![](media/image1.png){width="7.499305555555556in"
height="9.70486111111111in"}

High Standards for All Students:

A Report from the National Assessment of Title I on

Progress and Challenges Since the 1994 Reauthorization

Planning and Evaluation Service

Office of the Under Secretary

U.S. Department of Education

January 2001

# U. S. Department of Education

# Richard W. Riley

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Judith A. Winston

*Under Secretary*

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Elementary and Secondary Education Division**

Ricky T. Takai

*Director*

January 2001

This report was developed under the direction of Alan L. Ginsburg,
Director of the Planning and Evaluation Service (PES); Ricky T. Takai,
Director of the Elementary and Secondary Education Division, and Elois
Scott, Team Leader of the At-Risk Students Team. Stephanie Stullich, of
the PES Elementary and Secondary Division, served as Project Director
for the National Assessment of Title I. PES staff who contributed to the
writing of this report are: Robin Chait, Daphne Hardcastle, Stacy
Kotzin, Michelle LaPointe, Meredith Miller, Tracy Rimdzius, Susan
Sanchez, Elois Scott, Stephanie Stullich, and Susan Thompson-Hoffman.

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, *High Standards for All
Students: A Report from the National Assessment of Title I on Progress
and Challenges Since the 1994 Reauthorization*, Washington, DC: 2001.

Copies of this report may be ordered in the following ways:

-   Mail. Write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S.
    Department of Education, P. O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fax. Dial 301-470-1244.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Telephone (toll-free). Dial 877-433-7827 (877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
    service is not yet available in your area, call 800-872-5327
    (800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
    deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 800-437-0833.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Electronic mail. Send your request to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Online. Order a copy of the report at:
    [www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html](http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html).
    This report may also be downloaded from the Department's Web site
    at: www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Alternate formats. Upon request, this report is available in
    alternate formats such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or
    computer diskette. For more information, please contact the
    Department\'s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-9895 or
    202-205-8113.

Contents

Introduction to the Report 1

I. Policy Context for Title I 2

> Provisions of the Current Title I Law 2
>
> New Initiatives for At-Risk Children 4

II\. Profile of Title I Participants and Resources 6

> Who Receives Title I Services 6
>
> Who Receives Title I Funds 7
>
> What the Title I Dollar Buys 8
>
> The Targeting of Title I Funds 9

III\. Progress in Student Performance in High-Poverty Schools 13

> Student Performance on State Assessments 15
>
> Student Performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
> (NAEP) 17

IV\. Implementation of Standards, Assessments, and Accountability
Systems 20

> Development of State Content and Performance Standards 20
>
> Development of State Assessment Systems 22
>
> The Role of Title I in Holding Schools Accountable for Performance and
> Supporting Improvement Efforts 24
>
> The Impact of Standards-Based Reform on Teacher Practices and Student
> Performance 28

V. Strategies for Improving Teaching and Learning 30

> Comprehensive, Research-Based School Reform 31
>
> Promising Instructional Practices in Reading and Mathematics 35
>
> Improving the Qualifications of Instructional Staff 37
>
> Early Childhood Education 40
>
> Extending Learning Time 43
>
> Partnerships with Parents and Families 45

VI\. Special Title I Services 47

> Title I Services for Students Attending Private Schools 47
>
> Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) 48
>
> Programs for Students Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or at Risk of
> Dropping Out
>
> (Title I, Part D) 49

VII\. Progress and Challenges 52

##### Introduction to the Report

This report provides a comprehensive summary of the most recent data
available from the National Assessment of Title I on the implementation
of the Title I program and the academic performance of children in
high-poverty schools. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) provides federal assistance to eligible school districts and
schools to help children meet challenging standards, with particular
emphasis on children who are at risk of not meeting such standards. In
addition to the main Title I program---Part A, the Title I Grants to
Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) program---Title I also includes other
parts that provide services to children: Part B, the Even Start Family
Literacy Program; Part C, the Migrant Education Program; and Part D
Programs for Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth.

The National Assessment of Title I was mandated by Congress as part of
the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA to examine the progress of students
whom the program was intended to benefit and the implementation of key
provisions of the program. The final report of the National Assessment,
*Promising Results, Continuing Challenges*, was released in 1999.[^1]
However, because additional findings have emerged since that time, this
new report was prepared to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date
summary of key evaluation findings about the Title I program.

The report is comprised of six sections. The first describes the policy
context for Title I---the current provisions of the law and the major
changes that were made in the 1994 reauthorization of the program, and
the relationship of Title I to recent federal initiatives that support
educational reform and improvement.

The second section provides a description of whom Title I serves, what
the Title I dollar buys, and how Title I funds are distributed among
districts and schools. The third and fourth sections address the
frequently raised questions of the extent to which student achievement
is improving and the extent to which Title I is fully implemented. The
fifth section provides information on school-level strategies used to
support student learning, and how these strategies are supported by
Title I and other federal programs. The sixth section describes the
provision of services to students attending private schools, migrant
students served under Part C, and neglected and delinquent students
served under Part D. The final section offers conclusions and
implications.

This report is being issued at the same time as a report by the
Independent Review Panel that has advised the U.S. Department of
Education on the National Assessment of Title I since 1994. This panel,
which was mandated under Sections 1501 and 14701 of ESEA, is composed of
nationally-recognized researchers and policy experts, representatives of
state and local education agencies and private schools, school-level
staff, and parent representatives. The panel has defined issues for
evaluating Title I and the federal impact on education reform; reviewed
study plans, data analysis, and draft reports; and prepared its own
recommendations for the future of Title I and the federal role in
education.

##### I. Policy Context for Title I

## 

Title I originated with the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965, which was enacted as part of the "War on Poverty."
The primary purpose of the program has not changed since the time when
it first became law---to ensure equal educational opportunity for all
children regardless of socioeconomic background and to close the
achievement gap between poor and affluent children, by providing
additional resources for schools serving disadvantaged students. This
purpose is illustrated by the current law\'s declaration of policy and
statement of purpose (below):

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| TITLE I---HELPING DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN MEET HIGH STANDARDS          |
|                                                                       |
| "SEC. 1001. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.           |
|                                                                       |
| "(a)(1) The Congress declares it to be the policy of the United       |
| States that a high-quality education for all individuals and a fair   |
| and equal opportunity to obtain that education are a societal good,   |
| are a moral imperative, and improve the life of every individual,     |
| because the quality of our lives ultimately depends on the quality of |
| the lives of others."                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

To support this purpose, the program provides additional resources
(\$9.5 billion in FY 2001[^2]) for schools to improve learning for
students at risk of educational failure. This single program represents
more than one-third (38 percent) of federal funds appropriated to
support elementary and secondary education. The majority of Title I
funds (91 percent) are distributed through the Title I Grants to LEAs
(Part A) program.

### Provisions of the Current Title I Law

The ESEA reauthorization in 1994 (which was called the Improving
America's Schools Act, or IASA) made significant changes to the prior
law, based on research findings reported in the 1993 national assessment
of the program.[^3] Previously the primary method of providing services
to children was through \"pull-out\" programs in which students were
removed from the regular classroom for remedial instruction. The
progress of participating students was measured compared to other
children who did not receive Title I services. Research found that the
services that children received were not sufficient to close the
achievement gap between children in high- and low-poverty schools. In
addition, studies found that expectations were lower for students in
high-poverty schools, and that attending high-poverty schools had a
negative effect on student achievement, independent of the effect of the
student\'s own family background.[^4]

IASA, along with the Goals 2000 Educate America Act, introduced a new
federal approach built around a framework of standards-driven reform and
an emphasis on schoolwide reform. Under the new Title I law, states were
required to develop challenging content and performance standards for
all students that would be linked to an aligned assessment and
accountability system. Students in schools receiving Title I funds would
be held to the same standards as students in other schools; there would
no longer be a dual accountability system. This approach was intended to
promote both excellence and equity in education and to enable Title I
and other federal programs to support state and local reform efforts. To
accomplish this, the reauthorized Title I adopted a number of key
principles outlined in the Title I legislation:

-   Support states in setting high standards for [all]{.underline}
    childrenwith the components of the education system aligned so that
    they are working in concert to help all students reach those
    standards;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Focus on teaching and learning, through upgrading curriculum,
    accelerating instruction, and providing teachers with professional
    development to teach to high standards;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provide flexibility to stimulate school-based and district
    initiatives, coupled with greater accountability for student
    performance;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Build partnerships among schools, families, and communities; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Target resources to where the needs are greatest.

IASA continues to allow school districts that receive Part A funds to
distribute money to schools under two basic program models---targeted
assistance and schoolwide programs. Targeted assistance schools provide
instructional and support services to specific students who are at the
greatest risk of not meeting states' performance standards. Under the
schoolwide model, Title I funds are not targeted to specific students
but may be used to improve the entire school. However, schools are
required to ensure that students who need the most help actually benefit
from the program. In order to qualify for a schoolwide program, 50
percent or more of a school's student body must come from low-income
families; the 1994 reauthorization lowered this eligibility threshold
from the previous level of 75 percent in order to allow more schools to
use this more flexible approach.

**The expansion of schoolwide programs was one of the most important
ways in which the 1994 reauthorization increased flexibility in the use
of Title I funds.** In addition, Congress further expanded flexibility
under the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (Ed-Flex), which
allows states to waive many Title I requirements if states have a strong
accountability system in place. In return for the increased flexibility,
schools and districts are held accountable for the performance of all
children. This flexibility with accountability is the heart of the Title
I standards-based accountability system.

The 1994 amendments authorized ESEA through 1999, and the next
reauthorization is pending. ESEA bills passed by the House and
considered by the Senate during the 106th Congress both supported
continuation of a standards-based system with strong accountability
provisions.

### New Initiatives for At-Risk Children

Since the ESEA reauthorization in 1994, several major new initiatives
have been funded that support a similar student population as Title I.
The five major initiatives are the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration Program (CSRD), the Reading Excellence Act (REA), Title I
Accountability Grants, 2lst Century Community Learning Centers, and the
Class Size Reduction Act.

The first two initiatives (CSRD and REA) are intended to support
high-quality teaching and improved learning through intensive and
focused professional development and a focused, research-based
instructional program. The third (Title I Accountability Grants)
provides support for additional instructional and professional
development activities for low-performing schools.

-   CSRD, which was funded through annual appropriations acts beginning
    in FY 1998, helps schools identify and adopt high-quality,
    well-defined, and research-based comprehensive school reform models
    that show the promise of preparing children to meet challenging
    state content and performance standards. FY 2001 funding for CSRD
    includes \$210 million appropriated under Title I and an additional
    \$50 million from the Fund for the Improvement of Education.

-   REA was authorized in 1999 to provide support for improving
    children's reading achievement in high-poverty and low-performing
    schools. This K-3 program is targeted to high-poverty schools and
    schools that have been identified for improvement under the Title I
    law. REA requires that participating schools implement a
    research-based reading program and provide extensive professional
    development for all teachers in grades K-3. FY 2001 funding is \$286
    million.

-   Title I Accountability Grants were included in the FY 2000 and FY
    2001 appropriations bills in order to provide support for turning
    around low-performing schools. School districts are to use these
    funds to intervene in schools that have been identified as in need
    of improvement under Title I, while offering students in those
    schools the opportunity to transfer to better schools. The FY 2001
    appropriations statute also requires that all school districts
    receiving Title I Part A funds must provide the opportunity for
    students in any school identified for improvement to transfer to a
    higher-performing school in the district that is not identified for
    improvement. FY 2001 funding is \$225 million, up from \$134 million
    in FY 2000.

The 21st Century and Class Size Reduction programs are based on research
findings that additional learning time and smaller classes have a
positive impact on the achievement of disadvantaged students.

-   The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, authorized in
    1994 and first funded in FY 1998, provides support for after-school
    programs that are focused on academic enrichment for at-risk
    children. The assumption is that low-achieving students need more
    instructional time and support in order to catch up. FY 2001 funding
    is \$846 million.

-   The Class Size Reduction Act, funded through annual appropriations
    beginning in FY 1999, provides funds to districts to help schools
    reduce the number of students in their classrooms for the earlier
    grades. Smaller classes enable teachers to spend more time with
    individual children, thus reducing children\'s likelihood of
    failure. FY 2001 funding is \$1.623 billion.

**It is important to note that many high-poverty schools receive funds
from multiple programs.** Schools that use Title I funds for schoolwide
programs are particularly encouraged to combine their federal, state and
local funds to improve the entire school. Schools that make a concerted
and thoughtful effort to coordinate the use of funds are likely to
increase the impact that these programs will have on improving the
educational outcomes of low-performing students and low-performing
schools.

**These five programs and other new initiatives have received a growing
share of federal funding for elementary and secondary education.**
Indeed, since 1994 increases in federal funding have gone primarily to
new initiatives, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
special education program, and other elementary-secondary programs,
rather than to Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Part A),
which has long been the largest federal elementary-secondary education
program. While total federal funding for elementary-secondary programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Education increased by 72 percent
from FY 1994 to FY 2001, after adjusting for inflation, funding for
Title I Part A increased by only 21 percent. Federal funding for special
education increased by 113 percent, and funding for other
elementary-secondary programs increased by 36 percent.

> Notes: \"Major New Initiatives\" included in this exhibit are CSRD,
> REA, 21st Century Schools, Class Size Reduction, and School
> Renovation. Funds for Title I Accountability Grants are not included
> in \"New Initiatives\" because these are reserved from the Title I
> Part A appropriation.
>
> Exhibit reads: Funding for Title I Part A, expressed in constant FY
> 2001 dollars, rose from \$7.1 billion in FY 1994 to \$8.6 billion in
> FY 2001 (a 21 percent increase), while total funding for elementary
> secondary education programs rose from \$16.2 billion to \$27.8
> billion (a 72 percent increase).
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.

##### II. Profile of Title I Participants and Resources

### Who Receives Title I Services

**Title I reaches more than 12.5 million students enrolled in both
public and private schools.** Minority students participate at rates
higher than their proportion of the student population. In 1997-98, 29
percent of Title I participants were African-American, 29 percent were
Hispanic, 3 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, 2 percent were
American Indian or Alaskan Native, 35 percent were white non-Hispanic,
and 1 percent were from other ethnic/racial groups.[^5] Title I services
are provided to more than 2 million students with limited English
proficiency, 1.2 million students with disabilities, and more than
100,000 children identified as homeless.[^6]

**Title I funds may be used for children from preschool age to high
school, but districts and schools often choose to focus these funds on
students in the early grades.** Two-thirds (67 percent) of Title I
participants are in grades 1-6, while 12 percent are in kindergarten or
preschool, 15 percent are in grades 7-9, and 5 percent are in grades
10-12.[^7]

It is important to recognize that the concept of a \"Title I
participant\" is different in targeted assistance schools and schoolwide
programs. In targeted assistance schools, participants are students who
receive specific services supported with Title I funds, while in
schoolwide programs, all students are counted as Title I participants
since the funds are used to improve the school as a whole.

Title I also provides supplemental assistance to children who face
specific educational barriers, including children who come from families
with low literacy, the children of migrant agricultural workers, and
children who are neglected or delinquent:

-   Even Start (Part B) supports family literacy programs that are
    intended to break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy in low-income
    families. The children of parents with poor literacy skills are less
    likely to receive early literacy training at home or to be enrolled
    in a preschool programsituations that increase the risk of school
    failure. Even Start programs served 40,500 children and 30,800
    adults in 1998-99.[^8] FY 2001 funding for Even Start is \$250
    million.

-   The Migrant Education Program (Part C) supports supplemental
    education and support services for children of migrant farmworkers
    and fishers. Migrant children have families who move frequently to
    pursue agricultural work, and thus must change schools
    frequentlycircumstances that have a detrimental effect on their
    achievement. The Migrant Education Program served 621,000 migrant
    children in 1997-98.[^9] In addition, about 300,000 migrant children
    also were served under the Title I Part A program. FY 2001 funding
    for the Migrant Education Program is \$380 million.

-   Part D of Title I authorizes state and local agency programs for
    students who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk of dropping out.
    Neglected or delinquent students are extremely educationally
    disadvantaged; most are incarcerated in state juvenile and adult
    correctional facilities and have had numerous disruptions in their
    education. State agency programs served 205,000 neglected and
    delinquent children in 1997-98, while local agency programs served
    an additional 85,000 students in local correctional facilities.[^10]
    FY 2001 funding for state \"N or D\" programs is \$46 million;
    funding for local N or D programs is provided through Part A funds
    and is estimated at \$59 million for FY 2001.

### Who Receives Title I Funds

**Title I is intended to help address the greater educational challenges
facing high-poverty communities by targeting extra resources to school
districts and schools with the highest concentrations of poverty, where
academic performance tends to be low and the obstacles to raising
performance are the greatest.** Ninety-six percent of the nation's
highest-poverty schools (those with 75 percent or more students eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch) participate in Title I.[^11] While the
highest-poverty schools comprise 16 percent of all schools, they account
for 46 percent of Title I spending. About three-fourths (73 percent) of
Title I funds go to schools with 50 percent or more students eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch.[^12] However, the program also serves
schools with low poverty levels (defined in this report as those where
fewer than 35 percent of the students are eligible for subsidized
lunches).

## **Exhibit 2**

## **Proportion of Schools Receiving Title I Funds and**

## **the Distribution of All Schools, Title I Schools, and Title I Funds, by School Poverty Level, 1997-98** 

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **School      **Proportion of    **Percentage   **Percentage   **Percentage
  Poverty       Schools Receiving  Distribution   Distribution   Distribution
  Level**       Title I Funds**    of All         of Title I     of Title I
                                   Schools**      Schools**      Funds**
  ------------- ------------------ -------------- -------------- --------------
  75-100%       96%                16%            35%            46%
  Poverty                                                        

  50-74%        80%                17%            31%            27%
  Poverty                                                        

  35-49%        49%                13%            13%            9%
  Poverty                                                        

  0-34% Poverty 28%                54%            21%            18%

  All Schools   57%                                              
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Nearly all (96 percent) of the highest-poverty schools
> receive Title I funds, and these schools account for 35 percent of all
> Title I schools and 46 percent of Title I funds.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
> *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*
> (2000).

