+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  | ########                                          |
|                  |  [Policy and Program Studies Service]{.smallcaps} |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

**State ESEA Title I Participation\
Information for 2001--02**

**Final Summary Report**

######### 

######### 2005

+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
|                           |                           | ![           |
|                           |                           | ](media/imag |
|                           |                           | e1.pct){widt |
|                           |                           | h="1.5173611 |
|                           |                           | 111111112in" |
|                           |                           | height       |
|                           |                           | ="1.51736111 |
|                           |                           | 11111112in"} |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
| **[U.S. Department of     | [Office of Planning,      |              |
| Education]{.smallcaps}**  | Evaluation and Policy     |              |
|                           | Development]{.smallcaps}  |              |
| [Doc \#                   |                           |              |
| 2005-03]{.smallcaps}      | [Office of Elementary     |              |
|                           | and]{.smallcaps}          |              |
|                           |                           |              |
|                           | [Secondary                |              |
|                           | Education]{.smallcaps}    |              |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+

**This is some**

**State ESEA Title I Participation**

**Information for 2001--02**

**Final Summary Report**

**Beth Sinclair, Westat**

**Rockville, Md.**

**Prepared for:**

**U.S. Department of Education**

**Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development**

**and**

**Office of Elementary and Secondary Education**

**2005**

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education under
Contract No. ED-01-CO-0082/0002 with Westat. Jessica Hausman served as
the contracting officer's representative. The views expressed herein do
not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of
Education.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of Planning, Evaluation and Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education**

**Policy Development** Vacant

Tom Luce *Assistant Secretary*

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service Student Achievement and School**

Alan Ginsburg **Accountability Programs**

*Director* Jackie Jackson

*Director*

## July 2005

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, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development and
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, *State ESEA Title I
Participation Information for 2001**--02: Final Summary Report*,
Washington, D.C., 2005.

**To order copies of this report,**

**call in** your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If
877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833; or

**order online** at: www.edpubs.org; or

**e-mail** your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov; or

**write** to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of
Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398; or

**fax** your request to: (301) 470-1244.

This report is available on the Department\'s Web site at:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.

On request, this publication is also available in alternative formats,
such as Braille, large print or computer diskette. For more information,
please contact the Department\'s Alternate Format Center at (202)
260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

**Contents**

Page

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction to the Report 1

Title I School and Local Education Agency Information 2

Title I Schools by Poverty Level 3

Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) and Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools 3

Schools Identified for Improvement 4

School Districts Identified for Improvement 5

Schools Meeting State Criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 5

> Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by Level of School Poverty 6

Title I Student Participation 6

> Overall Participation Patterns 6
>
> Grade-Level Participation 7
>
> Racial and Ethnic Classification 7

Special Populations Served by Title I 8

Services Supported by Title I 8

> Instructional Services 8
>
> Other Support Services 9
>
> Family Literacy Services 9
>
> Extended-Time Instructional Programs 10

Title I TAS Staffing Patterns 10

**Figures**

Page

Figure 1 Title I Grants to LEAs Appropriation Information, 1965--66
through 2004--05

(In 2004 Constant Dollars) 2

Figure 2 Percentage of Title I Schools by Poverty Level, 2000--01 and
2001--02 3

Figure 3 Number of Targeted Assistance (TAS) and Schoolwide Program
(SWP) Schools,\
1993--94 through 2001--02 3

Figure 4 Number and Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement,
2000--01 and\
2001--02 4

Figure 5 Number and Percentage of School Districts Identified for
Improvement, 2000--01\
and 2001--02 5

Figure 6 Number and Percentage of Schools Meeting State Criteria for
Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP), 2000--01 and 2001--02 5

Figure 7 Percentage of Title I Schools Meeting State Criteria for
Adequate Yearly Progress\
(AYP), by Poverty Level, 2000--01 and 2001--02 6

Figure 8 Title I Grants to LEAs Program---Total Participation, 1979--80
through 2001--02 6

Figure 9 Title I Participation, by Grade Span, 2001--02 7

Figure 10 Title I Participants, by Racial and Ethnic Classification,
2001--02 8

Figure 11 Percentage of Total Title I Participants, by Racial and Ethnic
Classification,\
1979--80 through 2001--02 8

Figure 12 Services Provided to Title I TAS Students, 2000--01 and
2001--02 9

Figure 13 Number and Percentage of School Districts Providing Family
Literacy Services,\
2000--01 and 2001--02 9

Figure 14 Title I FTE Teachers and Teacher Aides in TAS Schools,
1979--80 through 2001--02 10

Figure 15 Title I FTE Staff in TAS Schools, by Classification, 2001--02
10

**Tables**

Page

Table 1 Participating Title I Local Education Agencies (LEAs) Identified
for Improvement,\
by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02 11

Table 2 Percentage of Title I Schools by Poverty Level, 2000--01 and
2001--02 12

Table 3 Number and Percentage of Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) and
Schoolwide

Program (SWP) Schools, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02
13

Table 4 Participating Title I Schools Identified for School Improvement,
by State or Jurisdiction,\
2000--01 and 2001--02 14

Table 5a Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) in School Improvement, by
State or Jurisdiction,\
2000--01 and 2001--02 15

