coming essay upon which this testimony is based for the record and will briefly summarize my comments for the committee now.

While the rationale for educating children has shifted somewhat over time, Americans have always viewed education as important for the well-being of each citizen. There has been a significant shift, however, from a heavy dependence upon parental and private responsibility for that education to a greater reliance on public schools. Throughout the past 350 years, providing education for the poor was also a major societal goal.

Historically, support for K-12 schooling was mainly a State and local responsibility with the Federal Government playing a secondary role. But as part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty," the Federal Government created several compensatory education programs for the poor such as Title I and Head Start. These educational programs symbolized the renewed commitment of American society to help the disadvantaged; but they were premised on an unrealistic expectation: that we could eradicate poverty almost entirely by means of a few uncoordinated, under-funded, untested, and largely ineffective new Federal initiatives.

In the mid-1960's Title I and Head Start raised hopes that for the next generation poverty could be eliminated, but by all accounts these programs have failed to provide at-risk children with sufficient assistance to overcome their disadvantages and compete equally and successfully with their middle-class counterparts. Some of the individual Title I and Head Start programs, however, have provided at-risk children with better educations than they might have received otherwise. But it is disappointing that having spent more than $150 billion on these compensatory educational services, we still do not know which practices and programs are particularly effective in helping at-risk children-especially those living in the high-poverty areas of inner-cities.

There are several explanations for the overall limited results from Title I, Head Start, and other early childhood education programs of the past three decades. Our initial expectations of them were unrealistically high and our understanding of the nature and persistence of disadvantages among the poor was too simplistic. Too often well-meaning proponents of these programs understandably defended Title I and Head Start at all costs against hostile critics, but in the process were reluctant to admit that there are weaknesses and limitations in these programs.

Neither the executive branch nor the Congress has done a good job of ascertaining exactly what types of compensatory education services and programs are most effective for helping at-risk children. While there have been some useful national assessments of the overall impact of Head Start and Title I, usually these evaluations have not even attempted to ascertain in a rigorous and systemic manner which components of their programs have been successful. And although there have been a few good in-depth assessments of individual model programs, especially in the area of early childhood education, the Federal Government has devoted far too little attention and too few funds to develop and test alternative ways of delivering educational services to disadvantaged children.

The failure of the Federal Government to provide more guidance in educational program development and assessment is disappointing given its initial efforts in this area. When the Johnson administration created Title I and Head Start, it also established the Regional Educational Laboratories and the Research and Development Centers which were to produce precisely the type of large-scale program assessments that are needed. Moreover, the Nixon administration created the National Institute of Education (NIE) to sponsor long-term research and development initiatives to improve compensatory education programs. Unfortunately, neither NIE, nor its successor, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) produced much of the type and quality of research and development on specific educational practices and programs which now could be employed effectively by Title I and Head Start.

Most of the current research and development activities in OERI and the rest of the U.S. Department of Education do not include the systematic development and rigorous assessment of different models of compensatory education programs. The Department is beginning a valuable large-scale, individual-level analysis of the overall impact of the Title I Program and standards-based school reform. However, this study will not systematically ascertain which educational practices or model programs are effective. Nor will that evaluation focus on the most disadvantaged students those at-risk children who frequently move from one school to another. Equally disappointing is the fact that there are no plans to calculate the expenditures on those programs so that we will not be able to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of different interventions.

There are at least four major reasons for this discouraging state of affairs. One is the limited funds available for educational research and development during the

past three decades. The second is the misallocation of research and development funds to small, short-term projects that often have limited scientific validity and little practical usefulness. Third, the decreases in the number of distinguished researchers and evaluators in OERI and the Department of Education limits the ability of those agencies to design and monitor high quality research and development. And the fourth difficulty is the relatively low priority that has been assigned over the years by educators and policy makers to the development of effective educational programs to fight poverty.

The inability and unwillingness of the Federal Government to develop and assess systematically different compensatory education programs invites the exploration of alternate strategies. For example, this might be an area in which private foundations could play an important constructive role. But the U.S. Department of Education and OERI in particular should also develop, test, and disseminate information about appropriate methods and models of instruction by hiring more distinguished researchers and by targeting their existing monies more efficiently and effectively.

When existing Federal educational programs, well-intentioned though they may be, are not as effective as they could or should be, the problem is not just wasted tax dollars, but wasted chances to help those most in need. We raise the expectations of those who have the least to look forward to and then dash their hopes by failing to really help them escape from their poverty. The overall experiences with Title I and Head Start also have been frustrating for the American public who have been willing to sacrifice for the achievement of the lofty goals of Title I and Head Start, but now find that little real progress has been made. For many of the at-risk students who pass through these programs and who are not significantly helped, however, the results are more than just frustrating-they are precious opportunities lost forever.