**Title I funds are predominantly used at the elementary level.**
Overall, secondary schools received 15 percent of Title I funds, about
half as much as their share of the nation\'s low-income students
(33 percent). Secondary schools are less likely to receive Title I funds
(29 percent, compared with 67 percent of elementary schools), and those
secondary schools that do receive Title I funds tended to receive
smaller allocations than elementary schools (\$372 vs. \$495 per
low-income student, respectively, in 1997-98). However, the
highest-poverty secondary schools received allocations that were
comparable in size to those in the highest-poverty elementary schools
(\$446 vs. \$479).[^13] Moreover, changes made in the 1994
reauthorization resulted in a dramatic increase in the proportion of the
highest-poverty secondary schools that receive Title I funds, from
61 percent in 1993-94 to 93 percent in 1997-98---about the same
proportion as for the highest-poverty elementary schools
(95 percent).[^14]

### What the Title I Dollar Buys

**Most Title I funds are used for instruction, supporting the hiring of
additional teachers and instructional aides, providing instructional
materials and computers, and supporting other instructional services and
resources.** In the 1997-98 school year, three-fourths (77 percent) of
Title I funds were spent on instruction, 12 percent were used for
instructional support, and another 12 percent were used for program
administration and indirect costs. Title I spending on instruction
amounted to an estimated \$5.5 billion in 1997-98, including
\$3.3 billion spent on teachers (47 percent of total Title I
expenditures) and \$1.0 billion on instructional aides (15 percent).
[^15]

## **Exhibit 3**

## **Use of Title I Funds for Instruction, Instructional Support,**

## **and Program Administration, 1997-98** 

+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
|                                     | **Total       | **Share of**  |
|                                     | E             |               |
|                                     | xpenditures** | **Total       |
|                                     |               | E             |
|                                     | **(\$ in      | xpenditures** |
|                                     | millions)**   |               |
+=====================================+===============+===============+
| **Instruction**                     | **\$5,473**   | **77%**       |
|                                     |               |               |
| Teachers                            | \$3,342       | 47%           |
|                                     |               |               |
| Teacher Aides                       | \$1,043       | 15%           |
|                                     |               |               |
| Instructional Materials             | \$468         | 7%            |
|                                     |               |               |
| Technology for Instruction          | \$287         | 4%            |
|                                     |               |               |
| Districtwide Instructional Programs | \$256         | 4%            |
|                                     |               |               |
| Services for Private School         | \$77          | 1%            |
| Students                            |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Instructional Support**           | **\$822**     | **12%**       |
|                                     |               |               |
| Professional Development            | \$212         | 3%            |
|                                     |               |               |
| Parent Involvement                  | \$158         | 2%            |
|                                     |               |               |
| Guidance Counselors, Psychologists, | \$155         | 2%            |
| Social Workers                      |               |               |
|                                     | \$297         | 4%            |
| Other Instructional Support         |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Program Administration**          | **\$835**     | **12%**       |
|                                     |               |               |
| District Administration             | \$594         | 8%            |
|                                     |               |               |
| School Administration               | \$241         | 3%            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+

> Notes: Totals do not add due to rounding. \"Districtwide instructional
> programs\" include districtwide preschool, full-day kindergarten,
> extended-time programs, and other targeted services for at-risk
> students. \"Other instructional support\" includes student health
> services, library/media specialists, and other instructional support
> staff. \"Program administration\" includes funds allocated for
> indirect costs.
>
> Exhibit reads: Title I spending on instruction amounted to \$5.473
> billion in the 1997-98 school year---77 percent of total Title I
> funds.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
> Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report (2000).

**The share of Title I funds used for instruction (77 percent) was
greater than the share of total school district expenditures used for
this purpose (62 percent).** Similarly, the share of funds used for
instructional support under Title I (12 percent) was slightly greater
than for total district expenditures (9 percent). The share of funds
used for administration appears about the same for Title I (12 percent)
and district expenditures overall (11 percent).[^16] The remaining
district expenditures (18 percent) were used for building operation and
maintenance, transportation, and food services. Nearly all Title I funds
are used at the district and school levels; states distributed
99 percent of their Title I funds to school districts and retained only
1 percent for administration, leadership, and technical assistance to
districts and schools.[^17]

Title I funds may help equalize resources for high- and low-poverty
schools by providing additional support in districts and schools with
greater needs, which often receive fewer resources from state and local
sources. For example, Title I funds purchased an average of 4.5
computers in the highest-poverty elementary schools in 1997-98 (33
percent of the new computers), compared with 0.5 computers in
low-poverty elementary schools. High-poverty schools' use of Title I
funds for technology helped to compensate for the fact that they
received fewer computers from state and local funds (5.3 computers,
versus 7.1 in low-poverty schools).[^18]

Although Title I accounts for a relatively small percentage of total
funding for elementary and secondary education (less than 3 percent),
the program plays a significant role in supporting local education
improvement efforts. It provides flexible funding that may be used for
supplementary instruction, professional development, new computers,
after-school programs, and other strategies for raising student
achievement. For example, Title I funds used for technology amounted to
about \$287 million in 1997-98, more than the combined appropriations
for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology Innovation
Challenge Grants for that year (\$257 million). Similarly, Title I funds
used for professional development amounted to \$212 million in 1997-98,
nearly as much as the funding for the Eisenhower Professional
Development Program (elementary-secondary programs) for that year (\$244
million).[^19]

### The Targeting of Title I Funds

![](media/image2.wmf)**Title I funds are much more targeted to the
highest-poverty districts than are state and local funds, and are also
more targeted than are federal education funds overall.** Districts in
the highest-poverty quartile received 50 percent of all Title I funds in
FY 1997, more than double their share of state and local funds (23
percent) and also greater than their share of federal education funds
overall (43 percent). The poorest districts\' share of Title I funds (50
percent) is about the same as their share of the nation\'s poor children
(49 percent), while their share of state and local funds (23 percent) is
less than their share of total school-age children (25 percent). In
contrast, districts in the lowest-poverty quartile received 8 percent of
Title I funds and 11 percent of all federal funds but 30 percent of
state and local funds.

> Exhibit reads: The highest-poverty districts received 50 percent of
> Title I funds and 43 percent of total federal funds but only 23
> percent of state and local funds.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
> Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report (2000).

**Although Title I and other federal programs provide more funds in
high-poverty districts, these districts still have less funding per
pupil than do low-poverty districts.** The highest-poverty districts
received four times as much federal funding per pupil (\$692) as did the
lowest-poverty districts (\$172), but even so the highest-poverty
districts still received 10 percent less in total funding per pupil
(\$6,248, compared with \$6,967 in the lowest-poverty districts).

Despite the fact that Title I targets high-poverty areas more strongly
than other funds, historically there have been concerns that Title I
funds are still spread too thinly, undermining the program's capacity to
meet the high expectations set by policymakers*.* **The 1994
reauthorization changed the Title I allocation provisions in an effort
to improve the targeting of Title I funds on the neediest districts and
schools, but these changes had little impact on the targeting of Title I
funds at the district level.** The share of Title I funds allocated to
the highest-poverty quartile of districts remained virtually unchanged,
rising slightly from 49 percent in FY 1994 to 50 percent in FY 1997.
Most Title I funds continue to flow through the Basic Grants formula (84
percent of total funding), which goes to nearly all districts. Funding
for the more targeted Concentration Grant formula did increase
substantially, but this formula still has little impact because it
accounts for only 16 percent of the funds. A new Targeted Grants formula
created under the 1994 reauthorization would direct a greater share of
the funds to the highest-poverty districts, but this formula has not
been funded. In addition, a shift to using updated poverty data and
making allocations directly to school districts also had very little
impact on school district allocations, due to the introduction of
special hold-harmless provisions.[^20]

**However, the changes in the law did result in substantial increases in
Title I targeting at the school level.** Almost all (95 percent) of the
highest-poverty schools received Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 79
percent in 1993-94 (Exhibit 5). Funding for low-poverty schools declined
from 49 percent to 36 percent over the same period. At the secondary
level, nearly all (93 percent) of the highest-poverty secondary schools
received Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 61 percent in 1993-94.[^21]

> ![](media/image3.wmf)Exhibit reads: The proportion of the
> highest-poverty schools that received Title I funds rose from 79
> percent in 1993-94 to 95 percent in 1997-98, while the proportion of
> low-poverty schools receiving these funds declined.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
> Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
> Districts (1999).

**Improved targeting has increased the number of high-poverty schools
served but has not necessarily increased the intensity of services.** In
a sample of 17 large urban districts, the average size of school
allocations remained unchanged from 1994-95 to 1996-97, indicating that
the growth in total funding and redirection of some funds away from
low-poverty schools have increased the number of high-poverty schools
served rather than increasing the intensity of services in those
schools.[^22]

**Moreover, although low-poverty schools were less likely to receive
Title I funds, those low-poverty schools that did receive funding tended
to receive substantially larger per-pupil allocations than high-poverty
Title I schools.** Low-poverty Title I schools received \$771 per
low-income student, compared with only \$475 in the highest-poverty
Title I schools.[^23] This occurs because the Title I formula allocates
funds to nearly all districts, including low-poverty districts that can
concentrate their Title I resources on the schools that have the highest
poverty rates in their district, although these schools would not be
considered \"high-poverty\" in other, poorer districts. At the same
time, high-poverty districts may have many high-poverty schools among
which to spread their Title I funds, resulting in smaller allocations in
these schools.

Title I resources are intended to \"supplement, not supplant\" a
comparable base of state and local resources that would be provided in
each school in the absence of Title I funds.[^24] **Data from the *Study
of Education Resources and Federal Funding* portray a mixed picture of
resource comparability in high- and low-poverty schools.** Before Title
I funds were added, spending on school personnel was 7 percent lower in
the highest-poverty elementary schools than in low-poverty schools. The
highest-poverty schools had smaller average class sizes than low-poverty
schools, but teachers in the highest-poverty schools earned lower
salaries, had fewer years of experience, and were less likely to hold an
advanced degree. On average, teacher salaries were 14 percent lower in
the highest-poverty schools than in low-poverty schools.[^25] Other data
indicate that teachers in the highest-poverty schools are more likely to
be new teachers with relatively little teaching experience, and at the
secondary level they are less likely to have full certification in the
field of their teaching assignment.[^26]

![](media/image4.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: The highest-poverty schools had smaller average class
> sizes than low-poverty schools; however, teachers in the
> highest-poverty schools received lower average salaries.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
> Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report (2000).

**Title I funds largely serve to close the funding gap between Title I
and non-Title I schools, rather than providing a higher level of
resources to meet the greater challenges associated with larger
concentrations of disadvantaged students.** Before Title I funds were
added, Title I elementary schools spent \$196 less per pupil on school
personnel than did non-Title I schools; the additional \$273 per pupil
added through Title I funds raised the spending in the Title I schools
to \$77 more than in the non-Title I schools. Thus, of the total amount
of Title I funds spent on school personnel, 72 percent contributed to
closing the funding gap between Title I and non-Title I schools, and
only 28 percent resulted in a higher level of funding in Title I
schools. In the highest-poverty elementary schools, however, the funding
gap was not closed: spending on school staff remained lower than in
low-poverty schools, even after Title I funds were added.[^27]

##### III. Progress in Student Performance in High-Poverty Schools 

**The impact of the Title I program on student achievement cannot be
easily disentangled from the impact of the state and local reform
efforts that the program is designed to support.** Title I\'s
predecessor, the Chapter 1 program, was built around a framework of
supplementary services for targeted students that could be evaluated by
comparing Chapter 1 participants to a control group of non-participants.
In contrast, Title I, as reauthorized in 1994, was designed to work
systemically and in tandem with state and local efforts to improve the
overall quality of instruction. Nearly two-thirds of Title I funds are
now used for schoolwide programs rather than being restricted to
services for targeted students. The great extent to which there is
intermingling of Title I resources with state and local resources,
combined with the new focus on supporting state and local
standards-based reform, make it impossible to measure the unique and
separate impact of Title I dollars on student achievement, particularly
in schoolwide programs.

**However, we can examine overall trends in student
achievementparticularly for students in the highest-poverty schools and
for low-performing students, those whom Title I is primarily intended to
benefit**in order to examine the combined impact of state and local
reforms, Title I support, and other school improvement efforts on
student performance. The highest-poverty schools are defined as those
where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches. Low-performing students are defined as those
scoring at the 25th percentile or the 10th percentile of student
achievement.

**This report examines trends in student performance using both state
assessment data and the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). Neither of these measures alone can provide a definitive answer
to questions about the impact of standards-based reform on student
achievement.**

Student achievement on state assessments represents the primary
criterion that the Title I legislation applies to measure school
success, but these data cannot be simply aggregated across states to
examine national trends or used to make comparisons among states. State
assessments are intended to provide information on student progress
toward meeting state content and performance standards. However, because
each state has developed its own standards and assessments, there is
little comparability across states in the content and rigor of these
standards and assessments. In addition, because state assessments were
not required to be in place until the 2000-01 school year, most states
do not yet have the trend data needed to assess student progress.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress provides a high-quality
assessment that is consistent across states, making the data useful for
examining national trends in student achievement. However, the NAEP is
not aligned with individual state content and performance standards, so
it does not necessarily measure what students are expected to learn in
their states.

NAEP was revised in the early 1990s, with the result that there are now
two NAEP assessments: the Main NAEP and the Trend NAEP. The Main NAEP
was created to provide an assessment that is more consistent with
current content focuses and testing approaches (such as a reduced
emphasis on multiple choice items and a greater emphasis on open-ended
and extended response items); Main NAEP data are available beginning in
1990 for mathematics and 1992 for reading. The Trend NAEP continues the
previous NAEP assessment in order to track long-term trends since the
early 1970s; Trend NAEP data disaggregated by school poverty level is
available from 1988 to the present (because NAEP did not collect school
poverty information prior to 1988). This report examines short-term
trends on the Main NAEP as well as longer-term trends on the Trend NAEP.

One of the features of the Main NAEP is that it defines \"Basic,\"
\"Proficient,\" and \"Advanced\" levels of achievement. In this regard,
the Main NAEP is consistent with the new state assessments which also
establish various proficiency levels (as required under Title I law).
**However, specific proficiency levels are defined differently across
states and are also inconsistent between NAEP and state assessments, and
there is disagreement over what level of student performance should be
considered \"basic\" or \"proficient.\"** Indeed, the percentage of
students scoring at the \"proficient\" level on state assessments varies
widely across states---differences which do not necessarily reflect
actual differences in student achievement. Comparing the percentage of
students achieving at or above the \"proficient\" level on state
assessments and NAEP shows that the variation across states is much
greater for state assessments than it is for NAEP. For example, in
Tennessee the percentage of students at or above the proficient level in
reading in 1998 is about the same on both the state assessment and NAEP
(26 percent and 25 percent, respectively), while in Texas the percentage
is almost three times higher on the state assessment than on the NAEP
(89 percent vs. 29 percent).

![](media/image5.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In Colorado, the percentage of fourth-grade students
> who scored at or above the \"proficient\" level on the state reading
> assessment in 1997-98 (34 percent) was lower than the percent scoring
> at the proficient level on the Main NAEP reading assessment.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, *National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP
> Reading* (1998); Council of Chief State School Officers and U.S.
> Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, *State
> Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I: 2000* (draft).

### Student Performance on State Assessments

**Three-year trends reported by nine states show progress in the
percentage of students in the highest-poverty schools meeting state
standards for proficiency in reading and mathematics.** Because states
have been changing their assessment systems to comply with the
requirements in the 1994 reauthorization, only nine states can currently
provide three-year trend data on students in high-poverty schools. In
reading, the proportion of elementary school students (primarily
fourth-graders) in the highest-poverty schools who performed at or above
the state\'s proficient level increased in seven of the nine states
(Exhibit 8). In mathematics, achievement improved for middle school
students (primarily eighth-graders) in seven of the nine states as well.
In six states, students in the highest-poverty schools made progress in
both subjects.[^28]

## **Exhibit 8**

## **Trends in Student Achievement on State Assessments in Nine States:**

## **Proportion of Students in the Highest-Poverty Schools Performing At or Above State Proficient Levels**

+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| **      | **R    |        |          | *      |        |          |
| State** | eading |        |          | *Mathe |        |          |
|         | (G     |        |          | matics |        |          |
|         | rade 3 |        |          | (Gr    |        |          |
|         | or     |        |          | ade 6, |        |          |
|         | 4)**   |        |          | 7 or   |        |          |
|         | ^\*\*^ |        |          | 8)**   |        |          |
|         |        |        |          | ^\*\*^ |        |          |
+=========+========+========+==========+========+========+==========+
|         | **1    | **1    | **       | **1    | **1    | **       |
|         | 996-97 | 998-99 | Change** | 996-97 | 998-99 | Change** |
|         | ^\*^** | ^\*^** |          | ^\*^** | ^\*^** |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| Alab    | 58     | 72     | +14      | 64     | 63     | -1       |
| ama^\*^ |        |        |          |        |        |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| Conn    | 13     | 20     | +7       | 11     | 25     | +14      |
| ecticut |        |        |          |        |        |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| Kansas  | 39     | 37     | -2       | 12     | 22     | +10      |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| Kentu   | 27     | 24     | -3       | 20     | 19     | -1       |
| cky^\*^ |        |        |          |        |        |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| M       | 10     | 16     | +6       | 8      | 10     | +2       |
| aryland |        |        |          |        |        |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| M       | 35     | 38     | +3       | 29     | 31     | +2       |
| ichigan |        |        |          |        |        |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| North   | 49     | 54     | +5       | 46     | 63     | +17      |
| C       |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| arolina |        |        |          |        |        |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| O       | 19     | 38     | +19      | 12     | 14     | +2       |
| hio^\*^ |        |        |          |        |        |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| Texas   | 68     | 81     | +13      | 57     | 79     | +22      |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| **      |        |        | **7      |        |        | **7      |
| TOTAL** |        |        | INC      |        |        | INC      |
|         |        |        | REASED** |        |        | REASED** |
|         |        |        |          |        |        |          |
|         |        |        | **2      |        |        | **2      |
|         |        |        | DEC      |        |        | DEC      |
|         |        |        | REASED** |        |        | REASED** |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+
| ^\*^    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| Thr     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| ee-year |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| trends  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| are     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| r       |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| eported |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| for the |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| most    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| recent  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| period  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| avai    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| lable-- |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| -either |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| the     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| 1996-97 |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| through |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| 1998-99 |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| school  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| years   |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| (CT,    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| KS, MD, |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| MI, NC, |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| and TX) |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| or the  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| 1995-96 |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| through |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| 1997-98 |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| school  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| years   |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| (AL,    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| KY, and |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| OH).    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| ^\*\*^  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| At the  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| ele     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| mentary |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| level,  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| two     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| states  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| r       |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| eported |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| achi    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| evement |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| data    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| for     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| grade 3 |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| (KS and |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| MS) and |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| the     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| re      |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| maining |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| states  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| r       |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| eported |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| data    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| for     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| grade   |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| 4; at   |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| the     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| middle  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| -school |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| level,  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| one     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| state   |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| r       |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| eported |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| data    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| for     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| grade 6 |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| (OH),   |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| two     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| states  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| r       |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| eported |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| data    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| for     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| grade 7 |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| (KS and |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| MI),    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| and the |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| re      |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| maining |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| states  |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| r       |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| eported |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| data    |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| for     |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| grade   |        |        |          |        |        |          |
| 8.      |        |        |          |        |        |          |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+--------+----------+

Exhibit reads: In Connecticut, the percentage of fourth-grade students
in high-poverty schools who scored at or above the proficient level on
the state reading assessment rose by 7 percentage points over the most
recent three-year period available, from 13 percent in 1996-97 to 20
percent in 1998-99.

Source: Council of Chief State School Officers and U.S. Department of
Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, *State Education Indicators
with a Focus on Title I: 2000* (draft).

**In some of these states the gains appear substantial.** In reading,
the proportion of students in the highest-poverty schools who performed
at or above the proficient level increased by 6 to 19 percentage points
in five of the nine states. In mathematics, four states show the
proportion of these students who were at or above the proficient level
increasing by 10 to 22 percentage points over the two-year period.