Table 5b Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools in School Improvement, by
State or Jurisdiction,\
2000--01 and 2001--02 16

Table 6 Number and Percentage of Schools (TAS and SWP Combined) Meeting
State

> Criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), by State or Jurisdiction,
> 2000--01\
> and 2001--02 17

Table 7a Number and Percentage of Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS)
Meeting State

> Criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), by State or Jurisdiction,
> 2000--01\
> and 2001--02 18

Table 7b Number and Percentage of Schoolwide (SWP) Schools Meeting State
Criteria\
for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01
and 2001--02 19

Table 8 Title I Schools Meeting State Criteria for Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP), by\
Poverty Level, 2000--01 and 2001--02 20

Table 9 Number and Percentage of Title I Public, Private, and Local
Neglected or\
Delinquent (N or D) Participants, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and
2001--02 21

Table 10 Title I Participation, Public, Private, Local Neglected or
Delinquent (N or D),\
and Total, 1979--80 through 2001--02 23

Table 11 Title I Participants, by Grade Span, Targeted Assistance
Schools (TAS), Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools, Private, Local
Neglected or Delinquent (N or D), and Total, 2000--01 and 2001--02 24

Table 12 Number and Percentage of Title I Targeted Assistance Schools
(TAS) and Schoolwide\
Program (SWP) Participants, by Racial and Ethnic Classification and
State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02 25

**Tables** (continued)

Page

Table 13 Number and Percentage of Title I Participants, by Racial and
Ethnic Classification,

1979--80 through 2001--02 27

Table 14 Number and Percentage of Total Public Targeted Assistance
Schools (TAS) and Schoolwide Program (SWP) Title I Participants with
Disabilities, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02 28

Table 15 Number and Percentage of Total Title I Participants with
Limited English\
Proficiency (LEP), by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02 29

Table 16 Number and Percentage of Total Public Targeted Assistance
Schools (TAS) and Schoolwide Program (SWP) Title I Participants
Classified as Migrant, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02
30

Table 17 Total Public Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) Title I
Participants, by Service Area,\
2000--01 and 2001--02 31

Table 18 Number and Percentage of LEAs Providing Family Literacy
Services, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02 32

Table 19 Number of Extended-Time Instructional Programs in Operation, by
State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02 33

Table 20 Title I-Funded Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) TAS Staff, by State
or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02 34

Table 21 Title I Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Teachers and Teacher Aides,
1979--80 through\
2001--02 36

**Acknowledgments**

We wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to the completion
of this report. Particularly helpful were several individuals at the
U.S. Department of Education. Barbara Coates, Kirsten Duncan, Joseph
McCrary, and Jessica Hausman of the Policy and Program Studies Service
served as project officers for this study and provided invaluable
substantive guidance and support for both the 2001--02 data collection
and the production of this report. Charles Laster and Mary Moran of the
Office of Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Group
worked with the Title I coordinators in the states to obtain all of the
necessary *Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR)* data and
provided us with useful comments and suggestions as we developed this
report.

We are also grateful to the Title I coordinators in each state for their
cooperation and assistance in verifying the information submitted on the
*CSPR* for 2001--02.

Westat staff members Julie Daft and Saunders Freeland deserve special
recognition; Daft for contacting the state Title I coordinators and
Freeland for her expert typing of this report.

**Introduction to the Report**

The *State ESEA*[^1] *Title I Participation Summary Report for 2001--02*
summarizes data for the Title I, Part A, Grants to Local Education
Agencies (LEAs) program. The Title I Grants to LEAs program provides
federal financial assistance to eligible school districts and schools to
assist them in providing opportunities for children most at risk to help
them acquire knowledge and skills to meet challenging state content and
performance standards. The Part A program can serve children as young as
preschool age and as old as the high school level and provides
supplemental services to many special populations including children
with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency (LEP), and
migrant children. This program also provides services outside of the
traditional public school setting to eligible children in nonpublic
schools and local institutions for neglected or delinquent students, as
well as other support services such as family literacy services.

This report provides Title I participation data for 2001--02, prior to
the implementation of the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)*, and
reflects implementation under the prior law, the *Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 (IASA).* The report also presents comparisons to
2000--01 and previous years. Topics include: districts, schools and
students served, the range of instructional and support services
provided, Title I staffing patterns, and schools' progress toward
meeting performance standards, as reported by states on *Consolidated
State Performance Reports (CSPR).* The tables shown in this report
reflect data submitted by the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Puerto Rico. State-by-state tables
follow the text that amplify the participation data and offer readers a
more detailed look at several aspects of the Title I program.

**The quality and timeliness of the state-submitted data continue to be
an issue.**  For 2001--02, state reports were due to the U.S. Department
of Education (ED) in fall 2003, but not all states met this deadline
with some states submitting their reports as late as spring 2004. In
addition, the state reports, once submitted, were often incomplete or
included apparent errors and inconsistencies that required repeated
follow-up calls to states.  The problem of incomplete data is greatest
when there are changes to the data collection instrument from one year
to the next. There are, however, some instances where states are unable
to provide some of the required information even though there have been
no changes to the data collection instrument from the previous year. ED
continues to work with states to improve both the quality and timeliness
of their submissions. Further, ED's Performance-Based Data Management
Initiative (PBDMI) also is intended to improve data quality and
reporting in future years.