Senator FRIST. MS. OCHOA.

STATEMENT OF CARLEY OCHOA, FORMER DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS, RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IN RIVERSIDE, CA

Ms. OCHOA. My name is Carley Ochoa. And I just retired in June. So, I have been having a leisurely couple of months. But I worked for 32 years with Title I and Head Start and came in almost with the programs.

I would love to answer Senator Boxer's question about when was the last time you saw a child? I would say it was the day before yesterday.

So, you have now got in front of you a practitioner, and not a researcher, not a data collector but a person who has worked intimately with the programs in the Riverside Unified School District in Riverside, California.

I have worked with Title I since 1967. It was never my understanding that Title I one, all by itself, was to eradicate poverty in this country. It was instead funds specifically allocated to schools with high numbers of low-income children in order to deliver specific programs to children who were not keeping pace with their grade and age level peers.

In the beginning we saw something called remedial reading and math. We do not use the term remedial any more by the way. We do not think that just fixing children is enough. The goal was to remediate these children's so-called learning deficits so that they could catch up with higher achieving children. And in the 1960's, what did poverty look like?

Have the conditions for inner-city children in poverty improved since the inception of Title I? The answer is, of course, an obvious resounding, no. Greater numbers of American children now live in poverty and with far greater problems and challenges, even danger.

So, the simplistic placing of blame on Title I for not achieving its goal of closing the gap between groups of students may be taken, in my opinion, only as a glittering generality. There are far too many other factors to consider when looking at the influences on children in poverty. I am not, however, a researcher, as I said, I am a practitioner who has seen Title I and Head Start programs at the local level where our district annals are full of success stories even though they may be anecdotal, such as, one of our best primary teachers who was a Head Start and Title I student.

So, when asked the question about program effectiveness, I am not looking at data based or norm referenced comparative test scores or about how many NCEs nor curve equivalents our children gained on average, even though out Title I children did well on all sustained effect studies. I look at the numbers of children in Title I programs at the primary level and see them in advanced classes and high school and I shout a loud, yes, they are effective.

I am certain that if we could stop the constant dragging of children from one school to another, sometimes three or four times in 1 year, sometimes back to the original schools, if we could, I used to say if we could ball and chain them to that desk, we know we would have astounding results. But mobility which, of course, is caused by poverty because they move from one low-cost housing place to another and back again, makes it very difficult to have data on standardized test scores for children.

Are effective measurement mechanisms in place? Probably not. However, I stopped trying to second-guess test publishers, data gatherers and researchers. And I have looked more at authentic assessment measures such as performance based documentation to find that we have had good, solid steady growth with out Title I children. The ones that we have had from the beginning of the program until we test them which are not many, they move.

The greatest weaknesses in my estimation are the following. Local political situations that have boards on administrative levels, where, for example, we know that a good program for Title I does not consist in the hiring of aids, many of whom have not finished high school, to help those children in the classroom, yet, any of them may be related to a certain board member. So, we have those political situations that sometimes cause deleterious effects on the program.

A continuing sense of low expectations for children in poverty or who speak another language or both, which implies the need for more staff development. A lack of implementation of good solid research-based and proven program strategies, such as Dr. Sladen's success, for all programs and in some cases overbearing intervention by State agencies.

When I hear the term block grants I shudder a little bit. If you come from a State that has a volatile relationship between governor, State superintendent or commissioner, whatever your title may be, and the legislature would have very little hope of having consistent continuous leadership in any particular program.

The 1994 legislated, Improving America's Schools Act, or IASA, as we call it, took steps forward in further enhancing the connec

tion between the regular program and Title I, one that needed to be taken.

In raising the expectations by setting standards for all students and increased focus on integration of services, health and social as well as educational, and more school site decision making, I think the U.S. Department staff has worked diligently to spread the word about these things in Title I. I think they need to do more. There does need to be an examination of promising practices.

The next step must include this dissemination of promising practices, in innovative, interesting and exciting ways. If you ever track a teacher through the day or through the week you will know that she is not going to go home and read reams of data to find out how she can improve her program. I am not convinced that turning out these statistical studies will make much of a difference, nor will well-meaning consultants out of touch with reality at a local level make much of an impact. Local talent should be found in programs, including visitations, demonstrated and promoted. I understand the Department is now thinking about mentoring sites. I am very glad to hear that because I think that is what needs to happen.

For example, in Riverside, where I come from, our success for all programs have been visited by hundreds of educators from all across the country, even from Australia. Many of these visitors have stayed in touch with the real experts, those at the school site, and are now telling us about their own successes. One of the questions I was asked to address was about the key components of a successful program. It goes without saying that research-based improvement program intervention should be used but it takes a lot more than that.

It is not possible for someone at the district level and certainly not from the State or Federal level to dictate to a school what they must do. If you have been in a school lately, you know the teacher closes the classroom door.

