+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Promising Results, Continuing Challenges:**                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Final Report of the                                               |
|                                                                       |
| National Assessment of Title I                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| U.S. Department of Education      | ![](                              |
|                                   | media/image1.png){width="2.325in" |
| Office of the Under Secretary     | height="1.9916666666666667in"}    |
|                                   |                                   |
| Planning and Evaluation Service   |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| **1999**                          |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Marshall S. Smith

Under Secretary

Planning and Evaluation Service

Alan Ginsburg

Director

Elementary and Secondary Education Division

Valena Plisko

Director

Joanne Bogart

Project Director

The full text of this public domain publication is available at the
Department's home page at [http://www.ed.gov. For more information,
please contact us at:](http://www.ed.gov/)

U.S. Department of Education

Planning and Evaluation Service

Office of the Under Secretary

400 Maryland Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20202

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Promising Results, Continuing Challenges:**                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Final Report of the                                               |
|                                                                       |
| National Assessment of Title I                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Office of the Under Secretary**

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

U.S. Department of Education

**1999**

**Independent Review Panel**

Christopher Cross

Chair of the Independent Review Panel

President, Council for Basic Education

Joyce Benjamin

Vice-Chair of the Independent Review Panel

Associate Superintendent

Oregon Department of Education

Eva Baker

Co-Director, Center for Research on

Evaluation, Standards and Student

Testing (CRESST)

University of California at Los Angeles

Rolf Blank

Director, Education Indicators

Council of Chief State School Officers

David Cohen

Professor

University of Michigan

George Corwell

Director of Education

New Jersey Catholic Conference

Sharon Darling

President

National Center for Family Literacy

Bill Demmert

Associate Professor

Western Washington University

Joyce Epstein

Director, Center on School, Family and

Community Partnerships

Johns Hopkins University

Susan Fuhrman

Dean, Graduate School of Education

University of Pennsylvania

Jack Jennings

Director

Center on Education Policy

Joseph Johnson

Director, Collaboratives for School Improvement

University of Texas at Austin

Diana Lam

(Former) Superintendent

San Antonio Independent School District

Wayne Martin

Director, State Education Assessment Center

Council of Chief State School Officers

Phyllis McClure

Independent Consultant on Education & Equity

Jessie Montano

Assistant Commissioner

Minnesota Department of Children,

Families & Learning

Jennifer O'Day

Assistant Professor

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Andrew Porter

Professor

University of Wisconsin at Madison

Edward Reidy

Program Officer of Education Programs

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Linda Rodriguez

Supervisor of Title I

Pasco (FL) County School Board

Richard Ruiz

Professor

University of Arizona

Ramsay Selden

Director,

Education Statistical Services Institute

American Institutes for Research

Maris Vinovskis

Professor

University of Michigan

**N**ational **A**ssessment of **T**itle **I**

> **INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL**
>
> This report from the U.S. Department of Education provides a wealth of
> information about the current status of the flagship federal program
> for the nation's schools, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
> Education Act. Since its original enactment in 1965, Title I has stood
> for a federal commitment to the education of children who live in
> poverty. When it was reauthorized in 1994, Title I was redesigned to
> help the children it serves meet high standards, within a framework of
> school and district accountability to be developed by each state.
> Progress in implementing this law, which calls for changes in program
> management at all levels of government, is of intense interest to all
> of us who want to see improvement in the educational opportunities and
> performance of children at risk of failure.
>
> The Independent Review Panel, which it has been my privilege to chair,
> has fulfilled a legislative charge in P.L. 103-382, Sec. 1501, that
> the National Assessment of Title I be "...planned, reviewed, and
> conducted in consultation with an independent panel of researchers,
> State practitioners, local practitioners, and other appropriate
> individuals." Our panel also fulfills the charge in Section 14701 of
> the law, which requires the Secretary of Education to "appoint an
> independent panel to review the plan for \[an evaluation addressing
> numerous programs and provisions enacted by the 103rd Congress\], to
> advise the Secretary on such evaluation's progress, and to comment, if
> the panel so wishes, on the final report."
>
> As stated in our own report to the Congress*Measured Progress: The
> Report of the Independent Review Panel on the Evaluation of Federal
> Education Legislation*the panel considers it very unfortunate that
> financial support for evaluation at the federal level has been
> inadequate. Moreover, the phased timetable for implementation of the
> 1994 Title I law has prevented the Department from collecting as much
> data about the law's results as we would all like to see. However,
> under the constraints of the 1994 act and subsequent appropriations,
> the Department has conducted the evaluation that was feasible within
> the available time and resources, and its findings are well reflected
> in this report.
>
> I commend the Department for its careful presentation of the available
> evidence, from its own studies and other sources, on the operations
> and effectiveness of Title I. This volume addresses critical questions
> about the targeting of funds, the instructional staff and services
> supported, and the policies enacted by states and school districts.
> The panel believes these data will do a great deal to inform the next
> reauthorization of this significant federal program. The panel's own
> report provides additional perspective and recommendations for the
> reauthorization, which will occur in this Congress.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Christopher T. Cross