The reporting requirements for Title I have changed under the NCLB
legislation that reauthorized *ESEA*. However, as noted above, this
report is based on the 2001--02 school year and previous (*IASA*)
reporting requirements.

As part of the verification process, states could and did revise
information submitted for 2001--02 as well as information submitted for
earlier years. As a result of these revisions, some of the information
shown in this report for years prior to 2001--02 differs from previously
published figures.

The 2001--02 achievement results will be reported separately in *State
Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I 2001--02.* Refer to the
Department's Web site at
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.

**Title I School and Local Education Agency Information**

![](media/image2.pct)The Title I, Part A, Grants to LEAs program
represents the single largest investment in elementary and secondary
education by the federal government. **This program was funded at \$8.6
billion in FY 2001, which is primarily intended for use during the
2001--02 school year; three years later, in FY 2004, total
appropriations had risen to \$12.3 billion.**  This program represents
almost half (48 percent) of federal funds appropriated to support
elementary and secondary education. When shown in constant dollars,
funding for the Title I Grants to LEAs program has risen steadily since
the mid-1980s. The funding increases were particularly dramatic over the
most recent four years (2001--02 through 2004--05). (See fig. 1.)

For 2001--02, Title I funds were allocated through two funding
formulas---Basic Grants and Concentration Grants. At \$7.2 billion for
2001--02, Basic Grants were the largest of the two funding streams.
Basic Grants provide funds for school districts with at least 10 federal
formula-eligible children, ages 5-17, who make up more than 2 percent of
the overall enrollment count in a district. Concentration Grants
amounted to \$1.4 billion and go to districts in which the number of
formula-eligible children exceeds 6,500 or 15 percent of the district
enrollment.

More than 90 percent of districts nationwide received Title I funding.
See Table 1 on page 11 for state-by-state counts of participating school
districts (LEAs).

### Title I Schools by Poverty Level

![](media/image3.wmf)**In 2001--02, states reported that more than half
(56 percent) of the Title I schools had rates of school poverty that
were 50 percent or higher.** The smallest group of Title I schools was
those with moderate levels of poverty (from 35 percent to 49 percent).
This group represented 18 percent of all Title I schools. These
percentages did not change significantly from 2000--01 to

2001--02. (See fig. 2 and table 2 on p. 12)

Poverty levels are determined within each school by calculating the
percentage of students in the school eligible for the free or
reduced-price lunch program.

Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) and

Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools

![](media/image4.wmf)

**The Title I Grants to LEAs program provided services to students in
more than 51,000 schools in 2001--02. ** Schools are eligible for Title
I assistance if their poverty rate is at least equal to the districtwide
average or is at least 35 percent; however, districts may choose to
target their Title I funds to schools with higher poverty levels.  While
the statute provides several options for measuring school poverty
levels, most districts use the percentage of students eligible for free
or reduced-price lunches as their measure.

Schools may use their Title I grants to serve students in either a
targeted assistance or schoolwide program setting.  Targeted assistance
schools use Title I funds to serve individual students with the lowest
achievement levels as determined by performance on state assessments,
whereas schoolwide program schools may use Title I funds more flexibly,
in combination with other federal, state, and local funds, to improve
the educational program of the school as a whole.  In 2001--02, schools
were eligible to operate as a schoolwide program if their poverty rate
was at least 50 percent; the eligibility threshold for a school to
operate as a schoolwide program has been lowered repeatedly over time,
from 75 percent prior to 1994--1995 to 40 percent under *NCLB*
(effective in the 2002--03 school year). 

**In 2001--02, the 26,513 schoolwide programs represented 52 percent of
all Title I schools; this number has been rising steadily since
1996**--**97** (see fig. 3).  See Table 3 on page 13 for state-by-state
counts of targeted assistance schools and schoolwide programs.

As a result of the increase in schoolwide programs, the overall number
of students counted as Title I participants also has increased
significantly in recent years.  In schoolwide programs, all students in
the school are considered Title I participants, while in targeted
assistance programs, only students receiving specific Title I-funded
services are counted.

### Schools Identified for Improvement

![](media/image5.wmf)The Title I statute requires districts to annually
review the progress of each Title I school to determine whether the
school is making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward enabling its
students to meet state content standards. Schools that do not make
adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years are to be identified
for improvement.

This report is based on the 2001--02 school year under *IASA* reporting
requirements. Subsequent reports will be covered by *NCLB*. This has a
direct impact on schools identified for improvement in that under
*IASA*, states set targets for school performance. The AYP targets could
be absolute or relative, summarized across subjects and aggregated for
all students at a school. Under *NCLB*, in contrast, there are more
specific criteria for AYP, including an end point of all students
achieving proficiency by 2013--14 and accountability for the achievement
of key subgroups of students. Both *IASA* and *NCLB*, however, place
final responsibility for the details of AYP definitions in the hands of
state and local policymakers. Additionally, each year, a small number of
states did not report information for this item. Therefore the national
totals are not made up of the same states from year to year.[^2]

Readers also should note that states can, and do, make changes to the
state assessments used to determine AYP from one year to the next. These
changes can range from changing the proficiency levels to putting an
entirely new testing program in place and can have a significant impact
on both the state level student proficiency rates and the schools
identified for improvement. From 2000--01 to 2001--02, seven states made
this type of change. From 2001--02 to 2002--03, with the implementation
of *NCLB*, this figure increased to 20 states.

