Oconee officials weigh three models to expand Title I services across elementary schools

Dr. McDonald, the district’s federal programs director, told the school board the district currently receives “approximately $3,000,000” in Title I funding and is exploring ways to broaden which elementary schools receive the grant support.

The presentation outlined three implementation models: (1) immediate service to all 10 elementary schools under the current Title I budget, which would sharply reduce per-school allocations at currently served schools; (2) a graduated three‑year transition that uses the general fund or other federal programs as a compensatory mechanism to extend services to all schools while tapering resources at current Title I sites; and (3) a phased plan beginning with seven schools and gradually shifting resources. Dr. McDonald said the board’s staff favors the second, graduated model as “effective and efficient and [likely to] lead to a less disruptive transition.”

Nut graf: The decision affects how roughly $3 million in federal Title I funds are distributed and how many students receive targeted supports. Dr. McDonald emphasized equity trade-offs: under the district’s current practice only a portion of students in poverty are served, and the district’s elementary-poverty percentages are tightly clustered, producing small rank-order changes that can move a school on or off the list year to year.

Board members pressed for evidence that Title I schools demonstrate greater learning gains. One board member asked, “Do we see a lot of gain in those 3 schools that have Title I funds?” Dr. McDonald replied that test score gains are not clearly larger in currently funded schools and that Title I’s impact is difficult to isolate from other school-improvement work; he said the district will track outcomes more closely if the board pursues expansion and will use needs assessments to guide allocations.

Dr. McDonald provided specific figures shown on slides: elementary school poverty percentages ranged on the slide from about 58.64% to 84.42% (strongly clustered), and he noted that, under a narrow eligibility approach, “only 1,150 of our elementary students in poverty — just one-third of the roughly 3,220 elementary students in poverty” would receive Title I services. He warned that immediate, across-the-board redistribution would reduce staffing and program capacity at currently served schools.

Board discussion touched on methods of allocating funds. A board member and district staff described a “sample weighted allocation” that begins with per‑pupil flat allocations and applies a multiplier to account for higher poverty percentages, balancing equity based on both counts and rates. Questions also addressed personnel logistics: whether reallocations would require teacher moves or could be handled via attrition and redeployment; administrators said positions could be shifted and attrition would likely mitigate involuntary moves.

Next steps: Dr. McDonald said the district will refine implementation models, prepare needs assessments for newly proposed Title I sites, and provide follow-up data on projected staffing and outcomes for the board’s consideration. No formal vote on the Title I implementation model occurred during this meeting.

Closing: The board thanked staff for the analysis and signaled interest in further study before any formal adoption of an expanded Title I plan.