Implementation at the School Level
Due to the language used in educational policies and a historically relaxed
accountability system, the intent of any particular policy can be interpreted in myriad
ways depending on the needs and history of individual districts and school sites. The
results from recording and analyzing how education legislation is interpreted can enable
educational leaders to develop protocols and illuminate ranges in district and school site
empowerment. The implementation of curricular programs can also have challenges.
―Many programs created for English-language learners by government, schools,
researchers, and courts have not been fully implemented. An evaluation without evidence
of successful implementation is an evaluation of an unknown quantity‖ (August &
Hakuta, 1998, pp. 62-63). This attests to the importance of program fidelity.
Elaine Walker (2002) analyzed findings from a school-based management study
done in New Jersey in 2000. She found evidence that the capacity of districts and site-
based management teams had been constrained by state ―elites‖ who had continually
usurped power and authority from school leaders. Policy makers were not clear in their
program guidelines, causing conflict over the realm of authority divisions as shared by
school-based management teams, principals, central office staff, and local school boards.
Each layer of bureaucracy imposes more sanctions and spends a greater proportion of
Title I and Title III funds than intended due to this lack of definition of jurisdiction, in
turn leaving less money for treating the specific needs of a school‘s Title I and Title III
student population.
This skimming of education funds has contributed to the underfunding of
California‘s schools to the degree that lawsuits charging the state with underfunding have
been settled. EdSource (2003) referred to the Williams v. California lawsuit filed in 2000
19
in which ―The plaintiffs contended that California had failed to provide thousands of
public school students–particularly low-income students and students of color–with the
‗bare minimum necessities‘‖ (p. 5). Annual audits of textbook resources now occur in
every California classroom due to the Williams settlement.
Apodaca-Tucker and Slate (2002) studied the effects of site-based management
and provided a focused reinforcement of Walker‘s findings by running a statistical
analysis of responses to 866 questionnaires given to principals. They found a higher rate
of schools using school-based management teams at public schools versus private
schools. The principals at these public schools stated that the school-based management
teams had much influence and direct impact by decision makers. Unfortunately, the
researchers also found that leadership teams could not effect as much change as they
wanted because most schools had very little decision-making power over money spent at
their site. This compromises the dollar amount that each individual school can spend in
support of its student population‘s specific needs.
Corcoran (2003) analyzed three types of strategic decisions in three school
districts: (a) ―what to do‖ (which reform design of curriculum to adopt); (b) ―how to get
it done‖ (how to provide adequate support and coordination); and (c) ―how to focus
people‘s attention on the desired changes‖ (ensure effective implementation, reduce
distractions, and buffer from competing agendas). Corcoran concluded that all three
districts were serious in their efforts to build cultures that were evidence based in the
central offices, in addition to supporting schools in paying greater attention to evidence
from research. Detractors from these efforts included a more narrow range of research
evidence easily available to decision makers due to low accessibility and staff not having
20
the necessary skills to make sense of the research that was available to them. Issues
impacting the perceived validity of their literature review included conflicting research
findings, small sample sizes, and an inability to transfer study findings to their specific
district.
Attitudes of district personnel were positive overall, with all leaders saying that
they wanted staff to make evidence-based decisions whenever possible and personnel
trying to carry out those wishes. Patterns of decision making that focused on philosophy
or the ―goodness‖ of an option, rather than evidence of its effectiveness, were cited as a
deterrent to application of research findings. One example of this problem was that most
professional development programs were aligned to staff‘s interests versus district-
pertinent research findings. Corcoran (2003) suggested that the demand for evidenced-
based decision making should be enhanced: If district staff knew the potential value and
contributions of research, decisions might involve deep consideration of research
evidence. Research could then be applied to solving the specific challenges a school‘s
students share versus enriching teachers‘ content knowledge in their interest areas.
Policy and program results vary depending on the level of buy-in by site leaders
and faculty. Mintrop and Trujillo (2005) synthesized data from studies, papers, reports,
and websites and conducted interviews with government officials involved with NCLB to
identify implementation barriers and challenges at the local education agency site level
and to address the role of interpretation of the intent of a particular policy. Their findings
resulted in important considerations for leaders who craft educational policies: (a) Nega-
tive reinforcement in the form of sanctions and increasing pressures do not result in
positive results, while agency support and using successful teachers as benchmark
21
educators led to improvement; (b) no single tactic was successful across the board and
strategies should address the needs of specific educational communities, and (c) program
flexibility is crucial because sites need differentiated time allowances (due to heightened
challenges) before improvements can be witnessed. Time flexibility for achieving
successful program results is important; however, flexibility regarding other facets of
policy writing is important as well.
Scafidi, Freeman, and DeJarnett (2001) reinforced the idea that flexibility in
program funding is necessary for standards and accountability programs/reforms to
achieve full potential, emphasizing the importance of capitalizing on the initiative and
industry of local educators and the better information that they have about unique local
talents and circumstances. This ―better information‖ allows individualization of programs
so they better fit the needs of a particular school, thus enhancing the effect of those
programs.
Duemer and Mendez-Morse (2002) contributed to funding flexibility research as
it relates to how people shape policy and how institutions use those people to shape
policy to fit the institution‘s interests. They contended that conflicting interests among
sites, districts, and governments (local, state, and federal) can negatively affect the
quality of communication. Since the implementation of policy follows the version as it is
interpreted at the school site level, the values, attitudes, and perspectives held by leaders
and teachers at each site greatly impact how important program components are enacted,
implemented, and utilized.
In ―How Schools Change Reforms‖ Cuban (1998) used the Effective Schools
model as a case study to examine how educational reform is judged. He argued that there
22
are two major affected populations for educational reform who have different levels of
outcome importance: policy elites and practitioners (principals and teachers). Practition-
ers place importance on standards of adaptiveness (the degree to which something is
malleable to fit their purpose). Due to policy elites controlling legitimization and
accountability issues, practitioners exert their will by sculpting the implementation of
imposed pedagogy and assessments, compromising program fidelity standards.
Compromising fidelity standards calls into question any judgment of a reform.
This makes it difficult to judge the success of reforms because their implementation can
vary significantly from one site to another. Documenting the criteria used, as well as who
indicates the criteria and the specific site‘s modifications in execution, can identify
reasons for discrepancies found in the results of the reforms. Further distillation of the
case study in Cuban‘s research indicates that reforms can be recycled under different
names after further crafting reflects changes in public and administrative opinions and
values.
Control of Funding
Examining how the control of funds is balanced among the federal and state
governments, the school district, and the school site is really measuring how much trust
the other parties have in the decision-making power at the school site. Legislators write
fund regulations to support choices reflective of the policy visions that maximize student
access to academic success; however, accountability measures cannot ensure academic
success.
In ―Creating School Finance Policies That Facilitate New Goals‖ Odden (1998)
argued that shifting from an equity-based financing structure to an adequacy-based
23
financing structure would help schools to achieve the higher standards that society
demands. Essential understanding to be implemented included reorganizing program
funding at both the state and district levels. At the state level, a foundation program with
extra monies for low-income background students, disabled students, and LEP students
will support the extra services necessary for students to overcome their challenges as they
meet the same high standards. Odden (1998) also acknowledged that ―price adjustments
are needed to insure equal purchasing power of the education dollar across geographical
areas‖ (p. 4).
Odden (1998) argued for budget formulas at the district level that would direct
most of education‘s public funds in a lump sum to school sites. Increasing the proportion
of block (unrestricted) funds would enable resources to support programmatic strategies
of specific sites versus generalizing to district needs. He contended that teacher compen-
sation should support high teacher standards by encouraging knowledge, skills, and
expertise in subject matter, as well as sound pedagogical strategies. Positive accounta-
bility measures would be built in as teachers and sites would be awarded bonuses when
improvement standards were met or surpassed.
Watson and Supovitz (2001) added other recommendations based on 2 years of
fieldwork. The researchers used a mixed-methods approach in their case study of the
programs in one urban district. They concluded that site leaders had very little control
over many factors that contributed to the academic achievement of the student popula-
tion. For that reason, they suggested that buy-in is especially important with all reforms
and that all reforms must be presented and put into operation considering the existing
culture at each specific site, since the reforms will affect how the school‘s programs will
24
function in reality. This directed consideration may lower the conflict and inability to
focus on improving students‘ learning that the researchers sometimes found when limits
of authority and autonomy were blurred. Watson and Supovitz also asserted that, to
enhance reform fidelity, limiting the range of content within the reform that can be
altered can be partially controlled through use of explicit language.
Using policy and literature review strategies, the Pacific Research Institute (PRI;
2003) addressed barriers and challenges associated with government monies, paying
particular attention to flexibility issues at the local school district-level (versus the current
study‘s site-level perspective), examining whether California‘s education tax dollars were
being spent effectively and efficiently. In the PRI report institute‘s California Education
Report Card: Index of Leading Education Indicators (third edition) they recommended
greater flexibility at the local school district level. They found that not all categorical
programs that had undergone evaluation showed consistent success. The authors noted,
―State rules restrict needed local flexibility. Complex and detailed requirements in some
programs reduce the flexibility needed by schools to maximize the impact of funds on
improving student achievement‖ (p. 5). PRI supported their position with the rationale
that, when categorical programs are not integrated with the current educational strategy
at the local level, the categorical funding causes local responses instead of addressing
students‘ needs. ―Lack of discretion to meet local challenges means that local districts
cannot make the necessary changes to improve their programs‖ (p. 7). This calls into
question the degree of impact that funds have on student learning and how to maximize
that effect.
25
In a study with a very similar purpose as that of the current study, Huang and Yu
(2002) sought to determine whether categorical funds were improving student learning in
eighth-grade mathematics scores (instead of overall elementary learning, as in the current
study). Just as Huang and Yu assumed that, ―although state governments are constitution-
ally responsible for public education, local districts have an important role in improving
instruction‖ (p. 3), local districts and individual school sites dedicate categorical funds in
response to the needs of their student and teacher populations. Huang and Yu conducted
an analysis of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and
the Common Core of Data (CCD) with the purpose of determining the role of districts in
ongoing school reform. Conclusions included the finding that local districts cannot
improve academic performance simply by increasing instructional spending.
Another finding reported by Huang and Yu (2002) that is intuitively contradictory
is that district factors known to affect student achievement and their discretionary
instruction spending did not relate to a district‘s eighth-grade average performance in
mathematics. Performance in English was not measured, which indicates one avenue of
possible research for the future; language skills and mathematics skills are different
enough in individualization needs that their findings regarding curricular improvements
are not pertinent to the current study. However, that study showed that spending money
does not always raise scores. What expenditures support academic gain? To fill the gap in
the canon of literature pertinent to poverty-level and second-language student funding,
the current study provides research that addresses the characteristics of fund expenditures
and their related satisfaction ratings.
26
Theoretical Framework
Three theoretical frameworks were used to analyze the characteristics of fund
expenditures and address this dissertation‘s research findings: Maslow‘s hierarchy of
needs (survival/deficiency needs), social capital, and best practices for ELs. On-site Title
I and Title III fund expenditures were catalogued by the researcher into three domains:
survival/deficiency needs (e.g., nurse, psychologist, Pupil Services and Attendance [PSA]
Counselor), academic support, and bilingual needs. The corresponding theoretical frame-
works for these three domains—Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs (for survival/deficiency
needs), social capital, and best practices for EL frameworks—provide an understanding
of academic support and bilingual needs. Aside from building a nomological net to
understand school visions, expenses, and flexibility, these three theoretical frameworks
are relevant to this study because they encompass the resources needed to actualize
reflect the visions of Title I and Title III: to give access to academic success for students
at poverty-level and students who are second-language ELs.
Many of the student populations of this study may be suffering from basic needs
that remain unmet. Maslow‘s ―survival/deficiency needs‖ include physiological needs,
safety and security, love and belonging, and self-esteem. In his 1943 study Maslow gave
priority to these deficiency needs when he posited that goals at the self-actualization level
of his hierarchy of needs will be met only when the needs lower in the pyramid are met.
When a student does not have the needs of body and emotional well-being met, that
student is not learning at capacity level. Attention is splintered if the child is hungry or
concerned about the added responsibilities as a member of a poverty-level family. Title I
funds are often used to help students to meet these fundamental challenges, based on the
deficiency needs of an individual school‘s Title I school population, so that students are
27
able to start self-actualization processes utilizing school learning. Additional challenges
face poverty-level and second-language students from the societal level as well.
This study utilized social capital theory as a compass for program quality as
measured by a program-alignment-to-research analysis. Social capital theory purports
that education systems reward students who exhibit certain abilities that are inherent in
the majority culture. Children from families outside the majority culture are therefore at a
disadvantage from the onset because their home life does not support their school life in
the same ways as it does for students within the ―majority culture‖ (Shavit & Blossfeld,
1993). This becomes an impairment when minority children are assessed because the
assessments are based on tools that measure the abilities inherent in the majority culture.
Educators can turn perceived negative social capital into positive social capital by
changing current education programs to include reinforcement and measures of currently
undervalued (therefore untapped) gifts of social capital. Changing current education
programs and assessments to include these measures of social capital is one way in which
this change can be effected. For example, storytelling and word play are two devices used
by African Americans and Latinos in everyday communications to enrich contextual
meaning. If these untapped gifts were accepted as valid measurements of academic
prowess, minority students would be assessed with more validity.
When academic proficiency is determined using culturally relevant measures, the
validity and reliability issues of the performance results are minimized. Another example
of qualitative information that should be assessed is how individual students learn.
Students from diverse backgrounds may use a reasoning strategy that is derived from
their native culture and/or language (Stefanakis, 1998). Because California‘s pedagogy
28
and curriculums are generally centric to Western European logic systems, teaching
methods, and scaffolds, these facets of pedagogy may need to be modified for non-Anglo
students.
In ―Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention‖ Cummins
(1986) developed a theoretical framework to address ways in which educational
organizations and the people within them can ―redefine‖ themselves to better serve
diverse student populations. Interactions between students and teachers in the classroom,
the quality of the minority community involvement in the school, and societal power
relations were examined as important components in this framework. These factors were
rationalized by the still-present achievement gap, even after legislative and policy effects
had registered their impact. Cummins found that academic achievement was directly
related to the degree to which students were empowered by the framework‘s components.
This dissertation details how Title I and Title III funds support these same student
empowerment factors and minority community involvement, in addition to how English
is taught to ELs in particular.
In a study that addresses both the social capital and best practices for ELs, August
and Hakuta led a cohort of the National Research Council (1997) in producing a widely
respected research review for the purpose of identifying additional research necessary to
enhance the canon of educational research in these two areas. Research content areas
specifically addressed included bilingualism and second language learning, the social
context of school learning, literacy development, content learning, preparation and
development of teachers, student assessment, and studies of school and classroom
effectiveness. Research concepts and results were comprehensively covered; however,
29
the study did not include a detailed analysis of program implementation deviances and/or
challenges.
Core findings that were reinforced throughout the study were as follows:
(a) Reinforcing students‘ home language generally improves their academic success;
(b) the age, attitudes, personality, and intelligence of learners were examined as possible
factors in language learning ability, but personality and attitudes were later ruled out as
contributing factors; (c) more teachers were needed who were specially trained to work
with ELs; (d) professional development should require active participation from teachers,
including peer collaboration and reflective feedback from peers and trainers; and (e) pro-
fessional development should be more focused and have immediate applicability. The
researchers advised that curricular program development should occur in an environment
where researchers with different sets of background knowledge can collaborate; students
should benefit from having a wider range of knowledge input types. Implications for
future research included learning of academic content areas for language-minority popu-
lations, further research in second-language literacy, intergroup relations, and the social
context of learning. In partial response to these research gaps, the research detailed in this
dissertation addresses issues concerning intergroup relations in addition to the social
context of learning.
Title III funds are primarily used to supplement academic programs for second-
language students. There is an extensive canon of research addressing the theory and
application strategies for second-language literacy; for that reason, a summative dis-
cussion is pertinent at this juncture to contextualize and validate Title III program choices
by educational leaders serving ELs. In an effort to understand some of the challenges and
30
needs of second-language learners, Cummins (2000) identified and addressed two types
of communication that are needed in order to be productive in everyday life. The term
basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) refers to everyday, face-to-face, real-life
conversation. It is heavily dependent on clues such as gestures, physical interactions, and
responses during conversation. This type of communication is cognitively undemanding
and does not necessarily include the type of language that is used when studying subject
matter in a classroom. A language learner becomes proficient at social interaction before
understanding complex, cognitively challenging academic language. Cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP) is required for literacy skills, reading comprehension,
expressive writing, study skills, word problems, and other tasks requiring the use of
higher levels of Bloom‘s taxonomy. It occurs in context-reduced situations and in cogni-
tively demanding activities. These higher-order skills are comprehensively measured on
California‘s standardized tests.
The development of CALP in the student‘s first language plays a role in the
development of the second language. Cummins‘s common underlying proficiency (CUP)
hypothesis states that the development of first-language reading skills provides a deep
conceptual and linguistic proficiency that is strongly related to the development of
literacy and general academic skills in the second language. This CUP makes possible the
transfer of cognitive, academic, and literacy-related skills across languages (Cummins,
1994). In other words, what is learned in one language (literacy skills, learning strategies,
content, etc.) transfers to the other language.
Cummins‘s ―threshold hypothesis‖ proposes that higher meta-cognition for the
target language can be attained if there is a minimum level of proficiency in the student‘s
31
mother tongue. This hypothesis has in it the assumption that the student has CALP in the
primary language and is motivated to learn the second language. If a student has never
had explicit instruction in the primary language, the student will not have the CALP
necessary for English learning to be a matter of learning concept labels. In Cummins‘s
realm, this type of student has a status of ―limited literate‖ due to the fact that he/she has
only BICS in both the primary and secondary languages.
In response to Cummins‘s work, it would be reasonable to expect to find superior
access to language classes for second-language learners in the site‘s second-language
learner‘s home language. For example, if the majority of a school‘s second-language
population speaks Spanish, one usage of Title III funds would be to offer formal after-
school Spanish classes that teach conversational and academic vocabulary. One umbrella
for grant funding of such a program could be interpreted from Title III, Part B, Section
3213, ―Comprehensive School and Systemwide Improvement Activities: ―(I) developing
and implementing programs to help children become proficient in English and other
languages‖ (NCLB, 115 STAT. 1711). The third ―purpose‖ of Part B is ―developing the
English proficiency of limited English proficient children and, to the extent possible, the
native language skills of such children‖ (NCLB, 115 STAT. 1707). The ―native language
skills‖ could be mastered, as specified by the purpose of Part B and in the approved
activity list, during after-school programs funded at least in part by Title III funds.
Krashen is known for using Cummins‘s work as a springboard for explaining the
mechanisms of language acquisition. The ideal instructional program suggested by
Krashen for all students, especially language-minority children, includes three areas of
focus. First, comprehensible input in the target language should be provided. This input
32
is ideally scaffolded in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes that are supple-
mented by comprehensible subject matter teaching in English. Second, the student‘s first
language should be maintained and developed. Third, subject matter education should be
provided in the mother tongue (Krashen, 1981). Krashen‘s program is based on five
cornerstone hypotheses: the natural order hypothesis, the acquisition versus learning
hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, and the input
hypothesis.
