An alternative is proposed to the legally required uniform procedures and criteria for reporting the results of Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I projects. It is suggested that Congress is unlikely to respond to nationwide impact data on the effectiveness of Title I even when such data are available. It is further proposed that the RMC plan for aggregation of achievement data across Title I projects is unsound because the signal-to-noise ratio in the data is so small. This conclusion is based on a comparison of norms among eight standardized reading comprehension tests. (The details of this study are reported elsewhere.) Finally, it is proposed that Title I projects should be evaluated in terms of the proportion of the participating students who had achieved the approved project goals without showing any evidence of adverse side effects. A four category arbitrary scale of effectiveness is proposed; aggregate data may be compiled in terms of the percent of projects within each category. (Author/CTM)