**State assessment results also indicate some progress in narrowing the
achievement gap between high- and low-poverty schools.** In reading, the
achievement gap for elementary students declined by 1 to 10 percentage
points in six of the nine states (Exhibit 9). In mathematics, the
achievement gap for middle school students declined by 2 to 11
percentage points in six of the states. Declines in the achievement gap
between high- and low-poverty schools tended to be smaller than the
achievement gains for high-poverty schools, because low-poverty schools
also tended to show achievement gains.

Exhibit 9

Change in the Achievement Gap:

Difference Between the Highest-Poverty and Low-Poverty Schools in the
Proportion of Students

Who Performed At or Above Proficient Levels on State Assessments in Nine
States

+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| **      | **Gap  |        |          | **Gap   |       |           |
| State** | in     |        |          | in      |       |           |
|         | R      |        |          | Math    |       |           |
|         | eading |        |          | ematics |       |           |
|         | (G     |        |          | (G      |       |           |
|         | rade 3 |        |          | rade 6, |       |           |
|         | or     |        |          | 7 or    |       |           |
|         | 4)**   |        |          | 8)**    |       |           |
|         | ^\*\*^ |        |          | ^\*\*^  |       |           |
+=========+========+========+==========+=========+=======+===========+
|         | **1    | **1    | **       | *       | **199 | *         |
|         | 996-97 | 998-99 | Change** | *1996-9 | 8-99^ | *Change** |
|         | ^\*^** | ^\*^** |          | 7^\*^** | \*^** |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| Alab    | 26     | 20     | -6       | 23      | 24    | +1        |
| ama^\*^ |        |        |          |         |       |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| Conn    | 52     | 46     | -6       | 50      | 41    | -9        |
| ecticut |        |        |          |         |       |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| Kansas  | 28     | 38     | +10      | 37      | 32    | -5        |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| Kentu   | 13     | 19     | +6       | 15      | 22    | +7        |
| cky^\*^ |        |        |          |         |       |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| M       | 40     | 36     | -4       | 55      | 51    | -4        |
| aryland |        |        |          |         |       |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| M       | 21     | 30     | +9       | 28      | 40    | +12       |
| ichigan |        |        |          |         |       |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| North   | 28     | 27     | -1       | 31      | 20    | -11       |
| C       |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| arolina |        |        |          |         |       |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| O       | 36     | 26     | -10      | 42      | 40    | -2        |
| hio^\*^ |        |        |          |         |       |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| Texas   | 20     | 15     | -5       | 24      | 14    | -10       |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| **      |        |        | **6      |         |       | **6       |
| TOTAL** |        |        | DEC      |         |       | DE        |
|         |        |        | REASED** |         |       | CREASED** |
|         |        |        |          |         |       |           |
|         |        |        | **3      |         |       | **3       |
|         |        |        | INC      |         |       | IN        |
|         |        |        | REASED** |         |       | CREASED** |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+
| ^\*^    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| Thr     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| ee-year |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| trends  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| are     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| r       |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| eported |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| for the |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| most    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| recent  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| period  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| avai    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| lable-- |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| -either |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| the     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| 1996-97 |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| through |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| 1998-99 |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| school  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| years   |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| (CT,    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| KS, MD, |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| MI, NC, |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| and TX) |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| or the  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| 1995-96 |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| through |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| 1997-98 |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| school  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| years   |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| (AL,    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| KY, and |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| OH).    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| ^\*\*^  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| At the  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| ele     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| mentary |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| level,  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| two     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| states  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| r       |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| eported |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| achi    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| evement |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| data    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| for     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| grade 3 |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| (KS and |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| MS) and |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| the     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| re      |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| maining |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| states  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| r       |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| eported |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| data    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| for     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| grade   |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| 4; at   |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| the     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| middle  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| -school |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| level,  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| one     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| state   |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| r       |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| eported |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| data    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| for     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| grade 6 |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| (OH),   |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| two     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| states  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| r       |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| eported |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| data    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| for     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| grade 7 |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| (KS and |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| MI),    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| and the |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| re      |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| maining |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| states  |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| r       |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| eported |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| data    |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| for     |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| grade   |        |        |          |         |       |           |
| 8.      |        |        |          |         |       |           |
+---------+--------+--------+----------+---------+-------+-----------+

Exhibit reads: In Connecticut, the achievement gap between the
highest-poverty schools and low-poverty schools---as measured by the
percentage of fourth-grade students who scored at or above the
proficient level on the state reading assessment---narrowed by 6
percentage points over the most recent three-year period available, from
a 52-point gap in 1996-97 to a 46-point gap in 1998-99.

Source: Council of Chief State School Officers and U.S. Department of
Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, *State Education Indicators
with a Focus on Title I: 2000* (draft).

***Student Performance on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress***

**In contrast to the recent state assessment data, longer-term trends in
NAEP scores depict a widening achievement gap between high- and
low-poverty schools from the late 1980s to 1999.** In reading,
9-year-olds\' average scores on the Trend NAEP declined slightly (by 4
points) in the highest-poverty schools, while those in low-poverty
schools increased steadily (a 9-point gain) (Exhibit 10). In
mathematics, the average score for 9-year-olds increased slightly (by 4
points) in the highest-poverty schools, but increased more (13 points)
in low-poverty schools (Exhibit 11). Overall, the reading achievement
gap between the highest-poverty and low-poverty schools increased from a
27-point gap in 1988 to a 40-point gap in 1999. Similarly, the
mathematics achievement gap increased from a 20-point gap in 1986 to a
29-point gap in 1999.

**However, Trend NAEP scores for the highest-poverty schools have risen
since 1992 in both reading and mathematics.** Reading scores for
9-year-olds rose by 6 points from 1992 to 1999, after having declined by
10 points from 1988 to 1992. In math, scores for 9-year-olds rose by
4 points from 1992 to 1999. The achievement gap between the
highest-poverty and low-poverty schools held steady during this period
in both subjects.

**The achievement gap between high- and low-poverty schools is
substantial, equal to several grade levels.** A 10-point difference in
NAEP scale scores can be considered roughly equivalent to one grade
level.[^29] Therefore, the 40-point gap in average reading scores
between 9-year-olds in the highest-poverty and low-poverty schools could
be considered approximately equal to a difference of four grade levels
in student performance. Similarly, the 29-point gap in average math
scores between 9-year-olds in the highest-poverty and low-poverty
schools could be considered approximately equal to a difference of three
grade levels in student performance.

**Among the lowest-achieving students, NAEP reading performance as
measured by the Main NAEP shows no significant change during the
1990s.** Among fourth-graders, students scoring at the 25th percentile
had the same average score in 1998 as in 1992. The average score for
students at the 25th percentile increased by 4 points for eighth-graders
and declined by 2 points for 12th-graders. Across all three grade
levels, scores declined between 1992 and 1994 and then rose from 1994 to
1998 (Exhibit 12).

**However, math results for low-achieving students show substantial
gains in average scores from 1990 to 1996.** Among fourth-graders, NAEP
scores for students at the 25th percentile rose by 10 points, from 192
in 1990 to 202 in 1996. Among older students, scores for students at the
25th percentile rose by 10 points for eighth-graders and by 12 points
for 12th-graders (Exhibit 13).

**The reasons for the divergent patterns in student performance as
measured by state assessments and the two NAEP assessments are
unclear.** The state and NAEP tests measure different time periods,
cover a small number of states in the case of the state assessments, and
reflect different expectations about specific content knowledge and
performance levels. Further research is needed to determine the most
appropriate ways to measure national trends in student performance for
an educational system based on decentralized and diverse standards
governing what students in America are expected to know and be able to
do.

> ![](media/image6.wmf)Exhibit reads: The average NAEP reading score for
> 9-year-old students in the highest-poverty schools declined from 190
> in 1988 to 186 in 1999.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Trend NAEP
> Reading, unpublished tabulations, 2000.
>
> ![](media/image7.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: The average NAEP math score for 9-year-old students in
> the highest-poverty schools rose from 208 in 1986 to 212 in 1999.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Trend NAEP
> Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 2000.
>
> ![](media/image8.wmf)Exhibit reads: The average NAEP reading score of
> fourth graders performing at the lowest 25th percentile was 192 in
> 1998, the same as in 1992 but higher than in 1994.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP
> Reading, unpublished tabulations, 2000.
>
> ![](media/image9.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: The average NAEP math score of fourth graders
> performing at the lowest 25th percentile was 202 in 1996, a 10-point
> increase over 1990.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP
> Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 2000.

## **IV. Implementation of Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Systems** 

A central feature of Title I, as revised in the 1994 reauthorization, is
its emphasis on promoting high expectations for all students, schools,
and districts. To support this goal, the Title I law requires states to
develop or adopt challenging content and performance standards,
assessments that are aligned with the state standards, and
accountability systems to ensure that schools and districts are enabling
their students to meet the state standards.

These Title I provisions were intended to support the standards-based
reforms already being implemented in many states and localities and to
extend high educational expectations to students served by Title I.
states, districts, and schools were called on to break with past
practice by replacing minimum standards for some children with
challenging standards for all. Rather than a separate Title I system of
standards and assessments, the standards and assessments used for
Title I are to be the same as those developed by the State and local
districts for all children. Indeed, the Title I program\'s support for
establishing systems of standards and assessments is intended, in the
words of the statute, "to enable schools to provide opportunities for
children served to acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the
challenging state content standards and to meet the challenging state
performance standards developed for all children."

In addition, Title I required that states implement accountability
systems for measuring district and school performance, identifying those
in need of improvement, and assisting and intervening as necessary to
turn around low-performing schools and districts.

### Development of State Content and Performance Standards 

By the 1997-98 school year, each state was to have adopted challenging
content standards in reading and math that specify what all children are
expected to know and be able to do, and challenging performance
standards for students' mastery of the content standards. Performance
standards are to include at least three levels of attainment---two high
performance levels (proficient and advanced), as well as a
partially-proficient level---that can be used to determine how well
children are learning the material in the state content standards.

**Nearly all states now have content standards in place, but progress
has been considerably slower in developing performance standards.** As
of January 2001, 51 states (including the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico[^30]) had met the requirement for developing content
standards in the core subjects of reading and math (Exhibit 14). The
remaining state (Iowa) has submitted evidence of its content standards,
which is currently being reviewed.

In contrast, only 28 states had approved performance standards by
January 2001 (Exhibit 14). The remaining states' performance standards
are being reviewed as part of the U.S. Department of Education's review
of state assessment systems. The development of performance standards is
so closely related to the development of final assessments that many
states have not met the timeline set forth in the statute.

External peer reviewers recommend approval of a state's performance
standards based on the degree of broad-based involvement in their
development, whether or not the performance standards are approved at
the state level, and whether the process used to develop the standards
leads to challenging and rigorous standards for all students.

> ![](media/image10.wmf)Exhibit reads: By January 2001, 51 states had
> submitted evidence that content standards were in place, while 28
> states had performance standards in place.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished analysis of state
> plans required under Sec. 1111; baseline (1994) data obtained from
> Council of Chief State School Officers, *Status Report: State Systemic
> Education Improvements* (1995).

**Variability in the rigor of standards is a concern, given the lack of
evidence that states have benchmarked standards against common
criteria.** National attention to the development of high standards for
all children has resulted in independent reviews and comparisons of the
rigor and quality of content standards.

-   The Council for Basic Education (CBE) examined the "rigor" of state
    standards for reading and mathematics by comparing them with the
    content covered in the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
    the standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of
    Mathematics (NCTM), and CBE\'s own \"Standards of Excellence in
    Education.\" CBE found that state mathematics standards tended to be
    more rigorous than English language arts standards. In
    English/language arts, CBE found that of the 42 states they
    evaluated, seven states had very rigorous standards, 21 states had
    rigorous standards, and 14 states had standards that were not
    rigorous. In mathematics, CBE found that of the 43 states they
    evaluated, 16 states had very rigorous standards, 24 states had
    rigorous standards, and three states had standards that were not
    rigorous.[^31]

-   The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has judged the "quality"
    of state standards annually for the past five years, based on
    whether content standards were clear and specific enough to provide
    the basis for a common core curriculum. In a 1999 report, the AFT
    concluded that state standards were more likely to meet the AFT
    criteria in mathematics and science than in English and social
    studies. State standards met the AFT criteria at all three grade
    levels (elementary, middle, and high school) in 41 states for math,
    30 states for science, 21 states for English, and 6 states in social
    studies. In English, AFT found that 13 states failed to provide any
    guidance on the basic knowledge and skills students needed to learn
    at the elementary level to develop into proficient readers. AFT also
    noted that social studies standards were particularly weak across
    the states and tended to lack specific references to U.S. and/or
    world history.[^32]

-   The Fordham Foundation reviewed state content standards in 1999 for
    clarity, adequacy of content, mathematical reasoning, and other
    characteristics. Fordham was the most critical of the three
    independent reviewers, concluding that only five states combined
    solid standards with strong accountability. Fordham found that 30
    states had a combination of mediocre to poor (or no) standards and
    weak accountability, while 12 states based high-stakes
    accountability systems upon mediocre or inferior standards.[^33]

**The three groups varied in the grades they assigned to standards for
individual states, which highlights the difficulty in assessing the
quality of standards.** Some states, such as Arizona, California, New
Hampshire and Virginia received high marks in both mathematics and
English/language arts by both CBE and AFT, but most states received
different grades across subject areas and reviewers. These differences
are partly due to the differing criteria used by the three groups and
the subjectivity inherent in the review process. In addition, grades
were given to state content standards at different times in their
development, and at different levels of detail.[^34] Grades given by
outside groups should be carefully considered because states have often
intentionally developed broadly worded standards to allow significant
local discretion in how they are applied.[^35]

### 

### Development of State Assessment Systems

By the 2000-01 school year, states were required under Title I to adopt
or develop student assessments that measure student performance in
relation to the state\'s content and performance standards and to use
the assessments as the primary means of evaluating the performance of
Title I schools and districts. State assessments are to measure student
proficiency in academic subjects in which the state has adopted content
and performance standards (at a minimum, reading/language arts and
mathematics) and for at least three grade levels (within grades 3-5,
grades 6-9, and grades 10-12). Assessments must be aligned with the
state content and performance standards, use multiple measures that
assess higher order thinking skills, and meet professional standards for
technical quality. States are to provide for the participation of all
students in the grades being assessed, including students with limited
English proficiency and students with disabilities, with reasonable
adaptations and accommodations. Finally, state assessment systems must
enable results to be disaggregated by gender and racial/ethnic group and
for students with limited English proficiency, migrant students,
students with disabilities vs. students without disabilities, and
economically disadvantaged students vs. non-economically disadvantaged
students.

The U.S. Department of Education is currently reviewing states\' final
assessment systems, using a peer review process involving experts in
standards, assessments, and Title I. The peer review process does not
directly examine a state's assessment instruments. Rather, peer
reviewers examine evidence compiled and submitted by each state that is
intended to show that its assessment system meets Title I requirements.
Peer reviewers provide feedback to help states strengthen their
assessment systems, and they advise the Department on the degree to
which a state assessment system meets the requirements.

While some systems have been granted full approval, many still require
improvement. If certain conditions of the law have not been met but a
state can demonstrate how it will meet them by their 2000‑01 test
administration, the Department may give a state a conditional approval.
Some states receive a timeline waiver, allowing a state extra time if
the Department determines that they have made significant progress but
they are unable to finalize their systems by the 2000-01 test
administration. In cases where the state assessment system will not be
completed in a timely manner, significant requirements have not been
met, and there is no clear plan underway for meeting the requirements, a
state may be required to enter into a compliance agreement with the
Department that outlines how the state will make the changes necessary
to comply with the law.

As of mid-January 2001, the Department had reviewed assessment systems
for all of the states and had made decisions for 34 states; the
remaining decisions are expected to be completed in spring 2001. Of the
34 states with decisions, 11 states received full approval, six states
received conditional approval, 14 states received a timeline waiver, and
three states entered into a compliance agreement (Exhibit 15).

**Exhibit 15**

**Status of State Final Assessment Systems**

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        **Number of  **States**
                        States**     
  --------------------- ------------ -------------------------------------
  **Status**                         

  Full Approval         11 states    Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
                                     Maryland, Massachusetts,
                                     Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
                                     Virginia, Wyoming

  Conditional Approval  6 states     Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina,
                                     Oregon, Texas, Washington

  Timeline Waiver       14 states    Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia,
                                     Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska,
                                     Nevada, New Hampshire, New York,
                                     North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina,
                                     South Dakota

  Compliance Agreement  3 states     California, West Virginia, Wisconsin

  Under Review          18 states    Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
                                     D.C., Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
                                     Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
                                     Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto
                                     Rico, Tennessee, Utah

  **Issues Underlying                
  Timeline Waivers and               
  Compliance                         
  Agreements**                       

  Complete Assessment   13 states    California, Colorado, Georgia,
  System (including                  Hawaii, Mississippi, Nebraska,
  reading and math at                Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, South
  three grade levels,                Carolina, South Dakota,
  aligned with content               West Virginia, Wisconsin
  and performance                    
  standards)                         

  Inclusion of Students 13 states    California, Connecticut, Maine,
  with Limited English               Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
  Proficiency (LEP)                  Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South
                                     Carolina, South Dakota, West
                                     Virginia, Wisconsin

  Inclusion of Students 10 states    California, Connecticut, Nevada, New
  with Disabilities                  Hampshire, New York, Ohio, South
                                     Carolina, South Dakota, West
                                     Virginia, Wisconsin

  Disaggregated         16 states    California, Colorado, Connecticut,
  Reporting                          Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska,
                                     Nevada, New Hampshire, New York,
                                     North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina,
                                     South Dakota, West Virginia,
                                     Wisconsin
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Note: Information is as of January 19, 2001; the status of many
> states\' assessment systems is likely to change shortly as Department
> reviews are currently in progress.

**A number of states have not yet been able to put in place complete
assessment systems that meet all of the requirements of the Title I
law.** Some do not have assessments that meet the Title I requirements
in both reading and math at all three required grade levels; a high
school test is the most common test that is missing. Some states are
using assessments that are not aligned with their content and
performance standards, while others do not have performance standards in
place. Some states are missing one component in order to complete their
assessment system, while others have substantial work left to do.

**Inclusion of special populations has been a challenge for states in
developing their assessment systems.** Thirteen states have received
timeline waivers or compliance agreements because they have not yet met
the Title I requirements for including LEP students in their assessment
and accountability systems; 10 states had not met the same requirement
for students with disabilities. Indeed, few states met the inclusion
requirements when they initially submitted their assessment systems for
review, but some states were able to change their inclusion policies or
institute better monitoring of local practices in response to concerns
raised during the peer review process. Sixteen states are not able to
disaggregate assessment data for all of the required categories of
students; states most frequently have difficulty disaggregating data for
students without disabilities and non-economically disadvantaged
students.

### The Role of Title I in Holding Schools Accountable for Performance and Supporting Improvement Efforts

Title I, as reauthorized in 1994, is designed to ensure greater school
and district accountability for high performance of their students.
Linking Title I accountability to state standards and assessments that
apply to all children in a state is a key strategy for promoting high
expectations for all children and a culture of accountability and
improvement. Unlike the earlier Chapter 1 law, accountability under
Title I focuses on whether schools receiving Title I funds are making
adequate progress toward enabling all of their students to meet the
state standards, rather than focusing solely on the Title I program and
the yearly performance gains of children receiving specific Title I
services.