**States reported that, overall, 6,735 schools (or 13 percent)
participating in the Title I program in 2001--02 were identified for
improvement.** This figure includes all schools identified for
improvement, regardless of how many years they have been identified.
(See fig. 4 and tables 4, 5a, and 5b on pp. 14--16.)

The percentage of *schoolwide* schools identified for improvement
decreased from 22 to 19 percent and the percentage of targeted
assistance schools identified for improvement decreased from 12 to 8
percent. Tables 4, 5a, and 5b (on pp. 14--16) provide a state-by-state
illustration of the two years of data, as well as footnotes to assist in
the interpretation of the data.

### School Districts Identified for Improvement

In the same manner that districts review the progress of schools, states
are to annually review the progress of districts (or LEAs) in enabling
students to meet state content standards. Districts that do not meet AYP
targets for two consecutive years are to be identified for improvement.

![](media/image6.wmf)**States reported identifying a total of 1,201
districts for improvement in 2001--02.** This figure represents
9 percent of all Title I school districts and shows a substantial
decline from the 2,298 identified districts that states reported for the
previous year. Moreover, only 24 states and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
reported identifying any districts for improvement in 2001--02, a
decline from the 33 states and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that
reported identifying at least one district in 2000--01. A large number
of states (22) reported that no districts had been identified for
improvement in 2001--02, and six states (Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho,
Indiana, Minnesota, and Washington) did not report any information on
the number of identified districts for that year. (See fig. 5 and table
1 on p. 11.)

![](media/image7.wmf)The figures on the number of identified districts
in each state should be interpreted with caution. The criteria used to
identify school districts for improvement are developed within each
state; therefore, they are not consistent from state to state.
Additionally, as discussed under schools identified for improvement,
states submitted data for the 2001--02 reporting year using *IASA*
guidelines for improvement. Future reporting years will use the
reporting requirements for *NCLB*.

### Schools Meeting State Criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

**In 2001--02, states reported that 78 percent of Title I schools met
state criteria for AYP.** This figure remained virtually unchanged from
the percent of schools meeting AYP in 2000--01, as reported by the
states. (See fig. 6 and table 6 on p. 17.)

Targeted assistance schools (TAS) met AYP criteria at a higher rate than
did schoolwide program (SWP) schools. In 2001--02, 83 percent of TAS
schools and 73 percent of SWP schools met their state criteria for AYP.
In general, TAS schools have lower poverty rates and fewer disadvantaged
students than do SWP schools. (See tables 7a and 7b on pp. 18 and 19.)

**Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by Level of School Poverty**

![](media/image8.wmf)

While the overall percentage of schools meeting state AYP criteria was
78 percent in 2001--02, the percentage of schools meeting the state
criteria differed by level of school poverty. **The lowest poverty
schools met state AYP criteria at the highest rate (87 percent in
2001--02), while the highest poverty schools were least likely to meet
state AYP criteria (64 percent in 2001--02)**. Although the overall
rates increased slightly from 2000--01 to 2001--02, the same pattern was
in place for both years. (See fig. 7 and table 8 on p. 20.)

**Title I Student Participation**

![](media/image9.wmf)**Overall Participation Patterns**

**The number of students counted as Title I participants has risen
steadily, particularly beginning in 1996**--**97, when much larger
numbers of Title I schools began implementing the schoolwide program
option, whereby all students in the school are counted as Title I
participants.** Prior to 1996--97, most schools had implemented targeted
assistance programs, whereby only students receiving specific Title
I-funded services were counted as participants. In 2001--02, 82 percent
of Title I participants were in schoolwide programs and only 16 percent
were in targeted assistance schools; the remaining participants were in
private schools (1 percent) or local programs for neglected and
delinquent children (1 percent). (See fig. 8 above and table 9 on p.
21.)

The total number of Title I participants was 15.8 million in 2001--02, a
5 percent increase over the 2000--01 participation level of 15.0 million
students.

### Grade-Level Participation

![](media/image10.wmf)Despite significant increases in the number of
participants in the Title I Grants to LEAs program, the participation
rate by grade level has remained virtually unchanged. **As in past
years, participation in TAS, SWP and private schools was concentrated in
the elementary grades for 2001--02 with about three-quarters of
participants in prekindergarten through grade 6.**

Participation in Part A Neglected or Delinquent programs[^3] was
concentrated in the higher grades with 68 percent of students in grade
seven or higher. (See fig. 9 and table 11 on p. 24.)

### Racial and Ethnic Classification

**Minority students accounted for two-thirds of Title I participants in
2001--02.** Thirty-four percent of Title I participants were Hispanic,
27 percent were black non-Hispanic, and 34 percent of the participants
were classified as white, non-Hispanic. Asian and Pacific Islander
students accounted for 3 percent of participants, American Indian or
Alaska Native students accounted for 2 percent, and other students
accounted for 1 percent. (See fig. 10 and table 12 on p. 25.)