The natural order hypothesis states that one ―acquires‖ and does not ―learn‖ the
grammatical structure of a language in a predictable order. Language learning for begin-
ners should focus on communication and not on grammar. In his acquisition versus learn-
ing hypothesis Krashen noted two ways to learn a new language: acquisition (the way the
first language is learned subconsciously) or learning (the memorization of vocabulary
words and rules). The monitor hypothesis states that one internalizes a set of rules that
define what ―correct language‖ is through language learning. This ―monitor‖ helps to
make corrections or change output before speaking or writing, or in self-correction after
speaking or writing. The affective filter hypothesis connects feelings and emotions with
language through three variables: anxiety, motivation, and self-confidence. To acquire a
second language, a learner must experience low anxiety, high motivation, and a feeling of
self-confidence. The input hypothesis postulates that humans acquire language in only
one way: by understanding communications that contain structures that are a little beyond
the learner‘s current level.
Comprehensible input is the concept essential to all parts of Krashen‘s hypotheses
and the umbrella of his model for ideal instruction for students impacted by language
33
learning. Comprehensible input is present when what is heard and read is understood.
Comprehensible input includes but is not limited to providing clues or stimuli from a
variety of contexts that a second-language learner can use to make sense of what is
happening around him. There are several ways that this can be accomplished in a class-
room. Demonstrations, visual aids, dialogue journals, and graphic organizers make
instruction more accessible to students. Various types of student groupings and role
playing can increase the scope of the second-language experience. Pictures, songs,
movies, videotapes, books or articles, class projects, field trips, holidays and celebrations
also make learning more meaningful and imbedded.
In summary, Krashen‘s ideal instructional program includes comprehensible input
in the second language, maintenance of the student‘s first language, and subject matter
taught in the primary language. This program is based on five hypotheses that include
comprehensible input—the key to language acquisition—as their main characteristic.
This concept should be kept in mind when teaching all students, including second-
language learners.
Additional support for explicit instruction given in the students‘ primary language
comes from Crawford (2004). Crawford surveyed the theoretical underpinnings of con-
temporary second-language and limited English literacy discourse and made arguments
for and against various forms of bilingual instruction, as well as Krashen‘s and
Cummins‘s work. Student empowerment issues were acknowledged as affecting
language acquisition. Cummins‘s skill building, output plus correction, and compre-
hensible output hypothesis (the ―contending explanations‖ cited to be against Krashen‘s
34
theories) seemed to this researcher to simply put more stress on the monitoring aspect
already incorporated in Krashen‘s discourse.
A case study involving Carpinteria (California) School District was cited by
Cummins (1986) in supporting both bilingual and social capital theories. Preschoolers
whose primary language was developed and culture reinforced showed comparable
English skills and higher aptitude in school readiness than did English-immersion
program students. This case study supports that using a bilingual approach and providing
reinforcement of students‘ social capital can lead to higher academic attainment than not
utilizing these two resources inherent to ELs.
One indicator of ELs‘ progress in acquiring English is the English Language
Development (ELD) level. As the student fulfills the criteria expected at each new level,
the student‘s ultimate goal is to move to RFEP status. In their final report (also known as
the Ramirez Report), Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991) reported conflicting results in
their 8-year study of immersion, early-exit, and late-exit programs. The researchers‘
predictions were that fewer early-exit (bilingually taught) students would be reclassified
than immersion program students. In fact, 72% of the early-exit ELs were reclassified,
compared to 66% of the immersion program ELs. This indicates that bilingual support
(supplied during the early-exit program) enhanced English acquisition.
In the Ramirez Report, the generalization was made that ELs tend to stay more
than 4 years (the span of data collection) in all three types of programs versus being
mainstreamed. Half of the late-exit students involved in their study were reclassified by
the end of third grade and nearly four fifths were reclassified by the end of sixth grade.
While there was no in-depth discussion of this finding in the report, one possible factor of
35
considerable impact is funding. Schools receive Title III money for each EL student; the
school stops receiving money as soon as the student attains RFEP status. Therefore, fund-
ing can impact the reclassification timeline for many students.
The following results were reported by Ramirez et al. (1991) when each of the
three programs was evaluated:
After four years in their respective instructional programs, limited-English
students in immersion strategy and early-exit programs . . . demonstrate compar-
able skills in mathematics, language, and reading when tested in English.
Students at the site with the highest skills in English language and reading in first
grade also completed sixth grade with the highest scores in these two areas.
Students in the two remaining sites (the one with the most use of Spanish and the
one with the most use of English) ended the sixth grade with the same skills in
English language and reading. However, although all three late-exit sites had
comparable mathematics skills in grade one, by the end of grade six, students in
the two late-exit sites had comparable mathematics skills in grade one, by the end
of grade six, students in the two late-exit sites that used the most Spanish for
instruction posted higher growth than the site which abruptly transitioned into
almost all English instruction. (p. 20)
The following findings resulted from a comparison of the three programs:
Students who were provided with a substantial and consistent primary language
development program learned mathematics, English language, and English
reading skills as fast as or faster than the norming population used in this study.
As their growth in these academic skills is atypical of disadvantaged youth, it
provides support for the efficacy of primary language development in facilitating
the acquisition of English language skills.
Limited-English-proficient students who are abruptly transitioned into an English-
only instructional program appear to lose ground (in terms of decelerating rate of
growth) relative to this norming population in all three content areas. (p. 32)
This longitudinal study by Ramirez et al. (1991) measured data from 1984
through 1989 that documented the comparability of the study population‘s instructional
programs (as well as the implementation of the programs) and the students involved in
each program. After ascertaining that each school site was implementing its chosen
36
program correctly, an impacting factor that was later negated was the level of support for
English and Spanish language in the home. Possible impacting factors that were con-
firmed included the individual school sites and whether teachers and administrators were
comparable in language proficiency, ethnicity, training, and attitudes toward EL students.
Distillation of second-language literature reveals that the ―best practices‖ for each
school can be different from those at all other district sites. Since student learning is
enhanced when educational programs meet the particular needs of a site‘s student popula-
tion, site-specific needs cannot be served if too many constraints are inherent in the fund-
ing policy.
Conclusion
Emergent trends from this literature review include policy, program implementa-
tion, control of funds, and learning implications (based on this study‘s three-part theoreti-
cal framework). Policies and their supportive monies change teachers‘ literacy and
multicultural instruction. When social capital and student empowerment are enhanced,
students are more successful in literacy activities. While schools have independent needs,
students are able to gain literacy skills and meaning best when EL students can build on
their first-language skills and when students at poverty level are given the specialized
support that they need. Schools can play an important part in tailoring district and state
programs to fit their students‘ needs; however, flexibility is key to accessing the correct
quality of programs for each school site. Buy-in from educational leaders and teachers
can affect program fidelity, so it is of the utmost importance that schools be able to
choose their own high-quality instructional programs.
37
The research reviewed in this chapter provides a historical perspective and
content information regarding Title I and Title III legislation. Issues affecting academic
program and reform implementation were brought to light. Survival and societal
challenges poverty-level and second-language students face were discussed. Bilingual
pedagogy theory and practices were connected with their corresponding results. The new
research presented in this dissertation fills gaps found in the decision-making protocols of
poverty-level and second-language student supplemental funding, the characteristics of
those funds‘ expenditures at the school level, and the level of satisfaction that fund
coordinators have for the flexibility of those funds to be used in direct response to the
student needs of their individual elementary school.
38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss this study‘s research design and research
questions, with particular focus on the reports, questionnaires, interviews, and data
analysis strategies used in the study. The chapter describes the unit of analysis, selection
of participants, protocols, and inquiry strategy followed during data collection. The
purpose of this qualitative study was to explore challenges that school-site Title I and
Title III fund coordinators experience regarding grant regulations and flexibility by
detailing the process of fund disbursement and how funds were being used.
Stanton-Salazar‘s A Social Capital Framework for Understanding the Socializa-
tion of Racial Minority Youth (1997) and Cummins‘s Empowering Minority Students: A
Framework for Intervention (1986) were used as a lens to explain to validate sites‘
expenditures and to contextualize Title I and Title III funding by building a nomological
net, including the topics of social capital and how second language acquisition is sup-
ported. The focus was on reviewing the range of resources purchased with Title I and
Title III grant funds in a large urban school district. The study‘s questionnaire and inter-
views helped to identify the challenges and barriers to effective funding usage under Title
I and Title III and highlighted the constraints associated with the regulations of grants
that create barriers for funds to directly respond to students‘ needs.
This was a two-level qualitative study. The first level consisted of data collection
and analysis of the questionnaire responses. The second level was review of a purposely
sampled subset of the previous population who participated in the interviews. From the
perspective of educational leaders‘ capacity, this is a formative study, since the grants
39
that were examined are still in place. However, findings could influence how grants are
rewritten at their expiration dates, which could lead to this study being used as a summa-
tive work as well.
Research Questions
The methodology behind the formulation of the research questions derived from a
deductive train of thought that started with the question, ―Are poverty-level and EL
students receiving the extra resources (learning strategies, enrichment, and materials)
needed to bring equity to California‘s educational system?‖ This original question
focused on learners; however, this research also addresses whether coordinators of Title I
and Title III funds and decision-making committees are receiving the support necessary
to facilitate fulfilling the promise of an equity-based education accessible to all of their
schools‘ student populations. Title I and Title III decision-making protocols, the charac-
teristics of school-level Title I and Title III expenditures, and the satisfaction level of
fund coordinators for the flexibility of those funds to serve the specific student needs at
their school are depicted.
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do local school sites interpret regulations prescribed by Title I and Title
III legislation?
2. What are the instructional visions and corresponding expenditures associated
with Title I and Title III for the participating local school sites?
3. What are the effects of fund coordinators‘ knowledge and execution of funds
(including fund coordinator confidence and expenditure satisfaction ratings) when
investigating flexibility issues surrounding Title I and Title III grants?
40
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis was guided by the fact that principals have different resources
at their disposal, including their own experience and personal traits. The units of analysis
for this study were the individual fund coordinators. It could be said that to include
charter schools in the questionnaire and interview populations was to compare two types
of organizations that are too different to produce valid comparisons. While such com-
parisons were not made, the range of data was greatly extended by studying charter
schools. Inclusion of charter schools in the study population allowed measurement of
grant flexibility without many of The District‘s impacts, since charter schools are not
mandated to use particular curricular programs approved by The District. An additional
novel design feature of independent charter schools pertinent to grant funds is that they
get much of their funds directly from the state, rather than going through the additional
governing body of a district office.
Sample
The District is exceptional in that it is very large and there are approximately 32%
second-language students (in comparison to approximately 24% statewide). While these
characteristics make The District exceptional, fund coordinators serving students within
The District face challenges that are similar to those faced by smaller districts. For that
reason, the results of this study are pertinent to many schools outside of The District.
A questionnaire was distributed to The District‘s fund coordinators serving
elementary schools with at least 70% Title I and 30% Title III students (ELs). Twenty
respondents of the questionnaire became the participants for this study. The researcher
procured a list of The District‘s Title I schools, then identified the study‘s participants
based on the following factors: (a) all K-5 elementary schools (charter schools were not
41
filtered for this factor), (b) all regular education schools (no special education/magnet
schools), (c) all schools with at least 70% of total student population identified as Title I
students, and (d) all schools with at least 30% of total student population identified as
ELs (Title III). The resulting list recognized 280 schools as the population.
All 280 schools were contacted and 272 email addresses were procured after four
attempts to talk with the appropriate contact. Invitations to respond to the questionnaire
(Appendix C), with links to the questionnaire and the Consent to Participate in Research
form, were emailed to the 272 potential participants. The sample population was affected
by the return rate of the questionnaires; 45 fund coordinators submitted responses to the
online questionnaire but only 20 were completed for use in this study (Figure 3).
Total K – 5 schools with at least 70% Title I and 30% Title III students: 280
Total email addresses procured of identified fund coordinators: 272
Total questionnaire responses received from fund coordinators: 45
Total responses with at least questions 1 & 2, and school name identified: 20
Figure 3. Participant identification/recruitment summary.
Sixteen of the 20 participants (fund coordinators) had nonadministrative titles
(Title I Coordinator or Title I and Title III Coordinator), with the rest either being
Director or Assistant Principal. Positions of Title I Coordinator and Title I and Title III
Coordinator within The District are filled by teachers who have been chosen by their
42
principal, then elected to their position by their school‘s faculty, and finally confirmed by
their school‘s stakeholder decision-making committee. Most schools have enough Title I
and Title III students to fund a full-time coordinator; therefore, the fund coordinators do
not teach, but dedicate themselves to fulfilling the responsibilities of the Coordinator
position. Funding coordinators are trained in monthly meetings facilitated by the district-
level Title I and Title III support team. Funding coordinators also look to their school‘s
principal and assistant principal for advice as novel situations arise.
Six in-depth (versus telephone call clarification) interviews were conducted with
questionnaire participants who were already in established relationships and the
researcher, in addition to participants who were identified by their questionnaire
responses as being of special interest and willing to spend the required time (approxi-
mately 30 to 60 minutes) in interviews. All interviewees signed the Consent to Participate
in Research form (Appendix D). One interviewee had the title of Director, while the other
five interviewees were Title I and Title III Coordinators. Five of the interviewees were
female, one was male. The sampling strategy used for the interviews was purposeful,
including maximum variation sampling (charter schools), snowball (―I know a principal
who is using a new training method‖), and operational construct sampling (programs that
specifically address or are constructed around social capital issues). These various
systems of sampling allowed a broad range of data and raised external validity of
findings. The insights from the 20 questionnaire and six interview participants shed light
on the variety of programs and practices used to scaffold learning for these two
challenged student populations.
43
Instrumentation
Two protocols were used in this study. An online questionnaire (Appendix A) was
used to address research questions 2 and 3. Questionnaire items focused on detailing
school-site educational visions, programs funded by Title I and Title III that were
implemented on site to support the schools‘ educational visions, and strategies used for
optimizing grant utility/flexibility. Most items on the questionnaire were closed questions
and had a direct connection to addressing the research questions. Three open-ended
questions elicited a wide range of data that further shaped the scope and methodology of
the research.
The principle purpose of the interview protocols (Appendix B) was to answer
research question 1, in addition to garnering details regarding grant utility and flexibility
issues, pertinent innovations, and program details. Interview questions focused on the
complex protocols navigated by fund coordinators to bring programs supported by Title I
and Title III to fruition, programs funded by Title I and Title III that were implemented
on site, and strategies used for optimizing grant utility/flexibility. Interview questions 1,
2, and 5 were in an open-ended format and sought details regarding instructional visions
and how Title I and Title III funds support those visions to be discussed. The sample
population for the interview segment of the study was a subset of the sample population.
Six fund coordinators participated in in-depth interviews to gather qualitative data related
to challenges and barriers to Title I and Title III spending. Interviews took 30 to 60
minutes each; some clarifying interviews were also held as needed.
Questionnaire
An online questionnaire (Appendix A) was used to give contextual data about this
study‘s population in addition to addressing research questions 2 and 3. Questionnaire
44
items focused on detailing school-site educational visions and programs funded by Title I
and Title III that were implemented on site to support the schools‘ educational visions.
Most items on the questionnaire were closed questions and had a direct connection to
addressing the research questions. Three open-ended questions elicited a wide range of
data that further shaped the scope and methodology of the research.
Items 1 and 2 of the questionnaire were included for identification purposes. Item
1 was used to identify the school so that population, API, and AYP information could be
linked to questionnaire respondents‘ schools. Item 2 was used to identify the participant
so that follow-up questions could be asked and interviews could take place with the same
person who answered the questionnaire.
Items 3 through 8 pertained to research question 2. Item 3 was designed to
identify the overall instructional vision of the participants‘ schools. This was necessary to
summarize and represent the basic educational program of individual school sites. PRI
(2003) found that ―Without a local strategy for integrating categorical programs with the
basic educational program, process requirements of the categorical programs shape local
responses rather than the needs of students‖ (p. 5). This finding was examined by using
instructional visions to represent the basic educational program, then connecting those
visions with allocations, which depicted how Title I and Title III allocations support
school sites‘ educational programs (questionnaire question 4). Allocations were detailed
using items 5 through 8, which were designed to itemize categories of Title I and Title III
allocations for each school site. Data from these questions reported the resources
purchased to support Title I and Title III students.
45
Item 9 allowed participants the opportunity to list items for which the fund
coordinators wanted to use Title I and Title III funds but were unable to do so due to
grant regulations. The initial purpose of this item was to frame purchasing flexibility by
itemizing what were deemed inappropriate Title I and Title III expenditures. The purpose
of the item was to fortify Apodaca-Tucker and Slate‘s data represented on their Table 5
(2002, p. 13). This table rated the influence of various stakeholder groups on deciding
how school discretionary funds were spent. It also inadvertently gave evidence regarding
the respondents‘ knowledge and their school‘s decision-making committee members‘
knowledge regarding allowable allocations for Title I and Title III monies.
Item 10 was used to identify additional employees assigned to the participants‘
school site by the District who were paid through district-level Title I and Title III funds.
This question was necessary to establish a context for item 11. An unintended byproduct
of the answers to this question was that it also helped to indicate the respondent‘s depth
of knowledge. All personnel listed in response to item 10 were, at least partially, paid
with district-level Title I and Title III funds. Respondents who did not acknowledge
district-level funds paying for these personnel were in fact indicating a lack of knowledge
of how their site‘s resources are affected by district-level Title I and Title III allocations.
Items 11 and 12 were used to qualify and quantify participants‘ levels of satisfac-
tion with how district-level and school-site-level Title I and Title III funds were used.
The issue of fund coordinator satisfaction stems from PRI‘s evaluation of 2003 that states
that categorical programs have a ―mixed record of success‖ (p. 5). Since fund coordin-
ators are the most deeply involved personnel regarding the academic effects of their
school‘s categorical programs, their rating of satisfaction indicates the success of those
46
supplemental programs. Item 12 used a rating scale: 1 = definitely not satisfied, 2 = not
satisfied, 3 = satisfied, and 4 = definitely satisfied.. Assigning a point value to each
respondent‘s satisfaction rating facilitated converting the satisfaction ratings into
satisfaction means for various Title I and Title III allocations.
Item 13 elicited strategies used by the participants that optimized the effects of
their Title I and Title III funds. This item was designed to address PRI‘s assertion that
―some categorical programs create financial incentives that encourage schools to act in
ways that are not in the best interests of students‖ (2003, p. 5). By identifying whether
schools were using the strategy of ―only support programs currently implemented,‖ it was
possible to see whether schools were putting constraints on themselves by limiting the
novel solutions implemented using Title I and Title III funds.
Item 14 rated the participants‘ self-perceived confidence level of Title I and Title
III regulations. The purpose of this item was to determine whether fund coordinators had
the self-perception of being capable in fulfilling their job responsibilities. A rating scale
was used: 1 = not confident, 2 = pretty confident, 3 = confident, and 4 = very confident.
Assigning a point value to each rating for each participant facilitated converting confi-
dence ratings to confidence means that were eventually connected to various variables
including allocations and expenditure satisfaction.
Item was used to identify participants who were willing to participate in the
interview portion of this study. Interviews were conducted with six of the ten question-
naire respondents who answered that they were (Yes) or might be (Maybe) interested in
interview participation. Item 16 gave participants an open forum to write any questions,
47
comments, or response details regarding a variety of topics including the questionnaire
itself, Title I and Title III funding, and their position‘s responsibilities.