**Under the Title I accountability provisions, states were called upon
to establish a framework for rewarding successful schools and districts,
identifying schools and districts in need of improvement, and taking
corrective actions in those schools and districts that continuously fail
to make adequate progress.** The performance of districts and schools
under Title I is to be publicly reported and widely shared. Ultimately,
the most effective accountability strategy relies on those closest to
children, that is, parents, teachers, and principals, having sufficient
information to understand how their children are performing in relation
to state standards, and assuming the responsibility to intervene on an
ongoing basis to improve teaching and learning.

**Identifying schools in need of improvement is a key feature of the
Title I accountability provisions.** Each state is required to develop
criteria for determining a standard of adequate yearly progress for
districts and schools participating in Title I based on the state
assessment and other measures.[^36] Title I schools and districts that
fail to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years are to
be identified as in need of improvement, and states and districts are
expected to provide technical assistance to help them improve. Those
schools and districts that continue to be low-performing for three years
after being identified for improvement are subject to corrective
actions. The improvement designation can be removed for schools that
meet adequate yearly progress targets for two of the three years
following the initial designation.

Full implementation of the Title I accountability provisions was
required by the 2000-01 school year, when final assessments were to be
in place. In the interim, schools were to be identified for improvement
based on transitional measures of progress adopted by the state and
approved by the U.S. Department of Education. As of December 2000, 11
states had submitted their accountability systems for peer review under
Ed-Flex. The Department expects to begin reviewing accountability
systems for the remaining states in spring 2001.

Evaluating the implementation of these accountability systems is a
formidable challenge. The Title I accountability requirements are
ambitious, and introducing consequences for school performance is a
high-stakes endeavor. States face numerous political, technical, and
resource issues in devising reliable ways to measure student and school
performance, identifying schools in need of improvement, and assisting
and intervening to improve low-performing schools.

**Although the intent of Title I was to create single accountability
systems that would treat all schools in a state equally and hold all
students and schools to the same standards for performance, many states
have dual accountability systems.** In many cases, states' own
accountability systems and the systems created to meet the requirements
of Title I operate separately and are only somewhat overlapping. About
half (28) of the states operate dual systems of accountability in which
either: 1) Title I and non-Title I schools are held accountable using
different sets of indicators and/or performance standards, or 2) only
Title I schools are held accountable by the state or district outside of
the performance reporting structure. In some cases, a dual
accountability system exists because the Title I accountability
requirements are more rigorous than those the state applies for other
schools. Research shows that state and local accountability systems tend
to be better understood by educators and have more immediate
consequences for schools and districts. A lack of clarity and specific
consequences for Title I schools that fail to improve during the
transitional period may weaken the potential impact of Title I
accountability provisions.[^37]

**States are required to report annually on the number of schools
identified for improvement under Title I; however, it is important to
recognize that these data (shown in Exhibit 16) do not provide a
consistent measure of the number of low-performing schools that can be
used to make meaningful comparisons across states or over time, for two
reasons:**

-   [First, differences in how states define and measure
    \"low-performing schools\" lead to substantial differences across
    states in the numbers and percentages of schools identified for
    improvement]{.underline}. In 1998-1999, eight states identified 5
    percent or fewer of their Title I schools in need of improvement,
    while seven states identified a majority of their Title I schools.
    However, these differences in percentages of schools identified do
    not necessarily mean that individual states are doing "better" or
    "worse" than others. Because of variations in state policy, schools
    with comparable levels of student performance could easily be
    identified as in need of improvement in one state, but not in
    another.[^38] Indeed, the wide variation in state definitions of
    adequate yearly progress and state accountability systems is a
    direct result of the flexibility that was built into the Title I
    legislation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [In addition, state systems for identifying schools for improvement
    continue to be in transition, as illustrated by substantial changes
    in the numbers of these identified schools over time]{.underline}.
    In many states, the number of schools that states reported as
    identified for improvement changed considerably over the one-year
    period from 1997-98 to 1998-99. Eighteen states reported an increase
    of more than 10 percent, while 16 states reported a decrease of more
    than 10 percent. In 16 states, the increase or decrease was greater
    than 50 percent. Reasons for these changes vary, but most can be
    accounted for by changes in the measures states use to identify
    which schools are low-performing.

**Exhibit 16**

**Schools Identified as in Need of Improvement Under Title I, by State,
1996-97 through 1998-99**

+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| **State**    | **\# of |         |         | **Total   | **% of     |
|              | Schools |         |         | Number of | Title I    |
|              | Ide     |         |         | Title I   | Schools in |
|              | ntified |         |         | Schools** | Imp        |
|              | for     |         |         |           | rovement** |
|              | Improv  |         |         |           |            |
|              | ement** |         |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
|              | **19    | **19    | **19    | **        | *          |
|              | 96-97** | 97-98** | 98-99** | 1998-99** | *1998-99** |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| # Alabama    | 248     | 26      | 60      | 812       | 7%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Alaska       | 24      | 11      | 8       | 361       | 2%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Arizona      | 42      | 107     |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Arkansas     | 101     | 53      | 499     | 783       | 64%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| California   | 330     | 1307    | 1307    | 3865      | 34%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Colorado     | 15      | 13      | 91      | 597       | 15%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Connecticut  | 95      | 102     | 26      | 422       | 6%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Delaware     | 29      | 39      | 32      | 101       | 32%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| D.C.         | 82      | 60      | 100     | 125       | 80%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Florida      | 29      | 3       | 73      | 977       | 7%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Georgia      | 236     | 537     | 603     | 1020      | 59%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Hawaii       | 37      | 77      | 91      | 138       | 66%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Idaho        | 45      | 44      | 14      | 397       | 4%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Illinois     | 93      | 62      | 727     | 2259      | 32%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Indiana      | 242     | 257     | 98      | 826       | 12%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Iowa         | 28      | 28      | 148     | 878       | 17%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Kansas       | 147     | 144     | 154     | 687       | 22%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Kentucky     | 356     | 634     | 615     | 872       | 71%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Louisiana    | 30      | 162     | 162     | 873       | 19%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Maine        | 127     | 307     |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Maryland     | 59      | 31      | 18      | 300       | 6%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| M            | 97      | 422     |         |           |            |
| assachusetts |         |         |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Michigan     | 641     | 1048    | 1523    | 2011      | 76%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Minnesota    | 98      | 103     |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Mississippi  | 129     | 108     | 100     | 680       | 15%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Missouri     | 551     | 551     |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Montana      | 53      | 63      | 62      | 619       | 10%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Nebraska     | 102     | 80      | 204     | 496       | 41%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Nevada       | 64      | 62      | 35      | 98        | 36%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| New          | 1       | 2       | 4       | 185       | 2%         |
| Hampshire    |         |         |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| New Jersey   | 185     |         |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| New Mexico   | 394     | 182     | 149     | 450       | 33%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| New York     | 410     | 410     |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| North        | 74      | 76      | 46      | 1030      | 4%         |
| Carolina     |         |         |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| North Dakota | 16      | 16      | 20      | 285       | 7%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Ohio         | 680     | 450     | 508     | 2020      | 25%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Oklahoma     | 37      | 81      | 31      | 1146      | 3%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Oregon       | 29      | 9       |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Pennsylvania | 215     | 204     | 215     | 1731      | 12%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Rhode Island | 23      | 1       | 34      | 136       | 25%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| South        | 88      | 97      | 75      | 499       | 15%        |
| Carolina     |         |         |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| South Dakota | 10      | 8       | 0       | 396       | 0%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Tennessee    | 118     | 118     | 17      | 770       | 2%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Texas        | 40      | 55      | 61      | 4141      | 1%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Utah         | 7       | 20      | 20      | 232       | 9%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Vermont      | 14      | 10      |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Virginia     | 152     | 152     | 150     | 741       | 20%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Washington   | 176     | 172     | 71      | 853       | 8%         |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| West         | 60      | 146     | 130     | 456       | 29%        |
| Virginia     |         |         |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Wisconsin    | 139     | 211     | 166     | 1086      | 15%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Wyoming      | 23      | 36      | 31      | 144       | 22%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Bureau of    | 160     | 148     | 147     | 173       | 85%        |
| Indian       |         |         |         |           |            |
| Affairs      |         |         |         |           |            |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+
| Puerto Rico  | 435     | 150     | 200     | 1406      | 14%        |
+--------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+------------+

Source: U.S. Department of Education, 1996-97 and 1997-98 *Title I State
Performance Reports* and unpublished preliminary tabulations of data
reported under 1998-99 *State Consolidated Performance Reports*.

**The missing data evident in Exhibit 16 are indicative of problems with
the timeliness and accuracy of state-reported data on the number of
schools identified for improvement and other basic program
information.** States are required to submit annual performance reports
describing basic program elements such as students served by the
program, the number of schoolwide programs vs. targeted assistance
programs, and the number of schools and districts identified for
improvement. These data are often submitted well after the due date and
are often incomplete. As of mid-January 2001, one‑fifth of the states
had not yet submitted data on the number of schools that were identified
for improvement in 1998-99, more than 18 months after the end of that
school year and over a year after the reports were due. In addition,
state performance reports frequently contain numerous errors that are
corrected only after repeated calls to the states, if at all.

**A related concern is that districts and schools often do not have a
consistent understanding about whether a school has been identified as
in need of improvement.** A recent survey found that in 41 percent of
schools that districts indicated had been identified for improvement
under Title I, the principals reported that they had not been
identified. Conversely, a number of schools reported that they had been
identified for improvement although the district had not listed them as
having this status. Districts and schools also frequently disagreed
about the number of years that a school had been identified for
improvement. Clear communication and accurate reporting are essential
ingredients for an effective accountability system, and the above data
suggest that there is need for considerable improvement in this area.

**States and districts often lack the capacity to provide additional
support for all of their low-performing schools.** Among schools that
indicated that they had been identified as in need of improvement in
1999-2000, less than half (40 percent) reported that they had received
additional professional development or other assistance as a result of
being identified---a decline from 47 percent in 1998-99.[^39] This
decline is perhaps unsurprising, given the large increases in many
states in the numbers of schools identified; there is likely to be some
time lag between identification for improvement and the actual provision
of support to help schools improve.

Indeed, the longer a school has been in \"school improvement\" status,
the more likely it is to have received additional assistance; 50 percent
of schools that had been identified for three years or more reported
receiving assistance, compared with 30 percent of schools that had been
identified for only one year. [^40] However, it is troubling that even
after three years, half of the schools identified as in need of
improvement reported that they had not received any additional support
as a result.

Limited capacity to serve identified schools may influence state
policies about thresholds for determining whether schools are \"in need
of improvement.\" Policymakers may determine that there is no point in
identifying a large proportion of their schools as low-performing if
they only have the capacity to provide meaningful assistance to a much
smaller number.

**Nevertheless, research findings suggest that state and Title I
accountability requirements are helping states, districts, and schools
to focus on improving school quality and performance.** About
three-quarters of schools identified in need of improvement reported
that they implemented additional strategies, including more family and
community involvement, revising or developing a school plan, more
professional development, closer supervision of school decisions, and
adopting a new, comprehensive model program.[^41] Fifty percent of small
poor districts and 47 percent of large poor districts reported that
Title I is driving reform in their districts as a whole to a great
extent, compared with 14 percent of districts nationally.[^42] Research
on accountability in 14 districts found that a remarkably high level of
attention was being paid to using data to inform decision-making;
although outcome data was required for school improvement planning, many
districts were going beyond requirements of the law to use performance
data to devise strategies for staff development and curriculum
improvement that address gaps in performance.[^43]

### The Impact of Standards-Based Reform on Teacher Practices and Student Performance 

Because the standards-based reform movement generally and the
implementation of related Title I provisions are still in the initial
stages of implementation, it is too early to draw definitive conclusions
about the impact of standards, assessments, and accountability systems
on school and student performance. Although six years have passed since
the 1994 reauthorization, Congress recognized that considerable time
would be needed for states, districts, and schools to complete the
challenging task of developing and implementing standards and aligned
assessment and accountability systems, and the final deadline for
implementation was not until the current school year (2000-01).
Moreover, once the initial task of establishing these systems is
completed, continued attention needs to be devoted to moving those
standards to the classroom, so that teachers\' instruction is aligned
with the standards and provides students with the opportunity to master
the content knowledge that is embodied in the standards and assessments.

Despite the transitional nature of current implementation of
standards-based reform, a number of research efforts have explored the
impact of these evolving policies on teacher practices and student
performance:

-   In a study of classroom practices in mathematics and science in 11
    states, most teachers surveyed reported that state frameworks and
    standards and national standards were strong positive influences on
    their curriculum. Teachers were less positive about the influence of
    state assessments and a significant portion reported a negative
    influence; however, in schools identified as having high involvement
    in their state\'s initiative for improving math or science
    education, teachers responded more positively about the influence of
    state tests. Analysis of teacher reports and state assessment items
    indicated that the tests covered a narrower range of expectations
    for students than did reported instruction, with tests focusing more
    on memorization, facts, and performing procedures and less on
    solving novel problems and applying skills and concepts. Although
    instruction covered most of the recommended standards, the level of
    expectations and the depth of coverage varied widely among schools
    and classes.[^44]

-   Another study found that in 21 districts implementing Urban Systemic
    Initiatives supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF),
    there was a substantial increase in enrollment and completion of
    gatekeeping mathematics and science courses over a five-year period,
    particularly among minority students. For example, the number of
    students taking Algebra I or above in eighth grade increased by
    76 percent across the sites. In all five districts that were able to
    report six years of consistent assessment data, state assessments
    showed improved student performance in both mathematics and
    science.[^45] Similarly, a summary of research on the effects of NSF
    State Systemic Initiatives found that half of the states showed
    impacts on classroom practice, and that achievement gains were
    highest in states with intensive professional development and focus
    on curriculum and materials.[^46]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The *Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance*
    (LESCP) found mixed results when comparing teacher reports of the
    visibility of standards and assessments in a sample of 71
    high-poverty schools with the performance of their students in
    reading and mathematics. Teachers who said that they were highly
    familiar with the standards and assessments and that they believed
    their curriculum reflected these policies had students who scored
    higher on initial tests of reading and math in third grade, compared
    with other students in the sample. However, when looking at student
    test score gains from third grade to fifth grade, there was no
    significant difference in students\' reading performance between
    schools whose teachers reported high visibility of standards and
    assessments and those who reported less visibility of standards and
    assessments; in mathematics, students had lesser gains over the
    two-year period in schools where standards and assessments had the
    highest reported visibility.[^47]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   An analysis of state data from the National Assessment of
    Educational Progress (NAEP) concluded that in the two states that
    posted the largest average student achievement gains from 1990 to
    1997 (North Carolina and Texas), \"the most plausible explanation
    for the test score gains\" were the standards-based reform policies
    being pursued by each state. These policies included \"creating an
    aligned system of standards, curriculum, and assessments; holding
    schools accountable for improvement by all students; and critical
    support from business in developing, implementing, and sustaining
    these changes over time.\"[^48]

As standards-based reform policies continue to become more fully
implemented, future research will need to examine more closely the
relationship between the quality of standards and assessments, the
degree to which these policies are reflected in school and classroom
practices, and their impact on student achievement.

##### V. Strategies for Improving Teaching and Learning

There is a growing body of knowledge about the characteristics of
effective schools. Indeed, many high-poverty schools are able to bring
their students to high levels of achievement, dispelling the myth that
the challenges of poverty are an insurmountable barrier to high
achievement. The Education Trust, for example, identified 366
high-poverty schools across the nation that were exceeding expectations
and enabling their students to learn successfully; common
characteristics of these schools are shown below.[^49] In another recent
study, the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas also found
similar approaches used in high-performing, high-poverty urban
elementary schools.[^50]

The following section examines various strategies for improving teaching
and learning that are a focus of current federal policy and support
through Title I and related programs. These strategies include:
comprehensive, research-based school reform; using promising
instructional practices in reading and mathematics; improving the
qualifications of instructional staff; early childhood education;
extending learning time; and partnerships with parents and families.

### Comprehensive, Research-Based School Reform 

In the 1980s, researchers and practitioners developed education
improvement strategies that were intended to change entire schools as
opposed to discrete instructional practices. The federal government,
foundations, and non-profit and for-profit institutions such as New
American Schools (NAS) and Edison Schools sponsored a plethora of
innovative models of comprehensive school reform (CSR). Many of these
models were developed specifically for high-poverty schools.

Throughout the 1990s, thousands of schools across the nation have
adopted various CSR models. However, implementation of the models has
been uneven. A study of the initial implementation of New American
Schools\' CSR models in four different jurisdictions indicated that only
half of the schools were implementing the basic elements of the
schoolwide program after the first two years.[^51] An analysis of data
from 2,500 teachers in 130 schools implementing NAS models showed that
the variation in instruction and student achievement was much greater
between classrooms than between schools with different CSR models.[^52]
Studies of the Coalition of Essential Schools also showed that
implementation may take hold in a few classrooms but not spread
throughout the school. The variation in implementation can be explained,
in part, by the many factors that influence the reform process. These
include: teacher support for the CSR model, the match between the school
and the model, school leadership, and professional development. Because
it is difficult to find consistent implementation of CSR models, it can
be difficult to assess the effectiveness of a model in turning around a
low-performing school.[^53]

The varying degrees to which CSR models have been implemented partly
explains the fact that there is insufficient rigorous research evidence
about the effectiveness of these designs in improving student
achievement. A report by the American Institutes of Research found that
"even though many of the approaches have been in schools for years, only
three out of 24 provide strong evidence of positive effects on student
achievement." Six additional programs had research evidence
characterized as "promising" (Exhibit 18).[^54] This finding does not
necessarily mean that the other approaches are ineffective, but rather
that there is little rigorous evaluation of these programs. As a result,
schools often make decisions and spend tens of thousands of dollars
without having much concrete information on how particular strategies
will address the improvements they need.

