Total state-level Title I allocations from the federal government would not change regardless of whether a state chose the portability option. But any state choosing this option would experience changes in how Title I funds get divided among and within its school districts—even if all poor students were to attend public schools.
Proponents of portability like this feature of it: it switches the focus of policy from what schools get to what individual children get. But under portability, those funds would then be allocated down to school districts within the state uniformly, disregarding concentrations of poverty. The state would divide its total Title I allocation by its number of eligible poor children, and that would be the voucher amount following each poor student to his or her school of choice—public or private.
Under the portability option, the per-eligible grant amount would be the same in every school district within a state. Within school districts, Title I funds would follow each poor student to the school he or she attends, public or private. The distinction between Title I and non-Title I schools would vanish, as any school enrolling even one poor student would receive Title I funds. I simulate the effects of using all Title I funds appropriated in FY for vouchers to Title I-eligible poor school-aged children.
I assume that the Title I formulas continue to determine state-level allocations, and that these state Title I pies are then divided equally among all poor children in the state. Were Congress to enact some semblance of portability, Congress—and any states choosing to take up the option—would need to address questions like under what conditions tuition, selectivity, compliance with state and federal curricular and civil rights requirements private schools would be allowed to accept the vouchers.
Because my interest here is in how portability would affect the distribution of federal funds across public schools even if students do not switch to private schools, I do not need any assumptions about the terms private schools would face. The Education Trust and the Center for American Progress released reports last year simulating district-level federal funds under portability. My results are consistent with those findings. I use Maryland for this exercise because it has relatively few districts and changes in the distribution are therefore easier to observe for the reader.
I aggregate the FY district allocations under Title I Part A up to the state level, then divide state totals by the number of eligible children in each state. I then assume that each school district receives that amount for each poor student enrolled in that is, I assume that no students take their vouchers to private schools. This simplifying assumption is also a conservative choice.
What Title I portability would mean for the distribution of federal education aid
It yields a lower bound, understating the potential impact of portability on federal funding for public schools, and showing how portability would matter even in areas with little private school presence. Four would lose federal funding and 20 would gain funds. This is a function of how the formulas weight eligible children additionally in high poverty areas. Table 1. How portability could affect district-level Title I allocations in Maryland. Because the relationship between poverty rates and Title I grants is not linear in the formulas, the relationship between poverty rates and how a district would be affected by portability is not straightforward.
In Baltimore City, about a third of children are eligible for Title I; the other three districts have 9 to 13 percent of children eligible. Like Baltimore City, Somerset County also has about a third of its children eligible, but is much smaller, with total enrollment just shy of 3, Under portability and absent formula changes, a district with a high child poverty count would continue to generate higher Title I allocations per eligible child, but would be forced to share these gains with other districts across its state.
While child poverty and population data are used in the federal process of generating district-level allocations, districts may and often do use other data sources to determine school-level allocations, most notably free- and reduced-price lunch FRPL eligibility rates. These data also report counts of students eligible for FRPL, and total enrollment by school.
You are here
Table 2 uses these data to report measures of the distribution of FRPL eligibility rates across Title I and non-Title I elementary schools in each district in Maryland. I limit the analysis here to elementary schools because they are disproportionately likely to receive Title I funds compared to middle or high schools. The table reveals significant local heterogeneity not just in disadvantage, but also in how school districts exercise the discretion they have under the current ranking and serving rules.
Title I schools are a diverse group, and their characteristics vary considerably both across and within districts in a state. Table 2. The distribution of school-level free and reduced-price lunch eligibility rates in Title I and non-Title I elementary schools, by district Maryland. For example, in Baltimore City, the vast majority of schools get Title I funds—and are highly disadvantaged. Among the 13 elementary schools not participating in Title I, the median school had about half its students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch; among the Baltimore City Title I elementary schools, the median school had 94 percent of students eligible.