Interview
The principle purpose of the interview protocols (Appendix B) was to answer
research question 1, in addition to garnering details regarding grant utility and flexibility
issues, pertinent innovations, and program details. Interview questions focused on the
complex protocols navigated by fund coordinators to bring programs supported by Title I
and Title III to fruition, programs funded by Title I and Title III that were implemented
on site, and strategies used for optimizing grant utility/flexibility. Interview questions 1,
2, and 5 were an open-ended format that queried details regarding instructional visions
and how Title I and Title III funds support those visions to be discussed. The sample
population for the interview segment of the study was a subset of the sample population.
Six fund coordinators participated in in-depth interviews to gather qualitative data related
to challenges and barriers to Title I and Title III spending. Interviews took 30 to 60
minutes each; some clarifying interviews were also held as needed.
Item 1 was designed to collect detailed information about the instructional vision
at the interviewees‘ schools. As with item 3, this study used schools‘ instructional visions
to represent their basic educational program. PRI‘s (2003) finding that, ―Without a local
strategy for integrating categorical programs with the basic educational program, process
requirements of the categorical programs shape local responses rather than the needs of
the students‖ (p. 5) was examined to a fuller extent with the detailed responses from
interviewees. Item 2 was used to detail how Title I and Title III funds supported
instructional visions. While data from items 5 through 8 itemized Title I and Title III
48
allocations, responses to item 2 developed a fuller description of how those allocations
support each school‘s basic educational program.
Item 3 gave participants a forum to rationalize and prioritize the list of items for
which participating fund coordinators wanted to use Title I and Title III funds but were
denied the opportunity to do so due to grant restrictions. The purchasing flexibility of
these two grants was discussed at length in addition to the influence (and lack of influ-
ence) school-site decision makers have in choosing allocations to meet their Title I and
Title III students‘ educational needs. This interview item was aligned with Apodaca-
Tucker and Slate‘s research of stakeholder influence regarding how school discretionary
funds were spent (2002, p. 13). Knowledge gaps of the interviewees and their schools‘
decision-making committee members were also discussed in answer to this item.
Responses to item 4 fortified answers to data analysis sessions facilitated at the
school-sites. Data analysis sessions support different content areas and can be facilitated
in very different ways. The primary educational resource at schools is the school‘s
faculty. Teacher capacity and knowledge of their students‘ individual educational needs
are addressed during data analysis sessions. Comments regarding this interview question
addresses PRI‘s research (2003) about whether the needs of students are directly
addressed using categorical programs or merely fund local responses.
Item 5 was used to partially respond to address question 3. It expanded on
strategies used by interviewees that increased the effects of funds garnered from Title I
and Title III. PRI‘s assertion that ―some categorical programs create financial incentives
that encourage schools to act in ways that are not in the best interests of students‖ (2003,
49
p. 5) was further examined via responses to item 5. Constraints imposed by school sites,
for example only supporting programs currently implemented, were discussed.
Item 6 addressed how school sites make decisions about what to use Title I and
Title III funds for and how priorities for allocations are decided. PRI (2003) examined the
balance of influence from various decision-making members at school sites. This balance
of power was a prominent topic of discussion when interviewees answered item 6.
Item 7 gave participants a forum to make open comments regarding Title I and
Title III grants. The content of those comments spanned all three research questions and
added insights into challenges faced by fund coordinators.
Data Collection
There were two levels of data collection. The first data set was in the form of a
questionnaire addressed to Title I and Title III fund coordinators. The appropriate contact
was identified for each school during July, August, and September of 2007; depending on
the school‘s resources and student population, the contact was either an assistant princi-
pal/director or the school‘s Title I and III coordinator (fund coordinator). Emails of the
questionnaire invitation, with a link to SurveyMonkey.com™, were sent to all contacts
during December 2007. Access to the online questionnaire was closed March 1, 2008.
SurveyMonkey.com kept track of all responses. The questionnaire identified issues
impacting grant utility, grant flexibility, and pertinent innovations. The online question-
naire took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Responses to the questionnaire from
the 20 participants identified potential interviewees.
The second data set included interviews with 6 of the 20 participants involved in
the questionnaire. Interviews took place between February of 2008 and August of 2008.
50
Questionnaire and follow-up interview questions in the main content of both interviews
and the questionnaire elicited comments on the instructional and professional develop-
ment programs purchased with Title I and Title III funds, as well as strategies that on-site
leaders used to optimize Title I and Title III utility/flexibility and accounts of the com-
plex protocols connected to Title I and Title III funding. These six leaders were asked
specifically how these two sources of grant money could mutually enhance the outcomes
of shared goals.
Data Analysis
Creswell‘s six-step data analysis model (Creswell, 2008) was used to continually
drive data collection, synthesis, and data analysis. Creswell described the process of data
analysis as
preparing the data for analysis, conducting different analyses, moving deeper and
deeper in understanding the data (some qualitative researchers like to think of this
as peeling back the layers of an onion), representing the data, and making an
interpretation of the larger meaning of the data. (p. 183)
Creswell also acknowledged that ―it is an ongoing process involving continual reflection
about the data‖ (p. 184). Continually reflecting on and analyzing the data allowed the
researcher to modify interview items for each of the interview participants based on the
answers on that participant‘s questionnaire and to identify emerging themes.
Data analysis using Creswell‘s (2008) model involves six steps that can be
characterized as (a) organizing and preparing the data for analysis, (b) reading through all
of the data, (c) beginning the detailed analysis with a coding process, (d) using the coding
process to generate a description of the setting or people as well as categories or themes
for analysis, (e) advancing how the description and themes will be represented in the
qualitative narrative, and (f) making an interpretation or meaning of the data. Steps 3
51
through 5 of Tesch‘s eight steps of analysis (1990, pp. 142-145) were used before pro-
gressing to Creswell‘s fourth step. Including these three steps from Tesch facilitated
organization of the coded data into categories and gave a process for delineating the
relationships between the data‘s topic categories.
Step 1 of data analysis involved readying the data for the analysis process.
Creswell (2008) suggested sorting the data by the source of the data. Consequently,
questionnaire data were printed and organized by participant. All interview recordings
were transcribed and organized by interviewee.
Step 2 entailed an initial review of data from the questionnaire and interview
protocols. Creswell (2008) suggested notating what general ideas were talked about as
well as the possible use of the information. A rough outline of how data were aligned
with the research questions was sketched. This provided a very basic approach to further
inquiry and indicated that some data applied to both Title I and Title III simultaneously.
Step 3, coding the data, started by using key words to represent data categories.
According to Rossman and Rallis (1998), coding segments text data before meaning is
attached to the information (p. 171). Key words were recorded in each instance that
interviewees mentioned the same or similar key words. These key words were used
during the coding process. Key words used to code the interview texts included school
site council (SSC), allocating, committee, needs, fiscal specialist (which became the
category/theme of knowledge gaps of decision makers regarding Title I and Title III),
regulations, allowed expenditures, satisfaction, influence (which became the category/
theme of the balance of influence for how funds are used), enrollment, unfunded, cored
needs, core resources, and general funding (which became the category/theme of and the
52
underfunding of California‘s educational system). The coded segments of text were
further coded to designate whether they pertained to Title I, Title III, or both Title I and
Title III.
Creswell (2008) suggested considering Tesch‘s eight steps of analysis before
proceeding to Step 4 of his model (1990, pp. 142-145). Pertinent steps from Tesch‘s
analysis include (a) use topics as column headers, clustering them based on similarity,
(b) write the codes next to the appropriate segments of the text and notice if new cate-
gories and codes emerge, and (c) group related topics into categories and draw lines
between categories to show interrelationships (1990, pp. 142-145). The last step allowed
aligned data to be documented and examined in the analysis.
Step 4 detailed the participants in addition to the qualitative properties of the data
categories and themes. Descriptions of the six participants can be found at the beginning
of Chapter 4, followed by a discussion of the themes that emerged from the interview
transcripts. Of main concern is how the data belonging to each particular theme answer
this study‘s research questions.
Step 5, planning how the descriptions and themes are represented in Chapters 4
and 5, was driven by the need not only to describe the themes but also to describe how
the data found within a particular theme could apply to more than one of the research
questions. This overlapping of themes with the research questions is depicted in the
figure in Chapter 4. Multiple perspectives given by the six interview participants are
detailed in the qualitative discussion of this study‘s findings and conclusions.
Step 6 led to the interpretation and making of meaning from the data. The refined
themes from Steps 3 and 4 were used to establish patterns, associations, and connections,
53
then used to lead to a set of conclusions. These conclusions indicated new questions/
research topics to be explored in addition to reform at the school-site, district, state, and
federal levels.
The dominating emerging areas then became the three themes of this study. First,
decision makers at school sites have fundamental knowledge gaps regarding Title I and
Title III regulations. Second, there is a balance of influence regarding how Title I and
Title III funds are allocated. Third, the California educational system is underfunded,
which especially impacts Title I and Title III students because they have fewer familial
resources from which to draw. Findings reflected the specific contexts that can be found
at different educational sites, rather than omitting essential effects to the educational
success of poverty-level and second-language students, since properties of the categories
were detailed in a qualitative manner.
Flexibility of grant funds was operationalized by measuring the satisfaction level
of fund coordinators with their range of approved expenditures. A category scale was
used for satisfaction-oriented and confidence-oriented items to attach a value for how
flexible grant funds are at the school site level. Both scales are represented in tables using
a range of 1 to 4 points, a score of 1 representing the lowest desired value (definitely not
satisfied/not confident) and a score of 4 representing the highest desired value (definitely
satisfied/very confident). Converting the values of these two scales into points allowed
mean satisfaction and mean confidence ratings to be calculated for Title I and Title III
expenditure satisfaction and Title I and Title III knowledge confidence, respectively.
Results from questionnaire items 11 and 13 were overlapped with results from
other questionnaire items. Data were recorded on the questionnaire platform site
54
(SurveyMonkey.com) and a second set of descriptive data resulted from the questionnaire
responses. Questionnaire item 11 measured how satisfied the participants were with the
range of expenditures allowed at the school site. Since this is such an integral question,
seeing the results from other items through the lens of responses to item 11 was illumin-
ating. Item 13 dealt with confidence in dealing with Title I and Title III regulations.
Student achievement was not used as an indicator for the quality of specific
curricular programs because some high-quality programs may be in the early stages of
implementation, in which case their effects on student learning may not be obvious yet.
Huang and Yu (2002) used student achievement levels to study fiscal impacts on
students‘ learning in mathematics and found no correlation between spending and student
learning. Program design and implementation issues are more valid measures of impacts
realized from use of Title I and Title III funds due to a lack of longevity in high-quality
programs. Internal validity is partially dependent on the quality of trust that interviewees
and questionnaire respondents have for the researcher. For this reason, all questionnaire
respondents and interviewees were assured anonymity.
55
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Results from this study‘s data analysis process that addressed the three research
questions are presented in Chapter 4. Pertinent background information about this study‘s
participants is given to build a context for the results. Results are organized thematically,
mirroring the final organization of data after the data analysis stage of this study was
completed. The three themes are knowledge gaps of school-site decision makers, balance
of influence over Title I and Title III expenditures, and the underfunding of California‘s
education system.
This study investigated issues related to how Title I and Title III funds are dis-
persed and used. The problem to which this study contributes answers is how educators
and policy makers can help poverty-level and second-language students to succeed
academically. The stated problem is comprised of myriad aspects; the purpose of this
study was to delve into the process of fund dispersion and detail how funds were being
used. Analyzing school-site agreement with district-level Title I and Title III allocations,
coordinator expenditure-range satisfaction, and fund coordinators‘ knowledge confidence
contributed to building a contextual understanding for funding flexibility.
Three predominant themes emerged from the data to bridge and overlap this
study‘s three research question topics: (a) process of funds disbursement, (b) instructional
visions and expenditures, and (c) funding flexibility. The three themes were school-site
decision makers‘ Title I and Title III knowledge gaps, the balance of influence regarding
allocations of Title I and Title III funds, and the underfunding of Title I and Title III
students within California‘s educational system.
56
Committee members and fund coordinators involved in school-site decision mak-
ing displayed knowledge gaps in several areas pertinent to their responsibilities, including
the purpose of policies as well as appropriate ways to spend Title I and Title III funds.
Data collected about their school‘s students‘ needs informs school principals, fund
coordinators, and decision making committee members about the main emphasis of how
Title I and Title III funds ought to be spent; these separate voting factions have varying
influence that can change how priorities are weighed. Interviewees‘ experiences regard-
ing this balance of influence are discussed in this chapter. Results from this study‘s
online questionnaire included a list of core items (not supplemental) that California‘s
general funds are not able to cover, indicating a serious underfunding of the educational
system at the state level. Interviewees spoke about how this underfunding affects decision
making regarding Title I and Title III funds. The results and conclusions are organized
according to these themes.
This chapter contains four major sections. In the first section the participants of
the study are described. In the second section a discussion for the presentation of results
is provided; findings are presented using the predominate themes from the data. In the
third section findings associated with each of the three themes are presented. In the fourth
section findings are reviewed to provide insights into their meanings.
Participants
Since this study examines how fund coordinators engage with Title I and Title III
regulations, a detailed discussion of the population and participants in the study is pertin-
ent to build a context for the data that they supplied in their interviews. With the excep-
tion of the two charter school questionnaire respondents, all 20 fund coordinators were
57
trained to fulfill the responsibilities of their positions by The District. Two of the 20 fund
coordinators were male; this population ratio of male to female closely mirrors the gender
ratio found on elementary school-site faculties. Sixteen of the 20 fund coordinators spoke
Spanish fluently. This characteristic stems from necessity; fund coordinators‘ responsi-
bilities involve communicating with Spanish-speaking family members on a regular
basis. Many principals will not consider candidates for the fund coordinator position who
are not fluent in Spanish.
Training for the non-charter school fund administrators consisted of monthly
meetings of 1 day each. No initial training or orientation is given to new fund coordin-
ators. The scope of the training is task oriented and does not include an overview of the
Title I and Title III policies. Due to the cyclical demands of the fund coordinator position,
training meetings address challenges to be met during the upcoming month. Mentoring
relationships can occur between experienced and novice fund coordinators; however,
these relationships are initiated by novice fund coordinators who seek advice from others.
Advice and support is formally given to school-site fund coordinators by district-level
support personnel. The six participants in this study were purposefully selected from
those who responded to the online questionnaire. Pseudonyms were assigned to the
interviewees to facilitate their stories to be heard as connected experiences of each
individual.
Victoria is a Director (principal status) at a charter school in the San Fernando
Valley. A Latina in her late forties, she has worked in the field of elementary education
for over 20 years. She has worked for The District in many capacities, including teaching
special education and serving as a district-level special education support person. Her
58
office is prominently located in the front of her school‘s office building and is immacu-
late. Pictures of the students and staff of her school celebrating their victories are dis-
played on the walls, with reference manuals and professional books filling several tall
bookcases. Victoria is a strong, nurturing leader, as demonstrated throughout the inter-
view; interruptions during the 1-hour session included nurturing a student whose home
life was full of abuse and a parade of teachers and support personnel with whom she
connects on both professional and personal levels. She demonstrated great empathy while
holding her students and staff to high expectations.
Rachelle is a Title I and Title III Coordinator for her school within The District.
She has held this part-time position for 5 years and is looking forward to returning to
teaching full-time next school year. A replacement for her position has not been found,
but she is willing to give some initial support once that persons starts. The interviewer
met with her in her workroom/office (an unused classroom) that was dominated by a
maze of textbook piles; the office did not show any evidence of her personal life. Even
though this interview was conducted during Rachelle‘s vacation time, she seemed frantic
and overburdened. Her interview was punctuated with ―please edit that out‖ and ―I‘m not
sure I should have said that‖ statements (both types of comments were omitted from the
data). Rachelle was glad to be returning to teaching an upper-grade class due to a ―lack of
support and respect‖ from the school‘s administration.
Michelle was preparing to move from her present school to her new school by
packing her personal items from her office. She was preparing to give orientation to her
replacement (who was previously a teacher at their school) in 2 hours. She enjoyed being
a Title I and Title III coordinator, a position she held for 4 years, but was looking forward
59
to her new duties as assistant principal at an elementary school in the same neighborhood.
Her interview took place in a small meeting room that was part of the main office build-
ing of her school.
Sandra was interviewed at a training facility belonging to The District. She had
just started her initial training for The District‘s assistant principal‘s intern program. Her
manner and attire were comfortably professional. She is a bilingual Latina in her early
forties and had been her school‘s fund coordinator for 5 years.
Ann is a Spanish-speaking mulatto whose family is from Puerto Rico. She has
worked at her school for 13 years—8 years as a classroom teacher and 5 years as the
school‘s Title I and Title III Coordinator. She enjoyed the duties of her position and did
not picture herself changing jobs or schools. Her interview took place in the school‘s
computer lab, which was not being used at the time. Ann suggested this venue to limit the
number of interruptions; she normally works in her office, which is part of her school‘s
main office building.
Eduardo is a bilingual Latino in his late thirties. He has experienced success as his
school‘s Title I and Title III Coordinator, serving his present school in that position for 4
years, with 2 years of part-time experience as a Title III Coordinator at his previous
school. He has also taught fifth grade at both schools. Eduardo is proud of his Title I and
Title III students‘ gains (his school‘s API has risen steadily for 8 years), in addition to
updating his school‘s capacity for technology. His school has wireless Internet access
throughout the campus and Title I funds have paid for a full-time computer coordinator/
teacher who supports the students‘ progress in language arts by presenting curriculum-
based lessons on student computers in the classrooms and computer lab.
60
Emerging Themes
This study‘s three research questions guided the content of the questionnaire and
interviews. The topics covered in the three research questions include the process of Title
I and Title III fund disbursement, the school‘s instructional visions in correlation with
Title I and Title III expenditures, and Title I and Title III funding flexibility. The results
of the questionnaire and interviews addressed these three research questions and indi-
cated three themes that organized findings and conclusions from this study‘s research:
(a) knowledge gaps of decision makers regarding Title I and Title III, (b) the balance of
influence for how funds are used, and (c) the underfunding of California‘s educational
system.
These themes bridge and overlap the study‘s three research question topics
(Table 1). An example of thematic overlapping is how knowledge gaps and the balance
of influence are both addressed in the discussion of the process of fund disbursement with
Rachelle. Rachelle described her relationship with her district-level support person (the
person who is to help close Rachelle‘s knowledge gaps) while acknowledging her lack of
faith that it really matters, since she perceived her principal as having the last word (high
level of influence) regarding fund expenditures.
Theme 1: Decision Makers at School Sites Have Fundamental Knowledge
Gaps Regarding Title I and Title III Regulations
Two aspects relevant to Title I and Title III regulation knowledge gaps will be
presented. The first is the process of funds disbursement. The second is fund
coordinators‘ and community decision makers‘ confidence in their own knowledge
regarding Title I and Title III regulations. While Title I and Title III regulations dictate
the basic process that their funds are to be disbursed, these two aspects (the process of
61
Table 1
Confluence of Research Question Topics and Emerging Themes
Theme 1: Theme 2:
Knowledge Balance Theme 3:
Research question gaps of influence Underfunding
1. Process of fund disbursement X X
2. Instructional visions and expenditures X X
3. Fund coordinators‘ knowledge and
execution of funds X
funds disbursement and decision makers‘ confidence in their knowledge) interact to
influence the capacity for decision makers to use Title I and Title III funds to improve
students‘ learning. Protocols for fund disbursement follow guidelines set by Title I and
Title III regulations in addition to guidelines written by the state of California in their
education codes (laws).