**Exhibit 18**

**Schoolwide Reform Models at a Glance**

+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                      | E       | Year | Nu   | Sup  | Fi   | Firs   |
|                      | vidence | In   | mber | port | rst- | t-Year |
|                      | of      | trod | of   | D    | Year | Costs  |
|                      | P       | uced | Sch  | evel | C    | with   |
|                      | ositive | in   | ools | oper | osts | C      |
|                      | Effects | Sch  |      | Prov |      | urrent |
|                      | on      | ools |      | ides |      | Staff  |
|                      | Student |      |      | Sch  |      | Reas   |
|                      | Achieve |      |      | ools |      | signed |
|                      | ment^a^ |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Accelerated Schools  | P       | 1986 | 1    | P    | \$27 | \$     |
| (K-8)                |         |      | ,000 |      | ,000 | 14,000 |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| America's Choice     | ?       | 1998 | 300  | S    | \    | \$     |
| (K-12)               |         |      |      |      | $190 | 90,000 |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| ATLAS Communities    | ?       | 1992 | 63   | P    | \$98 | \$     |
| (PreK-12)            |         |      |      |      | ,000 | 90,000 |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Audrey Cohen College | ?       | 1970 | 16   | P    | \    | \$     |
| (K-12)               |         |      |      |      | $161 | 86,000 |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Basic Schools        | ?       | 1992 | 150  | P    | \$12 | NC     |
| Network (K-12)       |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Coalition of         | M/W     | 1984 | 1    | M    | NA   | NA     |
| Essential Schools    |         |      | ,000 |      |      |        |
| (K-12)               |         |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Community for        | P       | 1990 | 92   | S    | \    | \$     |
| Learning (K-12)      |         |      |      |      | $157 | 82,000 |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Co-NECT (K-12)       | ?       | 1992 | 75   | S    | \    | NC     |
|                      |         |      |      |      | $588 |        |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Core Knowledge (K-8) | P       | 1990 | 750  | P    | \$56 | NC     |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Different Ways of    | P       | 1989 | 412  | S    | \$84 | NC     |
| Knowing (K-7)        |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Direct Instruction   | S       | Late | 150  | P    | \    | \$1    |
| (K-6)                |         | '60s |      |      | $244 | 94,000 |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Expeditionary        | P       | 1992 | 65   | S    | \$81 | NC     |
| Learning Outward     |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
| Bound (K-12)         |         |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| The Foxfire Fund     | ?       | 1966 | NA   | M    | \$65 | NC     |
| (K-12)               |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| High Schools that    | S       | 1987 | 860  | S    | \$48 | NC     |
| Work (9-12)          |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| High/Scope (K-3)     | M       | 1967 | 27   | S    | \$13 | NC     |
|                      |         |      |      |      | 0,00 |        |
|                      |         |      |      |      | 0^b^ |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| League of            | M       | 1989 | 158  | P    | \$13 | NC     |
| Professional Schools |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
| (K-12)               |         |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Modern Red           | ?       | 1993 | 50   | S    | \    | NC     |
| Schoolhouse (K-12)   |         |      |      |      | $215 |        |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Onward to Excellence | M       | 1981 | 1    | S    | \$72 | \$     |
| (K-12)               |         |      | ,000 |      | ,000 | 60,000 |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Paideia (K-12)       | M/W     | 1982 | 80   | P    | \    | \$     |
|                      |         |      |      |      | $146 | 96,000 |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Roots and Wings      | M       | 1993 | 200  | S    | \    | \$     |
| (PreK-6)             |         |      |      |      | $270 | 70,000 |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| School Development   | P       | 1968 | 700  | P    | \$45 | \$     |
| Program (K-12)       |         |      |      |      | ,000 | 32,000 |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Success for All      | S       | 1987 | 1    | S    | \    | \$     |
| (PreK-6)             |         |      | ,130 |      | $270 | 70,000 |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Talent Development   | M       | 1994 | 10   | S    | \$57 | \$     |
| High School (9-12)   |         |      |      |      | ,000 | 27,000 |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Urban Learning       | ?       | 1993 | 13   | P    | \    | \$1    |
| Centers (PreK-12)    |         |      |      |      | $169 | 59,000 |
|                      |         |      |      |      | ,000 |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| S=Strong P=Promising |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| M=Marginal           |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| M/W=Mixed/Weak ?=No  |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| Research NA=Not      |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| Available NC=No      |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| Change               |         |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| ^a^ Although many    |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| types of student     |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| outcomes are         |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| important, evidence  |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| of positive effects  |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| on student           |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| achievement is a key |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| consideration in     |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| selecting schoolwide |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| reforms. However,    |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| some schools may     |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| wish to consider a   |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| new approach that    |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| has not yet          |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| developed strong     |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| evidence of          |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| effectiveness, but   |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| provides the         |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| strongest match with |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| school goals.        |         |      |      |      |      |        |
|                      |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| ^b^ The estimate for |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| High/Scope assumes a |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| school of 25 K-3     |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| teachers.            |         |      |      |      |      |        |
|                      |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| Source: Herman et    |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| al., *An Educator's  |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| Guide to Schoolwide  |         |      |      |      |      |        |
| Reform* (1999).      |         |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+

The 1994 reauthorization allowed Title I to become more flexible so that
it could support systemic, schoolwide reform, rather than operating as a
stand-alone supplemental program. In particular, the law expanded the
use of schoolwide programs by lowering the minimum poverty level at
which a Title I school is eligible to use this approach, from 75 percent
poverty down to 50 percent. Schoolwide programs, which allow schools to
integrate Title I and other resources to support comprehensive school
improvement efforts, increased from 10 percent of all Title I schools in
1994-95 to 45 percent in 1997-98. Schoolwide programs now account for a
majority of Title I funds allocated to schools (60 percent).[^55]

Since 1998, annual appropriations acts have funded the Comprehensive
School Reform Demonstration program to help low-performing schools adopt
whole-school strategies to improve student achievement. The CSRD
legislation asks schools to coherently address nine key components of
school reform that build on what is known from research on effective
schools (Exhibit 19). All participating schools must use program funds
to adopt or develop research-based comprehensive school reform
strategies that employ these nine components. The legislation encourages
schools to examine successful comprehensive school reform models that
could be adapted to their communities. While the legislation included
the names of 17 specific models, schools also are allowed to select
other models or to develop their own schoolwide reform programs that
include the nine components listed in the law.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Exhibit 19**                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| **Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program:**                |
|                                                                       |
| **Nine Components of School Reform**                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Research-based methods.** Innovative strategies and proven      |
|     methods for student learning, teaching, and school management     |
|     that are based on reliable research and effective practices, and  |
|     that have been replicated successfully in schools with diverse    |
|     characteristics.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Comprehensive design.** Schoolwide reform plans that include    |
|     instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional       |
|     development, parental involvement, and school management in a     |
|     comprehensive approach to addressing the specific needs of the    |
|     school and enabling all students to meet challenging state        |
|     content and performance standards.                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Performance goals.** Measurable goals for student performance   |
|     and benchmarks for meeting those goals.                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Staff development.** High-quality and continuous teacher and    |
|     staff professional development and training.                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Buy-in.** Support from school faculty, administrators, and      |
|     staff.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Partnerships with families and communities.** Meaningful        |
|     involvement of parents and the local community in planning and    |
|     implementing school improvement activities.                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   **External support.** High-quality external support and           |
|     assistance from a comprehensive school reform entity (which may   |
|     be a university) with experience in school-wide reform and        |
|     improvement.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Evaluation plan.** Plan to evaluate the implementation of       |
|     school reforms and the student results achieved.                  |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   **Combining resources.** Identification of other available        |
|     resources (federal, state, local, or private) that can help the   |
|     school support and sustain the school reform effort.              |
|                                                                       |
| > Source: Public Law 105-78, the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act  |
| > for the U.S. Department of Education.                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Early implementation data on the CSRD program show that schools with the
greatest need are being helped. States are targeting CSRD funds to
diverse, high-poverty schools and to schools with a history of low
performance. At the school level, data suggest that CSRD grantees are
using funds in ways that support the priorities of ESEA and Title I, and
are associated with effective schools: [^56]

-   Most CSRD grants have been made to high-poverty schools with diverse
    student populations. In 1998-1999, 86 percent of CSRD schools had
    poverty rates of 50 percent or higher, compared with 53 percent of
    Title I schools; the average poverty rate in CSRD schools is 70
    percent. More than half of CSRD schools reported minority
    enrollments of more than 75 percent, compared with 20 percent of
    Title I schools. Across the nation, CSRD grants have been provided
    to 1,880 schools since 1998.

-   States are targeting CSRD funds toward low-performing schools.
    Forty-two percent of CSRD school principals indicated that their
    schools had been identified for improvement under Title I, compared
    with 10 percent of principals in Title I schools overall. The length
    of time in school improvement status tended to be longer for CSRD
    schools than for Title I schools.

-   Most CSRD schools also receive Title I funds. In 1998-99, 92 percent
    of CSRD schools were Title I schools, and 78 percent of CSRD schools
    were Title I schoolwide programs.

### CSRD schools are implementing nearly 300 different model programs, but most schools have chosen from a much smaller number of nationally known models. More than 72 percent of grantees are implementing one of just 30 models. About half (46 percent) of grantees are implementing one of the 17 models included in the legislation. Thirty-six percent of schools are using a model rated as strong or promising.[^57] 

### Promising Instructional Practices in Reading and Mathematics 

To help all students meet challenging academic standards, it is critical
that teachers use the most effective, research-based instructional
practices in reading and mathematics. Effective instruction will move
students toward the national goals of reading well and independently by
the third grade, and mastering challenging mathematics by the eighth
grade.

Recent syntheses of reading research supported by the National Research
Council and the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD) suggest the need for a balanced approach that exposes children
to the sound structure of words and builds conceptual knowledge and
comprehension. In mathematics instruction, expert opinion calls for
orienting curriculum and instruction toward students' conceptual
understanding and mathematical reasoning. Exhibits 20 and 21 present
some more specific tenets of effective instruction in reading and
mathematics.

Within these frameworks for instruction, there are many ways to teach
content, particularly given the different levels of student and teacher
proficiency. Recent research on effective schoolwide programs and
schools found more differences than similarities in the instructional
approaches used across the schools, and found that instructional
strategies were not the essential factors in schools'
effectiveness.[^58] However, there are probably some qualities that are
characteristic of most high-quality instruction. According to recent
data, all children benefit from exposure to challenging content that
develops their thinking and problem-solving skills. Comprehensive,
research-based approaches to improve curriculum and instruction are
likely to employ strategies that develop these skills.

### 

### Exhibit 20

### Reading Instruction

Years of research on reading instruction have led to a consensus about
the skills and abilities children must demonstrate to be successful
readers and therefore the skills that high-quality reading instruction
must foster in young children. Children need excellent instruction from
qualified and effective teachers who deliberately plan their instruction
and target their instructional materials and methods to meet the diverse
needs of children. These teachers:

-   Give children access to a variety of reading and writing materials.

-   Present explicit instruction for reading and writing, both in the
    context of authentic and isolated practice.

-   Create multiple opportunities for sustained reading practice in a
    variety of formats.

-   Carefully choose instructional-level text from a variety of
    materials.

-   Adjust the grouping and explicitness of instruction to meet the
    needs of individual students.

An effective reading curriculum in the early grades includes explicit
instruction in the following topics: how to recognize letters and
understand the letter-sound correspondence and its use in reading and
spelling, understanding the smallest sound components of spoken words,
developing vocabulary, and reading for meaning.

Source: National Research Council, *Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children* (1998); National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, *Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to
Read* (2000).

### 

### Exhibit 21

### Mathematics Instruction

Recent research has identified a set of principles and practices that
are critical to effective mathematics instruction. [^59] Teachers need
to increase their knowledge about mathematics and pedagogy, learn from
their students and colleagues, and hold high expectations for all
students. The mathematics curriculum should be coherent and
well-articulated across the grades. It needs to introduce ideas in such
a way that they build on one another and students can learn increasingly
more sophisticated mathematical ideas as they progress through school.
More specifically, effective instruction means:

-   Focusing on problem solving. Students need conceptual understanding
    to deal with novel problems and settings and to become autonomous
    learners. Instruction should encourage multiple solutions to
    problems.

-   Defining basic skills to involve more than computation.

-   Emphasizing reasoning and thinking skills, concept development,
    communicating mathematically, and applying mathematics. Students
    must learn mathematics with understanding, building new knowledge
    from experience and prior knowledge.

-   Presenting content in a logical progression with an increasing
    emphasis on higher-order thinking skills, such as problem-solving
    and mathematical reasoning, and mathematical communication.

-   Integrating topics of numeration, patterns and relations, geometry,
    measurement, probability and statistics, algebra, and algorithmic
    thinking. Instruction should broaden the range of the mathematical
    content studied, an aspect of teaching in which low-income children
    are often short-changed.

-   Taking advantage of calculators and computers to extend students'
    mathematical reach.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on
Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21^st^ Century, Before It's Too
Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics
and Science Teachers for the 21^st^ Century (2000); National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics
(2000); and Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, "Project
Application for the Comprehensive School Mathematics Programs,"
submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, National Diffusion
Network (1992).

While there is little research on the quality of instruction in typical
high-poverty schools, a recent study of 71 high-poverty schools (the
*Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance*) examined
instruction in reading and math in third through fifth grades, and the
relationship between instructional practices and student achievement:
[^60]

-   In reading, there is evidence that continuing to spend too much time
    on basic decoding skills past the early grades is detrimental to
    students, and that comprehension and higher-level thinking skills
    should be the focus of reading instruction. Students whose
    fifth-grade teachers spent a great deal of time instructing the
    class at a basic level---using worksheets, reading aloud, and using
    other relatively routine skill practice---gained slightly less on
    average than those whose teachers spent an average amount of time
    instructing the class at a basic level.

-   In mathematics, the use of more student-initiated activities and
    more complicated assignments had a positive relationship to student
    gains. Such activities include the use of manipulatives to
    demonstrate a concept, discussing multiple approaches to solving a
    problem, working on problems in small groups to find a joint
    solution, and having student-led group discussions. Students whose
    fifth-grade teachers reported high levels of exploration in
    mathematics instruction had larger gains in math scores than other
    students in the sample.

-   Also, a high level of exploration in third-grade mathematics
    instruction was associated with higher third-grade scores in the
    highest-poverty schools. In contrast, where fifth-grade teachers
    reported high levels of more routine activities (presentation and
    practice activities such as lecturing, leading whole group
    discussions, demonstrating an exercise at a blackboard, practicing
    and drilling on computational skills), students in the
    highest-poverty schools gained less.

### 

### 

### Improving the Qualifications of Instructional Staff

Parents, policymakers, and educators agree that every child needs a
competent and well-qualified teacher in the classroom. Research shows
that the quality of teaching is the most important in-school factor in
improving student achievement.[^61] Students perform better with more
highly skilled teachers: teachers' performance on statewide exams, and
particularly their mastery of language skills, has a positive and
statistically significant effect on students' reading and mathematics
test scores. The effect of a teacher's proficiency on student
achievement is greatest in the primary grades and declines after the
seventh grade.[^62] In addition, teacher quality appears to have a
greater effect on students who are at-risk than on other students.[^63]

**Although the need for high-quality teachers is particularly great in
high-poverty schools, research suggests that a disproportionate number
of teachers in these schools are inexperienced and lack proper
certification.** Principals in the highest-poverty schools reported that
15 percent of elementary school teachers and 21 percent of secondary
school teachers had less than three years' teaching experience, compared
with only 8 percent of elementary and 9 percent of secondary teachers in
low-poverty schools. In addition, in high-poverty schools, 12 percent of
secondary teachers held temporary or emergency certification and 18
percent were teaching out-of-field, compared with only 1 percent of
secondary teachers in low-poverty schools who had either temporary or
emergency certification or were teaching out-of-field.[^64]

**Another concern related to the quality of instructional staff is the
widespread use of Title I funds for paraprofessionals as part of
schools' instructional programs.** Paraprofessionals account for half of
the instructional staff hired through Title I funds, and high-poverty
schools rely more heavily on aides than do low-poverty schools. In the
highest-poverty schools, 84 percent of principals reported using aides,
compared with 54 percent in low-poverty schools.[^65] On average, the
highest-poverty elementary schools employed 10.5 teacher aides in a
typical-size school of 500 students, including 2.3 aides funded by Title
I, while low-poverty schools employed 7.6 aides overall and 1.6 aides
funded by Title I.[^66]

Although few Title I teacher aides have the educational background
necessary to teach students, almost all (98 percent) reported that they
were teaching or helping to teach students. Overall, providing
instruction accounted for 60 percent of Title I aides' time, and 41
percent of aides reported that half or more of this time was spent
working with students on their own, without a teacher present (Exhibit
22).[^67]

![](media/image11.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Forty-one percent of Title I teacher aides reported
> that half or more of the time they spent teaching or helping to teach
> students was on their own, without a teacher present.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service
> (2000), Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final
> Report.

Schools may choose to rely on paraprofessionals in part because they
cost much less than a certified teacher; the average annual salary for a
full-time equivalent teacher aide was \$12,600 in 1997-98, compared with
\$36,400 for a teacher. However, research has found little or no student
achievement gains associated with including paraprofessionals in the
classroom. In a rigorous, randomized-design study in Tennessee, students
in K-2 classes with full-time aides did no better than students in
classes without aides.

Paraprofessionals can play a helpful role in the classroom if used in
ways that are appropriate to their training and experience. In
particular, paraprofessionals are in a unique position to serve as
translators and interpreters for limited English proficient students and
their families; in major urban and rural areas, 60 to 70 percent of
paraprofessionals are from racial- and language-minority groups.[^68]
Typically drawn from the local community, paraprofessionals are also
well-positioned to work with parents. Currently, however, a relatively
small number of Title I paraprofessionals are "parent liaisons" (3
percent), and teacher aides who also work with parents report spending
very little time in this role.[^69]

Ongoing professional training and development for teachers and other
school staff is important for achieving high standards of learning for
all students. There is wide consensus on the key features of
high-quality professional development, reflecting what has been learned
from the best available research and practices in the field. One recent
study identified six key features of professional development that were
linked to increases in teachers' self-reported knowledge, skills, and
changes in teaching practice (Exhibit 23).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Exhibit 23                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Key Features of High-Quality Professional Development                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Strong content focus.** Professional development should focus   |
|     on improving and deepening teachers' content knowledge in a       |
|     subject area.                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Long duration.** Professional development should include a high |
|     number of contact hours and should span a long period of time.    |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Collective participation of groups of teachers.** Professional  |
|     development should include groups of teachers from the same       |
|     school, department, or grade level.                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Active learning opportunities.** Professional development       |
|     should include opportunities for teachers to become actively      |
|     engaged in analyzing teaching and learning.                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   **\"Reform-type\" activities.** Professional development should   |
|     focus on \"reform-type\" activities, such as study groups,        |
|     mentoring, or internships, as opposed to the traditional          |
|     workshop.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Coherence with other activities.** Professional development     |
|     activities should be aligned with standards and assessments.      |
|                                                                       |
| > Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation       |
| > Service*, Designing Effective Professional Development: Lessons     |
| > from the Eisenhower Program* (1999).                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Despite a strong knowledge base on best practices, there is great
variability in the nature and quality of professional development, and
many teachers are not receiving the highest quality professional
development possible.** Among teachers who participated in professional
development activities during the 1997-98 school year:

-   Only 51 percent reported participating in activities that emphasized
    content knowledge.

-   Only 20 percent spent at least six months in these activities.

-   Only 20 percent participated with other teachers in their grade
    level or department.

-   Only 5 percent participated in activities that promoted active
    learning; thus, most teachers lacked an opportunity to become
    actively engaged in analyzing teaching and learning.

-   Only 22 percent participated in "reform-type" activities, whereas
    most attended traditional workshops and conferences.

