How district leaders and middle school principals use Title I funds at the campus level : a study of the ongoing planning and decision-making process by educational leaders at the district/campus level

The purpose of this research was to conduct a comparative case study that illuminates the aspects of planning and decision making between two high performing and two low performing middle schools serving similar student populations within two separate school districts. Each district was represented by two high performing and two low performing Title I middle schools. Decisions for campus expenditures of Title I funding rests almost solely with the campus principal, even though their training and professional development for budget development, management, and best practices in using Title I money is regarded as minimal or nonexistent. Middle school settings were chosen as the focus of this exploratory study due the importance of the middle school experience in preparing secondary students for the rigors of high school. Four major research questions were developed as follows because they represent the domains of spending available to middle school principals throughout the fiscal and academic year: (a) What is the ongoing planning and decision-making process for the allocation, distribution, and utilization of Title I funds for the high-performing middle schools? (b) What is the ongoing planning and decision-making process for the allocation, distribution, and utilization of Title I funds for the low-performing middle schools? (c) What ongoing middle school planning and decision-making processes for the allocation, distribution, and utilization of Title I funds are shared between the low-performing and high-performing middle schools? (d) What differences exist in the ongoing planning and decision-making process for the allocation, distribution, and utilization of Title I funds between low-performing and high-performing middle schools? The design was a basic comparative case study to allow for exploring the experiences of principals using Title I funds at middle schools that were meeting the state’s academic standards with an accountability grade of at least a B and middle schools that were not meeting the state’s academic standards with an accountability grade of F. Two major sources of information were the district- and campus-level improvement plans and the perceptions of the two districts’ Title I coordinators as well as the four middle school campus principals. Two low performing middle school principals and two high performing middle school principals were interviewed. Additionally, the Title I coordinators for the districts at which the selected case middle schools were interviewed. The middle schools met the inclusion criteria satisfying the contextual and academic performance conditions in accordance with the four research questions guiding the study. A total of nine themes emerged in the findings: Theme 1: The allocation process is considered a quick and simple process where the word threshold is not widely used in District A. Theme 2: Choosing to allow the natural and authentic campus data to be the leading guide creates funding allocation consistency in District A. Theme 3: The Title I coordinator’s choice of the Title I qualifying cut point has a profound impact on all campuses’ allocations in District B. Theme 4: Consistency from year to year is preferred but is difficult to achieve in District B. Theme 5: Redundancy of information is necessary within the annual Title I meeting. Theme 6: Similarities in the items and agendas discussed at the annual meeting. Theme 7: The need for ongoing support throughout the year. Theme 8: District size and diversity district affects efficiency. Theme 9: The timing of the annual Title I meeting affects campus planning and efficiency. This research clearly demonstrated the advantages for Title I allocations that exist in a smaller district, such as District A, and need to be replicated in large school districts such as District B. Several implications for practice and recommendations for future study that originated from this study are made in Chapter 5.Educational Leadership and Polic