One of the principle job responsibilities of fund coordinators is to help decision-
making committees make decisions that will support their school‘s Title I and Title III
student populations access the state curriculum and meet state standards of academic
excellence. The ability of any individual fund coordinator to support the school‘s
decision-making committees is a function of that fund coordinator‘s knowledge regarding
Title I and Title III grant regulations, students‘ needs, resources already available to the
students, and resources that can be purchased to further meet students‘ needs. A discon-
nect between federal grant policy and school implementation of those grant policies can
occur when one or more members of the school‘s decision-making committees has
62
knowledge gaps that compromise the collective capability for decision making. Training
to close those knowledge gaps can be a serious challenge for fund coordinators, school
principals, and district-level support staff.
Process of Funds Disbursement
The process of funds disbursement is enacted by school-site authorities. These
authorities‘ decisions are constrained and influenced by (a) Title I and Title III regula-
tions, (b) the school‘s principal and fund coordinator, and (c) the district-level fiscal
specialists who support fund coordinators. Principals and fund coordinators interpret
grant regulations, while district-level fiscal specialists oversee school-site decisions to
ensure fidelity in complying with those regulations. This fidelity is integral to Title I and
Title III funds; since these funds are categorical, resources purchased using these funds
need to support the federal government‘s goal of encouraging ―districts to treat needy
students differently by making additional resources available to produce similar, or
hopefully achievement outcomes‖ (Odden & Picus, 2004, p. 131).
Title I and Title III regulations. Local school sites interpret regulations and
protocols prescribed by Title I and Title III legislation with support from district offices.
Stakeholder rights are protected by school-site authority protocols that are dictated by
state education codes in addition to grant regulations. These protocols are implemented
by the individual school‘s Title I and Title III coordinator. Federal Title I and Title III
regulations first get translated into state education codes, then school districts develop
protocols that are to be implemented at school sites. School sites are accountable to the
district, state, and federal governments; however, while Title I and Title III funds are
dealt with similarly across school sites, differing knowledge resources at each school
63
affect how effectively funds can be utilized. Fund coordinators and principals present
data during stakeholder meetings to improve the capacity of committee members‘
decision-making skills, thereby raising the validity of expenditures and their impact on
student learning. As fund coordinators and other school-site level decision-makers gain
experience (and thus knowledge confidence), they develop strategies for maximizing the
effect of expenditures, taking into account the needs of their school‘s Title I and Title III
student population.
Advisory (decision-making) councils consisting of representatives from the parent
and staff populations, called SSC, Compensatory Education Advisory Committee
(CEAC), and English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC), are presented with the
school‘s needs at stakeholder meetings and the members of these councils vote how to
distribute Title I and Title III funds to meet those needs. Committee members may
instigate needs-based lists as well. The school-site fund coordinator then advises whether
Title I and/or Title III funds can be used to meet the needs under discussion. If the fund
coordinator deems the expenditures aligned with Title I and Title III grant regulations, a
vote is held. Then the fund coordinator asks the district to allocate the funds for the voted
resources. If the district finds that the items are not allowable per grant regulations, the
request is denied; otherwise, the funds are allocated by the district to cover the approved
requests.
Michelle gave her opinion about how the protocols work:
The SSC, CEAC, and ELAC are advisory councils. We talk to the parents a lot
and work it out with them. And a lot of the times it us trying to say, ―Look, these
are our needs; what do you think?‖ It‘s like anything. You‘re in a totally different
job, you won‘t know what they need necessarily just because you‘re there advis-
ing them. So we work with them on what they need and they have a lot of great
ideas.
64
Allocation requests can be denied due to timing constraints, which causes
approved decisions to not always be actualized. Michelle was proactive by writing down
the allocation requests that were not processed due to not meeting grant deadlines during
the current school year. She devised a system that prompted her to reinitiate budget
requests that were not approved for the previous budget cycle due to time constraints.
Michelle asked the school‘s leadership councils early in the following school year
whether they were still interested in getting the same resources, now possible due to more
processing time being available:
You should have a plan in mind [for allocating Title I and Title III funds]. Quick
decisions—where you might be responding to needs—are difficult to fulfill. So
you improve the system and jot it in your notes. So for this year it‘s over, but [it
will happen] next year for sure.
Fund coordinators. The District‘s non-charter school-site fund coordinators
attend either full-day or half-day professional development meetings in alternate months,
depending on their district-level budget. There is no initial training course or orientation,
which can be problematic because novice fund coordinators usually do not have any
background knowledge about Title I and Title III regulations yet are expected to function
as advisors and facilitators to their school-site‘s decision-making committees. Since
many CEAC and ELAC members are students‘ parents who do not have experience in
handling large budgets or legal matters, their capacity for understanding the grant regula-
tions must be built by the school‘s fund coordinator. This aligns the success of a school‘s
decision-making committees with the Title I and Title III experience level of the school‘s
fund coordinator and principal. Interviewees spoke of how this capacity building takes
shape; a summary of their comments follows.
65
Educating committee members is a challenging part of fund coordinators‘ jobs.
Formal and informal capacity development sessions include but are not limited to filling
knowledge gaps regarding national, state, and school-site budget systems, the grants‘
purposes and accountability measures, and students‘ academic needs at their school,
to name just a few topic areas. After the committee members understand the content
necessary to act as decision-making stakeholder representatives, committee members
receive briefs regarding the needs of their school‘s Title I and Title III students and
informed decisions can be reached collaboratively and with as much stakeholder buy-in
as is reasonably possible.
Presenting the data needed to fully represent students‘ needs is only part of the
preparations needed to plan for decision-making committee meetings. Fund coordinators
ensure that decisions regarding expenditures are valid, justified, and based on a variety of
possible solutions. The tangible, data-driven results of a school‘s Title I and Title III
programs and expenditures are reported to the committees when it is time to prepare the
school‘s budget for the following school year. This allows stakeholders to evaluate the
effectiveness of the programs and reforms, further educating committee members in the
areas of learning and pedagogy as they are pertinent to the school‘s programs and
reforms. The challenge of capacity-building committee members is labor and time
intensive but essential to fulfill the protocols and accountability measures dictated by
legislation. These interviewees described how professional educators and non-educators
together help to build schools‘ educational programs and how data are used to respond to
students‘ needs.
This year I got them to the point where they‘re actually giving great feedback. For
example, they‘ve said they want LeapFrog. They said they want a teacher
66
working with newcomers [students new to English]. So they bring in their own
ideas. Before it was a log of ―This is what we need, what do you guys think?‖
(Michelle)
Sandra summarized the protocols at her school:
Your committees are comprised of parents, community members. We meet with
them once a month and there needs to be needs assessments throughout the year
based on data. So looking at your data, you determine what is needed. So what are
we going to spend our money on? Let‘s prioritize. . . . What data is out there at
your school that merits that expenditure? . . . So it‘s bringing that data to the
councils, presenting it to the councils and how that purchase would be justified by
the data.
In addition to interviewing five fund coordinators at five district schools, a charter
school administrator was consulted. Charter schools do not necessarily follow the same
funding processes used by The District; funding processes can be developed and imple-
mented contingent on following federal regulations. Title I and Title III regulations direct
schools to include stakeholders who are parents, community leaders, and school staff in
decision-making meetings. The charter school interviewee (Victoria) described how the
priorities of expenditures are determined at that particular charter school:
Our Curriculum and Instruction Committee basically drives our budget com-
mittee. Whatever needs they‘ve identified as school-wide needs drive the deci-
sions that the Budget Committee is going to make when we start creating our
budget for the year. If they say we need more funding for intervention or we need
more money to hire [people], whatever. We take their recommendations and we
try to fit it into the budget so we‘re able to accommodate the needs [of the
students].
Since parents, community members, and non-faculty/staff serve on this charter
school‘s Curriculum and Instruction Committee and Budget Committee alongside faculty
members, faculty and administrators share their knowledge of education research, peda-
gogical methods, and budgetary matters with committee members holding less experi-
ence and content knowledge in these areas. This capacity building is labor intensive for
all involved, but members of these committees are enriched as their capacity is built
67
while serving their school. Victoria‘s role was similar to that of The District‘s principals
and school-site fund coordinators: help committee members to make effective informed
decisions by providing data to stakeholders. While Victoria often presents data in person,
committee and grade-level chairs are nurtured by administrators who teach them how to
present the data themselves, followed by instruction in facilitating proactive decision-
making discussions.
We have the administrators from the different grade levels that come in and share
through the consensus of the [grade level] what the needs are. So it comes
together as a big collaborative piece of what the needs are school-wide. We all
went through training on how to measure the proficiency of students mastering
standards. We sent a large group of teachers to the training [and] they had the
same training provided, but presented differently to the team of teachers. So
they‘re receiving the same [information] but being presented differently because
of who the audience is.
The main difference between the funding processes used at this charter school and
processes used by The District is that the charter school‘s budget is inductive in nature
rather than deductive. Once the charter school‘s curriculum and instruction committee
(with stakeholders who know exactly their students‘ needs) has developed an educational
plan to meet those needs, they find enough funds to make it happen. In The District‘s
model, The District-approved curricula are implemented, resulting student knowledge
gaps are identified, and then each school‘s Title I and Title III funds are used based on
data presented by fund coordinators.
District-level fiscal specialists. Four of the five non-charter interview partici-
pants stressed the importance of a good relationship with their assigned district-level
fiscal specialists. With one exception, interviewed fund coordinators described their
district-level support person to be integral to the success of the funding process. Rachelle
was the only non-charter interviewee who reported not feeling supported by her fiscal
68
specialist, although she chose not to seek extra support from her district-level fiscal
specialist. Rachelle perceived her principal as having most of the influence at her school
regarding how Title I and title III funds are disbursed; therefore, everyone else‘s wants
were unimportant.
Well, our person [is] very good but I think the buck mostly stops with our
principal and when she says ―No, I‘m not gonna do that paperwork,‖ that‘s where
it stops.
All four interviewees who worked closely with their district-level support person
described their relationship in a mentoring capacity: District contacts identify issues of
concern in their school‘s accountability paperwork, facilitate professional developments
to fill fund coordinators‘ knowledge gaps, give direct advice, and review paperwork
when requested. When talking about the support he gets from The District, Eduardo said,
The support that we get is basically from the specialists. When we come up with
ideas, if it‘s something out of the ordinary, we usually call our fiscal specialist to
see if it‘s possible. Then we run it by the local Title I coordinator at the district
level to see if it‘s compliant, if it‘s doable. Once we get the thumbs up we basic-
ally start allocating, start doing the planning.
Michelle stated,
I talk to (her) all the time! She‘s my best friend. The budget is a lot. You need to
have a good relationship with that fiscal specialist; the person that trains you.
They‘re your support. They have to help you. She‘s the person in [my] local
district. She has another person that helps her, but one person to train 50
coordinators is a lot to me.
Knowledge Confidence
Confidence in job skills can impact and indicate productivity, including the ability
to carry out Title I and Title III instructional visions at the school site. The major influ-
ence to job confidence is the quality of the knowledge base pertaining to the task at hand.
Apodaca-Tucker and Slate (2002) found that school-based management teams were
69
highly influential and decision makers had direct impact on how their schools were run.
This influence can make a positive impact on schools when decision makers are knowl-
edgeable and have the experience necessary to make good decisions. Corcoran (2003)
found that one of the main detractors from making effective decisions was staff not
having the necessary skills to make sense of the research made available to them to
inform their decisions. Similarly, if decision makers at schools do not possess necessary
skills and/or knowledge regarding fund restrictions, the desired result (improving
poverty-level and second-language students‘ access to the curriculum) may not come to
fruition.
The stakeholders who usually have the least amount of experience and knowledge
about Title I and Title III funds are the community members on the various school-level
decision-making committees. The community members at Sandra‘s school were frus-
trated until they learned about the purposes of the grants and their restrictions.
We come to our budget meeting, our council meetings, and we ask for a whole set
of computers for English Learners and they have a hard time understanding,
―Well, why is it that you can buy all these computers but you cannot buy super-
vision? You know, supervision is needed more than a computer.‖ And explaining
that there‘s so many restrictions and stipulations how these monies could be
spent. They struggle with that, you know. I think that‘s basically where it comes
down to understanding how they can be used and following those guidelines.
Fund coordinators are responsible for closing the knowledge gaps of all Title I
and Title III decision makers, but they are not always confident in their knowledge of
pertinent regulations. One meaningful characteristic of fund coordinators that affects their
confidence regarding Title I and Title III regulations is how long they have held the
position of fund coordinator. Sandra spoke of her learning curve:
[I have been a fund coordinator for] 5 years. My first year I was hopeless. You
kinda learn the ropes a bit, in terms of ―No, you cannot ask for that.‖ Library
70
books for me was a given. Our kids don‘t have books. The way they look at it is,
if you weren‘t to have these funds at all, will you still be able to provide this for
your students. Library books, yes, you‘ll still be able to provide them. P.E. equip-
ment, yes, and supervision. So the way you should look at it is that now just
because you have these supplemental funds from the government, you should not
be tapping into these resources to buy what you should be getting out of your
general funding.
Rachelle agreed that having a solid knowledge base is challenging, stating, ―[It] could
just be my ignorance, but it just seems like I have a very rudimentary understanding of
the budget, and it just seems like there are so many restrictions on how to spend the
money.‖
Yet another important characteristic of fund coordinators is the job title. A cross-
tabulation of responses to questionnaire item 14 (Confidence on Regulations) with
responses to questionnaire item 2 (Job Title) showed that the respondents with the job
title of Title I Coordinator (some of whom were also Title III Coordinator) reported the
highest confidence in dealing with Title I and Title III regulations. Of the responding
fund coordinators, 75% characterized themselves as very confident in dealing with Title I
and Title III regulations (Table 2). This may be due to the fact that, while all school-site
fund coordinators have access to the same training, those who are assistant principals,
principals, and teachers have to set aside their regular daily responsibilities to attend
trainings. Also, these same fund coordinators may not be as actively engaged in their
Title I and Title III responsibilities on a daily basis, compromising their learning
capacity. It is also important to acknowledge that the online questionnaire format
necessitated that fund coordinators rate themselves as objectively as possible; their
ratings were based on self-perception.
Victoria rated her confidence level as ―confident‖ (a 3-point rating) with both
Title I and with Title III regulations, yet still had issues centered on the inability of Title I
71
72
funds to be dispersed for the general betterment of the school‘s families. Even with the
benefit of her 20+ years serving in California‘s education system and approximately 10
years of dealing with Title I and Title III funds, she still firmly believed that parent text-
books ought to be an allowable allocation of Title I funds. Her charter school‘s approach
to education could be characterized as holistic. The school supports their community by
offering a variety of programs to students‘ families, including a free health clinic and
ESL classes, in addition to hiring members of students‘ families who are qualified for
staff positions. In return, an integral part of the student/family/school contract is that all
families are required to serve a minimum of 20 parent volunteer hours to support their
educational community each year. Many of the parents at this school are working toward
achieving their High School Equivalency Certificate, which would ultimately raise the
families‘ educational capacity. Victoria argued,
If we don‘t educate our parents, it‘s never going to change. . . . If we don‘t start
changing the community and how we engage them in education . . . they [won‘t]
grow in the ideas and importance of school. We‘re not going to have the support
of having them on the team if we don‘t really get them on board and rowing, truly
rowing with us, and not just in attitude but in growing, in becoming.
Students‘ family members are able to access further education by attending community
college; however, many do not have sufficient funds to buy required textbooks.
Sandra made a case for yard supervision to be covered by Title I and Title III
funds. ―With the Title I students, they don‘t necessarily have the home environment
that‘s gearing them for a successful yard/recess experience.‖ She talked about the
challenges that these students face due to a lack of experience playing with other children
outside:
For the Title III students you need second-language supervision so that they can
help them with all the challenges. And they‘re playing with each other and they
73
don‘t know the new game rules . . . . None of your categorical, even if you were
looking at other supplemental monies, you won‘t be able to use it for any [yard
supervision]. No matter how strong your argument is, you know it‘s difficult to
justify.
Providing bilingual support for ELs on the yard would not only help ELs have a more
successful school experience but would also allow more acquisition of BICS, as facili-
tated by other students on the playground. However, yard supervision is a core need, not
supplemental in nature; therefore, it is not an allowable expenditure for Title I and Title
III funds.
Michelle also espoused a holistic approach that had led to frustrations regarding
constraint issues. Eventually, she was able to rationalize the constraints, red tape, and
protracted timetables involved in gaining the necessary consensus by having a positive
attitude regarding accountability.
Everybody feels like they have a say, somehow. I think it helps build trusting
relationships. The parents feel like they have some say. I like the system but it‘s
tedious; but you have things in place not to let people abuse the system and so you
have to understand that, too.
Discussion of Theme 1
In sum, Title I and Title III grant funds are allocated on the condition that federal
regulations, state educational codes, and district-level protocols are followed. An integral
part of federal and state regulations mandate who is to take part in decision making for
allocating categorical funds. Another central group of regulations detail decision-making
protocols for these committees. Fund coordinators and principals at the school-site level
support and facilitate decision-making committee meetings. Community members and
teachers on decision-making committees choose how to spend Title I and Title III funds
to best support their school‘s poverty-level and second-language students‘ academic
success. The knowledge gaps apparent in the members of these stakeholder committees
74
must be addressed so that the committees‘ decisions will meet their student population‘s
specific needs.
Even participants who gave themselves high confidence ratings and had multiple
years of experience were not always able to discern allowable Title I and Title III
expenditures correctly. Fund coordinators gain most of their knowledge regarding Title I
and Title III grant regulations through experience rather than training. One of the primary
responsibilities of fund coordinators is to advise decision-making committees regarding
how to best use Title I and Title III funds to support their school‘s poverty-level and
second-language students while following the grants‘ purposes and restrictions. This lack
of training makes their initial year(s) in this position difficult and can compromise the
quality of information that school-site decision makers have at their disposal as well as
the effectiveness of their committees‘ decisions. Fund coordinators should initiate and
actively develop a relationship with their district-level fiscal specialist to receive mentor-
ing. Fiscal specialists are very helpful, but they support many fund coordinators.
Theme 2: Balance of Influence
The study of the balance of influence over how Title I and Title III funds are spent
is framed well by PRI‘s assertion that there has been a reduction in the amount of educa-
tion funding that is discretionary. Their quotes from California‘s Legislative Analyst‘s
Office, ―This decline in local discretion over spending runs counter to the increased
emphasis the state has placed on accountability,‖ and ―lack of discretion to meet local
challenges means that local districts cannot make the necessary changes to improve their
programs‖ (PRI, 2003, p. 7) explain why the amount of influence school-sites have over
how their money is spent is important. Using federal money to alleviate the challenges of
75
a small, distinct population (the Title I and Title III students at any particular school)
will be fruitful only if the federal money can be used to meet the specific needs of that
school‘s students. Title I and Title III funds are to be used in accordance to policy regula-
tions; however, further constraints are brought to bear by other involved parties who have
authority to influence spending.