President, Council for Basic Education, and Chair of the Independent
Review Panel

Contents

**Executive Summary** i

**Foreword** 1

**1. Introduction** 7

**2. Progress in the Performance of Students in High-Poverty Schools**
15

**3. Development of Standards and Assessment Systems, and the Role of
Title I** 39

**4. The Role of Title I in Holding Schools Accountable for
Performance**

**and in Supporting Improvement Efforts** 51

**5. Targeting Resources to Districts and Schools Where the Needs Are
Greatest** 75

**6. Title I Services at the School Level** 95

6.  

**7. Title I Support for Partnerships with Families, Schools, and**

**Communities to Support Learning** 127

8.  **Title I Services to Students Attending Private Schools** 143

**9. Title I, Part B, Even Start Family Literacy Program** 151

**10. Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Program** 163

**11. Title I, Part D, Prevention and Intervention Programs for
Children**

**and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk of Dropping Out**
173

**12. Conclusions and Future Directions for Title I** 181

**Appendix A: Title I Evaluation Strategy** 189

**Appendix B: Description of Key Studies** 193

**Acknowledgements** 199

List of Exhibits

**Executive Summary**

Exhibit 1 Percentage of Schools Participating in Title I, by School
Poverty Level, 1997-98 ii

Exhibit 2 Trends in NAEP Reading Performance v

Exhibit 3 Trends in NAEP Mathematics Performance vi

Exhibit 4 NAEP 4th-Grade Reading and Mathematics vii

Exhibit 5 State NAEP 4th-Grade Mathematics, 1996 viii

Exhibit 6 States with Challenging Content Standards in Mathematics and
Reading/Language Arts x

Exhibit 7 States with Challenging Performance Standards in Mathematics
and

Reading/Language Arts x

Exhibit 8 Percentage of Highest-Poverty Schools That Receive Title I
Funds, 1993-94 to 1997-98 xiii

**1. Foreword/Introduction**

Exhibit 1.1 Percentage of Schools Participating in Title I, by School
Poverty Level, 1997-98 8

Exhibit 1.2 Title I Appropriations in FY 1999, by Program 9

Exhibit 1.3 Funding for Title I and Other Federal Elementary-Secondary
Programs, 1994 to 1999 10

Exhibit 1.4 All Title I Participants, by Grade Span, 1996-97 12

**2. Progress in the Performance of Students in High-Poverty Schools**

Exhibit 2.1 How NAEP Tests Are Used to Report Progress 18

Exhibit 2.2 Trends in NAEP Reading Performance 19

Exhibit 2.3 NAEP Main Reading Assessment 20

Exhibit 2.4 NAEP 4th-Grade Reading 21

Exhibit 2.5 State NAEP 4th-Grade Reading, 1998 22

Exhibit 2.6 Trends in NAEP Mathematics Performance 23

Exhibit 2.7 NAEP Main Mathematics Assessment 24

Exhibit 2.8 NAEP 4th-Grade Mathematics 25

Exhibit 2.9 State NAEP 4th-Grade Mathematics, 1996 27

Exhibit 2.10 Trends in State-Level Achievement for Elementary School
Students in High-Poverty Schools 29

Exhibit 2.11 Connecticut Mastery Test: Grade 4 29

Exhibit 2.12 Kentucky Instructional Skills Information System: Grade 4
30

Exhibit 2.13 Maine Educational Assessment: Grade 4 30

Exhibit 2.14 Maryland School Performance Assessment Program: Grade 3 31

Exhibit 2.15 North Carolina End of Grade: Grade 4 31

Exhibit 2.16 Texas Assessment of Academic Skills: Grade 4 32

Exhibit 2.17 District Achievement Trends for Students in High-Poverty
Schools 33

Exhibit 2.18 Baltimore Results on the Maryland School Performance
Assessment Program: Grade 3 34