-   Only 31 percent reported that activities built upon prior
    professional development experiences, with a somewhat higher
    percentage (53 percent) reporting that professional development was
    followed up with later activities.[^70]

**In addition, teachers in high-poverty schools were less likely to have
opportunities for professional growth**---defined as staff collegiality,
support for innovation, influence in policymaking, and supportive
in-service experiences---than their colleagues in low-poverty
schools.[^71] In Title I schools, a significantly higher percentage of
secondary school teachers in the highest-poverty schools reported that
they would have liked additional professional development, compared with
teachers in low-poverty secondary schools (69 percent, compared with 50
percent).[^72]

However, there is evidence that when high-quality professional
development does occur, it can have a positive impact on teaching
practices. Longitudinal research shows that when professional
development is of high-quality and is focused on specific, higher-order
teaching strategies---such as the use of technology, instructional
methods, and assessment strategies for higher-order
learning---professional development increases teachers' use of those
strategies in the classroom.[^73]

Evidence from Title I schools also supports the finding that
professional development can improve teaching. For example, about half
of teachers in Title I schools reported that professional development
led them to change their teaching practices. Professional development
appeared to be especially effective in increasing teachers' use of
technology, with almost 65 percent of teachers reporting this positive
change.[^74] In both reading and mathematics, when teachers received
high-quality professional development, students made greater test score
gains. This occurred when teachers received professional development
that focused on instructional content; supported local reform efforts;
supported state or district standards, assessments, or curriculum
frameworks; helped teachers adapt their teaching to standards or
assessments; and gave them confidence in using new teaching
approaches.[^75]

The U.S. Department of Education supports professional development
activities through several programs, including the Eisenhower
Professional Development Program, Title I, the Reading Excellence Act,
the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, and the Class Size Reduction
program, among others. The Eisenhower Program, which is the Department's
largest investment solely in professional development, provided \$485
million in funding in FY 2001. Title I districts and schools reported
using 3 percent of their Title I funds for professional development,
amounting to \$212 million in 1997-98.[^76]

***Early Childhood Education***

Early childhood education for *all* preschool children is critical to
building a solid foundation for learning in elementary school and
beyond. Research on child development reveals that children who have
high-quality early learning experiences, including a language and
literacy-rich environment, are more likely to be successful learners
when they are older and are less likely to have difficulty learning to
read.[^77] Research on child care, preschool, and early intervention
programs has shown that early care and education programs can improve
children's school readiness, achievement scores, and social
development.[^78]

**Several long-term studies of high-quality early childhood education
programs have demonstrated significant impacts on educational outcomes
throughout a child's life.** A 1995 review of 36 studies of model
demonstration projects and large-scale public programs found that early
childhood programs can produce long-term effects on academic
achievement, grade retention, placement in special education, and social
adjustment.[^79] Another long-term study found that a high-quality child
care and education program that served children from infancy through age
5 continues to demonstrate positive effects at age 21, compared with a
control group that did not receive early intervention.[^80]

**The quality and intensity of early childhood care and education are
critical.** The *Cost, Quality, and Outcomes* study found that "children
in lower quality classrooms scored lower on measures of cognitive and
social development, even after taking into account differences in
background factors known to be related to children's development."[^81]
Children who attended child care with higher quality classroom practices
had better language and math skills from the preschool years into
elementary school.[^82]

**Moreover, the study found that child care quality may be particularly
important for children at risk of school failure.**[^83] At-risk
children are more likely to start kindergarten with weak cognitive and
literacy skills than other children, and therefore stand to benefit more
from high-quality early childhood education programs.[^84] A recent
study of kindergartners confirmed the importance of early education for
later performance in school. It demonstrated that children begin
kindergarten with different levels of knowledge and skills based on
their background, and while the more disadvantaged children catch up on
basic skills in reading and mathematics during the kindergarten year,
the gap widens on measures of more sophisticated reading and mathematics
knowledge and skills.[^85]

The National Research Council's report, *Eager to Learn: Educating Our
Preschoolers*, synthesized findings from a wide range of research on
early childhood education in order to determine the components of
high-quality early childhood education programs; these components are
summarized in Exhibit 24.

**Most children in the United States are not in settings of sufficient
quality to improve learning.** The *Eager to Learn* report warned that
the growing understanding of the importance of early education "stands
in stark contrast to the disparate system of care and education"
available to the nation's preschool children. The report stated that
many children from low-income families are in child care programs "of
such low quality that learning and development\... may even be
jeopardized."[^86]

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #                                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| # Exhibit 24                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| # Features of High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Cognitive, social-emotional, and motor development are            |
|     complementary, mutually supportive areas of growth all requiring  |
|     active attention in the preschool years. Social skills and        |
|     physical dexterity influence cognitive development, just as       |
|     cognition plays a role in children's social understanding and     |
|     motor competence. Therefore all are related to early learning and |
|     later academic achievement and are necessary domains of early     |
|     childhood pedagogy.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Responsive interpersonal relationships with teachers nurture      |
|     young children's dispositions to learn and their emerging         |
|     abilities. Social competence and school achievement are           |
|     influenced by the quality of early teacher-child relationships,   |
|     and by teachers' attentiveness to how the child approaches        |
|     learning.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Class size and adult-child ratios are correlated with greater     |
|     program effects. Low adult-child ratios are associated with more  |
|     extensive teacher-child interaction, more individual attention,   |
|     and less restrictive and controlling teacher behavior. Smaller    |
|     group size has been associated with more child-initiated          |
|     behavior, and more opportunities for teachers to work on          |
|     developing children's language skills, mediating children's       |
|     social interactions, and encouraging and supporting exploration   |
|     and problem-solving.                                              |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   While no single curriculum or pedagogical approach can be         |
|     identified as best, children who attend well-planned,             |
|     high-quality early childhood programs in which curriculum goals   |
|     are clear and are linked across subject areas tend to learn more  |
|     and are better prepared to successfully master the complex        |
|     demands of schooling.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Teachers\' professional development is related to the quality of  |
|     early childhood programs, and program quality predicts            |
|     developmental outcomes for children. Formal training in early     |
|     childhood education has been linked consistently to positive      |
|     caregiver behaviors. The strongest relationship is found between  |
|     the length of a teacher\'s training in the field and the          |
|     appropriateness of his or her classroom behavior.                 |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Programs found to be highly effective in the United States and    |
|     abroad actively engage teachers and provide high-quality          |
|     supervision. Teachers are trained and encouraged to reflect on    |
|     their practice and on the responsiveness of their children to     |
|     classroom activities, and to revise and plan their teaching       |
|     accordingly.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| > Source: National Research Council, *Eager to Learn: Educating Our   |
| > Preschoolers* (2000).                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**In addition, poor children are less likely to participate in preschool
programs than higher income children.** Participation rates for children
from poor families increased from 44 percent in 1991 to 52 percent in
1999, but remain well below the 62 percent participation rate for
non-poor children.[^87] Yet, the highest-poverty schools are more likely
than low-poverty schools to offer preschool programs (61 percent vs.
14 percent), and they also served a greater percentage of their
estimated preschool population (24 percent vs. 3 percent).[^88] Taken
together, these two data sources suggest that poor children are more
likely to participate in public school preschool programs, while
children from higher-income families are more likely to participate in
private or non-school preschool programs. Homeless children may have the
greatest difficulty in gaining access to early childhood education;
state coordinators in more than two dozen states indicated that it was
difficult for homeless children to access Head Start and other
publicly-funded preschool programs or Even Start or other family
literacy programs.[^89]

**Federal agencies spent a total of about \$9 billion to provide
education and care to children under age five in fiscal year
1999.**[^90] These programs include programs categorized as education
and child care, and do not necessarily contain a cognitive or
pre-literacy skills component. Most of these programs are administered
by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. The programs that serve the greatest number of
children under age five include the Child Care and Development Fund
(1,260,000), Head Start (780,000), Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) Grants to States (575,000), Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (350,000), Title I Part A (300,000), IDEA Preschool
Grants (316,000), IDEA Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities (187,000),
Title I Migrant Education (69,000), and Even Start (27,000).[^91] It is
worth noting that although Title I's major focus is not on preschool
programs, it serves a significant number of preschool-age children, even
more than the Even Start program, for which early childhood education is
one of the major components.

**The Even Start Family Literacy Program (Title I, Part B) supports a
comprehensive family literacy model to serve low-income families with
children from birth through age seven.** The Even Start program provides
support to states and local grantees (partnerships of both a local
educational agency and a nonprofit community-based organization) for
family literacy programs intended to break the cycle of poverty and
illiteracy in low-income families. The program is designed to support
high-quality, intensive instructional programs of adult education,
parenting education, and early childhood education, including
interactive literacy activities between parents and their children. Even
Start is based on the notion that all of these instructional components,
including early childhood education, are necessary to make changes in a
family.

The national evaluation of Even Start has documented that Even Start
projects successfully target services toward families who are most in
need. At least 85 percent of families participating in 1998-99 had
incomes at or below the federal poverty level, and 85 percent of 1998-99
new enrollees had not earned a high school diploma or GED at Even Start
entry.[^92]

**Evidence on Even Start\'s impact on literacy outcomes for children and
adults is mixed.** On measures of literacy used in the first and second
national evaluations of Even Start, participating families consistently
made gains each year. However, results from a small-scale experimental
study in five projects during the first national evaluation (the
in-depth study) did not always indicate that these gains were due to
Even Start participation alone.[^93]

-   In terms of adult literacy, Even Start adults achieved statistically
    significant gains on the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment
    System (CASAS) and Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) reading and
    math tests. However, in the in-depth study, adults in a control
    group achieved similar gains on the CASAS, suggesting that the gains
    for Even Start adults may not be due only to Even Start
    participation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the past decade, Even Start helped many adults attain a GED.
    Depending on the year, between 8 percent and 15 percent of all of
    the adults who entered Even Start without a GED or diploma attained
    one. In the in-depth study, significantly more adults in Even Start
    than in the control group attained a GED (22 percent vs. 6 percent).

-   Both the first and second national evaluations showed that Even
    Start children learned school readiness skills such as colors,
    shapes, and sizes (as measured by statistically significant gains on
    the PreSchool Inventory (PSI)) significantly faster than would be
    expected on the basis of normal development. After one year of
    participation, Even Start children in the in-depth study scored
    significantly higher on the PSI than children in a randomly assigned
    control group. However, control group children caught up in the next
    year, when they entered preschool or kindergarten. A similar pattern
    was found on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, a test of
    receptive language.

-   In the second national evaluation, Even Start families gained a
    substantial amount on the Home Screening Questionnaire (HSQ), a
    measure of the quality of cognitive stimulation and emotional
    support provided to children by the family. This appears to be
    larger than would be expected without Even Start, because data from
    the national evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development
    Program show that low-income families in the control group did not
    make any gains on the HSQ.

**Working with needy families, as Even Start does, poses challenges to
providing intensive services and engaging families over an extended
period of time.** Although Even Start projects have increased the amount
of instruction they have offered in all core service areas over time,
less than half met the U.S. Department of Education's performance
indicator for the early childhood education component (47 percent),
parenting education component (46 percent), or adult education component
(which ranged from 22 percent for English as a Second Language to
43 percent for Adult Secondary Education services).[^94] Data for the
cohort of families who enrolled in the program in 1997-98 showed that
71 percent left the program after having participated for 12 or fewer
months.[^95] Research has shown that service intensity and duration can
contribute to better outcomes, and Even Start projects may achieve
greater effects if they can find ways to retain families in the program
for a longer period of time.

### Extending Learning Time

The increasing emphasis on challenging standards for all students has
led to growing recognition of the need for additional time for
instruction and support. Relying exclusively on learning during the
school day is simply not sufficient for all students to reach high
standards. Extended learning time programs are a potentially promising
strategy to provide the needed extra instructional time and additional
learning opportunities, particularly for lower-achieving students.

**In fact, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of all Title I schools offer
extended-time instructional or tutorial programs during the school year.
However, these programs serve a small proportion of all students.**
Extended-time programs offered during the school year (through
before-school, after-school, or weekend programs) serve 8 percent of the
students in Title I schools and 14 percent of the students in the
highest-poverty schools. Similarly, summer school programs are offered
in 61 percent of all Title I schools; these programs serve 15 percent of
the students in Title I schools and 12 percent of the students in the
highest-poverty schools.[^96]

> ![](media/image12.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: Nearly two-thirds of all Title I schools (65 percent)
> offered before-school, after-school, or weekend instructional
> programs, but these programs served only 8 percent of all students.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation
> Service*, Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final
> Report* (2000).

**High-quality extended-learning programs include standards-based
educational enrichment and academic assistance of sufficient duration
and intensity.** Successful programs connect the added time to regular
school experiences so that teachers can build on the skills that
students are gaining in their regular classes and supplement what they
are learning during the school day. Using teachers and paraprofessionals
from the regular school day as program staff can facilitate this
linkage. Additional elements of successful programs include low
student/staff ratios to enable small group or individual instruction,
parental involvement, and incentives for student enrollment and
continued attendance.

The push for more extended learning programs has prompted an increase in
research on the relationship between such programs and improved
in-school outcomes. The findings, although promising, are not
definitive. Some outcomes are positive while others are unchanged or
negative. The inconsistent nature of the findings is not surprising,
considering various design and analysis complications. Studies that rely
on pre-post designs may reflect student maturation or the effects of
other, non-program events rather than the effects of the extended
learning program. Studies comparing program participants and
non-participants are subject to selection bias concerns.[^97]

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program was authorized under
the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA to encourage schools and community
organizations to work together to expand opportunities for after-school,
weekend, or summer programs for children, youth, and families. Academic
enrichment for at-risk youth is the primary focus of these programs, but
they also include recreational, health, social, and cultural services to
meet the needs of the surrounding community. The 21st Century program is
one of the U.S. Department of Education\'s fastest-growing programs,
rising from an initial appropriation of \$40 million in FY 1998 to \$846
million in FY 2001. The program currently provides support for 903
communities and 3,600 schools across the country through competitive
grants. These 21st Century Community Learning Centers will serve about
615,000 children and youth and 215,000 adults during the 2000-01 school
year.

### Partnerships with Parents and Families

Thirty years of research have established a clear link between parent or
family involvement and student achievement.[^98] Recent research also
has shown that parenting style, participation in learning activities,
and parents' expectations for the child have a stronger influence on
student achievement than uncontrollable family-related factors such as
socioeconomic status. [^99] Further, not only have we learned that
parental support, participation, and expectations around their child's
learning are linked to increased student achievement, research has shown
that schools\' policies, programs, and interventions can have a positive
influence on increasing these parent behaviors.[^100]

**However, students in high-poverty schools, who could benefit
significantly from family involvement, are less likely to have involved
parents.** A Harris poll of teachers found that 62 percent of inner-city
teachers felt that parental support for their schools was either fair or
poor, while in suburban schools, 80 percent of teachers felt that
parental support was either excellent or good.[^101] In another survey,
principals in the highest-poverty schools were more likely to report low
parent involvement in regularly scheduled parent-teacher conferences (73
percent, compared with 33 percent in low-poverty schools) and in parent
volunteering (45 percent vs. 20 percent).[^102] Students whose parents
have less education are less likely to spend time at home on
learning-related activities that reinforce their schoolwork. Children
aged 6-8 whose parents have less than a high school diploma spend
one-third the amount of time reading and 50 percent more time watching
television, compared with children from college-educated families. Among
older children aged 9-12, children whose parents have less education are
less likely to study and spend less time studying.[^103]

The 1994 reauthorization revised Title I parent involvement provisions
from a previous focus on governance to a greater emphasis on the role of
family involvement in children\'s learning. The current law supports
parent involvement through three key mechanisms: (1) requiring districts
and schools to have a parent policy that integrates parent involvement
with other programs, and includes parent involvement strategies in the
school improvement plan; (2) communicating shared responsibilities
between schools and parents through the use of school-parent compacts;
and (3) building the capacity of schools and districts to reach out more
effectively to parents and families and building parents\' capacity for
supporting their children\'s educational growth through parenting
education, literacy training, and other approaches.

**Schools report using a variety of strategies for reaching out to
parents.** Most Title I schools reported providing parents with a
variety of school documents, including the school plan or school
improvement plan (93 percent), school report cards or performance
profiles (85 percent), and information on content or performance
standards (83 percent). Schools with significant numbers of limited
English proficient students usually reported translating school
documents into languages other than English (87 percent of elementary
schools with 25 percent or more LEP students), although this was
somewhat less common at the secondary level (66 percent). When asked
about parent involvement strategies, principals were somewhat more
likely to report having parents serve on committees (98 percent) and as
volunteers in the classroom (94 percent) and less likely to train
parents to work with their children at home (88 percent) or to provide
family night activities such as family math nights (75 percent).[^104]

**The use of school-parent compacts increased from 20 percent of Title I
schools in 1994 to 73 percent in 1999, but schools need to use compacts
effectively.** Principals are more likely than teachers to report that
school-parent compacts are useful. Eighty-six percent of principals
reported that their schools use compacts for parent-teacher conferences.
However, a smaller percentage of teachers in those schools reported
actually using the school-parent compact (53 percent). Among those
teachers, 46 percent said they found the compacts \"useful\" and 30
percent said the compacts were useful \"to a great extent\" in
discussing the shared responsibilities among the parent, the student,
and themselves.[^105]

**Empirical studies suggest that compacts can have a positive impact on
parent involvement and student achievement, particularly if the compacts
are well-implemented.** A recent study found a significant relationship
between school use of parent compacts and other outreach strategies with
parent involvement in their child's learning at home, which in turn was
related to an increase in the child's reading achievement. Analysis of
data from the *Prospects* study, a rigorous longitudinal study of more
than 25,000 students in the early elementary grades, showed that
students in schools with family-school compacts had higher levels of
achievement on independently administered tests than students in schools
without compacts.[^106] Case studies suggest that particularly dramatic
results may occur when compacts are used to drive concerted efforts to
involve parents and families. For example, teachers and administrators
at Samuel Mason Elementary School in Boston credit their compact-driven
family involvement activities as providing a catalyst for increases in
reading scores from the lowest third to the upper third of all Boston
schools, and an improvement in the retention rate between grades 1 and 2
from 33 percent to close to zero. More broadly, the *Longitudinal
Evaluation of School Change and Performance* found that low-achieving
students in high-poverty schools made greater gains between third and
fifth grade if their third-grade teachers were especially active in
contacting their parents.

**In general, however, teachers are more likely to interact with parents
to address a student problem, rather than to engage parents on a
continuous basis.** For example, elementary teachers in the
highest-poverty Title I schools were more likely to report initiating
phone calls to parents when a child is having problems (98 percent) than
working with parents to set learning goals for students at the beginning
of the year (66 percent).[^107]

**Teachers generally do not receive effective professional development
on strategies for improving parent involvement.** About 45 percent of
teachers in Title I schools reported receiving professional development
on parent involvement, and of these teachers, less than 30 percent said
that it led them to change their practice. [^108]

##### VI. Special Title I Services

### Title I Services for Students Attending Private Schools

Federal law requires that students in private schools be afforded an
opportunity to participate in Title I equal to students in public
schools, and the services provided to them also must be equitable.
Services for private school students accounted for about 1 percent of
Title I funds in 1997-98.[^109]

**Court rulings have had a substantial impact on the participation of
private school students in Title I.** In June 1997, a U.S. Supreme Court
decision in the *Agostini v. Felton* case added considerable flexibility
to districts' options for providing Title I services to eligible
students enrolled in private schools. In the previous *Aguilar v.
Felton* decision in 1985, the court had restricted service locations for
students in religiously-affiliated schools, resulting in a sharp decline
in the number of private school students participating in Title I. In
*Agostini*, the court reversed that ruling, deciding that the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit providing
Title I services in space located in religious schools. As a result,
parents of private school students, as well as the private schools
themselves, were more willing to have their students participate in the
Title I program because children no longer had to travel to neutral
space and services could be provided in a less disruptive manner.