This study researched three levels of influence for Title I and Title III funds spent
at elementary schools: federal, district, and school site. The first level of influence is the
federal government, since these funds originate at the federal level. The specific purposes
of these funds influence how grant monies are spent through the regulations attached to
each of the grants. The purposes of Title I and Title III funds are to support poverty-level
and second-language students‘ access to the state core curriculum (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006, and California Department of Education, 2006, respectively); therefore,
funds must be spend to fulfill those purposes. The net effect of federal influence
delivered via regulation constraints was measured using questions from this study‘s
online questionnaire that rated the expenditure satisfaction of school-site fund coordin-
ators at elementary school within The District.
The second level of influence studied was the district level. School site coordin-
ators‘ satisfaction with district-level spending of Title I and Title III funds was measured
using questions from the online questionnaire as well. The balance of influence within
school-site decision-making committees is described using data from the online question-
naire in addition to input from interviewees. In addition to detailing how school-site
expenditures are connected to school-site visions, the influence of principals on how
76
Title I and Title III funds are spent emerged as an important discussion topic during
interviews; therefore, a section is devoted to this topic.
Federal Influence on Spending
Odden and Picus characterized categorical grants (including Title I and Title III)
as ―used to ensure that school districts provide services deemed important by the state or
federal governments‖ (2004, p. 130). The federal government gives some latitude regard-
ing what specific resources are purchased using Title I and Title III funds, although Title
I and Title III regulations are explicit regarding several constraints, including the supple-
mental nature of allowable expenditures. Fund Coordinators are responsible for explain-
ing these constraints to the decision-making committees. Sandra explained:
We come to our budget meeting, our council meetings, and we ask for a whole set
of computers for English Learners and they have a hard time understanding,
―Well, why is it that you can buy all these computers but you cannot buy super-
vision? You know, supervision is needed more than a computer.‖ And explaining
that there‘s so many restrictions and stipulations how these monies could be
spent. They struggle with that, you know. I think that‘s basically where it comes
down to understanding how they can be used and following those guidelines.
This quote depicts the conflict between federal goals and the goals of school-site
decision-making committees. Guidelines (policy regulations) help ensure that Title I and
Title III funds support federal educational goals, but are goals formed at the school-site
level being met using Title I and Title III resources as well? Companies often measure
customer satisfaction when they want to assess their customer service. Much in the same
way, measurement of fund flexibility necessitates measurement of expenditure
satisfaction.
This study‘s online questionnaire measured the expenditure satisfaction of school-
site fund coordinators, which were correlated with schools‘ instructional visions and Title
77
I and Title III expenditures. Grant flexibility satisfaction feedback was purposefully
requested after respondents listed unfunded items, rated their agreement with district-
level allocation of funds, and satisfaction with the range of expenditures available at the
school-site level to promote fund coordinators‘ satisfaction ratings to be based on the
context of their experiences, versus a ―gut‖ instinct response.
The participants overwhelmingly chose satisfied or definitely satisfied to charac-
terize their satisfaction with the range of Title I and Title III expenditures: 15 of 20
responses and 14 of 19 responses, respectively (Table 3). Of the five respondents who
rated their satisfaction as either not satisfied or definitely not satisfied, only one spent
grant funds for the purpose of fulfilling students‘ deficiency needs. This supports the
importance of the connection of fulfilling students‘ survival needs and academic achieve-
ment (access to California‘s curriculum).
Table 3
Title I and Title III Grant Questionnaire: Responses to Item 12, “Generally Speaking,
How Satisfied Are You With the Range of Expenditures Allowed?”
Title I Title III
Answer option n % n %
Definitely not satisfied 1 5.0 1 5.3
Not satisfied 4 20.0 4 21.1
Satisfied 13 65.0 13 68.4
Definitely satisfied 2 10.0 1 5.3
Response count 20 100.0 19 100.0
78
District-Level Influences on Spending
A portion of Title I and Title III funds is allocated by school districts for district-
level support people, as well as to facilitate hiring specific types of employees at school
sites.
Under the old governance model (before school-based management), central
office (district-level) were considered to have the administrative responsibility for
ensuring that the conditions needed to promote learning were in place. With
decentralization, the school as a subunit now assumes this role. (Walker, 2002,
p. 3)
The District is not implementing school-based management completely; it still decides
how some of their schools‘ Title I and Title III funds are spent. Ratings of fund coordin-
ators‘ satisfaction with district-level Title I and Title III expenditures were examined, as
well as suggestions for improvement at the district level detailed to help understand
issues regarding district-level influences on Title I and Title III spending.
Satisfaction with Title I and Title III expenditures appropriated by district-level
administration for personnel at the site level was measured by this study‘s online ques-
tionnaire. Slightly less than half (47.4%) of the respondents stated that they would change
how Title I and Title III funds were spent at the district level and 52.6% said that they
would not change the expenditures (Table 4). Comments regarding how the funds would
be better used included using coaches as part-time teachers; more class size reduction
opportunities, including after-school one-on-one and small group tutoring; more teacher
assistants and relief substitutes; and better ways of supporting parent education.
For the first time, much of the control over Title I and Title III funds that the
district normally appropriates for school-site support personnel will be given directly to
the school sites. The District is currently relinquishing control over Title I and Title III
funds that district-level administrators used to assign Literacy Coaches, Math Coaches,
79
80
and other support staff to school sites. Starting with the 2009-2010 school year, each
school site will be able to choose whether they want a Literacy Coach, Math Coach, or
other support staff, based on votes by the SSC, CEAC, and ELAC committees. The job
descriptions for Literacy Coaches and Math Coaches have also been changed for the
2009-2010 school year to support these coaches working directly with their school‘s
student population. Many of the ―Other‖ comments may come to fruition if enough of the
site‘s voting stakeholders agree.
School-Site Influences on Spending
Similar to this study‘s expenditure categories (deficiency needs, educational sup-
port, language, or parent support oriented), Odden and Picus (2004) examined expendi-
tures by function as categorized by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
Categories included instruction, instruction support, student support, district administra-
tion, school administrations, operation and maintenance, student transportation, food, and
other. This section discusses how the stakeholder vision and the knowledge base of each
school‘s principal are connected to Title I and Title III expenditures. Resources chosen to
be purchased by this study‘s population are also itemized and examined. The following
three subsections (visions, expenditures, and influence within school-site decision-
making committees) present results and examine how Title I and Title III allocations are
chosen at the school-site level.
There are two scopes for viewing school-site influences on spending. The first
scope is how school-site visions (goals) are actuated through the use of Title I and Title
III spending. The second scope is how school-site principals exert control over decision-
making committees regarding the use of Title I and Title III funding. The first scope is
81
represented in two parts: visions and expenditures. The purpose of recording and analyz-
ing instructional visions and their corresponding expenditures is to measure Title I and
Title III‘s fund flexibility. The aspect of funding flexibility that was examined was
whether the funds met the specific needs of an individual schools‘ Title I and Title III
populations in a way that was agreed on by a representative group of school-site stake-
holders. For this reason, both expenditures and items requested but not eligible for pur-
chase with Title I and Title III funds were examined. The quality of alignments between
school-site instructional visions and school-site expenditures was used to indicate the
ability for schools to use Title I and Title III funds to further their instructional goals.
Instructional visions at the grant (federal), district, and school-site levels were collected
and analyzed along with school-site Title I and Title III expenditures. A program-
alignment-to-research approach was used to determine program quality. Research by
Maslow (2009), Stanton-Salazar (1997), and Cummins (1986) validate school site
expenditures and contextualize results in the discussion section of Chapter 5.
During examination of the second scope (influence within school-site decision-
making committees), it is important to remember that school principals are expected to
serve as main academic leaders for their schools. For that reason, as well as usually
having a more comprehensive knowledge base in budgetary and policy issues, principals
have more influence than other stakeholders in how Title I and Title III funds are spent.
The effects of this influence can result in better decision-making capacity from all
decision-making stakeholders; however, negative effects bridging from this extra power
are also discussed at the close of this theme.
82
Visions. Watson and Supovitz (2001) and The PRI (2003) supported connecting a
school-site‘s vision (goals) to that school‘s expenditures as a way to measure funding
flexibility and satisfaction. Watson and Supovitz (2001) contended that buy-in is especi-
ally important for reforms/programs to be implemented correctly. Since school-site
visions are crafted and agreed to by all stakeholder groups, resources funded by Title I
and Title III are aligned with each school‘s school-site vision and all stakeholders under-
stand how the success of these programs fit into bringing their school‘s vision to fruition.
Also, PRI (2003) warned that, if categorical programs are not integrated with the current
educational strategy at the local level, the categorical funding causes local responses
instead of addressing students‘ needs. By deriving future expenditure lists from identified
students‘ gaps in meeting their school vision, students‘ specific needs are met in a more
valid way.
The federal government‘s Title I Statement of Purpose is ―to ensure that all
children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education
and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement
standards and state academic assessments‖ (Title I, p. 1439). The federal government‘s
primary purpose of Title III is
to help ensure that children who are limited English proficient, including immi-
grant children and youth, attain English proficiency, develop high levels of aca-
demic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging State academic con-
tent and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to
meet. (Title III, § 3102.1)
The District‘s instructional vision states that ―Every [District] student will receive a state-
of-the-art education in a safe, caring environment, and every graduate will be college-
prepared and career-ready‖ (SDUDS, 2010, Mission para. 10). To illuminate how these
83
purposes are aligned with the district‘s vision and how the federal government‘s purposes
are communicated and actualized within the district at the school-site level, The District‘s
instructional vision and individual school-site instructional visions were examined.
Instructional visions were crafted collaboratively by stakeholders. For that reason,
the way instructional visions are supported by Title I and Title III grant funds changes
based on the stakeholders involved, data (indicating students‘ academic needs), and the
possible solutions supported by the school‘s principal and fund coordinator. Since stake-
holders from a wide variety of backgrounds develop the vision collaboratively, some
parts of the vision may be easier to bring to fruition than others due to misalignment with
accountability and motivation systems resident to Title I and Title III policy. PRI (2003)
quoted California‘s Legislative Analyst‘s Office as stating, ―Some categorical programs
create financial incentives that encourage schools to act in ways that are not in the best
interests of students‖ (p. 5). Victoria gave an example of this phenomenon:
The fact that our vision of getting them [the students] to be multilingual almost
became an impossible task. . . . Bottom line, our language program is being
watered down extensively . . . in the name of accountability. . . . We find our-
selves having to play the game and that is to take away the Spanish instruction as
early as possible so that the English happens.
Even though it was aligned with the purposes of Title III, incorporating bilingual
education into the school‘s programs and reforms was not possible due to accountability
measures that mandate specific steps toward students acquiring English earlier than
anticipated in a bilingual setting. This part of that school‘s vision could not come to
fruition. When part of a vision is unattainable, some schools extract it from the vision,
while others leave the vision intact, hoping that circumstances will change and that they
will be able to implement their vision in entirety in the future.
84
Title I and Title III funds are spent to help students affected by poverty and
second-language issues access state standards. The funds are categorical, thereby instill-
ing the opportunity for controlling what is purchased through regulatory constraints.
Accountability measures, such as performance benchmarks, do not allow a bilingual
approach to be used. The federal constraint with the most effect is that only supplemental,
not core, resources be purchased using Title I and Title III funds. The District constrains
Title I and Title III funds by allocating a portion of the funds for supporting their staff
and pedagogical agenda. Decision-making committees attempt to choose expenditures
that are aligned with the academic visions (goals) of the federal and state governments,
district, and school site.
Expenditures. School-level instructional visions were analyzed with Title I and
Title III expenditures and expenditure satisfaction. The data from each online question-
naire participant was aligned to identify data groupings to highlight data pertinent to this
study. Results pertinent to alignments between visions, expenditures, and this study‘s
theoretical framework are included within the section of ―Expenditures‖ to give evidence
supporting the conclusions from this study. There are two sources of data that decision
makers should consider when deciding how to allocate Title I and Title III resources: the
schools‘ goal (vision) and the resources needed to fulfill that vision.
When linking Title I and Title III fund expenditures with school-site instructional
visions, one would hope to find an alignment of purpose within a school site, as well as
between the school site and the federal funds‘ purposes. To achieve this, decision-making
committees should keep in mind their school‘s instructional vision when contemplating
Title I and Title III fund expenditures. Rachelle reflected,
85
Honestly, I do not think the vision is taken into consideration in deciding how to
spend the Title I and Title III monies. The monies were spent to make sure the
school runs and hopefully the vision will be indirectly achieved. The vision was
created this year but I am not sure it will have any impact on expenditures since it
hasn‘t in the past when we did not have one.
Victoria also stated that her school‘s vision of offering a multi-lingual education ―almost
became an impossible task . . . in the name of accountability.‖ Is it common for there to
be a ―disconnect‖ between schools‘ visions and how Title I and Title III funds are spent?
Other data from this study suggest that instructional visions are generally the basis for
Title I and Title III spending: The other 18 of the 20 respondents to the online question-
naire listed allocations purchased with Title I and Title III funds that they identified as
directly supporting their school‘s academic vision. This indicates that school-site Title I
and Title III expenditures are generally aligned with school-site visions.
Student and teacher needs served by school-site Title I and Title III funds were
identified by fund coordinators. These expenditures were categorized based on what type
of student need the expenditure addressed. Whereas the NCES categorized expenditures
by their own set of functions, this study identified three functions and categorized
expenditures as fulfilling Deficiency Needs, providing Academic Support, Bilingual
Support, or Parent Support. Title I and Title III expenditures are to be directly connected
to serving the needs of each school‘s Title I and Title III students. In the case of Title I
funds, resources purchased with those funds are to help poverty-level students access
California‘s state standards. Many poverty-level students do not have their basic survival
needs filled at home. Since students‘ capacity for learning is compromised to the degree
that their survival needs are not being met, resources that support survival needs are
funded by Title I. Huang and Yu (2002) stated that, ―Poor communities have to spend
more on basic social services . . . [in fact] increasing spending on instruction may com-
86
promise desperately needed social services and ultimately undermine student learning‖
(p. 4). Services that help to fulfill basic survival needs (referred to as ―deficiency needs‖
within this study) for students were found to be integral in all participants‘ instructional
visions. Questionnaire respondent 13 wrote, ―A large portion of the funds are used to
provide necessary services to our students they may not otherwise have access to.‖ On
Table 5 this is referred to as fortifying students‘ resources to meet their ―deficiency
needs.‖ Expenditures supporting students‘ deficiency needs as described by Maslow
(2009) include salaries of psychologists, nurses, PSA counselors, and psychiatric social
workers.
The two means for providing supplemental academic support paid for with Title I
and Title III dollars are teacher support and student support. Mathematics and literacy
coaches, Title I and Title III Coordinators, and material resources (copying machines,
computers, service contracts, and general supplies) support teachers and students.
Additional teacher support comes in the form of professional development and substitute
teachers to provide release time for data analysis sessions. Direct support to students
includes teacher assistants, extra teachers (pull-out, push-in, and music), intervention
teachers, fieldtrips, assemblies, television sets and videocassette recorders, document
readers/overhead projectors, mathematics manipulatives, literacy games, and
supplemental curricular programs.
Support for bilingual students and their families include instructional materials to
assist with ELD, bilingual office clerks, and bilingual teacher assistants. One school
(Questionnaire Participant 19) explicitly mentioned the importance of their bilingual
clerical force as providing a link between the school and non-English-speaking parents
87
Table 5
Title I and Title III Grant Questionnaire: Responses to Items 5 Through 8 and 12
Mean
satisfaction
Support domain Resource purchased n % rating
Deficiency needs 3.15
Psychologist 11 55 3.10
Nurse 12 60 3.20
PSA 6 30 3.14
Academic support 2.88
Title I coordinator 17 85 2.71
Extra teachers 6 30 3.00
Teaching assistants 15 75 3.00
Release substitutes 9 45 2.89
Field trips 4 20 3.25
Instructional materials 3 15 3.00
Computers 2 10 3.50
Document readers 2 10 3.50
Overhead projectors 2 10 3.00
Television/videocassette recorders 3 15 3.00
Copiers 11 55 2.73
Service contracts 7 35 2.73
General supplies 12 60 2.75
PD: Data analysis 8 40 2.88
PD: Literacy 8 40 2.88
PD: English Language Development 11 55 2.82
PD: Mathematics 7 35 2.86
Supplemental programs 2 10 3.00
Bilingual support 2.75
Title III coordinator 11 55 2.33
Teaching assistants 15 75 3.00
Clerks 4 20 3.00
Supplemental programs 1 5 3.00
Parent support 2.73
Title I coordinator 17 85 2.71
Activities 1 5 3.00
Note. PSA = Pupil Services and Attendance Counselor, PD = Professional Development.
88
and students. Supports for students‘ parents include Parent Center Directors, parent
involvement activities, and parent educational development (nutrition, English, and
parenting skills).
Comparisons between Title I and Title III expenditures at charter and non-charter
schools show that, for both types of schools, most funds are spent in academic support,
particularly CSR teachers and teacher assistants. One of the two charter schools
employed their psychologist using Title I funds. The other charter school used grant
funds to employ a Title I fund coordinator.
The online questionnaire measured participants‘ satisfaction with the range of
expenditures allowed by Title I and Title III regulations. A point value was given to each
possible rating: 1 = definitely not satisfied, 2 = not satisfied, 3 = satisfied, and 4 =
definitely satisfied. Each participant‘s satisfaction rating was aligned with the school‘s
expenditures. Mean satisfaction ratings were calculated for each expenditure by averag-
ing all satisfaction ratings of the participants who purchased that particular item.
Title I and Title III Expenditures were grouped into four core purposes: (a) forti-
fying students‘ resources to meet their deficiency needs, (b) providing additional aca-
demic support to address knowledge gaps common to a particular school‘s student
population, (c) providing bilingual support for ELs and their families, and (d) parent
support. Most Title I and Title III funds purchased employees, fund coordinators, and
teacher assistants. The purposes of these two groups of employees are to bring policy
regulations and schools‘ academic visions to fruition. Bilingual clerks at the school
site were found to be integral in fortifying relationships between the school and
89
non-English-speaking parents and students. Expenditures categorized as deficiency needs
were associated with the highest satisfaction rating mean. Table 5 displays these results.
Expenditures categorized as deficiency needs associated with the highest satisfac-
tion rating mean supports Maslow‘s hierarchy as necessary for the other supports to have
optimal effect. The most prevalent academic support was hiring a school-site fund
coordinator. The academic support given by fund coordinators includes leading pro-
fessional developments and providing data analysis support to the school community.
Teaching assistants were also a dominant resource purchased for both academic and
bilingual support.
Examination of school-site Title I and Title III expenditures indicated that
resources to fulfill deficiency needs were described as being ―integral‖ to participants‘
visions (goals) and expenditures and were associated with the highest mean satisfaction
rating. The most prevalent expenditure was to employ a full-time fund coordinator.
Fund coordinators support all four expenditure purposes in this study: deficiency needs,
academic support, bilingual support, and parent support.
Influences within school-site decision-making committees. Stakeholders on
school-site decision-making committees should work collaboratively to choose resources
to be purchased using Title I and Title III funds. As with most committees and teams,
influence among members is based on respect, trust, fairness of judgment, knowledge,
and experience. Effects of the weighted influence of school principals is examined here to
understand one dynamic of school-site stakeholder decision-making committees.
