One of the biggest problems that lawmakers have with Title I, the largest federal education program for disadvantaged students, is dealing with the program in human terms. Often the debate focuses on funding levels, expressed in incomprehensible billion-dollar sums, while an even more important consideration takes a back seat: How many students are actually going to be served under different funding proposals?

A new AFT report aims to restore the human element to the debate by analyzing the numbers of students who would benefit, based on different Title I proposals offered earlier this year by the administration and the Senate. The report was released this fall as Congress gears up to iron out differences between House and Senate versions of Title I legislation.

The money budgeted for Title I in 2001--$8.6 billion--was enough to provide full services for only about one-third of eligible students, notes the AFT report. The administration, Senate and House all have called for Title I increases for fiscal year 2002. Differences between the proposals are wide, however. Title I would rise to $9.06 billion (an increase of 5.3 percent) under the administration's proposal. It would jump to $15 billion, or 74 percent, under the Senate plan. And the House-approved plan falls roughly in the middle: a 33 percent boost to $11.5 billion.

But those numbers tell only part of the story.

The AFT report, "The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: A Comparison of the Administration and Senate Funding Proposals for Title I," tackles the differences between the administration and Senate plans from the perspective of schools and students served. The differences are staggering (see chart).

More than 6.8 million students could learn in smaller classes under the Senate proposal, while only about 211,000 would receive this benefit under the administration plan. Title I could also provide summer school for more than 11 million students under the Senate version. Only about 343,000 would benefit under the administration's proposal.

The state-level analysis highlighted in the report offers equally dramatic evidence that students across the nation--and particularly in states where AFT members teach and work--have a direct stake in this issue.

"Lawmakers in both the House and Senate rightly have united around the idea that schools need both increased accountability for academic performance and increased support to help students reach high levels of achievement, but an alarming divide remains over providing the resources to make that a reality," said AFT president Sandra Feldman following the release of the report.

It uses inflation-adjusted costs for proven reforms--prekindergarten, class size reduction, after-school programs and effective reading programs--using data drawn from a variety of sources. The report is available in pdf format online at www.aft.org/reports/download/esea_report.pdf .

American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO - 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW - Washington, DC 20001