This approach marked a dramatic shift from past practice, moving Title I beyond its traditional focus on remediation in basic skills, which many critics charged ratified low expectations for low-income and minority students. Prior to 1994, many states lacked systems to broadly and evenly assess student performance, and those that did tended to be “norm-referenced” -- that is, student performance was judged in relation to the performance of other students. The 1994 reforms sought to institute “criterion-based assessment” in which student performance is judged based on objective criteria intended to demonstrate mastery of specific knowledge or skills.

This shift was meant to combat the historical gap in achievement between low-income students and their better-off counterparts -- ensuring that all students (including the disabled, those with limited English proficiency, and especially low-income students) are held to the same high standards in core subjects. With these standards in place, Title I schools were to be held accountable for making adequate yearly progress, and states were to identify schools and school districts in need of improvement and institute measures for corrective action.

These reforms held great promise for many in the civil rights community. For instance, the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, which has been a leader in monitoring Title I compliance, was hopeful the law would “ensure that recipients of Title I, and other federal funds targeted to the disadvantaged, do not maintain dual systems of public education based on race or economic circumstances.” And indeed, where such reforms have been put in place, they have started to make a difference. For instance, as explained in the Citizens’ Commission’s 1999 report, “Title I in Midstream,” the San Antonio school district included 40 schools rated by the state as “low-performing campuses” in 1993. By 1997, after embracing high standards, only six schools were considered low performing, and five had been given the state’s highest rating as “recognized” schools. Similar success stories can also be found in the Philadelphia and Memphis school districts.

Yet six years after Congress required states to broadly implement high standards, and two years after the deadline laid out in the law, only 17 states are in compliance with Title I’s assessment requirements. “Noncompliant states most frequently have not met the specific requirements to assess all students and to report the data by subgroups of students, but some also have more intractable problems, such as assessments that are not aligned with state standards,” according to GAO.

These findings are similar to those in a March 2001 report, “Closing the Deal,” by the Citizens’ Commission. For example, California, West Virginia, Wisconsin, as well as other states, still rely on norm-referenced tests that are not matched to the state’s standards, according to the Citizens’ Commission. Nevada excluded 58 percent of its students with limited English proficiency from state assessments, while Wisconsin and North Carolina excluded at least 40 percent. And Texas failed to include half of its disabled students in its assessment system, deemed excessive by the Department of Education.

Such problems do not bode well for the 2001 reforms enacted under President Bush. These reforms sought to augment -- and did not replace or eliminate -- the 1994 reforms. For example, they added science to the list of required subjects to be assessed, which previously included only math and reading or language arts. They also added specific new consequences for failing schools -- as determined by the performance assessments -- including restructuring after a 5th year of failure. Yet as GAO points out, “Because the majority of states have not met the requirements of the 1994 law, many states may not be well positioned to meet the deadlines for implementing the additional requirements in the 2001 legislation.”

What can be done about this? Of course, resources are always an issue. New requirements such as these cost money to implement. And indeed, state officials most frequently cited this as the reason for lack of compliance, according to GAO. If Congress is truly serious about its educational requirements, it should ensure that sufficient funds are available to meet them.

Yet as is often the case with such programs, there should also be better and more forceful federal oversight (as Education’s Inspector General recently pointed out). In its 1999 report, the Citizens’ Commission criticized the Department of Education's "massive failure of will and nerve" between 1994 and 1998. During this time, Education failed to take effective enforcement actions against states, as required by law, despite widespread noncompliance. As discussed earlier, states refused to adopt required performance standards; were slow to identify failing schools and corrective action; and did not develop assessment measures to include all students.

Over the last 18 months of the Clinton administration, Education began to provide better oversight, finally providing guidance on assessment requirements and threatening enforcement action. Yet compliance with Title I continues to be an uphill battle, with progress moving at a snail’s pace. Only 11 states were in full compliance with Title I’s assessment requirements at the beginning of 2001. By March 2002 that number had increased only slightly to 17 states.

Recently, Education granted “timeline waivers” to 29 non-complying states, plus Puerto Rico, after each submitted what the agency considers a clear and credible plan, with a definite timeline, for meeting Title I requirements. None of these waivers exceed three years, meaning all such states are expected to be in compliance by the end of 2004. Education also asked the District of Columbia and the remaining four states (Alabama, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia), which have an especially poor history of compliance, to enter into an agreement establishing the final deadline for compliance before losing Title I funding. (In Alabama, for instance, the Citizens’ Commission found that the state was illegally using Title I funds for school construction and renovation.)

Whether this approach ultimately works, and Education sticks to its guns, remains to be seen. What’s clear, however, is that the 2001 legislation -- though hailed by President Bush amid much fanfare -- means very little without effective implementation. If President Bush is serious about these reforms, his administration needs to get serious about federal oversight and squeeze states for the intended results. As the 1994 reforms show, that’s the only way it will get done.