Rather, they and we must act as brokers and introduce effective practices to school personnel and then support them in coming to consensus about what program elements are right for their school, for their individual school. And then support them by allocating appropriate dollars and trouble-shooting for them at every level or hang in there with them.

I will be happy to answer any questions later.

Senator FRIST. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ochoa follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. CARLEY OCHOA, FORMER DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS, RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, RIVERSIDE, CA

FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION

I appreciate the opportunity to share my beliefs and opinions about the status of Federal education programs, particularly Title I and Head Start. For most of the tenure of Title I, it has had bipartisan support which suggests that we agree that we cannot prepare all our people to fully participate in this great democratic society if we do not include poor children. We do a good job of educating students in our upper third and they can compete with anyone in the world; the middle third of our population tends to do well, but our bottom third is where we have serious problems. Having worked with Title I since its inception, I am convinced that it has been, and continues to be, a major positive intervention in the lives of disadvantaged children. Not only does this federally funded program help us help children

in an academic setting, but it also allows us to work with families and social and health agencies to improve the total life of a child.

I know that the data regarding the effectiveness of Title I are "mixed." I have several opinions about it. First, Title I (which was never fully funded) was not meant to be the sole catalyst for abolishing poverty in this Nation; it was but one step to help better educate the children in poverty. If conditions for the poor would have improved, I believe the achievement data would reflect this. But, conditions for the poor have not improved, they have worsened. Given the high transciency rates of our disadvantaged children, their home conditions riddled with uncertainty, lack of stability, violence and even danger, it is miraculous that the children have done as well as they have. I shudder to think of their school lives without Title I! Second, there is almost universal agreement that norm-referenced testing is a not good tool for instructional purposes nor for judging the quantity and quality of what a child knows, yet all the studies done on Title I rely on standardized achievement data. Third, the studies done on Title I do little to help inform instruction for students. We need dissemination of promising practices done in a way that will interest educators, not just frustrate them with reams of documents stating statistics in every form known to man.

The 1988 reauthorization, Hawkins-Stafford, made needed changes in the legislation with more emphasis on linkage to the regular school curricula, accountability, and an improved way to offer Schoolwide projects. The 1994 reauthorization, Improving America's School Act, took the next steps in terms of requiring more school site decision making, emphasis on standards-based education, and an apparent focusing of funds on high poverty schools. Unfortunately, the legislation allowed all schools with 35 percent or more poverty to participate in Title I (before invoking the 125 percent formula rule); this percentage is much too low. What it allowed was some school districts to serve all their schools with 35 percent or more poverty, and diluting programs at those schools with high poverty levels such as 85 percent and above. When you visit schools with 35 percent poverty and then with 80 to 90 percent poverty, you will realize that there is no way to rationally compare the problems faced at those sites.

I agree that critics are raising questions about "systemic" reform in education and, to paraphase Dr. Vinovskis, question its ability to revitalize American education. I would submit that American society needs revitalization, not just public education. I am a bit weary of the load placed on education these past 17 years to hold us accountable for the fabric of live in these United States.

The Title I Even Start programs, though minimally funded and very competitive, have shown some promising results. Educators need to be better informed about the ability to implement those same practices under the basic Title I Program. Of course, this can only be done if the very high poverty schools are well-funded.

Given any shortcomings and criticism, the Federal role in educating disadvantaged children must continue. The issue is equity. State governments have poor records in dealing with equity issues or with protecting children. The inequities between States will not be cured or helped by block granting funds, and certainly not by reducing or eliminating the funds. What will help is more succinct and articulate promising practices.

In the Riverside district, the Title I children have experienced outstanding academic growth in the Success For All Program, Dr. Robert Slavin, Johns Hopkins University. It is a program that bridges gaps, that between whole language and phonics, and that between preschool and the primary grades. It is a program that contains the best elements of good reading instruction for the young child, and presents a balance of literacy strategies so that all children will be reading at grade level by the third grade. It is working in Riverside schools with populations ranging from 65 percent to 90 percent poverty. One of the notable outcomes of this program is the sharp reduction of numbers of children referred to special education.

The responsibility for educating our children in poverty must be shared by several entities certainly at the district and site level, but also at the congressional and departmental levels. If Title I is to really improve the academic achievement of poor children, then Congress must have the courage to see that the money gets to those schools with the most children in need, and the U.S. Department of Education must disseminate promising practices in a way that is truly helpful to those of us at the local level.

At this point, I must give proper credit to the Department of Education. Their efforts to decrease paper-work have been extremely successful, and I applaud their devotion and commitment to the education of all children. I am particularly grateful for the leadership of Mrs. Mary Jean LeTendre in Compensatory Education, who is an outstanding missionary for good programs for poor children.