Exhibit 2.19 Chicago Results on the Illinois Goals Assessment Program:
Grade 3 34

Exhibit 2.20 Jefferson County (Louisville) Results on the Kentucky
Instructional Results

Information System: Grade 4 (Reading), Grade 5 (Math) 35

Exhibit 2.21 Philadelphia Results on the Stanford 9: Grade 4 35

Exhibit 2.22 San Antonio Results on the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills: Grade 3 36

**List of Exhibits (continued)**

**3. Development of Standards and Assessment Systems, and the Role of
Title I**

Exhibit 3.1 States with Challenging Content Standards in Mathematics and
Reading/Language Arts 42

Exhibit 3.2 States with Challenging Performance Standards in Mathematics
and Reading/Language Arts 42

Exhibit 3.3 States with Achievement Data Disaggregated by Various
Population Subgroups: 1996-97 44

Exhibit 3.4 Percentage of 8th Grade Students Meeting the NAEP Basic
Level of Performance

in Mathematics in 1996, Compared to States' Expected Levels on State
Assessments 45

4.  **The Role of Title I in Holding Schools Accountable for Performance
    and in Supporting**

**Improvement Efforts**

Exhibit 4.1 Timeline for Title I Accountability 53

Exhibit 4.2 Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement: 1996-97 59

Exhibit 4.3 State and Title I Accountability: New York City 61

Exhibit 4.4 School Report Cards 66

**5. Targeting Resources to Districts and Schools Where the Needs Are
Greatest**

Exhibit 5.1 Distribution of Federal, State, and Local Revenues, by
District Poverty Quartile: FY 1997 79

Exhibit 5.2 Percentage of Schools Participating in Title I, by School
Poverty Level, 1997-98 80

Exhibit 5.3 Title I Funding for High- and Low-Poverty Schools 81

Exhibit 5.4 Change in Proportion of Schools Served by Title I, by School
Poverty Level:

1993-94 to 1997-98 82

Exhibit 5.5 Change in Title I Allocations for High- and Low-Poverty
Schools

in 17 Large Urban School Districts, 1994-95 to 1996-97 83

Exhibit 5.6 Change in Proportion of Highest-Poverty Secondary Schools
that Receive

Title I Funds, 1993-94 to 1997-98 84

Exhibit 5.7 Share of Waiver Decisions Pertaining to Title I Targeting:

School Years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 85

Exhibit 5.8 Distribution of Funds Under Individual Title I Formulas, by
District Poverty Quartile:

FY 1999 86

Exhibit 5.9 Geographic Shifts in Child Poverty: Percentage Change in
State Shares

Of the Nation's Poor School-Age Children, 1990 to 1994 88

**List of Exhibits (continued)**

**6. Title I Services at the School Level**

Exhibit 6.1 Teachers' Familiarity with and Adherence to Standards and
Assessments in Reading

and Mathematics, by District Policy Environment 101

Exhibit 6.2 Percentage of Title I Principals Who Reported Using Content
Standards to

Guide Curriculum and Instruction to a Great Extent 102

Exhibit 6.3 Percentage of Principals Implementing Key Reforms, by Level
of Familiarity

with Title I Reforms: 1997-98 103

Exhibit 6.4 Criteria for High-Quality Professional Development 106

Exhibit 6.5 Reading Instruction 108

Exhibit 6.6 Mathematics Instruction 108

Exhibit 6.7 Frequency that Title I Teachers' Lessons Require Students to
Use Computers and

the Internet 116

Exhibit 6.8 Schoolwide Reform Approaches at a Glance 121

**7. Title I Support for Partnerships with Families, Schools, and
Communities to Support Learning**

Exhibit 7.1 Principal's Views on Barriers to Applying High Standards to
All Students 131

Exhibit 7.2 Principals' Views on the Helpfulness of Title I
School-Parent Compacts,

by School Poverty Level 132

Exhibit 7.3 Information on Report Cards 135

Exhibit 7.4 Principals' Views on Major Reasons for Lack of Parent
Involvement 136

**10. Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Program**

Exhibit 10.1 Methods Used to Transfer Migrant Student Records Between
States and

School Districts in 1996-97 169

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

## Context for Title I

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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."                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

First enacted in 1965 as a "War on Poverty" program, Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) \[P.L. 103-382\] now
provides more than \$8 billion[^1] annually to fund system-wide supports
and additional resources for schools to improve learning for students at
risk of educational failure. The program's central objective is to
support state and local efforts to ensure that [all]{.underline}
children reach challenging standards by providing additional resources
for schools and students who have furthest to go in achieving the goal.