Meanwhile, in Caroline, Frederick, or Talbot County Schools, the median Title I school had about the same free- or reduced-price lunch eligibility rate as the median non-Title I school in Baltimore City. How much any school stands to lose or gain from a switch to portability depends on how its district is choosing to divide program funds in the current regime, so this local heterogeneity matters.
Title I Program
Samuel Horti. The best of Fanbyte delivered straight to your inbox. Enter your Email address.
- The Division 2 Title Update 5 Release Date?
- Social Business by Design: Transformative Social Media Strategies for the Connected Company;
- Contact Information!
- Introduction to Scheduling?
- Betsy DeVos, Title IX, and the “Both Sides” Approach to Sexual Assault.
- Relations of Rescue: The Search for Female Moral Authority in the American West, 1874-1939!
Related Articles. April 23, April 22, April 19, April 17, April 15, April 9, April 8, Leave a Reply Cancel reply Social connect:. Check Also Close. March 13, The presentation in the Gospel of John is somewhat different from the Synoptics and in John he is presented as contact with God through "angelic instrumentality", in John and he provides life through his death and in John he holds the power to judge men. Although son of man is a distinct from son of God, some gospel passages equate them in some cases, e. For centuries, the Christological perspective on son of man has been a natural counterpart to that of son of God and in many cases affirms the humanity of Jesus just as son of God affirms his divinity.
Geza Vermes has argued that "the son of man" in the Gospels is unrelated to these Hebrew Bible usages. He begins with the observation that there is no example of "the" son of man in Hebrew sources. Based on his study of Aramaic sources, he concludes that in these sources: 1 "Son of man" is a regular expression for man in general. In monologues or dialogues the speaker can refer to himself, not as 'I', but as "the son of man" in the third person, in contexts implying awe, reserve, or modesty. James E.
Talmage , a prominent writer and leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints argued that the definitive article used in the New Testament makes the title "the Son of Man" a distinguishing appellation exclusive to Jesus. Talmage supports the view of Vermes, but adds to it the additional meaning that Jesus is the son of an exalted man, subscribing to the Church's doctrine of Exaltation. In this sense, too, the title is unique to Jesus, as he is the only literal physical offspring of God the Father.
- Division 2 Title Update 5 New Main Missions Detailed.
- A Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk!
- Education Policy.
- The 21st Century Energy Initiative: How to solve our energy problems!
- Angela Ales Bello The Divine In Husserl And Other Explorations;
- gyqacyxaja.cf / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
- Title I, Part A — Improving Basic Programs.
- How Do I Find...;
- Benefits Include?
- Thrombosis and Cardiovascular Disease?
- TABE (Test of Adult Basic Education) Level A Math Workbook.
- Title I Program.
- The Jesuits: The History and Legacy of the Catholic Church’s Society of Jesus;
The title "Son of David" indicates Jesus' physical descent from David , as well as his membership of the Davidic line of kings. The phrase is used a number of times in the gospel of Matthew. It appears in Matthew to introduce both the genealogy and the gospel. It is found on the lips of the blind men healed in Galilee "Have mercy on us, Son of David", Matthew , the crowd who are amazed at Jesus' healing of a blind, mute and demon-possessed man Matthew , the Canaanite woman whose daughter is exorcised "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me," Matthew , and the blind men healed near Jericho "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us", Matthew Finally, it also forms part of the shout of the crowds when Jesus enters Jerusalem : "Hosanna to the Son of David" Matthew A variant of this title is found in Revelation , where Jesus refers to himself as "the Root and the Offspring of David".
The title Lamb of God Agnus Dei only appears in the Gospel of John , with the exclamation of John the Baptist : "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" in John , the title reaffirmed the next day in John These two proclamations of Jesus as the Lamb of God closely bracket the Baptist's other proclamation in John : "I have borne witness that this is the Son of God". From a Christological perspective, these proclamations and the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove in John reinforce each other to establish the divine element of the Person of Christ.
