Many key points still must be worked out, however. Will states use ESEA funds to hire teachers, reduce class size, and provide quality professional development to teachers and paraprofessionals? Or will states use funds to launch "tenure reform" attacks and merit pay schemes? All are allowed under ESEA, and states will need to choose wisely from this menu of options. At the federal level, it's anticipated that the AFT will have strong input into shaping the regulations tied to the new law. At the state and local levels, the union and its affiliates will help states develop solid school improvement plans and monitor how ESEA provisions are playing out closer to home.

The new legislation "provides a framework for a national commitment to education," said AFT president Sandra Feldman. "It is especially significant that Congress and President Bush made this kind of investment in education and to our urban schools at a time of fiscal austerity."

American Teacher, with the help of AFT members, explores four major aspects of the new law.

The federal government's centerpiece education law underwent a major overhaul last year, prompting some concerns that Title I funding might be steered away from the high-need communities that rely on it most. It didn't happen. Thanks to aggressive lobbying by the AFT and other concerned education groups, Congress preserved Title I as the federal government's largest program for the education of youngsters in economically disadvantaged communities across the nation.

It was an important legislative victory not only for the union but also for educators like Kathleen Hesse, an early childhood special education placement specialist in the St. Louis public schools. Hesse's job takes her throughout the district where virtually every school qualifies for Title I assistance. "Title I has been incredibly important to this district," says Hesse. "I've always worked in buildings where Title I has been in place--and it has made a difference."

In Missouri and most other states, school funding is tied to property taxes. That puts funding in jeopardy for districts like St. Louis--where property values are low and tax abatements high. Keeping Title I focused on the schools, communities and children who need it most "is extremely important because we are constantly being asked to show that our children are measuring up," says Hesse, a St. Louis Teachers Union vice president. "The Title I emphasis has been on programs that will [help students] meet those standards," such as preschool programs, smaller classes, additional intervention for struggling students, and training to help teachers and paraprofessionals teach to high standards.

There are several new flexibility provisions in the newly reauthorized version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which includes Title I. But Congress has included language designed to stop states and districts from using flexibility as a way to siphon Title I funds from schools serving the nation's most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

As in prior years, the new ESEA includes a targeted grants program that is designed to provide additional supports to schools serving high-poverty areas. The program was never funded in previous years, however, so Congress included new language that requires funding for the targeted grants. Also, Title I will enjoy an unprecedented 18 percent increase in funding this year.

Additional funding for Title I is particularly important at a time when state and local governments are feeling a tremendous squeeze, says Erin Merrill, a Title I reading and math teacher at Winfield Street Elementary school in Corning, N.Y. Title I pays for 1.75 staff positions at Winfield, where more than 70 percent of the children qualify for federal meal assistance, and it covers many instructional materials at the school as well. "We would be at a huge disadvantage without Title I," says Merrill, who conducts classes in a converted locker room because of a space squeeze in her school and across the district.

At a time when rising enrollments and falling revenues have local authorities stretched thin, preserving Title I as a lifeline to economically disadvantaged students is no small matter, Merrill says.

Since 1995, Title I funding has increased from $6.63 billion to $10.42 billion this year. The 18 percent increase in funding for 2002 marks only the second time in eight years that the program has enjoyed a double-digit annual increase (Title I funding increased by 11 percent in 2001).

Overall funding for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which includes Title I, increases 24 percent this year.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) played a key role on Capitol Hill in helping to secure strong federal support for public schools. Late last year, his office released a report showing that the slowing economy was putting a big dent in the ability of state and local governments to provide adequate school funding--making a boost in the federal contribution absolutely crucial.

"For too long, public education has been highly unequal from kindergarten through 12th grade," Kennedy said in a Jan. 16 speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "The new school reform law can go a long way to close the gap--but only if we stay the course and provide the increased resources and guidance essential for schools to meet and fulfill the high potential of this far-reaching and genuinely bipartisan achievement."

Paraprofessionals play a central role in many Title I programs, and the new Title I law includes some significant changes that will affect them. The final legislation includes largely positive language on paraprofessionals, especially considering some proposals during last year's debate that essentially would have eliminated paras from Title I classrooms.