**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-five 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.[^2] While the
highest-poverty schools make up almost 15 percent of schools nationwide,
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.[^3]

**Fully 99 percent of Title I dollars go to the local level.** School
districts use 90 to 93 percent of their Title I funds for instruction
and instructional support[^4]most often in reading and math. Although
Title I accounts for a relatively small proportion of total funding for
elementary and secondary education (just under 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 or
other extended-time programs, and other strategies for raising student
achievement.

**Title I also provides supplemental assistance to children who face
special educational barriers.** These include children who come from
families with low literacy, the children of migrant agricultural
workers, and children who are neglected or delinquent. 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
programsituations that increase the risk of school failure. Migrant
children have families who move frequently to pursue agricultural work,
and thus the children must change schools frequentlya situation that
has a detrimental effect on their achievement. Neglected or delinquent
students are extremely educationally disadvantaged; most are
incarcerated in state juvenile and adult correctional facilities and
have experienced numerous disruptions in their education.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Almost all of the highest-poverty schools (95 percent)
> receive Title I
>
> funds, compared with 36 percent of the lowest-poverty schools.
>
> Source: Stullich, Donly, and Stolzberg, *Targeting Schools: Study of
> Title I Allocations Within School Districts*, 1999.

**Title I reaches more than 11 million students** **enrolled in both
public and private schoolsabout two-thirds of whom are in grades 1-6.**
The percentage of students in middle and secondary schools remains a
small proportion of those served overall. Minority students participate
at rates higher than their proportion of the student population. African
American students represent 28 percent of Title I participants, 30
percent are Hispanic, and 36 percent are non-Hispanic white. The
remaining 5 percent are from other ethnic/racial groups. Among those
served by the Title I, Part A (local education agency) program are about
167,000 private school children, close to 300,000 migrant children, and
over 200,000 children identified as homeless. Title I services are also
available to about 2 million students with limited English proficiency
(almost one-fifth of all students served and growing in number), and to
1 million students with disabilities.[^5] In 1996-97, Even Start (Part
B) served some 48,000 children and almost 36,000 adults.[^6] Over
580,000 migrant children were served under the Migrant Education Program
(Part C)[^7], and 200,000 neglected or delinquent youth were served in
the Title I Part D program for such youth.[^8]

## The 1994 Reauthorization of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, along with the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act, introduced a new federal approach built around a framework
of standards-driven reform. Challenging standards for all students would
promote excellence and equity, and better link Title I with other
federal programs to support state and local reform efforts. As the
largest single federal investment in elementary and secondary education,
the reauthorized Title I adopted each of the key principles outlined in
the legislation:

-   Support states in setting high standards for [all]{.underline}
    childrenwith the elements of education 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 responsibility for student performance;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Create links among schools, parents, and communities; and

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

Six years ago, the U.S. Department of Education reported to Congress on
the effectiveness of the program as it operated as Chapter 1. That
report, *Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New
Directions*, which drew from the longitudinal study*, Prospects: Student
OutcomesFinal Report*, concluded that in order for the program to
effectively support [all]{.underline} students in meeting challenging
standards, fundamental change was required. Indeed, as the prior
National Assessment of Chapter 1 found, Chapter 1 programs reinforced
low expectations of the students they served by providing students with
remedial instruction and holding them to lower academic standards than
other students.[^9]

-   Different expectations were clearly evident for students in high-
    and low-poverty schools. Indeed, when measured against a common
    test, an "A" student in a high-poverty school would be about a "C"
    student in a low-poverty school.[^10]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Program-supported services pulled most Chapter 1 students out of
    their regular classrooms, adding an average of only 10 minutes of
    instructional time per day, and often failing to relate to the rest
    of the student's educational experience.[^11]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 1 did not contribute to high-quality instruction, and often
    relied on teacher's aides who lacked educational credentials
    required to deliver high-quality instruction.[^12]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 1 had not kept pace with the growing movement, across the
    country, toward the establishment of challenging standards and
    assessments. Therefore, weaknesses in instruction were compounded by
    minimum competency assessments that tested primarily low-level
    skills.[^13]

The reauthorized Title I legislation coupled flexibility in the use of
resources with attention to accountability for results. Providing
flexibility in tandem with performance accountability is the centerpiece
of Title I, and an overall focus of the National Assessment of Title I.
The National Assessment also examines the implementation of key Title I
provisions at the state, district, and school levels.