The school principals‘ main role is to provide academic leadership, and in that
capacity they have developed preferences for Title I and Title III expenditures that are
90
founded on their experience as educators and their own knowledge of programs and
reforms. Influence within school-site decision-making committees is also weighted
heavily in favor of school principals due to their more comprehensive knowledge base
regarding Title I and Title III funds and regulations. Data from Apodaca-Tucker and
Slate‘s survey (2002) quantifies this influence: 85.6% of her respondents rated adminis-
trator (principal) input on deciding how school discretionary funds will be spent as a
―major influence‖ (the highest rating on her scale); 46% rated teacher input to be of
major influence, and only 16.2 % rated parent input as a major influence (Table 5, p. 13).
When asked about how her school‘s principal affects decision making, Michelle stated,
We work very close. . . . He always makes his recommendation. Most of the time
he‘ll say, ―I‘m recommending that we buy this, this, this, this and this is the
reason why.‖ So at our school I‘ll invite, for example, all the positions purchased
by categorical (Title I and Title III) funding. We have a psychiatric social worker.
She gets fully paid out of categorical funding. Title I and our English Learners
money, 50/50. So when we‘re up to buying her position again, I invite her to
come in and make a presentation and bring us data. Because we‘re not going to
purchase that position if our attendance is low. We‘re buying you, but yet we see
no results? So she‘ll bring information as to what our attendance is. How many
SST‘s (Student Success Team meetings) she has done. How many parent work-
shops and those things that justify why we‘re buying her. . . . It‘s my job, one of
the things is I just make sure the data is out there for the council to see.
Principals take their role as educational leader seriously and use Title I and Title
III funds to help bring their vision of their school to fruition. Principals are involved in
the decision-making process by presenting data in conjunction with their preferred
solutions. They also decide when committee meetings will be held and impact how
meetings are run by influence of their leader status. Unfortunately, the decision-making
protocols that are mandated by Title I and Title III regulations are not always followed.
Two instances of alleged abuse of power by site principals were reported when data were
gathered for this study. When answering questionnaire item 8, a respondent mentioned
91
that not all Title I and Title III funds had been spent at the site for the past 2 years due to
a ―lack of administrative planning‖ (Table 1). In addition, Rachelle stated,
Our person [is] very good but I think the buck mostly stops with our principal and
when she says, ―No, I‘m not gonna do that paperwork,‖ that‘s where it stops.
These accounts highlight the continued need for non-school-site authorities to be
involved in ensuring collaboration by all stakeholder parties. Outside of these two excep-
tions, protocols dictated by Title I and Title III regulations regarding stakeholder partici-
pation and disbursement of funds were reported to be executed with fidelity by the site
coordinators of Title I and Title III funds.
Decisions at the school-site level regarding Title I and Title III expenditures are
influenced by the school‘s vision, in addition to the leaders at the school, particularly the
principal. Title I and Title III funds help to bring school academic visions to fruition by
purchasing resources that the school‘s Title I and Title III student population needs;
therefore, the content (goals) of the school vision help to decide expenditures. Federal
constraints restrict expenditures to being supplemental in nature while The District
constrains the dollar amount available at the school-site level by appropriating a portion
of the Title I and Title III monies. The money left over for schools to allocate is
marshaled by stakeholder decision-making committees on which the school‘s principal
has a weighted vote due to presumed knowledge and experience regarding pedagogical
methods and school budget issues.
Discussion of Theme 2
The three levels of influence on Title I and Title III spending studied in this
research include federal, district, and school-site governing bodies. The federal govern-
ment‘s purpose for Title I is to improve access to state standards for students from
92
poverty and below-poverty-level families (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). The
federal government‘s purpose for Title III dollars is to improve access to state standards
for students who are learning English as a second language (California Department of
Education, 2006). Since these two grants support students who face learning challenges
not faced by the general student population, the federal government puts constraints on
their education dollars that mandate that all allocations to be supplemental in nature. This
constrains what resources are allowable to a great degree, leading to confusion and con-
flict between federal goals and the goals of school-site decision-making committees. One
specific negative effect from these constraints/ regulations is that bilingual pedagogical
approaches are not possible.
Approximately three quarters of the fund coordinators in this sample were either
satisfied or very satisfied with the range of allowable expenditures. Resources associated
with the highest satisfaction rating mean helped to support students‘ deficiency needs.
This support domain was also found to be an integral part of most participants‘ instruc-
tional visions.
The District uses Title I and Title III funds to support school sites by supplying
fiscal specialists who train and support school-site fund coordinators, in addition to
assigning support staff such as academic coaches, nurses, and school psychologists. This
lowers the amount of money available for school sites to allocate for their specific student
populations‘ needs. Approximately half of the fund coordinators disagreed with how Title
I and Title III funds were allocated at the district level.
Members of school-site decision-making committees decide how Title I and Title
III funds are spent; the member of these committees who has particular influence is the
93
school‘s principal. Principals have more influence regarding school-site decisions due to
their assigned roles on the committees, as well as their presumed experience and training
regarding Title I and Title III grant regulations. One third of this study‘s interviewees
reported that their school‘s principal was not following the federal collaborative decision-
making protocols strictly. This highlights the need for non-school-site authorities to
monitor accountability systems to reinforce policy regulations and protocols at the
school-site level.
Theme 3: Underfunding
Two fund pipelines are under-funded for California‘s Title I and Title III students:
Title I and Title III funding and ―core‖ funding from the state of California. There are
two ways that Title I and Title III funds are being under-garnered at the school-site level.
First, not all students who qualify for supplemental resources through Title I and/or Title
III complete the paperwork for their school to garner those supplemental funds. Second,
the state of California has chipped away education funding to the extent that core
(necessary) educational materials and resources are underfunded and lacking in many
schools statewide. Evidence of this phenomenon was given in responses to the question-
naire by respondents who attempted to fund their school‘s core needs using funds meant
for supplemental resources (Title I and Title III funds).
Insufficient Title I and Title III Funds
Title I and Title III funds are distributed as a flat grant per eligible pupil (Odden
& Picus, 2004); however, many families do not apply for the Title I and/or Title III
assistance funds that their children are eligible to receive. Due to the nurturing culture
implicit at schools, as well as a lack of resource accountability at the classroom level,
94
these children receive services, such as academic support, purchased with Title I and
Title III funds, even though the school is not reimbursed for the cost of that support.
Michelle mentioned that she works tirelessly to get parents to complete appropriate free-
lunch applications (the paperwork that designates a student as eligible for Title I
resources). This helps to bring more grant funds to her school.
If the parents don‘t fill out the meal applications in that whole process, then we
don‘t get as many [students eligible for Title I funding]. Whereas some of our
people really need the meal application and they do qualify, [but] it‘s hard to get
that parent involved. And even though you don‘t want to harass the parent… you
have sent many notices home and our parent outreach . . . it‘s constant. . . . The
poverty level [number of Title I students] isn‘t as high as it used to be, obviously
we‘re going to feel it. But then we have less students so truly we shouldn‘t. But
positions still cost and if you want to maintain the same level of what you already
got used to, and what‘s improving your scores, then you need to have a certain
amount of money [to keep those programs running].
Another funding challenge was highlighted when Sandra noted, ―The decrease in
funding we received due to the decrease in enrollment in Title I and due to the decrease
in LEPs [made it impossible to purchase what we wanted] because more LEPs were
reclassified last year.‖ In other words, funding flows from the federal government
proportionately per student, in contrast to Title I and III costs at the on-site level, which
can be renegotiated only once or sometimes twice per year. The reason for the lack of
flexibility is that much of the money is allocated for employees, and employee contracts
within the district have very strict protocols. Sandra and Michelle‘s testimonies indicate a
need for the state to revisit how to count students for funding purposes.
Insufficient Core/Basic Educational Funding
According to EdSource, state funds and local property taxes comprise approxi-
mately 80% of K-12 education funds (2003, p. 2). The purpose of these state funds is
to provide core resources for California‘s K-12 students, including facilities, teachers,
95
textbooks, and all other staff/materials deemed necessary for students to meet
California‘s state standards for learning. For the 2005-2006 school year, the national
average per-pupil expenditure was $9,963, but California‘s per-pupil expenditure was
$7,571 (Education Week, 2009). The state of California has even had to settle lawsuits
(e.g., Williams in 2000) that have claimed that the state does not provide enough money
to fund core needs (EdSource, 2003). Evidence from this study of underfunding at the
state level includes items that were not funded utilizing Title I and Title III funds because
they were deemed to be core needs.
Unfunded items at school sites result when the expenditure is requested by the
school‘s Title I and Title III fund coordinator but denied at the district level due to grant
constraints. Table 6 lists such unfunded items. Four schools wanted to purchase reading
books, which are not on the ―acceptable expenditure‖ list because they are viewed as core
(versus supplemental) materials. The items are generally (13 of 15) within the domain of
academic support. The others, yard supervision and a full-time PSA Counselor, are
within the deficiency needs domain.
Table 6 indicates a wide range of core resources that are not available to students
at these schools. Since resources at school sites are purchased on a priority basis, in
conjunction with policy regulations, this list represents both those core items deemed low
priority and core items that are not allowable expenditures via other funding pipelines.
Some schools are able to ask for donations from the community to fill these needs;
however, most school communities with a majority of Title I students are not able to
contribute everything deemed necessary for success with California‘s curriculum.
96
Table 6
Responses to Interview and Questionnaire Item 9: “What Items (If Any) Did You Want to
Purchase for Your School But Were Unable to Purchase Due to Grant Regulations?”
Response n %
Music teacher 1 5
More teaching assistants without
No Child Left Behind qualifications 1 5
Yard supervision for students 1 5
More physical education equipment 1 5
Library books 4 20
Entrance fees for field trips 1 5
Full-time pupil services and attendance counselor 1 5
Paraprofessionals 1 5
Instructional materials 1 5
Computers 1 5
Textbooks for parents‘ education 1 5
Printer cartridges 1 5
Non-district presenters for professional development 1 5
Office referral sheet personalized for school 1 5
Additional librarian time 1 5
When a school is not able to purchase its core resources, committees look to fill
the needs using any other sources of funding available to that school. School-site funding
coordinators have the responsibility to advise interested stakeholders that Title I and Title
97
III funds cannot be used to purchase outstanding core resources. Sandra summarized the
types of expenditures that go unfunded due to the supplemental nature of Title I and Title
III funds:
Title I and Title III monies tend to do with supplemental materials or resources
. . . . You cannot purchase P.E. equipment; supervision cannot come out of those
funds, and [not] library books, because they‘re considered a core need . . . which
means it‘s a basic need for everybody. The way you should look at it is that now
just because you have these supplemental funds from the government, you should
not be tapping into these resources to buy what you should be getting already out
of your general funding.
The term general funding refers to the core funding that schools receive from the state.
Sandra‘s quote indicates that core needs are not being provided sufficient funds for
elementary schools in California.
Discussion of Theme 3
California schools are underfunded: Title I and Title III funds are insufficient due
to underidentification at the school-site level and population fluctuations during the
school year, in addition to core educational programs being underfunded at the state
level. Many students do not get identified as Title I and/or Title III students due to their
families not applying for their school‘s free lunch program. These students benefit from
resources purchased with Title I and Title III funds but do not contribute to their funding.
Another strain on the flow of funds at the school-site-level is that, while Title I and Title
III funds are earned by the head count method twice each year, most Title I and Title III
funds are spent on employees who have strict annual contracts with The District. If the
second head count of the year is lower than the first, employees funded by Title I and
Title III funds become a burden on the school and district finances.
98
Insufficient funding of schools‘ core resources affected the domain of academic
support the most, library books being the most underfunded core item. The core defici-
ency needs domain resources that were most needed were yard supervision and additional
PSA Counselor time. This underfunding compromises students‘ access to the state‘s
academic curriculum and must be corrected before Title I and Title III funds can have
their desired effect.
Summary of Results
Knowledge Gaps of School-Site Decision-Makers
1. Fund coordinators are responsible to close the budget, policy, and education
knowledge gaps of the other stakeholders on school-site decision-maker committees, yet
school-site fund coordinators have knowledge gaps regarding both Title I and Title III
regulations that make it challenging for them to deal with grant regulations. Even fund
coordinators who were confident in their policy knowledge had difficulty in discriminat-
ing between valid and invalid grant expenditures. This raises fidelity concerns, as well as
efficiency concerns, and contributes to the findings pertaining to grant flexibility. Does
the additional federal control of being categorical offset Title I and Title III operating
costs? Three ways to address these concerns are to change regulations to be more
streamlined and easier to implement, provide more training for fund coordinators, and
provide a mentor system for the first several years of service.
2. Training and mentoring of school-site funding coordinators is insufficient and
leaves much of fund coordinators‘ training to their school‘s principal and experience.
This lack of support affects the effectiveness of school-site decision-making committees,
causing friction between grant policy and how grant funds are used (school practice).
99
Since many protocols that govern decision-making committees are designed at the district
level, professional developments filling fund coordinator‘s knowledge gaps may be more
effective if given at the district level.
Balance of Influence Over Expenditures
3. Fund coordinators were generally satisfied with the range of expenditures that
regulations allow, although two areas of frustration were discussed by study participants.
First, the supplemental nature of Title I and Title III is frustrating to stakeholders who see
students‘ basic academic needs not being provided for sufficiently by the state of
California. Second, federal educational goals and their accountability measures bar
schools from using a bilingual pedagogical approach, even though bilingual methods are
supported by research as necessary. Most participating schools used Title I and Title III
expenditures to support their school‘s visions through funding employees such as fund
coordinators, teacher assistants, nurses, and school psychologists. School sites attempt to
spend categorical money to bridge that gap in core resources because general funding
does not meet the basic needs of students. Supplemental resources should be added to a
strong foundation of core resources, which is not possible at California‘s current funding
level. The expenditures with the highest mean satisfaction rating were used to help fulfill
deficiency needs. This supports the previous conclusion that the supplemental nature of
academic support will be more effective if core needs (deficiency needs) are supported as
well.
4. Nearly half of the population reported that they would change how district-
level Title I and Title III funds were spent at their site. This indicates a need for better
alignment between pedagogical approaches at district and school-site levels. Based on
100
this study‘s previous conclusion, that more training for fund coordinators is necessary, a
greater portion of district-level Title I and Title III resources should be allotted for train-
ing in policy regulations.
5. Principals were found to use their extra influence on decision-making com-
mittees with varying effects. Principals heavily influence decision making in positive
ways by providing pertinent training, data, and possible solutions that represent and meet
their school‘s Title I and Title III students‘ needs. They also have particular influence in
shaping how Title I and Title III protocols are implemented. Conversely, principals some-
times abuse their influence; therefore, accountability measures involving non-school-site
authorities are still necessary to ensure collaboration by all stakeholder parties, as
dictated by Title I and Title III grant regulations.
Underfunding of Education
6. California‘s Title I and Title III students are underfunded in three ways. First,
some eligible families do not complete the application that allows their school to be given
the supplementary funds. Second, some school site employees are employed based on
certain Title I and Title III student population numbers; when those students move away
from their school after the school year begins, the school no longer garners the funds
necessary to compensate employees purchased with Title I and Title III funds. Third, all
of California‘s students are insufficiently funded for core resources, based on the fact that
decision-making committees are forced to purchase core materials using supplementary
(Title I and Title III) funds. Title I and Title III funds will not have their necessary
―supplemental‖ effect until all of California‘s educational core resources are fully funded.
At that time, non-Title I and Title III students will have the opportunities to access the
101
quality of education that California has pledged and supplemental funds will serve their
intended purpose. Underfunding compromises access by all of California‘s students to the
state‘s academic curriculum; this situation must be corrected before Title I and Title III
funds can have the desired effect.
These six research results comprise the findings of this study. The significance of
these finding ranges across the three content themes under study, including lowered
validity of decisions by school-site committees, misalignment of federal, district, and
school site expenditures, principals‘ weighted influence on decisions made by stake-
holder committees, and supplementary funds not having their intended effect on learning
due to underfunding of foundational (core) learning resources.
102
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Federal decision makers have targeted Title I and Title III funds to improve
poverty-level and second-language students‘ access to academic success; however,
hurdles can compromise the effect of these grant funds on students. Federal legislators
include constraints in the grants‘ regulations to align programs purchased using federal
funds with federally endorsed pedagogical methods. Can schools fund the programs that
their poverty-level and second-language students need to succeed academically? Some
educational leaders contend that grant regulations constrain the possible solutions that are
legally acceptable. Others complain that these two segments of student populations are
still severely underfunded, particularly when performance standards are so high. Yet
more on-site educational leaders assert that they need control over a greater percentage of
Title I and Title III funds, taking away grant funds from state, county, and district juris-
diction. These perspectives on Title I and Title III fund issues led to the analysis con-
ducted in the current study.
The purpose of this study was to explore how educators and policy makers can
help poverty-level and second-language students succeed academically by investigating
flexibility issues surrounding Title I and Title III grant funds. This study measures Title I
and Title III grant flexibility at school-sites by describing how funds are dispersed in
addition to how grant funds are being used. Difficulties faced by the fund coordinators of
those grant funds were investigated and Title I and Title III expenditures garnered from
their Title I and Title III student population were reported and analyzed through the lens
103
of how funds supported students‘ survival, social capital, and second-language
acquisition needs.
The three research questions guided the examination of the complex protocols
mandated by Title I and Title III for decision making, budgetary issues, and conse-
quences of funding changes. The study also addressed how Title I and Title III funds are
used to support students, teachers, and administrators who are facilitating the equity-
based education promised to all students. The research questions were as follows:
1. How do local school sites interpret regulations prescribed by Title I and Title
III legislation?
2. What are the instructional visions and corresponding expenditures associated
with Title I and Title III at local school sites?
3. What are the effects of fund coordinators‘ knowledge and execution of funds
(including fund coordinator confidence and expenditure satisfaction ratings) when
investigating flexibility issues surrounding Title I and Title III grants?
This study was conducted in a metropolitan area of southern California. The
population consisted of Title I and Title III fund coordinators at elementary schools
within The District that had at least 75% Title I and 35% Title III students. These fund
coordinators were also used as the unit of analysis. There were 20 participants from this
dissertation‘s online questionnaire, two of whom work at charter schools. Six of the 20
questionnaire participants were also interviewed, including one interviewee from a
charter school. While the percentage of EL students educated by The District is much
higher than California‘s overall percentage of EL students (32% versus 24% statewide),
The District‘s fund coordinators confront hurdles similar to those faced by other districts,
104
making the results of this research relevant to many schools outside of The District. Four
of the 20 participants (fund coordinators) had administrative titles (Director or Assistant
Principal), with the balance holding non-administrative (teacher) titles including Title I
Coordinator or Title I and Title III Coordinator). Most fund coordinators are dedicated to
fulfilling their responsibilities full-time due to the high number of Title I and Title III
students at their schools. Most training of fund coordinators takes place on the job, with
monthly half-day meetings facilitated by The District‘s Title I and Title III support team.
This study‘s results and conclusions are organized using the three themes that
emerged during data analysis. These themes (Table 7) reflect the challenges faced by
fund coordinators. The first theme, knowledge gaps of decision makers regarding Title I
and Title III, includes findings from this research about important content information
that decision-making committee members are lacking (particularly fund coordinators).