**Over the past two decades (since 1979**--**80), Hispanic students have
increased from 16 to 34** **percent of total Title I participants**
while the percentage of white participants decreased from 53 to 34
percent and the percentage of black participants decreased from 31 to 27
percent.  The 2001--02 school year was the first in which the reported
number of Hispanic students exceeded the reported number of white
participants. The percentage of participants from other racial and
ethnic groups, including American Indian and Alaska Native students, and
Asian and Pacific Islanders, remained largely unchanged during this
period.  (See fig. 11 and table 13 on p. 27.)

![](media/image11.wmf)

### Special Populations Served by Title I

A significant proportion of Title I participants are students from
special populations. These children include **students with
disabilities** who in 2001--02 represented 12 percent of the Title I
participants, up slightly over the percentage reported for 2000--01. For
2001--02, 16 percent of Title I participants were classified as
**students with limited English proficiency** and 2 percent of the
participants were children of **migratory** workers.

Refer to Tables 14-16 (on pp. 28--30) for detailed state-by-state
special population participation information.

**Services Supported by Title I**

Instructional and supporting service information is reported *only* for
participants in TAS schools, because schoolwide programs serve all
students and upgrade the entire instructional program in those
high-poverty schools.

**Instructional Services**

States report on TAS students receiving five instructional
services---"reading/language arts," mathematics, science, social
studies, and other instructional services. Among these, the most common
services provided were "reading/language arts" and mathematics. For the
2001--02 reporting year, 78 percent of TAS participants received
instruction in reading and 47 percent received instruction in
mathematics. Both of these figures represent a decrease over the levels
reported for 2000--01. The percentages reported here can, however, be
somewhat misleading as some states reported duplicated counts. For
example, if a student received instruction in both reading *and*
language arts, the student would be counted twice for reporting
purposes. (See fig. 12 and table 17 on p. 31.)

#### Other Support Services

![](media/image13.wmf)As in past years, smaller percentages of TAS
students received other Title I-funded support services. In 2001--02, 19
percent of students received Title I-supported "guidance/\
counseling/social work," 11 percent received "health/dental" services,
and 6 percent received support services classified as "other" such as
transportation, home visits, nutrition and clothing, and speech therapy.
(See fig. 12 and table 17 on p. 31.)

**Family Literacy Services**

![](media/image14.wmf)The Title I legislation allows school districts to
use Title I funds to conduct literacy programs for parents of Title I
students in a collaborative attempt with adult education program
providers to reach more adults with low literacy rates.

**In 2001--02, state-reported data indicate that 19 percent of Title I
districts provided Title I-supported family literacy services.** This
percentage was virtually unchanged from the 18 percent reported for
2000--01.  Four states (California, Delaware, Rhode Island, and
Washington) did not report the information in 2000--01. This figure
stayed at four states (California, Delaware, Montana, and North Dakota)
for 2001--02. (See fig. 13 and table 18 on p. 32.)

### Extended-Time Instructional Programs

**In 2001--02, state-reported data indicate that there were 17,216 Title
I-supported extended-time instructional programs in operation** (two
states, Arkansas and Delaware, as well as the District of Columbia did
not report these data).  However, this figure may not be reliable
because there are large fluctuations from one year to the next in the
figures reported by many states.  Although the data appear to indicate a
4 percent increase in the number of extended-time programs from 2000--01
to 2001--02, it is more likely that the reported increase is due to a
change in state reporting practices.  For instance, Washington did not
report this information for 2000--01 but reported 368 programs for
2001--02. Similarly, Puerto Rico reported zero extended-time
instructional programs for 2000--01 and 514 for 2001--02. (See table 19
on p. 33.)

**Title I TAS Staffing Patterns**

![](media/image15.wmf)Title I staffing data are available for less than
half of all Title I schools, because states were asked to report these
data only for schools that operate targeted assistance programs
(48 percent of Title I schools). Schoolwide programs are not required to
track Title I dollars to particular activities or staff, so Title I
staffing data are unavailable for these schools. However, the staffing
data may include some district-level staff who work with multiple
schools.

![](media/image16.wmf)**Teachers accounted for over half (53 percent) of
reported Title I TAS full-time equivalent (FTE) staff in 2001--02, up
substantially from 44** **percent in the previous year.** Teacher aides
declined from 39 percent of staff in 2000--01 to 34 percent in 2001--02.

**Together, teachers and teacher aides accounted for 87 percent of the
reported total of 73,578 Title I staff.** Other Title I staff include
administrators (3 percent), support staff (8 percent), and other staff
(2 percent). (See figs. 14 and 15 and tables 20 and 21 on pp. 34 and
36.)

**Table 1**

**Participating Title I Local Education Agencies (LEAs) Identified for
Improvement, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image17.wmf){width="5.822916666666667in"
height="7.690277777777778in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** The information shown in this table should be viewed with
caution, as states may have made changes to the assessments in place or
assessment levels reported from one year to the next.