One major change in the new law deals with education and employment standards for classroom paraprofessionals. Starting in January 2003, any newly hired Title I para will have to meet a new set of standards. The law sets out three options in this area: complete two years of college, hold a two-year degree, or "pass a state or local assessment designed to demonstrate knowledge of and the ability to assist in instruction in reading, writing and math or reading readiness, writing readiness and math readiness." On the third option--clearly the most flexible and open for discussion--the AFT will be providing guidance to state and local affiliates as their districts develop such assessments. Currently employed paraprofessionals will have four years to meet the same standards. Two groups of paras are exempt: those who work primarily as translators for limited-English students and those whose work mainly focuses on parent involvement.

For the first time, the new Title I incorporates specific criteria for the type of work that paras in the program should be assigned. Those duties include one-on-one tutoring for eligible students, assisting with classroom management, promoting parent-involvement activities, providing support in a library or media center, acting as a translator, or providing instructional services to students under the direct supervision of a teacher. The language should help cut down on the use of Title I paras for inappropriate duties, such as substitute teaching and clerical work.

Paraprofessionals are included in language that encourages schools to provide professional development to Title I staff, and the law also allows funds to be used for programs to recruit "highly qualified paraprofessionals" into teacher-certification programs.

The new Elementary and Secondary Education Act also includes a much-publicized requirement for schools to test students in grades 3-8 in reading and math by the 2005-06 school year. This provision, a top priority of the Bush administration during ESEA negotiations, will require aggressive monitoring and oversight in states and districts to ensure that the tests are administered wisely, complement the curriculum and reflect the standards they are supposed to measure.

Only a handful of states currently test on the scale called for in the new law. States and districts will need a lot of support to develop new assessments, and the AFT lobbied for and won a $387 million appropriation to pay for the first year of developing the new assessments. Clearly this will cover only a limited portion of the costs associated with test development, but it is a start. Also, Congress has included a "trigger" that allows states to defer the start of the tests, or to stop administering the tests, if funding for test development does not meet specified levels. They begin with a $370 million floor in the current fiscal year and rise to $400 million in fiscal year 2005.

Brenda Jenkins, a master teacher in special education at C. Melvin Sharpe Health School in Washington, D.C., says she is concerned about how the testing provision will play out in her district and others. A big danger, she points out, is that policymakers will not build on what's already in place and will begin duplicating existing assessments.

"Testing is fine. We need to find out what these children know. But we need time to teach them first," Jenkins says. "Otherwise you're just setting students up to fail."

The AFT will be monitoring closely the testing provisions since a range of sanctions and interventions kick in for schools not making "adequate yearly progress" toward the goal of having all students reach state-defined proficient levels in math and reading in 12 years. Schools that do not show adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years will receive technical assistance, planning and limited funding to boost performance. Districts also are required to offer students in these schools other public school choices, and pay for transportation costs.

Interventions are stepped up for each consecutive year that a school doesn't show it is making adequate yearly progress. After five consecutive years, districts would be forced to make drastic changes in school governance, which could include state takeovers, private management of public schools, staff restructuring or conversion of the building into a charter school.

Jenkins says that policymakers must use caution and judgment before taking these actions. And they must be clear on their motives.

"They have to ask themselves what is it we really are trying to do with these tests. Is it really to judge where the children are in their learning and help them move ahead? Or is it just to punish some schools and reward others?" he says.

Urban legends are not limited to stories of dogs in microwaves or corporate logos sporting satanic messages. There seems to be a booming industry out there in myths focused on the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and Title I. Consider the following urban (district) legends, which may have already surfaced in your school:

• Title I can only be used for supplies and administration.
• Title I only goes to elementary schools.
• Paraprofessionals can't participate in Title I-funded professional development.

United Federation of Teachers (New York City) vice president David Sherman says he's heard these and many other tidbits of misinformation about ESEA, adding that he won't be surprised if a new batch of urban (district) legends crops up around this new legislation. He stresses that there is a mechanism on the books to help ensure that state and local authorities actually follow the law. It's called the Committee of Practitioners. "This is the voice given to teachers, paraprofessionals [and others] in determining how Title I operates in their state," says Sherman, who served on the committee in New York state for five years.

Each state education agency is required to have a committee, the majority of whom are from local education agencies. This committee's job is to review the development and implementation of state plans for Title I. Though also required under the last ESEA reauthorization, the Committee of Practitioners was either never established or inactive in most states.

The AFT is now identifying members around the country who are serving on these state-level panels and encouraging others to join. A strong committee, Sherman adds, can be a great watchdog--one that separates Title I fact from legend. He urges AFT leaders and members to find out all they can about the Committee of Practitioners in their states, including how its members will be selected, and to push to make sure their voices are included.