# data[].attributes.headline
Lyndon B. Johnson: The 36th President of the United States of America

# data[].attributes.subject
Lyndon B. Johnson: The 36th President of the United States of America

# data[].attributes.body
Lyndon B. Johnson was known for signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 during his presidency from 1963 to 1969 (Hanna, 2005). He was an American educator and politician fighting for rights!

# data[].attributes.headline
The Introduction of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Introduction of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

# data[].attributes.body
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was introduced to Congress on January 12th, 1965 (McClure, 2008).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Lyndon B. Johnson with his childhood schoolteacher, Kate Deadrich Loney, at the signing ceremony.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Signing & Passing of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

# data[].attributes.subject
The Signing & Passing of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

# data[].attributes.body
On April 9th, 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law (Paul, 2022).

# data[].attributes.headline
Overview of Title I: Why Was it Created & What is it?

# data[].attributes.subject
Overview of Title I: Why Was it Created & What is it?

# data[].attributes.body
Title I was established to ensure that economically disadvantaged children obtain equal, inclusive, and quality education by providing assistance in the closing of academic achievement gaps (Waters, 2021). Title I works to achieve this goal through additional funding to schools with high percentages of children from low-income families so that these children can meet state standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). With this additional funding, schools can either offer targeted assistance or schoolwide programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).

# data[].attributes.headline
The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1969

# data[].attributes.subject
The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1969

# data[].attributes.body
According to the New York State Education Department (2019), the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments were officially implemented in 1970. A section of these amendments focused on ensuring that the federal money provided to Title I schools were being utilized for what it was designed for. The premise is that this federal assistance must add to state and local funding, not replace it. It is referred to as “Supplement not supplant” (New York State Education Department, 2019, p. 4).

# data[].attributes.body
Parents of children attending nonpublic schools in Kansas City, Missouri alleged that the Missouri Commission of Education and the Missouri Board of Education "arbitrarily and illegally were approving Title I programs that deprived eligible nonpublic school children of services comparable to those offered eligible public school children" (Wheeler v. Barrera, 1974, para. 1).

On June 10th, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the services provided to the nonpublic school students were "plainly inferior, both qualitatively and quantitatively" (Wheeler v. Barrera, 1974, para. 27). Additionally, they declined to decide whether Title I's mandate for 'equitable participation' was a requirement of on-premise instruction or if on-premise instruction would be constitutional. "Instead, it remanded the case to Judge Collinson to develop guidelines designed to assure LEA compliance in Missouri with Title I" (Wamble v. Bell, 1984, para. 9).

The ruling's impact came later that year when Congress made amendments to Title I in an attempt to address inequities found in Missouri caused by "state or local laws which prohibited state agencies from offering equitable participation to eligible nonpublic school children" (Wamble v. Bell, 1984, para. 10). Furthermore, there was a bypassing of state and local authorities, and Title I services were provided "directly to educationally deprived nonpublic school children through the use of independent contractors unrelated to state or local governmental agencies" (Wamble v. Bell, 1984, para. 10).

The Justia articles provide explanations, background information, and implications of both the Wheeler v. Barrera and Wamble v. Bell cases (Wamble v. Bell, 1984; Wheeler v. Barrera, 1974).

# data[].attributes.body
Created in 1978, the Educational Amendments established a new Title 1 grant to provide more assistance for districts that hold a larger number of students from lower-income families (Boyle & Lee, 2015).

# data[].attributes.body
In 2015, new bills were presented in order to reauthorize ESEA. The goals were to create "college-ready" students and to become more competitive with other nations. To achieve this, states and school districts were granted the ability to be more flexible with how and what they used their funding for. It also allowed for larger grants to fund programs, activities, and reforms ("Reauthorization of ESEA", n.d.).

# data[].attributes.headline
The Beginning of the Pennsylvania School Funding Trial

# data[].attributes.subject
The Beginning of the Pennsylvania School Funding Trial

# data[].attributes.body
The state of Pennsylvania recently adopted a system that doesn’t provide schools with the resources that students need to meet the specific state policy. This system does not benefit many of the students based on where they live and the wealth of the communities that they live in. This proved to be a major problem, and because of that, this ongoing case began on November 12th, 2021 ("School Funding Lawsuit", 2022).

The Public Interest Law Center news article explained the history of Pennsylvania's school funding problems and the current systems that are in place. It also went on to explain the court case that is currently going on and the purpose behind it (Churchill et al., n.d).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Protestors outside of Pennsylvania's Capitol.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Ongoing Pennsylvania School Funding Trial

# data[].attributes.subject
The Ongoing Pennsylvania School Funding Trial

# data[].attributes.body
As of February 5, 2022, witnesses and financial experts are being brought to the stand to testify and share their expertise. Students who come from low-income districts are negatively impacted and unable to receive a high-quality education. Mezzacappa (2021) states, "at issue is whether the state is providing enough money to adequately educate all its students and whether the funds are distributed equitably based on the needs of districts" (para. 4). If the courts decide that adequate funding is not being met, then the government will invest the necessary money and resources needed to assist in their learning and reduce the achievement gap (Mezzacappa, 2021).

The Forbes and Chalkbeat Philadelphia news articles both explained the current conditions of districts that are being left behind and how funding would make education more equitable for all students (Greene, 2021; Mezzacappa, 2021).