The totals here do not reflect data from all states. In 2000--01, seven
states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania) did not submit information regarding the number of
LEAs identified for improvement. This figure was reduced to six states
for 2001--02 (Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota, and
Washington).

**Table 2**

**Percentage of Title I Schools by Poverty Level, by State or
Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image18.wmf){width="7.080555555555556in"
height="7.645138888888889in"}

**Note:** For 2000--01, one state, Arkansas did not provide information
for this item.

TAS = Targeted assistance schools

SWP = Schoolwide program schools

**Table 3**

**Number and Percentage of Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) and
Schoolwide Program (SWP)**

**Schools, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image19.wmf){width="7.08125in" height="7.475694444444445in"}

**Note:** The Bureau of Indian Affairs does not have any TAS schools.

**Table 4**

**Participating Title I Schools Identified for School Improvement, by
State or Jurisdiction,**

**2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image20.wmf){width="5.897222222222222in"
height="7.777083333333334in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** The information shown in this table should be viewed with
caution, as states may have made changes to the assessments in place or
assessment levels reported from one year to the next.

> New Jersey was unable to provide this information for 2000--01.
> Connecticut did not provide information on the number of TAS schools
> identified for improvement for 2001--02.

**Table 5a**

**Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) in School Improvement, by State or
Jurisdiction,**

**2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image21.wmf){width="6.511111111111111in"
height="7.981944444444444in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** The information shown in this table should be viewed with
caution, as states may have made changes to the assessments in place or
assessment levels reported from one year to the next.

> New Jersey was unable to provide this information for 2000--01.
> Connecticut did not provide it for 2001--02.

**Table 5b**

**Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools in School Improvement, by State or
Jurisdiction,**

**2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image22.wmf){width="6.560416666666667in"
height="8.07986111111111in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** The information shown in this table should be viewed with
caution, as states may have made changes to the assessments in place or
assessment levels reported from one year to the next. New Jersey was
unable to provide this information for 2000--01.

**Table 6**

**Number and Percentage of Schools (TAS and SWP Combined) Meeting State
Criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image23.wmf){width="5.602777777777778in" height="7.975in"}

**Notes:** Three states (Connecticut, Hawaii, and New Jersey) did not
provide 2000--01 information for this item.

> This figure increased to three states (Connecticut, Virginia, and
> Washington) and Puerto Rico for 2001--02.

TAS = Targeted assistance schools

SWP = Schoolwide program schools

**Table 7a**

**Number and Percentage of Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) Meeting
State Criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 2000--01 and
2001--02**

![](media/image24.wmf){width="5.677083333333333in"
height="8.089583333333334in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** Three states (Connecticut, Hawaii, and New Jersey) did not
provide 2000--01 information for this item.

> This figure increased to three states (Connecticut, Virginia, and
> Washington) and Puerto Rico for 2001--02.

**Table 7b**

**Number and Percentage of Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools Meeting
State Criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 2000--01 and
2001--02**

![](media/image25.wmf){width="5.677083333333333in"
height="8.089583333333334in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** Three states (Connecticut, Hawaii, and New Jersey) did not
provide 2000--01 information for this item.

> This figure increased to three states (Connecticut, Virginia, and
> Washington) and Puerto Rico for 2001--02.

**Table 8**

**Title I Schools Meeting State Criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP), by Poverty Level,**

**2000--01 and 2001--02**

  --------------------- ---------- ---------- -------------- --------------
                                              2000--01       2001--02

                                                             

  Total Schools (TAS +                        44,020         46,683
  SWP)                                                       

  Total Schools Meeting                       33,407         36,548
  State AYP Criteria                                         

  Percentage Meeting                          76%            78%
  State Criteria                                             

                                                             

  Title I Schools by                                         
  School Poverty Level                                       

                        0--34%                10,226         12,290

                        35--49%               8,414          8,460

                        50--74%               13,060         13,671

                        75--100%              12,320         12,262

                                                             

  Title I Schools                                            
  Meeting State                                              
  Criteria                                                   

  for AYP by School                                          
  Poverty Level                                              

                        0--34%                8,701          10,664

                        35--49%               6,924          7,227

                        50--74%               10,161         10,868

                        75--100%              7,621          7,789

                                                             

  Percentage Meeting                                         
  State Criteria                                             

  for AYP by School                                          
  Poverty Level                                              

                        0--34%                85%            87%

                        35--49%               82%            85%

                        50--74%               78%            79%

                        75--100%              62%            64%
  --------------------- ---------- ---------- -------------- --------------

**Note:** The total figures shown in this table only include those
states that submitted information on both the number of Title I schools
by poverty level and the number of schools meeting state AYP criteria by
poverty level. In 2000--01, five states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii,
New Jersey, and New York) failed to submit this information. In
2001--02, this figure was four states (Connecticut, Idaho, Virginia, and
Washington) and Puerto Rico.

TAS = Targeted assistance schools

SWP = Schoolwide program schools

**Table 9**

**Number and Percentage of Title I Public, Private, and Local Neglected
or Delinquent (N or D) Participants, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01
and 2001--02**

![](media/image26.wmf){width="6.916666666666667in"
height="8.227083333333333in"}

Table 9 continues on the next page.

