REPORT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WORK SESSION
ON TITLE 1

Monday, October 30, 2000

President Donald L. Arnold called the work session to order at 7: 05 p.m. In addition to Mr. Arnold, the following Board members were present: Ms. Erica A. Cohn, Dr. Warren C. Hayman, Ms. Jean M. H. Jung, Ms. Carolyn Ross-Holmes, and Mr. James R. Sasiadek. Also present was Dr. Joe A. Hairston, Superintendent of Schools, and staff members.

Ms. Cassell reviewed the purpose of the work session and introduced the Title 1 staff.

Mr. Kennedy entered the room at 7:07 p.m.

Ms. Cassell explained the purpose of Title 1 and stated that provisions in the Title 1 law are aligned with our system's key strategies. She reviewed how schools with Title 1 services are identified and noted there is a specific focus on distributing resources in a way that will allow us to improve student achievement.

All schools are ranked by Free and Reduced Price Meals (FARMs) data. Title 1 regulations require us to serve all schools that are at or above 75% rate of participation in the FARMs program. Other schools are serviced as funds allow. There are two models of service&emdash;schoolwide and targeted assistance. Schoolwide provides Title 1 services to all students while targeted assistance requires us to identify children in the school that have the greatest educational need. The term "grandfathering" means that once a school has been involved in the schoolwide program, they can continue to receive services. Currently, the law allows us to serve with schoolwide services any school that is at or above the 50% rate of FARMs.

The funding formula that gives us funds through Title 1 is based on United States census data. In Maryland, Baltimore County receives the third largest grant. The countywide average for Free and Reduced Priced Meal participation is 26.75%. When looking at the identification of schools in Baltimore County, we follow the schoolwide model. Ms. Cassell noted that we are not experiencing an increase in Title 1 funds.

Mr. Hayden entered the room at 7:18 p.m.

Ms. Cassell explained how schools allocate the funds.

Mr. Sasiadek inquired as to whether non-public students receive services through their own personnel or contractual services. Ms. Cassell responded that non-public services in Baltimore County are provided through a third party contract, Educational InRoads.

Dr. Hayman asked for information about the utilization of instructional assistants in these schools. He also shared his concern about the racial/gender make-up of the Title 1 Office&emdash;one African-American and no males. He asked about data with regard to the racial/gender make-up of the students served by Title 1. Ms. Cassell responded that we have a high population of minority students in these 36 schools compared to the district at large. She believes this is because often minority and poverty descriptors are aligned with each other.

Mr. Kennedy inquired if equity grants are in Title 1 schools. Dr. Thomas noted that most equity grants go to schools other than Title 1 schools.

Noting that the only way to distinguish if a particular person is paid through Title 1 funds is by an account number, Mr. Sasiadek asked who determines which account number is used for a particular position. Ms. Cassell stated it is determined in consultation with the school, the Personnel Office, and the Title 1 Office. Mr. Sasiadek inquired about the number of Title 1 teachers that are rated "Unsatisfactory." He suggested that we might have to look at how having more experienced (or senior) teachers might impact promotions, transfers, and evaluations.

Ms. Cohn asked if someone from the Title 1 Office made recommendations to schools with regard to how the Title 1 money is spent. Ms. Cassell stated there is a process in place. Meetings with principals are held in the Area Offices. Principals come in with a proposed budget for use of their Title 1 funds. The School Improvement Plan is reviewed. Based on observations by the Director and the Area Superintendent, recommendations are made. Also, during the year there are opportunities for schools to be flexible regarding the use of the money.

With regard to accountability, Ms. Cassell pointed out that Title 1 accountability is linked to MSPAP and noted gradual improvement in our Title 1 scores. All students and schools will meet achievement indicators, and School Improvement Plans define yearly targets. We have several schools that are applying to be recognized at the national level. Support is provided to schools that are not as successful as they should.

The number of Title 1 schools in Baltimore County has grown from 19 to 36 since 1994-95. Nearly half of that growth has occurred during the past two years. Ms. Cassell stated that Title 1 funding has increased from $6.6 million dollars in 1995-96 to $9.6 million dollars this school year. Funding since 1997-98 has been flat, yet we are serving five (5) more schools.

On the horizon is the Federal reauthorization of the Title 1 law, changes in the United State Department of Education leadership, and the impact of the 2000 census data. (Ms. Cassell noted that the population growth is not in the Mid-Atlantic area, but in the West, Southwest, and South.) Factors that are likely to impact Title 1 funding plans include increases in salary and benefit costs that, in turn, reduce the buying power of the funds. The number of Title 1 schools may increase, and there is no increase expected in Title 1 funds. Some issues to consider might be discontinuing services to some schools, addressing schools that are near the service cutoff, and distributing funds to so many schools that services get too watered down to be effective.

Dr. Hayman suggested the need for a grant writer to seek out additional funds for Title 1. Dr. Thomas noted that a grant writing position has been requested in the last two budgets and has been removed by the funding authorities.

Ms. Ross-Holmes expressed her concern at the high number of non-tenured teachers in Title 1 schools and wondered if teachers should have a minimum number of years teaching experience to be considered a Title 1 teacher. Ms. Cassell indicated there are contract issues that restrain us in the area of what we can or can't require.

Mr. Hayden supported Dr. Hayman's suggestion about requesting a grant writer.

Ms. Cassell stated that one of the challenges the system needs to address is, in light of the conflict between increased needs and decreasing buying power, are we going to continue to expand services to all schools and meet the current cutoff level of 50%, or will the cutoff for participation be raised? Some options to consider are:

• Continue serving all schools that reach the 50% threshold.
• Establish a higher threshold for Title 1 services, and discontinue serving those below the new cutoff.

Mr. Teplitzky asked when information might be received on recommendations, alternatives, and budget implications regarding Title 1 services so that the Board can begin its discussion on addressing the challenges described during the evening. Ms. Bailey stated that once mid-year information is received from MSDE, it is staff's intent to look at the options listed in the handout and submit a report to the Superintendent and the Executive Cabinet.

Dr. Hairston stated that some baseline information can be shared at the Board's upcoming retreat.

Mr. Kennedy stated that we may have to start asking for additional funds and lobbying elected officials.

Ms. Johns explained the purpose of tonight's session was to help Board members understand the Title 1 program. She expressed the hope that some preliminary recommendations can be shared at the Board retreat in a few weeks.

Mr. Arnold reminded Board members of the work session on November 1 at 7 p.m. at Greenwood. He also reminded Board members of the retreat scheduled for November 19.

The hearing was concluded at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________

Joe A. Hairston

Secretary-Treasurer

dz