Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Title I Allocations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District proposes narrowing Title I eligibility to 75% poverty threshold; principals and trustees voice concern
Summary
Federal programs director Pamela Rhodes proposed ending the district’s elementary grade‑band Title I approach and limiting Title I funding to schools with at least 75% pupils in poverty; board members urged caution and asked for scenario modeling.
Pamela Rhodes, the district’s federal programs director, presented proposed changes to how Sumter School District would allocate Title I funds for fiscal 2026 and led a wide-ranging discussion at the Jan. 27 work session.
Rhodes told the board that Title I is intended to help schools with high concentrations of students in poverty meet state academic standards and noted the district currently uses a grade‑band model that allows all elementary schools (K–5) to receive Title I support even if they fall under the 75% pupil‑in‑poverty threshold. Rhodes said the district lost more than $600,000 in Title I funding from the previous year and that federal allocations are uncertain; the presentation said the district was allocated roughly $8.5 million for fiscal 2024 and had about $887,464 (10.45%) remaining in that allocation.
The proposal Rhodes presented would end the district‑wide elementary grade‑band and instead fund only those elementary, middle and high schools that meet the federal 75% pupils‑in‑poverty threshold. Under that scenario, five current elementary schools (Alice Drive, Millwood, Oakland Primary, Shaw Heights and High Hills) could lose Title I status if they do not meet the 75% threshold once the state’s 135‑day certification is released in mid‑May. Conversely, Rhodes said two large high schools (Lakewood and Crestwood) and Bates Middle School are near the threshold and could become newly identified Title I schools if certified by the state.
Rhodes cautioned that adding schools that reach the 75% threshold does not bring additional money; the district’s Title I allocation would be divided among more schools. ‘‘If we truly bring on these 3 additional schools…and we don’t get more money,’’ Rhodes said, ‘‘that will pull allocations away from existing Title I schools.’’ She also explained that federally funded positions are year‑to‑year and that principals were advised to inform staff funded by grants that their positions could be affected by changes in allocations.
Trustees offered strong pushback. Several said removing resources from elementary schools would harm early literacy and long‑term outcomes; they urged the district to involve principals, present financial scenarios and seek alternatives before final decisions. Trustee comments emphasized that interventions are most effective at elementary grades and flagged the human‑capital impact—many school Title I allocations fund staff positions. Rhodes responded that the district will consult principals, provide transition support and explore other federal grants (Title II–IV) for programmatic help if schools lose Title I allocations.
Superintendent William Wright framed the discussion as preliminary: staff brought a proposal to generate discussion and to inform budget planning. Trustees asked staff to return with modeling of allocation scenarios, school‑level numbers and a plan for stakeholder consultation prior to any final board action.