**Table 9 (continued)**

**Number and Percentage of Title I Public, Private, and Local Neglected
or Delinquent (N or D) Participants, by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01
and 2001--02**

![](media/image27.wmf){width="7.1125in" height="6.854861111111111in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** Percents (across) may not add to 100 due to rounding.

> Two states (Delaware and Minnesota) did not provide information on the
> number of local N or D participants in 2000--01 and 2001--02.

TAS = Targeted assistance schools

SWP = Schoolwide program schools

**Table 10**

**Title I Participation, Public, Private, Local Neglected or Delinquent
(N or D), and Total ---**

**1979--80 through 2001--02**

![](media/image28.wmf){width="7.079166666666667in"
height="4.020833333333333in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

\+ No state performance report information was collected for the
1995--96 school year.

**Notes:** There were two major changes to the reporting form since
1979--80. In 1998--99, states were required to provide separate counts
of the number of Local N or D participants. With the advent of public
targeted assistance schools (TAS) and schoolwide program (SWP) schools,
ED required states to provide separate TAS and SWP counts of public
participants starting in 1996--97.

> Percents (across) may not add to 100 due to rounding. For 1997--98,
> two states were unable to provide participation information broken out
> by TAS and SWP. For 1998--99 and 1999--2000, Missouri was the only
> state unable to provide this information. For these states, all of
> their participants are reported in the overall totals but not in the
> public TAS and SWP breakouts. Not all states provided information on
> Local N or D for all years.

TAS = Targeted assistance schools

SWP = Schoolwide program schools

**Table 11**

**Title I Participants by Grade Span, Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS),
Schoolwide Program (SWP) Schools, Private, Local Neglected or Delinquent
(N or D), and Total, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image29.wmf){width="9.247916666666667in"
height="3.407638888888889in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Note:** Percents (across) may not add to 100 due to rounding.

**Table 12**

**Number and Percentage of Title I Targeted Assistance School (TAS) and
Schoolwide Program (SWP) School Participants by Racial and Ethnic
Classification and State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image30.wmf){width="7.100694444444445in"
height="6.770833333333333in"}

Table 12 continues on the next page.

**Table 12 (continued)**

**Number and Percentage of Title I Targeted Assistance School (TAS) and
Schoolwide Program (SWP) School Participants by Racial and Ethnic
Classification and State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image31.wmf){width="7.116666666666666in"
height="6.396527777777778in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Note:** Percents (across) may not add to 100 due to rounding.

> The number of participants shown in this table does not equal the
> figure reported in Table 8 because that table summarizes
> state-reported by-grade information. (The totals shown in Table 8 are
> based on data reported in the by-grade section of the *CSPR*.) In some
> states, the total number of participants reported by racial and ethnic
> classification differs from the total number reported by grade.

**Table 13**

**Number and Percentage of Title I Participant by Racial and Ethnic
Classification,**

**1979--80 through 2001--02**

![](media/image32.wmf){width="7.221527777777778in"
height="4.436111111111111in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

\+ No state performance report information was collected for the
1995--96 school year.

**Note:** Percents (across) may not add to 100 due to rounding.

> The number of participants shown in this table does not equal the
> figure reported in Table 8 because that table summarizes
> state-reported by-grade information. (The totals shown in Table 8 are
> based on data reported in the by-grade section of the *CSPR*.) In some
> states, the total number of participants reported by racial and ethnic
> classification *CSPR*.) In some states, the total number of
> participants reported by racial and ethnic classification differs from
> the total number reported by grade.

**Table 14**

**Number and Percentage of Total Public Targeted Assistance School (TAS)
and Schoolwide**

**Program (SWP) Title I Participants with Disabilities, by State or
Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image33.wmf){width="6.258333333333334in"
height="7.821527777777778in"}

**Note:** The total number of students shown in this table is taken from
the by-grade figures reported by the states.

> In this table, the figures for TAS and SWP are combined, as a small
> number of states were unable to provide this information separately.
>
> In 2000--01, two states (Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) were unable to
> provide information for this data item.
>
> Therefore, for 2000--01, this table does not include participants from
> these states in the total calculations.

**Table 15**

**Number and Percentage of Total Title I Participants with Limited
English Proficiency (LEP), by State or Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and
2001--02**

![](media/image34.wmf){width="6.272222222222222in" height="7.6875in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

\+ The Total Title I figure used in this table includes The figures
reported for TAS, SWP, Private, and Local N or D combined.

**Notes:** Rhode Island was unable to provide information for this item
for 2001--02. In some states, the counts of limited English proficient
students may include Private and Local Neglected or Delinquent (N or D)
students.

TAS = Targeted assistance schools

SWP = Schoolwide program schools

**Table 16**

**Number and Percentage of Total Public Targeted Assistance School (TAS)
and Schoolwide**

**Program (SWP) Title I Participants Classified as Migrant, by State or
Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image35.wmf){width="6.258333333333334in" height="7.6875in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** The total number of children shown in this table is taken
from the by-grade figures reported by the states. In this table, the
figures for TAS and SWP are combined, as a number of states were unable
to provide this information separately. The totals shown here do not
reflect data from all states. In 2000--01, two states (Rhode Island and
West Virginia) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not provide
information for this item. This figure increased to four states (New
Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Virginia), Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and Puerto Rico for 2001--02.