Inadequate content information about Title I and Title III grant regulations affects the
quality and effectiveness of decisions that decision-making committee members are able
to make, in addition to how well fund coordinators are able to perform their job responsi-
bilities. The second theme, the balance of influence for how Title I and Title III funds are
used, addresses how the federal government, district offices, and principals affect the
decisions made at school sites regarding Title I and Title III expenditures. While grant
regulations necessitate involvement of all stakeholder groups in decision making, federal
lawmakers and district leaders put constraints on possible expenditures while principals
have a weighted influence on decision-making committees due to their leadership role
and presumed experience. The third theme is the underfunding of California‘s educa-
tional system. Supplementary funds, such as those garnered from Title I and Title III
105
Table 7
Confluence of Research Question Topics and Emerging Themes
Theme 1: Theme 2: Theme 3:
Knowledge Balance Underfunding
Research question gaps of influence
1. Process of fund disbursement X X
2. Instructional visions and expenditures X X
3. Fund coordinators‘ knowledge and satisfaction X
grants, have their intended effect only if core needs have already been fulfilled. The
issues surrounding core resources and supplementary resources are discussed as they
pertain to resources purchased using Title I and Title III funds.
Summary of Results
There were six significant findings in this study. Two of the findings were within
the theme of Knowledge Gaps of School-Site Decision Makers. These two findings
examine how the knowledge gaps of fund coordinators affect their ability to perform their
responsibilities effectively and efficiently, as well as why these knowledge gaps are
prevalent. This second theme, the Balance of Influence over Expenditures, has three
related findings. The content of these three findings discuss how federal and district con-
straints affect the level of satisfaction that fund coordinators have for allowable Title I
and Title III expenditures and how school principals use their influence while working
with decision-making committees to decide how Title I and Title III funds will be spent
at their school. The third theme, Underfunding of Education in California, has one
106
finding that highlights how underidentification, student migration, and inadequate core
funds diminish the positive effects of Title I and Title III resources on poverty-level and
second-language students.
Knowledge Gaps of School-Site Decision Makers
School-site decision makers‘ Title I and Title III knowledge gaps emerged from
coding data pertaining to SSCs (decision-making committees), fund coordinator needs,
and fiscal specialists (district-level employees charged with supporting school-site fund
coordinators). The two aspects of this theme are related to the process of funds disburse-
ment and fund coordinators‘ confidence in their knowledge base. These two aspects
affect the capacity of decision-making committees to use Title I and Title III funds in the
most beneficial ways for their schools‘ students.
The first finding suggests that fund coordinators are responsible for closing the
budget, policy, and education knowledge gaps of the other stakeholders on school-site
decision-maker committees, yet school-site fund coordinators have knowledge gaps
regarding both Title I and Title III regulations that make it challenging for them to deal
with grant regulations. Even fund coordinators who were confident in their policy
knowledge had difficulty in discriminating between valid and invalid grant expenditures.
This raises fidelity concerns as well as efficiency concerns, in addition to contributing to
the study‘s findings pertaining to grant flexibility. Just as Corcoran (2003) found that
having the skills to make sense of research was necessary for staff members to make
effective decisions, the effectiveness of decision-making committees was compromised
by the knowledge gaps of their members. Members of school-site decision-making com-
mittees have little or no experience and/or training regarding budget issues, education
107
issues, and Title I and Title III regulations; therefore, it becomes the fund coordinator‘s
duty to fill the other committee members‘ knowledge gaps. Future work in streamlining
regulations, in addition to providing more training for decision-making committee
members, is necessary to improve the validity of committee decisions.
The second finding is that the training and mentoring of school-site funding
coordinators is insufficient and leaves much of fund coordinators‘ training to the school‘s
principal and experience. This supports Corcoran‘s research (2003) connecting decision-
making efficacy compromised by committee members‘ knowledge gaps. Lack of support
for fund coordinators affects the effectiveness of school-site decision-making com-
mittees, causing friction between grant policy and how grant funds are used (school
practice). Since many protocols governing decision-making committees are designed at
the district level, professional development filling fund coordinator‘s knowledge gaps
may be more effective if it is given at the district level. Most fund coordinators were
classroom teachers before they were responsible for Title I and Title III funds; their
specialty was pedagogy, not regulatory and budget issues. Unfortunately, The District is
currently providing even less training than previously due to budgetary shortfalls. Fund
coordinators‘ knowledge gaps are therefore left to be filled through experience.
Balance of Influence over Expenditures
The finding of balance of influence regarding allocation of Title I and Title III
funds discusses the constraints that the federal government and district-level administra-
tion put on how Title I and Title III grant funds are to be used, in addition to what
influences are prevalent at school-sites. Data for this theme surfaced during coding of
interviews as well as questionnaire responses that related to fund coordinators‘ rating of
108
their satisfaction with allowable expenditures and district-level expenditures. There were
three distinct findings in this regard: (a) Most fund coordinators were generally satisfied
with the range of expenditures available to them, (b) nearly half of the fund coordinators
did not approve of how The District spent their district-level portion of Title I and Title
III funds, and (c) school principals carry heavy influence at their sites regarding how
categorical funds are spent.
First, in general, fund coordinators were satisfied with the range of expenditures
that regulations allow; however, they noted two areas of friction. First, the supplemental
nature of Title I and Title III is frustrating to stakeholders who see students‘ basic
academic needs not being provided for sufficiently by the state. Title I and Title III are
categorical grants, meaning that their purpose is to ―provide services deemed important
by the state or federal governments‖ (Odden & Picus, 2004, p. 130). Since these grants
are federally funded, resources that are supposed to be supplied by state revenues are not
to be purchased with federal dollars. This friction of purpose makes decision-making
committees try to fulfill core needs using money meant for supplemental resources,
calling into question their fidelity to the grants‘ purpose. Another issue is that federal
educational goals and their accountability measures impede school efforts to use a
bilingual pedagogical approach, even though bilingual methods have been demonstrated
by research to be valid. Krashen (1981) argued that students‘ first language should be
maintained and developed and that subject matter education should be provided in the
mother tongue. The evidence suggests that this part of Krashen‘s instructional program
model is not being implemented with fidelity (if at all) at any of the participant schools.
109
The second finding revealed that almost half of the participants did not agree with
how district-level Title I and Title III funds were spent for their site. Challenges related to
non-school-site influences are similar to those posited by Apodaca-Tucker and Slate
(2002), who found that leadership teams were not able to effect as much change as they
desired due to limited decision-making power over money spent at their school. This
indicates a need for better alignment between pedagogical approaches at district and
school-site levels. Based on this study‘s previous conclusion, that more training for fund
coordinators is necessary, a greater portion of district-level Title I and Title III resources
should be allotted to training in policy regulations.
Third, principals have an added influence over shaping how Title I and Title III
protocols are implemented at their school site, as well as how funds are spent, due to their
formal leadership role. Duemer and Mendez-Morse (2002) stipulated policy implementa-
tion is interpreted at the school site level, including the values, attitudes, and perspectives
held by leaders and teachers at each site. Principals heavily influence decision making in
positive ways by providing pertinent training, data, and possible solutions that represent
and meet their school‘s Title I and Title III students‘ needs. They also have particular
influence in shaping how Title I and Title III protocols are implemented. However,
principals sometimes abuse their influence. This calls for accountability measures involv-
ing non-school-site authorities to ensure collaboration by all stakeholder parties, as
dictated by Title I and Title III grant regulations.
Underfunding of Education
The third theme, the underfunding of California‘s educational system, discusses
two sets of education grants that are insufficiently funded: Title I and Title III grants
110
(which are underfunded in two distinct ways) and state funding of core resources. This
underfunding lowers the capacity of supplemental funds to fulfill their purpose, since
supplemental funds need a solid foundation upon which to build. All data found within
this theme were coded from the interviews.
There are three ways in which California‘s educational system is underfunded:
(a) Not all eligible families complete the application that identifies them as being at
poverty level (therefore, their school does not receive funds for lunches for them),
(b) grant funds fluctuate based on mid-year population migration (changing the funds
available for schools to pay for employees purchased to support poverty-level students),
and (c) California‘s core funding is insufficient. Underidentification of Title I and Title
III-eligible students occurs, possibly because there can be a stigma associated with
students who need supplemental resources to meet their needs (Odden and Picus, 2004).
These students still need Title I resources, and often receive them; however, the resources
are stretched too thin because schools do not garner sufficient funds to serve all students.
The number of poverty-level and second-language students at each school is
reported at the beginning and middle of the school year to establish the dollar amount of
grant funds for which the school is eligible. Budgets, followed by expenditures, are actu-
ated once those funds are available. Since a large portion of the grant funds is used to
purchase human resource contracts (usually annual contracts), it is important that the
funding for supplemental positions remain stable for the period of those contracts.
Unfortunately, student populations (especially those segments of the population who are
less stable) migrate, changing the school‘s ability to pay for contracts using only Title I
and Title III funds. When Title I and Title III students leave a school, that school still
111
pays its supplemental employees‘ salaries but has reduced Title I and Title III funds to
offset the cost. This adds to the burden of schools‘ already underfunded budgets.
Third, core educational underfunding of schools is a concern, as stated in
Williams, in which ―the plaintiffs contended that California had failed to provide
thousands of public school students—particularly low-income students and students of
color—with the ‗bare minimum necessities‘‖ (EdSource, 2003, p. 5). With necessary
resources not always available, supplemental resources (such as Title I and Title III
allocations) do not have the foundation upon which their effect can be optimized, calling
into question whether supplemental resources are truly supplemental or whether poverty-
level and second-language learners are simply getting the holes left by core underfunding
filled in with ―supplemental‖ resources.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this research support three implications for practice related to
fund coordinators. First, novice fund coordinators should forge relationships with experi-
enced fund coordinators who are willing to mentor them. Second, fund coordinators
should educate decision-making committee members regarding the effects that unmet
survival needs can have on learning. Third, finding new sources of funds and human
resources is becoming necessary. These three directives necessitate a high level of
initiative from fund coordinators as they execute their responsibilities.
Participants in this study exhibited basic gaps in knowledge regarding Title I and
Title III regulations, exacerbated by a general lack of support from The District. This
indicates the need for fund coordinators to seek help and support, particularly during their
initial years in the position. Many basic knowledge gaps could be filled easily and
112
expediently if The District were to facilitate and support mentoring relationships for
novice fund coordinators. Mentors would be able to share their experience during
conversations with mentees. These conversations would fill novice fund coordinators‘
knowledge gaps, solve many of their professional problems, and coach them on how to
fulfill their school‘s Title I and Title III students‘ needs. Until The District sponsors such
a program, mentoring relationships must be initiated by the mentee. Fund coordinators
should identify their own knowledge gaps and find ways to acquire the necessary
knowledge base to perform their responsibilities, including building the capacity of their
school‘s decision-making committee members.
Schools that supplemented academic support without supplementing deficiency
needs reported being less satisfied with their range of approved expenditures. This indi-
cates that fund coordinators should support deficiency needs being filled in conjunction
with supplementary academic support when making the school‘s new budget. Fund
coordinators should educate members of decision-making committees about the con-
nection between fulfilling survival needs and academic achievement. This will build a
common knowledge base at committee meetings that will drive discussion and promote
solutions that are holistically sound. Another way in which fund coordinators can support
resources for deficiency needs is to promote the involvement of their school‘s nurse,
psychologist, and other employees fulfilling students‘ deficiency needs with decision-
making committees, asking those employees to present when the topics are relevant to the
committee‘s meeting agenda.
California‘s core education needs are underfunded. Schools need to find new
ways to provide human and financial resources. Due to yard supervision being considered
113
core/necessary, it is not an eligible allocation of Title I or Title III funds and is therefore a
severely underfunded need. This issue can be addressed within schools‘ decision-making
committees. Alternative bilingual and social capital support systems in lieu of paid
bilingual yard supervision can be organized. Possible supports include instigating a yard
supervision volunteer schedule or a peer program partnering newcomers with higher
ELD-leveled students.
Recommendations
Two recommendations for future research are relevant to the results of this study:
(a) Questionnaires should be more sensitive to the limited time of respondents, and
(b) analyzing Title I and Title III expenditures for 5 years or longer would provide data
to highlight issues regarding fluctuating funds and effects of changing grant expenditures.
Making these changes in future studies aligned with this research topic would represent
the experience of more fund coordinators and broaden the body of findings and con-
clusions relating to Title I and Title III fund expenditures and flexibility.
Long questionnaires are not conducive to a high rate of participation. Only 45 of
272 fund coordinators began to complete the questionnaire and 25 of those 45 did not
finish the questionnaire sufficiently to be included as participants. This indicates that
streamlining the data-gathering protocol is necessary to enhance the number of partici-
pants. Designing a protocol that is more targeted would retain more participants, allowing
for quantitative analysis. The items in the questionnaire were crafted to build an inherent
scaffold of context for participants (as well as the researcher). While this helped to ensure
that participants‘ responses took certain data into consideration as participants progressed
through the questionnaire, it lengthened the instrument to the extent that many potential
114
participants did not start or complete the questionnaire. Targeting questionnaire items
would have eliminated various supporting questions, making the overall response time
much shorter for participants. It is possible that this would have led to a greater number
of participants, potentially allowing quantitative analysis to occur.
A quality of quantitative analysis is that findings are generalizable, having the
additional power of representing a population, versus simply representing participants
qualitatively as in multicase studies. Quantitative study results are less likely to be called
into question; due to the higher number of participants, the results are less biased. If this
study had recruited enough participants to allow for quantitative analysis, findings would
have been generalizable to the population of fund coordinators within The District.
This study introduced data skimming the surface of Title I and Title III usage at
school sites. Future research should strive for a more in-depth look. A longitudinal study
mirroring the current research‘s data points over the course of 5 years would illuminate
how experience changes fund coordinators‘ perspectives and performance and ways that
schools respond to changing student needs. A longitudinal study would depict how fund
coordinators‘ judgment and job efficacy change as knowledge gaps are filled by experi-
ence. Also, a longitudinal study addressing how Title I and Title III expenditures change
as schools‘ populations change would add to knowledge of Title I and Title III flexibility
issues and inform law writers how to craft future legislation to promote best practices,
program stability, school-site flexibility, and accountability.
As to the content of future research, in addition to adding depth to this study‘s
findings, this study‘s three themes indicate three lines of inquiry. Title I regulations
received higher knowledge confidence ratings than Title III regulations, perhaps
115
indicating a more complex set of expectations and accountability measures. Researchers
and legislators should consider how fund coordinators learn the content of subsequent
legislations and develop support for fund coordinators, since participants with higher
confidence in interpreting Title I and Title III grants also tended to be more satisfied with
expenditures. Second, a fine-tuned protocol for shareholding participation and supporting
students‘ best interests will be necessary if more spending flexibility is given to on-site
administrators. Regarding core underfunding, the item not fully funded that is particularly
fundamental to challenges faced by poverty-level and EL students is bilingual yard
supervisors; research regarding how to fund/fill this position is necessary.
Conclusion
There are four conclusion topics from this study‘s results: decision-maker knowl-
edge gaps, funding of survival/deficiency needs, inability to fund bilingual education, and
underfunding of core educational resources. These four conclusions are hurdles that the
participants of this study experienced firsthand. They compromise the effects of Title I
and Title III grant funds and are the heart of flexibility issues regarding Title I and Title
III grant regulations.
Knowledge gaps regarding Title I and Title III regulations affect fund coordin-
ators‘ ability to implement policies and programs connected to Title I and Title III funds.
Fund coordinators receive very little support, leaving most knowledge gaps to be filled
through experience, which creates a disconnect between federal grant policy and school
practice inherent at school sites. If school-site fund coordinators are not knowledgeable
about the characteristics of their school‘s grants, the potential of their position is greatly
diminished, which highlights the importance of this study‘s recommendation for The
116
District to foster mentoring relationships between novice and experienced fund coordin-
ators. These basic knowledge gaps also call into question whether it makes sense for Title
I and Title III grants to have as many regulations and constraints as are inherent in current
policy, since there does not seem to be a sufficient support mechanism in place to train
fund coordinators.
The findings suggest that students‘ deficiency needs are primarily fulfilled by
human resources versus material or curricular resources. Non-school-site social services
that are meant to support familial deficiency needs overlap with services performed by
employees purchased with Title I funds. While human resources are expensive, this over-
lapping of services may be exactly what students from poverty-level families need to
ensure that they realize their capacity for learning. The utility of various support roles
should be examined to determine the most beneficial way for students and their families
to receive supplemental resources. With more explicit descriptions of support roles,
redundancy issues would occur only as valuable planned transition mechanisms, causing
a streamlining of the distribution of federal support and funds.
It is important to continue this research because key conclusions derived from
data pertaining to the second theme deal with the balance of power in deciding how to
spend Title I and Title III funds. Federal expectations for how quickly English is to be
acquired and used are not aligned with results using bilingual pedagogy. Students who
are taught bilingually are able to express themselves using English later than their
immersion counterparts, although English expression catches up after approximately an
additional year, when the quality of English expression is actually higher than in students
who are not taught bilingually. Since accountability measures are aligned with
117
expectations that students be able to express themselves using English very quickly and
bilingual education does not provide BICS quickly enough to meet those expectations,
bilingual methodologies are not rewarded. This indicates that EL students are receiving
very little support for building CALP in their primary language and are receiving less
comprehensible input than desirable. If we are to help students to achieve their academic
potential, supporting EL in their primary language is necessary.
This study demonstrates the need to study the relationship between core resources
and supplementary resources in terms of academic success. The third theme of this study,
the underfunding of California‘s educational system, introduces the concept that under-
funding budgets for necessary education resources diffuses the influence/effect of Title I
and Title III resources. While students at poverty level are being supported, their relief is
not complete, which prevents them from realizing their capacity of self-actualization
using school learning, leaving them impaired due to unmet deficiency/survival needs.
Funds are not giving complete access parity for poverty-level and second-language
students due to insufficient funds from the state to pay for core needs, minimizing the
effect of the supplemental funds. If all of the core needs of California‘s students are not
being met, supplemental programs and reforms are added to a foundation of resources
that is not solid or stable. This leads to the culminating finding from this research: Core
education should be funded fully for supplemental resources to truly have supplemental
grants‘ effects of helping poverty-level and second-language students overcome their
additional learning challenges.
At the beginning of this dissertation, Odden and Picus (2004) were cited for their
position that student performance is a function of the resources available, the student‘s
118
characteristics (including poverty, ability in English and other special needs), and the
characteristics of the student‘s teachers, school, and district. If school-site Title I and
Title III fund coordinators and other school-site decision makers have knowledge gaps
regarding grant regulations, budgets, and pedagogy, a mechanism for filling those
knowledge gaps must be made available so that money expenditures are valid and
address students‘ needs. The human resources that are targeted at fulfilling poverty-level
students‘ survival/deficiency resources must be examined, clarified, and actuated in a
targeted fashion that is aligned with individual needs. Grant accountability measures were
found to be unsuitable by participants who wanted to provide bilingual education for their
EL students, reflecting negatively on grant flexibility; expectations ought to be aligned
with research-based best-practices, such as bilingual pedagogical approaches. Finally, the
effect of funds intended to provide supplementary resources is diminished in direct
relationship to the underfunding of core resources, putting in question the validity of
purpose for funding supplementary resources. If supplementary funds are to provide the
extra resources needed for poverty-level and second-language students to succeed, the
degree of success of those resources to actualize potential is dependent on matching them
to students‘ needs as directly as possible.
119
REFERENCES
Apodaca-Tucker, M. T., & Slate, J. R. (2002). School-based management: Views from
public and private elementary school principals. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 10(23). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v10n23.html
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1998). Educating language minority children. Wash-
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Stecher, B. M. (2002). What we have learned about class size re-
duction in California. Sacramento: California Department of Education.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education.