The Book of Revelation includes over twenty references to a lion-like lamb "slain but standing" which delivers victory in a manner reminiscent of the resurrected Christ. In Revelation the lamb is said to have twelve apostles. The theme of a sacrificial lamb which rises in victory as the Resurrected Christ was employed in early Christology, e. For he underwent death without being guilty of any inequity.
Why a lion in his resurrection? For in being slain, he slew death. It references the concept of a scapegoat, where people put their blame on others, however with the interpretation of Jesus taking on Christian's sins. Just as the Gospel of John proclaims the universal relevance of the Incarnation of Jesus as Logos , the Pauline view emphasizes the cosmic view that his birth, Crucifixion and Resurrection brought forth a new man and a new world.
Unlike Adam, the new man born in Jesus obeys God and ushers in a world of morality and salvation. In the Pauline view, Adam is positioned as the first man and Jesus as the second and last Adam 1 Corinthians , the first having corrupted himself by his disobedience, also infected humanity and left it with a curse as inheritance. The birth of Jesus, on the other hand, counterbalanced the fall of Adam, bringing forth redemption and repairing the damage done by Adam.
The theme is reiterated by Paul, in Romans , when he states:. Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. In the 2nd century Church Father Irenaeus continued this tradition and stated: "so that what we had lost in Adam - namely to be according to the image and likeness of God- that we might recover in Christ Jesus.
Jesus from the Annunciation to Calvary. The tradition continued in the 4th century by Ephrem the Syrian and later by Saint Augustine in his Felix culpa , i.
Athletic Wear & Clothes for Active Women | Title Nine
In John Jesus applies the title to himself while debating with the Jews, and states: . Jesus again claims to be Light of the World in John , during the miracle of healing the blind at birth , saying: . This episode leads into John where Jesus metaphorically explains that he came to this world, so that the blind may see.
In the Christological context, the use of the title "Light of the World" is similar to the use of the title " Bread of Life " in John , where Jesus states: "I am the bread of life: he who comes to me shall not hunger.
New Items of Interest
This application of "light compared with darkness" also appears in 1 John which applies it to God and states: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Jesus also used the term Light of the World to refer to his disciples, in Matthew :  The term "Light of the World" is related to the parables of Salt and Light and Lamp under a bushel. In the New Testament , Jesus is referred to as the King of the Jews on three occasions, coming at the beginning of his life and at the end.
Both uses of the title lead to dramatic results in the New Testament accounts. In the accounts of the Passion of Jesus in all four Canonical Gospels , the use of the "King of the Jews" title leads to charges against Jesus that result in his Crucifixion. The title "King of the Jews" is used only by the gentiles, namely by the Magi , Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers. In contrast the Jewish leaders in the Passion accounts prefer the designation "King of Israel", as in Matthew , Mark The use of the term "King" in the charges brought against Jesus is central in the decision to crucify him.
The final use of the title only appears in Luke Here, after Jesus has carried the cross to Calvary and has been nailed to the cross, the soldiers look up on him on the cross, mock him , offer him vinegar and say: "If thou art the King of the Jews, save thyself. The Rabbi title is used in several New Testament episodes to refer to Jesus, but more often in the Gospel of John than elsewhere and does not appear in the Gospel of Luke at all.
In Matthew , Jesus affirms the term Rabbi and Father are not to be used for any man, but only for God and for Christ. Jesus is called Rabbi in conversation by Apostle Peter in Mark and Mark , and by Mark by Nathanael in John , where he is also called the Son of God in the same sentence. Intimating that the title Rabbi was used by status seeking Pharisees who "sit on the seat of Moses" and use the title as sign of authority, in Matthew Jesus rejected the title of Rabbi for his disciples, saying: "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren".
The New Testament uses several titles to refer to Jesus. However, some terms that are commonly used in the Christian tradition rarely appear in the New Testament, e. The title "Chosen one" or "Elect one" is used twice in Luke's gospel: eklektos is used in when the rulers mock Jesus , while eklelegmenos is used in when Jesus is baptized.