**Table 17**

**Total Public Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) Title I Participants,
by Service Area,**

**2000--01 and 2001--02**

  ---------------------------- -------------- --- -------------- -------------- --- --------------
                               **2000--01**                      **2001--02**       

                               Number             Percent of all Number             Percent of all
                                                  Public TAS\                       Public TAS\
                                                  Title I                           Title I
                                                  Participants                      Participants
                                                  Served                            Served

  **Instructional Services**                                                        

  Reading/Language Arts        2,009,886          83             1,924,116          78

  Mathematics                  1,185,969          49             1,156,091          47

  Science                      177,267            7              319,616            13

  Social Studies               152,738            6              315,235            13

  Other Instructional          67,235             3              43,550             2
  Services\*                                                                        

  **Total Instructional        3,593,095                         3,758,608          
  Services (Duplicated                                                              
  Count)**                                                                          

                                                                                    

  **Supporting Services**                                                           

  Guidance/Counseling/Social   313,015            13             457,254            19
  Work                                                                              

  Health/Dental                224,572            9              259,856            11

  Other Supporting             175,367            7              150,995            6
  Services\*\*                                                                      

  **Total Supporting Services  712,954                           868,105            
  (Duplicated Count)**                                                              

                                                                                    

  **Unduplicated Public TAS    2,413,118                         2,465,654          
  Participant Count**                                                               
  ---------------------------- -------------- --- -------------- -------------- --- --------------

**Note**: The total instructional and supporting service figures show in
this table represent duplicated counts in that a single student may
receive more than one of the services. The public TAS participant count
is unduplicated in that it represents the actual number of public TAS
students. For this count, each student is counted only once.

\* Other instructional services include those for preschool and early
childhood; tutoring; basic skills development; readiness development;
English as a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual; arts, recreational,
and living; practical living; technology; and Spanish, among others.

\*\* Other supporting services include the provision of transportation,
nutrition, speech therapy, clothing, field trips, home visit, job
preparation, physical education, and a school nurse, among others.

**Table 18**

**Number and Percentage of LEAs Providing Family Literacy Services, by
State or Jurisdiction,**

**2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image36.wmf){width="6.4118055555555555in"
height="8.040972222222223in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

**Notes:** Four states (California, Delaware, Rhode Island, and
Washington) did not provide this information for 2000--01. This figure
stayed at four states (California, Delaware, Montana, and North Dakota)
for 2001--02.

**Table 19**

**Number of Extended-Time Instructional Programs in Operation, by State
or Jurisdiction,**

**2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image37.wmf){width="4.489583333333333in"
height="8.247916666666667in"}

Notes: The table shown here does not reflect data from all states. In
2000--01, two states (California and Washington) did not provide
information for this item. This figure was two states (Arkansas and
Delaware) and the District of Columbia for 2001--02.

**Table 20**

**Title I-Funded Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) TAS Staff, by State or
Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image38.wmf){width="5.741666666666666in"
height="8.532638888888888in"}

Table 20 continues on the next page.

**Table 20 (continued)**

**Title I-Funded Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) TAS Staff, by State or
Jurisdiction, 2000--01 and 2001--02**

![](media/image39.wmf){width="7.108333333333333in"
height="6.541666666666667in"}

\* Less than 0.5 percent.

FTE = Full-time equivalent

\+ The figures in this total column include the FTE staff reported by
the states in all five staffing categories: administrators, teachers,
teacher aides, support staff, and other.

**Notes:** The category "Other Staff" includes clerical, parent
coordinator and liaison, bus driver, truant officer, health coordinator,
and secretary. The Bureau of Indian Affairs did not have any targeted
assistance school (TAS) participants for 2000--01 or 2001--02.

**Table 21**

**Title I Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Teachers and Teacher Aides,
1979--80 through 2001--02**

![](media/image40.wmf){width="5.761805555555555in"
height="4.688194444444444in"}

\+ No state performance report information was collected for the
1995--96 school year.

\*\* Starting with this reporting year, states were asked to report
information for only targeted assistance schools (TAS). In 1996--97, the
information submitted by the states was nearly equally divided between
those states which submitted information for TAS schools only and those
which submitted information for TAS and schoolwide program (SWP) schools
combined. By the 1998--99 reporting year, all states indicated that the
reported data was for TAS schools only.

[^1]: The *Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),* as amended by
    the *Improving America's Schools Act*, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108
    Stat. 3518, et. seq. (1994). This act was further amended by the *No
    Child Left Behind Act*, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2002)
    (enacted Jan. 8, 2002).

[^2]: With the implementation of NCLB, every state will continue to use
    its own criteria for identifying schools in need of improvement.
    This means that state-to-state comparisons will continue to be
    difficult.

[^3]: The Part A Neglected or Delinquent program provides services for
    children living in local institutions for neglected children. These
    services are provided by the school district and are to be
    comparable to the services provided to the students enrolled in the
    elementary and secondary schools in the district.