Boulder, CO: Greenwood Press.
California Department of Education. (2006). Title III: Immigrant education program
overview. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/13/ immoverview.asp
Corcoran, T. (2003). The use of research evidence in instructional improvement. CPRE
Policy Brief, 40, 1-8.
Crawford, J. (2004). Basic research on language acquisition. In Bilingual Education
Services, Inc. (Ed.), Educating English learners: Language diversity in the class-
room (5th ed., pp. 182-212). Los Angeles: Editor.
Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap-
proaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure.
Teachers College Record, 99, 453-477.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.
Cummins, J. (1994). Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework.
Sacramento, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Duemer, L. S., & Mendez-Morse, S. (2002, September 23). Recovering policy imple-
mentation: Understanding implementation through informal communication,
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(39). Retrieved from http://cpaa/
v10n39.html
EdData. (2010). Glossary of terms. Retrieved from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/
Glossary.asp
EdSource. (2003). An overview: Public schools in California. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
120
Education Week. (2009). Per-pupil Expenditures Approaching $10,000 Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/rc/articles/2009/01/21/sow0121.h27.html?print=1
Huang, G., & Yu, B. (2002). District fiscal policy and student achievement: Evidence
from combined NAEP-CCD data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(38).
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n38/
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In
Bilingual Education Office (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A
theoretical framework (pp. 62-66). Sacramento: California Department of Educa-
tion.
Krashen, S. D. (1992). Fundamentals of language education. Beverly Hills, CA: Laredo.
Maslow, A. (2009). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved from http://www.abraham-
maslow.com/m_motivation/Hierarchy_of_Needs.asp
Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. M. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Les-
sons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/
epaa/v13n48/
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Educational Programs. (2007). Policy: History. Retrieved from http://www
.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/1_history.htm
National Research Council. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children:
A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Odden, A. (1998). Creating school finance policies that facilitate new goals. CPRE Policy
Brief, 26, 1-11.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2004). School finance: A policy perspective (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pacific Research Institute. (2003). California education report card: Index of leading
education indicators (3rd ed.). Sacramento, CA: Author.
Puma, M. J., & Drury, D. W. (2000). Exploring new directions: Title I in the year 2000.
Washington, DC: National School Boards Association.
Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilin-
gual education programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA:
Aguirre International.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualita-
tive research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
San Diego Unified School District. (2010). Mission. Retrieved from http://www
.sandi.net/20451072010212567/site/default.asp
121
Scafidi, B., Freeman, C., & DeJarnett, S. (2001). Local flexibility within an accounta-
bility system. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(44). Retrieved from http://
epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n44.html
Shavit, Y., & Blossfeld, H. P. (1993). Persistent inequality: Changing educational at-
tainment in thirteen countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the social-
ization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stefanakis, E. H. (1998). Whose judgment counts? New York, NY: Heinemann.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York,
NY: Falmer.
Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses
and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Title I: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. (2002). 20 U.S.C. §
6301. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Title III: Language instruction for limited English proficient and immigrant students.
(2002). 20 U.S.C. § 6801. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Glossary of terms. Retrieved from http://www.ed
.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html?src=az#24
University of California, Davis, M.I.N.D. Institute. (2009). Research excellence. Re-
trieved from http://www/mindinst.org/about/about.html
Walker, E. M. (2002). The politics of school-based management: Understanding the
process of devolving authority in urban school districts. Education Policy Analy-
sis Archives, 10(33). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n33.html
Watson, S., & Supovitz, J. (2001). Autonomy and accountability in the context of
standards-based reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(32). Retrieved
from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n32.html
Westin, S. S. (1998). Balancing flexibility and accountability; grant program design in
education and other areas: Statement of Susan S. Westin, Associate Director, Ad-
vanced Studies and Evaluation Methodology. Testimony before the Education
Task Force, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
122
APPENDIX A
Electronic Questionnaire
1. What is your name and the name of your school?
_____________________________________________________________
2. What is your position at this school (please choose all that apply)?
___ Title I Coordinator
___ Title III Coordinator
___ Assistant Principal
___ Principal
___ Other (please specify) ______________________
3. Please briefly describe the overall instructional vision of your school:
4. Please briefly describe how Title I and Title III funds support your school‘s
instructional vision:
5. What ―big ticket items‖ were Title I and Title III funds used for during this last
school year (please choose all that apply)?
___ Employees
___ Materials
___ Fieldtrips
___ Professional Development
___ Other (please specify)
123
6. If ―Employees‖ was marked, what positions were supported (please choose all that
apply)?
Title I Title III
___ Coordinator(s)
___ Teacher Assistants
___ Math Coach(es)
___ Literacy Coach(es)
___ ELD Coach(es)
___ Relief Substitutes for data analysis sessions
___ Teachers (additional class size reduction, (etc.)
___ Attendance Counselor(s)
___ School Psychologist(s)
___ Nurse(s)
___ Clerk(s)
___ Other (please specify)
7. If ―Materials‖ was marked, what were your funds spent on (please choose all
that apply)?
Title I Title III
___ Copy Machines
___ Document Readers
___ Overheads
___ TV/VCR‘s
___ Audio Equipment
___ Computers
___ Service Contracts
___ General Supplies
___ Other (please specify)
8. If ―Professional Development‖ was marked, what were the concentrations of
these sessions (please choose all that apply)?
___ Data Analysis
___ Language Arts
___ ELD
___ Math
___ Other (please specify)
9. What items (if any) did you want to purchase for your school, but were unable
to due to grant regulations?
124
10. What support personnel does your school have in part from district-level Title I
and Title III funds (please choose all that apply)?
___ Math Coach(es)
___ Literacy Coach(es)
___ PSA Counselor
___ Other (please specify)
11. If the salaries of the above support personnel came into your control as Title I
and Title III funds, how might your school use the funds?
___ No changes
___ Other (please specify)
12. Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with the range of expenditures
allowed?
Definitely Not Satisfied Definitely
Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
Title I
Title III
13. What are some of the strategies you use to optimize your Title I and Title III
funds (please choose all that apply)?
___ Use both grants together to purchase something big
___ Only support programs currently implemented
___ Other (please specify)
14. How confident are you in your interpretation of Title I and Title III regulations?
Not Pretty Confident Very
Confident Confident Confident
Title I
Title III
15. Are you interested in participating in a 30 – 60 minute interview regarding Title
I and Title III grant usage?
___ Yes
___ No
___ Maybe
16. Do you have any questions or comments?
125
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocols
Interview Questions: Standard
1 Please describe the overall instructional vision at your school.
2 How do Title I and Title III funds support your school‘s instructional vision?
3 If you could spend Title I and Title III monies without restrictions, other than to
fulfill the general purposes of the grants, what would your top spending priorities
be?
4 What do data analysis sessions look like at your school?
Whole school
Grade level
Leadership Team
5 What are some of the strategies you have used to optimize the use of Title I and
Title III funds?
6 How are the priorities for your school‘s Title I and Title III expenditures
determined?
What role does research play in your decision making?
7 Do you have any other comments related to Title I and Title III grants?
126
Interview Questions: M Elementary
1. Please describe the overall instructional vision at your school.
2. How do Title I and Title III funds support your school‘s instructional vision?
3. If you could spend Title I and Title III monies without restrictions, other than to
fulfill the general purposes of the grants, what would your top spending priorities
be?
2. Answer from Questionnaire = ―nothing due to grand regulations but more to the
decrease in funding we received due to the decrease in enrollment in Title I and due
to the decrease in LEP‘s because more LEP‘s were reclassified last year…
3. Have you ever asked your LD 3 Fiscal Specialist or Title I Coordinator for an
expenditure that wasn‘t approved?
4. What are some of the strategies you have used to optimize the use of Title I and
Title III funds?
5. Answer from Questionnaire = ―support programs currently implemented‖
6. How are the priorities for your school‘s Title I and Title III expenditures
determined?
7. What role does research play in your decision making?
8. What training do you provide for T.A.‘s on-site?
9. Do you have any other comments related to Title I and Title III grants?
127
Interview Questions: R1 Elementary
1. If you could spend Title I and Title III monies without restrictions, other than to
fulfill the general purposes of the grants, what would your top spending priorities
be?
2. What do data analysis sessions look like at your school?
Whole school
Grade level
Leadership Team
3. What are some of the strategies you have used to optimize the use of Title I and
Title III funds?
4. How are the priorities for your school‘s Title I and Title III expenditures
determined?
What role does research play in your decision making?
5. Could you tell me more about the ―Learning Center‖ (you wrote that General Ed
students are pulled-out for intervention)?
6. What benefits do you see from the M.I.N.D. computer lab and keyboard classes?
7. Do you have any other comments related to Title I and Title III grants?
128
Interview Questions – R2 Elementary
1. Please describe the overall instructional vision at your school.
2. How do Title I and Title III funds support your school‘s instructional vision?
3. If you could spend Title I and Title III monies without restrictions, other than to
fulfill the general purposes of the grants, what would your top spending priorities
be?
District restrictions lifted = Answered Q #11: ―we might use the coaches
as teachers part of the time
Q#12: how satisfied are you with the range of expenditures allowed?
―Title I & III = ‗Not Satisfied‘‖
4. Have you ever asked your LD 3 Fiscal Specialist or Title I Coordinator for an
expenditure that wasn‘t approved?
5. What are some of the strategies you have used to optimize the use of Title I and
Title III funds?
Answered ―Only support programs currently implemented‖
o Are there any programs that you would like to implement that you
aren‘t?
6. How are the priorities for your school‘s Title I and Title III expenditures
determined?
What role does research play in your decision making?
7. Do you have any other comments related to Title I and Title III grants?
129
Interview Questions: R3 Elementary
1. Please describe the overall instructional vision at your school:
2. How do Title I and Title III funds support your school‘s instructional vision?
Answer from Questionnaire = ―funds are used to purchase
paraprofessionals, school psychologist, PSA counselor, Psychiatric Social
Worker, instructional materials, field trip, Substitute days, etc.‖
3. If you could spend Title I and Title III monies without restrictions, other than to
fulfill the general purposes of the grants, what would your top spending priorities
be?
4. Have you ever asked your LD 7 Fiscal Specialist or Title I Coordinator for an
expenditure that wasn‘t approved?
5. What are some of the strategies you have used to optimize the use of Title I and
Title III funds?
Answer from Questionnaire = ―only support programs currently
implemented‖
6. How are the priorities for your school‘s Title I and Title III expenditures
determined?
What role does research play in your decision making?
7. What training do you provide for paraprofessionals on-site?
8. Do you have any other comments related to Title I and Title III grants?
130
Interview Questions: S1 Elementary
1. Please describe the overall instructional vision at your school:
2. How do Title I and Title III funds support your school‘s instructional vision?
Answer from Questionnaire = ―They are geared for providing
supplemental services primarily for our English language learners. Title I
is used for paraprofessionals that will provide assistance to disadvantaged
students in order for them to meet grade level standards.‖
3. If you could spend Title I and Title III monies without restrictions, other than to
fulfill the general purposes of the grants, what would your top spending priorities
be?
4. Have you ever asked your LD 6 Fiscal Specialist or Title I Coordinator for an
expenditure that wasn‘t approved?
5. What are some of the strategies you have used to optimize the use of Title I and
Title III funds?
Answer from Questionnaire = ―Use both grants together to purchase
something big‖
6. How are the priorities for your school‘s Title I and Title III expenditures
determined?
What role does research play in your decision making?
7. What training do you provide for paraprofessionals on-site?
8. Do you have any other comments related to Title I and Title III grants?
131
Interview Questions: S2 Elementary
1. Please describe the overall instructional vision at your school.
2. How do Title I and Title III funds support your school‘s instructional vision?
3. If you could spend Title I and Title III monies without restrictions, other than to
fulfill the general purposes of the grants, what would your top spending priorities
be?
4. What do data analysis sessions look like at your school?
Whole school
Grade level
Leadership Team
5. What are some of the strategies you have used to optimize the use of Title I and
Title III funds?
6. How are the priorities for S2‘s Title I and Title III expenditures determined?
What role does research play in your decision making?
7. Do you have any other comments related to Title I and Title III grants?
132
APPENDIX C
Questionnaire Invitation
Dear administrator of Title I and Title III funding:
The following questionnaire will help identify how Title I and Title III funds are
being spent at ―District‘s‖ elementary schools and distinguish what needs are unmet due
to policy regulations. This study will also discover what novel strategies we are using to
get the most from our Title I and Title III grant funds. Findings will be shared with
interested members of the education community in addition to all respondents.
Your school will be given a pseudonym to protect respondents from any
unintended effects of participating in this study. The information gained from this study
will be protected from unauthorized access by housing all records at the researcher‘s
personal residence. To limit unauthorized on-line access, all data will be stored on a
computer disk and erased from all hard drives after the study has been published.
Please take about ten minutes to respond to the attached sixteen questions. You
may discontinue the questionnaire at any time and are not committing to any further
research by participating in this questionnaire. The Title I and Title III Questionnaire will
remain open until ---(insert date of two months after posting email)--- at 11PM.
Your input is highly valued; if you have any questions, please email the
researcher at juliaj@usc.edu. Here is the direct link to the survey:
---(insert link)---
Thank you in advance for your time and effort,
Julia Johnson
Ed.D. Candidate, USC
Teacher (school deleted for district confidentiality)
133
APPENDIX D
Research Protocol Forms
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
On-Site Impacts of Title I and Title III Grant Flexibility
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Julia Johnson, Candidate
for Ed.D. and Gisele Ragusa, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you
administer Title I and/or Title III funds at a ―District‖ elementary school site with at least 70% of
the total student population identified as poverty-level (Title I) students and at least 30% of your
total student population identified as English Learners (Title III). Your participation is entirely
voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are trying to learn more
about how elementary schools support student learning with their Title I and Title III grant
money. Completion of the online questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to spend 10 minutes answering a questionnaire regarding your school-
site budget, instructional vision, and the utility of your school‘s Title I and Title III funds.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your day to complete the questionnaire. Any questions that make you feel
uncomfortable do not need to be answered.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
By identifying the range of programs and best practices utilized by ―The District‘s‖
elementary schools, educational leaders will be able to use this study‘s findings to enhance the
utility of Title I and Title III funds at their individual sites. Strategies for optimizing grant funds
will be shared, and alternative program choices brought to light, however you may not directly
benefit from participating in this research study.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
134
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required
by law. The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or
initials and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. The information which has your identifiable
information will be kept separately from the rest of your data.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this study.
The data will be stored in the investigator‘s home office in a locked file cabinet and password
protected computer.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that could reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer
any questions you don‘t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may
withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in
this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Grace Ford
Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please feel free to contact this
study‘s Principal Investigator, Julia Johnson or Faculty Sponsor, Gisele Ragusa, Ph.D.
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall 1004C
Los Angeles, CA 90089
ragusa@usc.edu
(213) 821-3147
135
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
On-Site Impacts of Title I and Title III Grant Flexibility
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Julia Johnson, Candidate
for Ed.D. and Gisele Ragusa, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California because you administer Title I and/or Title III funds at a ―District‖
elementary school site with at least 70% of the total student population identified as poverty-level
(Title I) students and at least 30% of your total student population identified as English Learners
(Title III). The results from this study will contribute to this researcher‘s doctoral dissertation.
A total of 15 subjects will be selected from 280 Title I and/or Title III Coordinators to
participate. You must be at least18 years of age to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the
consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are trying to learn more
about how elementary schools support student learning with their Title I and Title III grant
money.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following things:
30 – 60 minute interviews will take place either at the interviewee‘s school site or at
another location as requested by the interviewee.
possible follow-up phone interviews as needed
Interviews will be audio-recorded so that important information is not missed in the
report. You can still participate in this research study if you do not agree to be audio-taped, in
which case the interviewer will take notes during the interview. Key questions posed during
interviews will include:
10. If you could spend Title I and Title III monies without restrictions, other than to
fulfill the general purposes of the grants, what would your top spending priorities be?
11. What do data analysis sessions look like at your school?
Whole school
Grade level
Leadership Team
12. How are the priorities for your school‘s Title I and Title III expenditures determined?
What role does research play in your decision making?
136
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your day to complete the interview. Any questions that make you feel
uncomfortable do not need to be answered.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
By identifying the range of programs and best practices utilized by ―The District‘s‖
elementary schools, educational leaders will be able to use my findings to enhance the utility of
Title I and Title III funds at their individual sites. Strategies for optimizing grant funds will be
shared, and alternative program choices brought to light, however you may not directly benefit
from participating in this research study.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required
by law. Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator‘s personal office on a password protected
computer. To limit unauthorized on-line access, all data will be stored on a computer disk and
erased from all hard drives after the study has been published. All disks will be destroyed three
years after acceptance of this study. No uncoded information will be released.
Audio recordings of the interviews will be saved on a disk only accessible by the
researcher and will be destroyed once they are transcribed. Participants may audit their interview
recording until it has been destroyed/transcribed, after which time they may have a copy of the
transcription. When the results of the research are published and discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer
any questions you don‘t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may
withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in
this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would
like to speak with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions about
the research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please contact the University
Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall,
Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
137
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact this
study‘s Principal Investigator, Julia Johnson or Faculty Sponsor, Gisele Ragusa, Ph.D.
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall 1004C
Los Angeles, CA 90089
ragusa@usc.edu
(213) 821-3147
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree
to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
You can still participate in this research study if you do not agree to be audio-taped.
□ I agree to be audio/video-taped/photographed
□ I do not want to be audio/video-taped/photographed
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date (must be same as subject‘s)
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study measures poverty-level and second-language grant fund flexibility by detailing the process of fund dispersion, how funds are being used, and measuring the satisfaction rate of school-site fund coordinators with what they are able to purchase for their schools using these funds. A qualitative approach for data collection, synthesis, and analysis was used. Data originated from 6 interview scripts and 20 online questionnaires, all conducted with school-site fund coordinators. The study’s population was from a large school district in California.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools
PDF
Exploring the promise of multicultural literature: a case study exploring the impact of the use of mulitucultural literature on the engagement of students from diverse backgrounds
PDF
The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools
PDF
An analysis of the selection and training of guiding teachers in an urban teacher education program
PDF
Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
The intersection of curriculum, teacher, and instruction and its implications for student performance
PDF
School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools
PDF
The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students
PDF
Teaching academic and behavioral skills through arts-based programming: an evaluation study
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Untapped workforce: employer perceptions of people with intellectual disabilities
PDF
The impact of principal leadership and model schools on state‐wide school reform: case studies of four Oregon elementary model schools
PDF
Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
What university equity and diversity leaders are doing to deal with issues of equity, access, and inclusion
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rynearson-Johnson, Julia
(author)
Core Title
On-site impacts of Title I and Title III grant flexibility
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2011-05
Publication Date
04/03/2011
Defense Date
02/15/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
bi-lingual education,Education,grant flexibility,OAI-PMH Harvest,Poverty,second-language,Title I,Title III
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Ragusa, Gisele (
committee chair
), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
juliaj@usc.edu,juliajohnson@att.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3693
Unique identifier
UC169864
Identifier
etd-RynearsonJohnson-4377 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-446401 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3693 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RynearsonJohnson-4377.pdf
Dmrecord
446401
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Rynearson-Johnson, Julia
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
bi-lingual education
grant flexibility
second-language
Title I
Title III