**Private school student participation increased by 15 percent after the
1997 *Agostini* decision, from 167,600 students in 1996-97 to 193,100 in
1997-98** (Exhibit 26). Looking at the longer-term trend, private school
student participation after the 1997 *Agostini* decision returned to
about the same level as prior to the *Aguilar* decision.[^110]

![](media/image13.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: The number of private school students participating in
> Title I rose to 193,100 in 1997-98, returning to a level not seen
> since 1983-84.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, *1997-98 Title I Performance
> Report* (2000).

The 1994 reauthorization changed the provisions for allocating Title I
funds for services for both public school and private school students,
linking funding to the number of low-income students residing in school
attendance areas instead of the number of low-achieving students.
Initially, the number of private school participants declined after this
change, from 177,200 in 1993-94 to 167,600 in 1996-97. However, in the
following year, participation rose substantially (after the *Agostini*
decision). Overall, the number of private school participants has risen
by 9 percent since the 1994 reauthorization, from 177,200 in 1993-94 to
193,100 in 1997-98.[^111]

Almost all districts that serve eligible private school students provide
them with supplementary academic instruction. A preliminary review of
the experiences of nine large urban districts indicated that most were
taking advantage of the opportunity to provide instructional services on
the premises of religiously affiliated schools. However, Title I
administrators in these districts also reported that they continue to
provide at least some of the instructional services in neutral sites on
or near the school grounds, with several of the districts relying more
heavily on these facilities than others.[^112]

Most Title I administrators and private school representatives agree
that they have established positive working relationships, but differ
about who is actually involved in consultation and about the topics that
are discussed. For example, Title I administrators in at least 80
percent of districts say that they consulted with either a private
school principal or representative of a private school organization on
most issues, but substantially fewer private school representatives
report such consultation.[^113]

### Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) 

The Migrant Education Program (MEP) provides formula grants to states
for supplemental education and support services for the children of
migrant agricultural workers and fishers. MEP's mission is to strengthen
and support efforts of state education agencies, local school districts,
schools, and community organizations to continuously improve the quality
of education provided to migrant children. Its goal is to help all
migrant students meet challenging academic standards and graduate from
high school (or a GED program) with an education that prepares them for
responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment. To
help migrant students reach challenging standards, the 1994
reauthorization established a priority for services for migrant children
whose education has been interrupted during the school year and who are
failing, or at risk of failing, to meet their states' content and
performance standards. There is some indication that this priority is
being met. According to 80 percent of principals of schoolwide programs,
migrant students who fail to meet their state's performance standards
have the highest priority for instructional services.[^114]

States operated 12,200 local MEP projects in 1997-98 and served a total
of 621,000 students. Of those projects, 54 percent served students only
during the regular school year, 35 percent served participants both
during the regular term and during the summer, and 11 percent of
projects operated during the summer term only. About 23 percent of all
MEP projects operated as part of a schoolwide program, wherein MEP funds
are combined with other federal funds (including Title I, Part A).[^115]

MEP summer-term and extended-time projects play an important role in the
education of migrant students. Summer projects provide academic and
support services to improve instructional continuity for migrant
students and to address the unique needs that result from their
migratory lifestyles. In 1997-98, most summer projects provided
instruction in reading (96 percent), other language arts (88 percent),
and math (87 percent).[^116] Over the past decade, summer projects have
grown faster than the regular program, and they now serve approximately
50 percent of the number of students served during the regular term. The
number of summer participants increased from 220,800 in the 1995-96
school year to 312,400 in 1997-98.[^117]

A concern about whether migrant students' needs were being met in
schoolwide programs prompted a Congressionally mandated evaluation of
schoolwide schools that enroll migrant students. The 1997 study found
that migrant children were served and did receive supplemental academic
and support services, but it was unclear whether their unique needs were
being met. Most of the school staff did not view the educational or
support service needs of migrant students as significantly different
than those of other students, and many were unable to identify migrant
students in their schools. Migrant students\' needs for supplemental
services were assessed in the same ways as other students, without
particular attention to the differences associated with the migratory
lifestyle. The perception that migrant students do not have unique needs
may exist because schools often did not disaggregate their needs
assessment data for migrant students. However, in the schools in which
migrant staff or migrant parents participated in the schoolwide planning
process, schoolwide plans were much more likely to address the needs of
migrant students (80 percent of the schools with involvement, versus
only 34 percent of the schools with no involvement addressed the migrant
students\' needs).[^118]

**In most states that track migrant students' achievement, migrant
students perform significantly lower than other students on state
assessments.** In 1997-98, 16 states tracked the achievement of their
migrant students by disaggregating their assessment results by migrant
status. The disparity between migrant students and other students varied
a great deal among states, with some states showing differences as large
as 30 percentage points while others showed more modest differences of
less than 10 percentage points.[^119] A recent study of Title I schools
serving high numbers of migrant students found that these schools were
more likely than other Title I schools to report that content and
performance standards were too rigorous for most of their students, and
to cite student mobility, diversity of student populations, and language
as barriers in using content standards with all students.[^120]

**Although they provide an indication of migrant student performance,
state assessment results may not represent a complete and accurate
picture of migrant students' performance in each state because estimates
of the degree to which migrant students participate in state assessments
are not yet available.** While many states track migrant students\'
performance, most do not track the extent of their inclusion in state
assessments. Factors that present barriers to migrant students'
inclusion in state assessments are the same factors that hinder their
performance, including their limited English proficiency and mobility.
While language accommodations are made for migrant students in many
states (29 MEP administrators reported migrant students could take state
assessments in their native language in 1998),[^121] accommodations for
student mobility are less common. Some migrant students do not
participate in state assessments because they change schools during the
spring, when state assessments are often given, while others may be
exempted if they are new to the United States, new to English as a
Second Language (ESL) programs, or score low on English proficiency
exams.[^122]

While states continue to provide services to meet the unique needs of
migrant students and have made progress in tracking their academic
performance, many challenges remain in ensuring that these students are
being included in assessment and accountability systems and are making
satisfactory academic progress.

### Programs for Students Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk of Dropping Out (Title I, Part D)

Part D of Title I is intended to serve neglected or delinquent (N or D)
children and youth who are not enrolled in regular school programs, most
commonly because they are incarcerated in state or local correctional
institutions. Part D authorizes two programs for neglected and
delinquent students---programs for youth in state-operated institutions
or community day programs (Subpart 1), and school district programs
involving collaboration with locally-operated correctional facilities
(Subpart 2). State agency programs are funded through a separate
appropriation (\$46 million in FY 2001), while local N or D programs are
allocated to school districts from funds reserved under Title I Part A
(an estimated \$59 million in FY 2001).

In 1997-98, state agency N or D programs served 205,000 neglected and
delinquent students in state institutions, while local agency programs
served an additional 85,000 students in local correctional facilities.
Among participants residing in state institutions, 30 percent were in
institutions for neglected children, 56 percent were in juvenile
correctional facilities, and 14 percent were in adult correctional
institutions. Participants in state institutions were overwhelming male
(89 percent), about half (51 percent) were African American, and
53 percent were between the ages of 14 and 17.[^123]

The 1994 reauthorization encouraged the implementation of
institution-wide programs designed to improve the entire educational
program and to serve the entire student population in institutions for
neglected or delinquent youth. One-third (36 percent) of all state
institutions eligible to implement an institution-wide project did so in
1999, more than double the percentage two years ago. [^124] The
universal eligibility inherent in an institution-wide approach is in
itself one way to better meet the educational needs of incarcerated
youth, in that it reflects the universal need among this population for
additional assistance.

State agencies most commonly report using Title I N or D funds to
purchase instructional materials (92 percent), computer software (84
percent), and computers (75 percent); to hire additional staff
(79 percent); and to support staff development activities (61 percent).
Agencies that operated institution-wide projects are especially likely
to use funding for staff development (96 percent). State agencies were
less likely to use Title I N or D funds for student assessment (48
percent), tutors or mentors (28 percent) or community activities (26
percent). [^125]

Title I N or D funds support a wide range of academic and support
services at state correctional institutions (Exhibit 27). The most
widely available Title I-funded instructional services---reading and
mathematics---were provided at more than 80 percent of all institutions,
a finding that is consistent with the history of the N or D program.
However, the provision of social or life skills instruction has
increased to 61 percent in juvenile institutions, and to 80 percent in
adult institutions, a much higher percentage than was found a decade ago
when just 31 percent of all institutions offered this type of
instruction with Title I funds. Adult institutions were also three times
more likely than juvenile institutions to use Part D funds to provide
combined classes in reading, mathematics, language arts, or English as a
Second Language. Juvenile institutions more often used N or D funds to
provide study skills instruction or counseling services. [^126]

> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
> *State Agency Activities Under the Title I Part D Program* (draft).

**The most frequently reported challenge involved in meeting students'
needs, as reported by state agencies, is poor educational follow-up with
aftercare agencies.** Although nearly half of state agencies reported on
the availability of post-release case management services to assist
youths in the re-entry process through referrals and counseling, far
fewer reported on post-release tracking and documenting neglected or
delinquent youths\' reentering into school or obtaining employment.
![](media/image14.wmf) Other issues identified as serious problems
included inadequate funding, limited space conducive to learning, a
shortage of qualified teachers, and low student motivation. State
agencies cite inadequate funding, staffing issues, such as shortages of
qualified teachers, turnover, and poorly motivated teachers, and poor
follow-up/transition programs, as the most frequent problems in
implementing the Title I N or D program. The recommendation most often
identified by state agencies for changing or improving the program is to
increase funding. Indeed, state agencies report that the most frequent
reason why some eligible institutions do not participate is that the
amount of funds available are insufficient to justify the effort
required to implement a program.[^127]

**Most state agencies' inability to maintain or report student outcome
data underscores a widespread need among state agencies and institutions
for additional technical assistance in program evaluation.** Few states
collect performance data on Part D participants other than test
results---which may not provide an appropriate indicator of progress for
these programs due to high turnover and the limited length of stay for
many participants. Only a few state agencies maintain data on the number
of school credits earned by Part D participants. Institutions are
generally unable to collect comprehensive data on students\' educational
experiences and transition to further education or employment. When
asked to identify areas of need for technical assistance among
institution staff, the four areas of "great need" most frequently
identified by state agencies concerned evaluation---setting up
evaluation procedures, analyzing program evaluation results, designing a
needs assessment, and testing issues. Part D programs need significant
improvements in data collection and evaluation if they are to have
sufficient information to guide program improvement efforts. [^128]

##### VII. Progress and Challenges

Since Title I was reauthorized in 1994, states have made significant and
thoughtful progress in its implementation. Although the current
authorization period (1994 - 1999) has expired, the full impact of the
law may not be seen for several years. While structural components of
the law are scheduled to be in place in the 2000-01 school year, many
features of states' accountability systems will not be fully implemented
until later. For example, many of the requirements related to
identifying schools in need of improvement and taking corrective actions
take effect only after a school has failed to make progress for several
years.

Almost all states have content standards, and 25 have performance
standards. All have submitted evidence for peer review on their aligned
assessment systems. Of these, 11 have been fully approved, six have been
conditionally approved, 14 have been given a waiver of the time limit,
and three have compliance agreements. Reviews of the remaining states
are expected to be completed in spring 2001. Requirements to track
progress are helping states, districts, and schools focus on
implementing school improvement strategies.

Student achievement on national tests (NAEP) has shown little academic
progress for children in high-poverty schools. Student scores have
remained flat in reading but are slightly improved in mathematics. In
addition, the increased gap between students in high- and low-poverty
schools is troubling. These findings are perplexing in that states are
reporting significantly more progress in student achievement as measured
by state assessments. These inconsistent findings raise questions about
the rigor of the content and performance standards and assessments that
states have adopted. Perhaps an independent body such as the National
Academy of Sciences should examine how we can best interpret these data
from multiple sources.

A related problem is that timely and accurate data are not readily
available. States are required to submit a program performance report
describing basic program elements such as who the program is serving,
the number of schoolwide programs vs. targeted assistance programs, and
the number of schools and districts identified for improvement. These
data are often received late and are often incomplete. In addition, the
state-reported data frequently contain numerous errors that are
corrected only after repeated calls to the states. For an accountability
system to work, all parties must receive accurate and timely
information. States need the information to help districts and schools;
schools need the information so that they can improve instruction;
parents need the information so that they will know how well the schools
are meeting the needs of their children; and the U.S. Department of
Education needs the information so that it can report to Congress how
the funds that they have appropriated are being spent and the impact of
those funds on achieving program goals.

As states continue to implement the Title I law, several significant
challenges remain.

-   Recent research has documented the impact of having high-quality
    instruction on student learning and conversely the lasting negative
    impact of even one year of poor instruction. Yet, a disproportionate
    number of teachers in high-poverty schools are inexperienced, lack
    proper certification, and are less likely to have opportunities for
    professional development. Moreover, a significant number of children
    who are the weakest academically are still receiving instruction
    from aides.

-   While we know a great deal about what constitutes a high-quality
    education, we know less about how to turn around low-performing
    schools so that disadvantaged children can receive this kind of
    education. The capacity of states and districts to turn around these
    schools is hampered by both resources as well as know-how. Many
    low-performing schools are not getting the help they need to
    improve, even after having been identified as in need of improvement
    for several years.

-   Title I serves a large number of students with limited English
    proficiency and students with disabilities, but many states have not
    yet implemented requirements to include these students in assessment
    and accountability systems.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Despite research on the critical importance of early childhood
    education, most American children---and a disproportionate number of
    poor children---lack access to quality preschool programs. While the
    U.S. Department of Education is beginning to coordinate with Head
    Start so that federal support for early childhood education through
    Title I, Even Start, IDEA, and Head Start can be better integrated,
    this link needs to be strengthened. In particular, increased
    emphasis is needed on early literacy and on coordinating Head Start
    and Title I performance indicators on child learning and
    development.

-   The recognition of the importance of providing opportunities for
    extended-time instruction has not yet led to sufficient after-school
    programs, particularly for poorer children. Consequently these
    children are not receiving the extra time that may be needed to
    catch up to their more advantaged peers.

-   Research on the importance of parental involvement in children\'s
    education has not yet led to sufficient involvement, particularly in
    poor families. While parent-school compacts highlight the joint
    effort required by students, schools, and families, they tend to
    operate outside of the regular school plan. Parent involvement must
    become an integral part of a school's efforts to improve student
    learning.

-   Reports from states show that in many cases states are still
    operating under a dual system---an accountability system under the
    Title I provisions and a state-sponsored accountability system. The
    intent of the law was that there would be one strong and rigorous
    system and that Title I would be included in that system. It causes
    confusion within a state when two systems operate that have
    different standards.

Despite these challenges, we have reason to remain positive. We know a
lot about what constitutes good reading and math instruction and have
developed more focused programs of professional development to equip
teachers with the skills they need to provide high-quality instruction
aligned to their content standards. We also have observed many schools
that---despite high odds for failure---are becoming successful and can
serve as models for other schools. Moreover, students' scores tend to be
higher in classrooms where teachers are aware of standards. The U.S.
Department of Education must help districts and schools improve
instruction by disseminating more accessible information on
research-based practice and best practice sites, and by providing
appropriate technical assistance to help districts and schools utilize
the information in order to improve their students' achievement.
Furthermore, we must do a better job of collecting, analyzing, and using
state performance data and NAEP data to closely monitor the nation\'s
progress in serving disadvantaged children.

##### Endnotes

[^1]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the
    National Assessment of Title I*, Washington, DC: 1999.

[^2]: The FY 2001 appropriation of \$9.5 billion for Title I includes:
    Part A, Grants to LEAs (\$8.6 billion), Part B, Even Start (\$250
    million), Part C, Migrant Education Program (\$380 million), Part D,
    Neglected and Delinquent State Agency Programs (\$46 million), Part
    E, Evaluation (\$9 million), and the Comprehensive School Reform
    Demonstration program (\$210 million). U.S. Department of Education,
    *FY 2001 Budget Summary*.

[^3]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New
    Directions: Final Report of the National Assessment of the Chapter 1
    Program*, Washington, DC: 1993.

[^4]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *National Assessment of the Chapter 1 Program: The Interim Report*,
    Washington, DC: 1992, p. 92.

[^5]: Overall elementary-secondary enrollments by race/ethnicity for the
    same year were: 17 percent African-American, 14 percent Hispanic, 4
    percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 1 percent American Indian or
    Alaskan Native, and 64 percent white non-Hispanic. U.S. Department
    of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2000),
    *Digest of Education Statistics: 1999*, Washington, DC, Table 45.

[^6]: U.S. Department of Education, *State ESEA Title I Participation
    Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report*, by Beth Sinclair and
    Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^7]: U.S. Department of Education, *State ESEA Title I Participation
    Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report*, by Beth Sinclair and
    Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^8]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Third National Even Start Evaluation: Interim Report on 1997-1998
    and 1998-1999 Data,* by Robert St. Pierre, Anne Ricciuti, Fumiyo
    Tao, Cindy Creps, Takeko Kumagawa, and William Ross (draft), p. 133.

[^9]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Title I Migrant Participation Information: 1997-98,* by
    Allison Henderson, Julie Daft, and Pauline Fong, Washington, DC:
    1998.

[^10]: U.S. Department of Education, *State ESEA Title I Participation
    Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report*, by Beth Sinclair and
    Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^11]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
    Districts*, by Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon
    Stolzberg, Washington, DC: 1999.

[^12]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^13]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^14]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
    Districts*, by Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon
    Stolzberg, Washington, DC: 1999.

[^15]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^16]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^17]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    The U*se of Federal Education Funds for Administrative Costs*,
    Washington, DC: 1998, p. iii.

[^18]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^19]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^20]: Under the 1994 reauthorization, Congress required the U.S.
    Department of Education to allocate Title I funds using updated
    poverty estimates prepared by the Census Bureau, beginning in FY
    1997. The purpose of this new requirement was to address
    longstanding concerns about the fairness and accuracy of allocations
    that had been based on the decennial census, which became
    increasingly out-of-date as the decade progressed. Congress also
    required that allocations be made directly to school districts
    beginning in FY 1999 using Census Bureau poverty estimates, a change
    from the previous practice of making federal allocations to the
    county level, with state suballocations to school districts within
    each county. If allowed to take effect, each of these changes would
    cause significant shifts in the distribution of Title I funds across
    districts. However, special provisions have been included in each
    appropriations bill from FY 1997 through FY 2001 that have largely
    prevented the new poverty data and allocations process from
    affecting school district allocations.

[^21]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
    Districts*, by Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon
    Stolzberg, Washington, DC: 1999.

[^22]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
    Districts*, by Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon
    Stolzberg, Washington, DC: 1999.

[^23]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^24]: The Title I statute requires that districts provide comparable
    levels of state and local resources to their Title I schools as to
    their non-Title I schools. The comparability requirement applies
    only within districts, not between districts; that is, it does not
    address any disparities in funding that may exist across districts
    within a state or across states. This report takes a broader view of
    the comparability issue, examining the comparability of non-Title I
    resources across high- and low-poverty schools nationally.

[^25]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^26]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools,* by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^27]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^28]: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education
    Assessment Center, draft State Assessment Results 1995‑96 to 1998-99
    (September 2000).

[^29]: This is a rough metric, based on the observed differences in
    average NAEP scores between the grade levels tested. Average scores
    for eighth-grade students were about 46 to 48 points higher than the
    averages for fourth-grade students, based on the most recent Main
    NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics. Average scores for
    12th-grade students were 28 to 33 points higher than the average for
    eighth-grade students. Similar patterns can be seen on the Trend
    NAEP by comparing 13-year-olds to 9-year-olds and 17-year-olds to
    13-year-olds.

[^30]: Sec. 14101(27) of ESEA defines the term \"state\" to include the
    District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

[^31]: Scott Joftus and Ilene Berman, *Great Expectations: Defining and
    Assessing Rigor in State Standards for Mathematics and English
    Language Arts*, Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education, 1998.

[^32]: American Federation of Teachers, *Making Standards Matter*,
    Washington, DC: 1999.

[^33]: Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Michael J. Petrilli, "The State of
    State Standards 2000," *Fordham Report*, Washington DC: Fordham
    Foundation, 2000.

[^34]: Douglas Archbald, \"The Reviews of State Content Standards in
    English-Language Arts and Mathematics: A Summary and Review of Their
    Methods and Findings and Implications for Future Standards
    Development,\" Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel, 1998.

[^35]: Diane Massell, Michael Kirst, and Margaret Hoppe, *Persistence
    and Change: Standards Based Reform in 9 States*, Consortium for
    Policy Research in Education, 1997.

[^36]: States are to define adequate yearly progress in a manner that:
    (a) results in continuous and substantial yearly improvement of each
    Title I school and district sufficient to achieve the goal of all
    children served under Title I, particularly economically
    disadvantaged and limited-English proficient children, meeting the
    state's proficient and advanced levels of performance; (b) is
    sufficiently rigorous to achieve that goal within an appropriate
    time frame; and (c) links progress primarily to performance on the
    state's final assessment while permitting progress to be established
    in part through the use of other measures such as dropout,
    retention, and attendance rates.

[^37]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *One System or Two?: Title I Accountability in the Context of High
    Stakes for Schools in Local Districts and States,* by Jennifer O'Day
    and Bethany Gross, Washington, DC: 1999.

[^38]: State policies for identifying schools in need of improvement
    differ in terms of the specific student outcomes measured, the time
    period for achieving proficiency targets, and the use of absolute
    versus moving targets. Some states measure student performance
    solely with a test, while others include attendance and other
    non-cognitive measures. Some states expect all students to reach
    proficiency over an extended time, while others set lower,
    shorter-term goals for their schools. Some states define adequate
    school progress as meeting an absolute performance goal, while
    others focus on movement towards a specified target.

[^39]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    unpublished data from the *National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*
    (Year 2 survey, conducted in 1999-2000).

[^40]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    unpublished data from the *National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*
    (Year 2 survey, conducted in 1999-2000).

[^41]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*, by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^42]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Local Implementation Study*.

[^43]: Margaret Goertz, Diane Massell, and Tammi Chun, *District
    Response to State Accountability Systems*, paper presented at the
    annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
    Management, 1998.

[^44]: Council of Chief State School Officers, *Using Data on Enacted
    Curriculum in Mathematics and Science: Sample Results from a Study
    of Classroom Practices and Subject Content*, a collaborative project
    with the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and 11 states,
    Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, 2000.

[^45]: Jason Kim, Rolf Blank, Pendred Noyce, and Lloyd Richardson, \"How
    Reform Works: An Evaluative Study of NSF\'s Urban Systemic
    Initiatives, \" Norwood, MA: Systemic Research, Inc., March 2000
    (www.systemic.com/usi/).

[^46]: Rolf Blank, \"Summary of Findings from SSI and Recommendations
    for NSF's Role with States: How NSF Can Encourage State Leadership
    in Improvement of Science and Mathematics Education,\" Washington,
    DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, 2000.

[^47]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance: Final
    Report: Volume I: Executive Summary,* by Westat and Policy Studies
    Associates (draft).

[^48]: David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan, \"Exploring Rapid Achievement
    Gains in North Carolina and Texas,\" paper commissioned by the
    National Education Goals Panel, 1998.

[^49]: The Education Trust, in collaboration with the Council of Chief
    State School Officers, *Dispelling the Myth: High-Poverty Schools
    Exceeding Expectations,* Washington, DC: 1999.

[^50]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Hope for Urban Education: A Study of Nine High-Performing,
    High-Poverty, Urban Elementary Schools,* by the Charles A. Dana
    Center, Washington, DC: 1999.

[^51]: Susan Bodilly, Lessons from New American Schools' Scale-Up Phase:
    Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica:
    RAND: 1998.

[^52]: Mark Berends, "Teacher-reported effects of New American Schools
    design: Exploring relationships to teacher background and school
    content," *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis*, v22 n1
    (2000), pp. 65-82.

[^53]: Laura Desimone, *Making Comprehensive School Reform Wo*rk, New
    York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, 2000.

[^54]: Rebecca Herman, Daniel Aladjem, Patricia McMahon, Erick Masem,
    Ivor Ulligan, Amy Smith O'Malley, Sherri Quinones, Alison Reeve, and
    Darren Woodruff, *An Educators' Guide to Schoolwide Reform,*
    Arlington, VA: Education Research Services, 1999.

[^55]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000*.*

[^56]: U.S. Department of Education, *Comprehensive School Reform
    Demonstration (CSRD) Schools: Early Findings on Implementation*, by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^57]: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, CSRD Database
    ([www.sedl.org/csrd/awards.html](http://www.sedl.org/csrd/)).

[^58]: See Willis Hawley, William Schager, Francine Hultgren, Andrew
    Abrams, Ernestine Lewis, and Steve Ferrara, *An Outlier Study of
    School Effectiveness: Implications for Public Policy and School
    Improvement*, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
    Educational Research Association, 1997; The Education Trust, in
    collaboration with the Council of Chief State School Officers,
    *Dispelling the Myth: High-Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations,*
    Washington, DC: 1999; and the Charles A. Dana Center, University of
    Texas at Austin, *Successful Texas Schoolwide Programs: Research
    Study Results*, Austin, TX: 1996.

[^59]: U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on Mathematics
    and Science Teaching for the 21^st^ Century, *Before It's Too Late:
    A Report to the National from the National Commission on Mathematics
    and Science Teachers for the 21^st^ Century*, Washington, DC: 2000,
    p. 22.

    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, *Principles and
    Standards for School Mathematics*, 2000.

[^60]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance: Final
    Report: Volume I: Executive Summary,* by Westat and Policy Studies
    Associates (draft).

[^61]: R. Greenwald, L. Hedges, and R. Laine, \"The Effect of School
    Resources on Student Achievement,\" *Review of Educational Research,
    66* (Fall), 1996, pp. 361-396.

[^62]: Ronald Ferguson and Helen Ladd, "How and Why Money Matters: An
    Analysis of Alabama Schools," in Helen Ladd (ed.), *Holding Schools
    Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education*, Washington, DC:
    Brookings Institution Press, 1996; Ronald Ferguson, "Paying for
    Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters,"
    *Harvard Journal on Legislation*, 28(2), 1991; National Commission
    on Teaching and America's Future, *What Matters Most: Teaching for
    America's Future*, New York: 1996.

[^63]: William L. Sanders and J.C. Rivers, *Cumulative and Residual
    Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement*,
    Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and
    Assessment Center, 1996.

[^64]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*, by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^65]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *School-Level Implementation of Standards-Based Reform: Findings
    from the Follow-Up Public School Survey on Education Reform*, by
    Camilla Heid and Ann Webber, Washington, DC: 1999.

[^66]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^67]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^68]: U.S. Department of Education, *Roles for Paraprofessionals in
    Effective Schools*, Washington, DC: 1997.

[^69]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^70]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Designing Effective Professional Development: Lessons from the
    Eisenhower Program*, by Michael Garet, Beatrice Birman, Andrew
    Porter, Laura Desimone, and Rebecca Herman, with Kwang Yuk Soon,
    Washington, DC: 1999, pp. ES-7-9.

[^71]: Geoffrey D. Borman and L.T. Rachuba, "Qualifications and
    Professional Growth Opportunities of Teachers in High- and
    Low-Poverty Elementary Schools," *Journal of Negro Education*, Vol.
    68, 1999, pp. 366-382.

[^72]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*, by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^73]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Does Professional Development Change Teaching Practice? Results
    from a Three-Year Study*, by Andrew Porter, Michael Garet, Laura
    Desimone, Kwang Yuk Soon, and Beatrice Birman, Washington, DC: 2000,
    p. v.

[^74]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*, by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^75]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance: Final
    Report: Volume I: Executive Summary,* by Westat and Policy Studies
    Associates (draft).

[^76]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^77]: National Research Council, *Preventing Reading Difficulties in
    Young Children*, Catherine Snow, M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin
    (eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998.

[^78]: W.S. Barnett, "Long-term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on
    Cognitive and School Outcomes," in *The Future of Children:
    Long-term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs*, 5(3), 1995, pp.
    25-50; *Early Learning, Later Success: The Abecedarian Study, Early
    Childhood Educational Intervention for Poor Children*, Executive
    Summary (www.fpg.unc.edu/\~abc/embargoed/executive_summary.htm);
    E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L., Culkin,
    C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, and J.
    Zelazo, *The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go To
    School: Executive Summary* (1999); Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter
    Graham Child Development Center; National Research Council, *Eager
    to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers*, Executive Summary, Barbara
    Bowman, M. Suzanne Donovan, and M. Susan Burns (eds.), Washington,
    DC: National Academy Press, 2000; L. Karoly, P. Greenwood, S.
    Everingham, J. Hoube, R. Kilburn, C. Rydell, M. Sanders, and J.
    Chiesa, *Investing in Our Children*. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
    Corporation, 1998.

[^79]: E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L.,
    Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, and
    J. Zelazo, *The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go
    To School: Executive Summary* (1999); Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter
    Graham Child Development Center; W.S. Barnett, "Long-term Effects of
    Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes," in *The
    Future of Children: Long-term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs*,
    5(3), 1995, pp. 25-50.

[^80]: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, *Early Learning,
    Later Success: The Abecedarian Study, Early Childhood Educational
    Intervention for Poor Children*, Executive Summary, Chapel Hill, NC:
    2000 (www.fpg.unc.edu/\~abc/embargoed/executive_summary.htm).

[^81]: E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L.,
    Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, and
    J. Zelazo, *The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go
    To School: Executive Summary*. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham
    Child Development Center, 1999.

[^82]: E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L.,
    Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, and
    J. Zelazo, *The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go
    To School: Executive Summary*. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham
    Child Development Center, 1999.

[^83]: E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L.,
    Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, and
    J. Zelazo, *The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go
    To School: Executive Summary*. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham
    Child Development Center, 1999.

[^84]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *America's Kindergartners: Findings from the Early
    Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, Fall
    1998* (NCES 2000-070 Revised), by Jerry West, Kristin Denton, and
    Elvie Germino-Ausken, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^85]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *The Kindergarten Year, : Findings from the Early
    Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99* (NCES
    2001-023), by Jerry West, Kristin Denton, and Lizabeth Reaney,
    Washington, DC: 2000.

[^86]: National Research Council, *Eager to Learn: Educating Our
    Preschoolers*, Executive Summary, Barbara Bowman, M. Suzanne
    Donovan, and M. Susan Burns (eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy
    Press, 2000.

[^87]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *National Household Survey, 1999*, (unpublished
    tabulations by Westat, 2000).

[^88]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000, pp.
    102-103.

[^89]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Access and Achievement: Reducing Barriers for Homeless Children and
    Youth: A Follow-up Study to the 1995 National Evaluation of the
    Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program*, by Clarenda
    Phillips, Jessica Wodatch, and Catherine Kelliher (draft).

[^90]: U.S. Government Accounting Office, *Early Education and Care:
    Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting Programs*, Washington,
    DC: 2000, p. 12.

[^91]: U.S. Government Accounting Office, *Early Education and Care:
    Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting Programs*, Washington,
    DC: 2000, pp. 14-15.

[^92]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Third National Even Start Evaluation: Interim Report on 1997-1998
    and 1998-1999 Data,* by Robert St. Pierre, Anne Ricciuti, Fumiyo
    Tao, Cindy Creps, Takeko Kumagawa, and William Ross (draft).

[^93]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Even Start: Evidence from the Past and a Look to the Future*, by
    Robert St. Pierre, Beth Gamse, Judith Alamprese, Tracy Rimdzius, and
    Fumiyo Tao, Washington, DC: 1998, p. 23-25.

[^94]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Third National Even Start Evaluation: Interim Report on 1997-1998
    and 1998-1999 Data,* by Robert St. Pierre, Anne Ricciuti, Fumiyo
    Tao, Cindy Creps, Takeko Kumagawa, and William Ross (draft).

[^95]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Third National Even Start Evaluation: Interim Report on 1997-1998
    and 1998-1999 Data,* by Robert St. Pierre, Anne Ricciuti, Fumiyo
    Tao, Cindy Creps, Takeko Kumagawa, and William Ross (draft).

[^96]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000*.*

[^97]: Harris Cooper, Kelly Charlton, Jeff Valentine, and Laura
    Muhlenbruck, \"Making the Most of Summer School: A Meta-Analytic and
    Narrative Review,\" *Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
    Development* 65(1), 2000; Olatokumbo Fashola, \"Review of
    Extended-Day and After-School Programs and their Effectiveness,\"
    Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk,
    Johns Hopkins University and Howard University, Report No. 24, 1998.

[^98]: See, for example: J.S. Coleman, E.Q. Campbell, C.J. Hobson, J.
    McPartland, A.M. Mood, F.D. Weinfeld, and R.L. York, *Equality of
    Educational Opportunity*, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing
    Office, 1966; Joyce L. Epstein, \"Effects on student achievement of
    teacher practices in parent involvement,\" in S. Silvern (ed.),
    *Advances in Reading/Language Research, Vol. 5, Literacy Through
    Family, Community, and School Interaction*, Greenwich, CT: JAI
    Press, 1991; David L. Stevenson and David P. Baker, \"The
    family-school relation and the child\'s school performance,\" *Child
    Development*, 58, 1987, pp. 1348-1357; and Timothy Z. Keith and
    Patricia B. Keith, \"Does parental involvement affect eighth-grade
    student achievement? Structural analysis of national data,\" *School
    Psychology Review*, 22(3), 1993, pp. 474-496. See also U.S.
    Department of Education, *Strong Families, Strong Schools: Building
    Community Partnerships for Learning*, Washington, DC: 1994.

[^99]: Jerome D\'Agostino, Geoffrey Borman, Larry Hedges, and Kenneth
    Wong, \"Longitudinal achievement and Chapter 1 coordination in
    high-poverty schools: A multilevel analysis of the Prospects data,\"
    *Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk*, 3(4), 1998, pp.
    401-420; Ann V. Shaver and Richard T. Walls, \"Effect of Title I
    parent involvement on student reading and mathematics achievement,\"
    *Journal of Research and Development in Education*, 31(2), 1998, pp.
    90-97.

[^100]: Jerome D'Agostino, Larry Hedges, Kenneth Wong, and Geoffrey
    Borman, *Title I Parent Involvement Programs: Effects on Parenting
    Practices and on Student Achievement* (in press).

[^101]: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., *The Metropolitan-Life Survey
    of the American Teacher. Building Family-School Partnerships: Views
    of Teachers and Students* (1998).

[^102]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Parent Involvement in Children's Education: Efforts by
    Public Elementary Schools* (NCES 98-032), Washington, DC: 1998.

[^103]: NCES, 1996

[^104]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*, by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^105]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*, by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^106]: Jerome D\'Agostino, Geoffrey Borman, Larry Hedges, and Kenneth
    Wong, \"Longitudinal achievement and Chapter 1 coordination in
    high-poverty schools: A multilevel analysis of the Prospects data,\"
    *Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk*, 3(4), 1998, pp.
    401-420.

[^107]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*, by
    Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^108]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I Schools: First-Year
    Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of School*, by Sheila
    Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan
    (draft).

[^109]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report*, by
    Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^110]: U.S. Department of Education, *State ESEA Title I Participation
    Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report* by Beth Sinclair and
    Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000*.*

[^111]: U.S. Department of Education, *State ESEA Title I Participation
    Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report* by Beth Sinclair and
    Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000*.*

[^112]: Beth Sinclair, \"Title I Funding for Service to Private School
    Students in Nine School Districts,\" unpublished paper prepared for
    the U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    July 1999.

[^113]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service*,
    Title I Services for Private School Students Under the
    Reauthorization of ESEA: A Snapshot of Federal Assistance in
    Transition: Final Report*, by Michael Rubenstein, Keith Gayler, and
    Bruce Haslam, Washington, DC: 1998.

[^114]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service*,
    Meeting the Needs of Migrant Students in Schoolwide Programs:
    Summary*, by William Strang and Adrienne von Glatz, Washington, DC:
    1999.

[^115]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Title I Migrant Participation Information: 1997-98,* by
    Allison Henderson, Julie Daft, and Pauline Fong, Washington, DC:
    1998, pp. 1-17, 1-20.

[^116]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Participation of Migrant Students in Title I Migrant
    Education Program (MEP) Summer Term Projects: 1998* (NCES 2000-023),
    by Basmat Parsad, Sheila Heaviside, Catrina Williams, and Elizabeth
    Farris, Washington, DC: 2000.

[^117]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Title I Migrant Participation Information: 1997-98,* by
    Allison Henderson, Julie Daft, and Pauline Fong, Washington, DC:
    1998, pp. 1-20.

[^118]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Meeting the Needs of Migrant Students in Schoolwide Programs*,
    Summary, by William Strang, and Adrienne von Glatz, Washington, DC:
    1999.

[^119]: Council of Chief State School Officers, *State Education
    Indicators with a Focus on Title I, 1999*, by Rolf Blank, Jennifer
    Manise, and Barbara C. Braithwaite, Washington, DC: U.S. Department
    of Education, 2000.

[^120]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students: Recent Evidence from the
    National Longitudinal Survey of Schools,* by Sheila Nataraj Kirby,
    Scott Naftel, Mark Berends, and Jennifer Sloan (draft).

[^121]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Implementation of the Migrant Education Program*, by M. Welsh
    (draft).

[^122]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *Measurement of Migrant Student Achievement: A Summary of Recent
    Research*, by Michael Tashjian and Jean Lennon (draft).

[^123]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part D, Program: Mail
    Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or
    Delinquent Youth in State Institutions: Final Report*, by Michael
    Tashjian (draft).

[^124]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part D, Program: Mail
    Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or
    Delinquent Youth in State Institutions: Final Report*, by Michael
    Tashjian (draft).

[^125]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part D, Program: Mail
    Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or
    Delinquent Youth in State Institutions: Final Report*, by Michael
    Tashjian (draft).

[^126]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part D, Program: Mail
    Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or
    Delinquent Youth in State Institutions: Final Report*, by Michael
    Tashjian (draft).

[^127]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part D, Program: Mail
    Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or
    Delinquent Youth in State Institutions: Final Report*, by Michael
    Tashjian (draft).

[^128]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
    *State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part D, Program: Mail
    Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or
    Delinquent Youth in State Institutions: Final Report*, by Michael
    Tashjian (draft).