## The Mandate for a National Assessment of Title I

The final report of the National Assessment of Title I responds to
Congress's mandate to examine the progress of students served by the
program and implementation of key provisions, and suggests strategies
for improved policies or changes in statutory requirements.

Key issues addressed include:

-   The performance of students in high-poverty schools and
    low-performing students, the prime beneficiaries of Title I
    services;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The implementation of systems designed to support schools in helping
    students meet high standards, including the establishment of systems
    of challenging standards and assessments, the role of Title I in
    holding schools accountable for results, and targeting of Title I
    funds and the allocation and use of resources in states, districts,
    and schools;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The implementation of Title I services at the school level,
    including strategies for providing challenging curriculum and
    instruction in high-poverty Title I schools, uses of schoolwide and
    targeted assistance approaches for providing services in Title I
    schools, qualifications of and support for staff (including aides)
    in Title I high-poverty schools, and Title I support for
    partnerships with families; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The implementation of additional Title I services targeted at
    special populations, including (Part A) Services to Students
    Enrolled in Private Schools, Even Start (Part B), Migrant Education
    Program (Part C), and Services to Neglected or Delinquent Children
    (Part D).

The National Assessment of Title I also reports progress on key
indicators identified for the

Title I program in response to the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (GPRA) \[P.L. 103-62\], which requires that agencies
establish performance goals and track indicators for every program.
These indicators address improved achievement for students enrolled in
high-poverty schools, increases in the number of Title I schools using
standards-based reform and effective strategies to enable all children
to reach challenging standards, and accelerated state and local reform
efforts and assistance to Title I schools.

The National Assessment of Title I benefited from the involvement of an
Independent Review Panel composed of representatives of state and local
education agencies and private schools, school-level staff, parent
representatives, education researchers, and policy experts. The Panel,
mandated under Sections 1501 and 14701 of the ESEA, has met three to
four times a year since May 1995. It has defined issues for the National
Assessment of Title I and the companion *Report on the Impact of Federal
Education Legislation Enacted in 1994*. Panel members have also
participated in reviews of study plans, data analysis, and draft text
for both reports.

**KEY FINDINGS**

## Progress in the Performance of Students in High-Poverty Schools 

The impact of standards-based reform is beginning to be seen in improved
achievement among students in high-poverty schools and among
low-performing studentswho are the primary recipients of Title I
services.

##### Performance on National Assessments of Reading

![](media/image2.wmf)**Since 1992, prior to the reauthorization of Title
I, national reading performance has improved for 9-year-olds in the
highest-poverty public schools (those with 75 percent or more low-income
children), regaining ground lost in the late 1980s and early 1990s.**
Scores on the long-term trend assessment of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) of 9-year-olds in the highest-poverty public
schools increased 8 points (close to one grade level) between 1992 and
1996 (Exhibit 2).

> Exhibit reads: In 1996, the average reading scale score for 9-year-old
> students in the highest-poverty schools was 188.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP Reading
> Trends, unpublished tabulations, 1998.

**Among the lowest-achieving public school 4^th^-gradersthose most
likely to be served by Title Ithere were fairly substantial
improvements in reading between 1994 and 1998.** Results of the Main
NAEP reading assessment showing substantial gains for low achievers

9 points among the bottom 10 percent and 5 points among the bottom 25
percentcompared with the stable performance of other percentile groups
suggest that it was the performance of the lowest achievers that raised
the national average of all 4^th^-graders.

##### Performance on National Assessments of Mathematics

**Math achievement has improved nationally, especially among students in
the highest-poverty public schools.** NAEP scores on the long-term trend
assessment show an increase of about 10 points for all 9-year-olds from
1986 through 1996 (Exhibit 3).

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1996, the average mathematics scale scores of
> 9-year-old students in the highest-poverty schools was 217.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP
> Mathematics Trends, unpublished tabulations, 1998.

**Math scores from the main NAEP assessment also improved substantially
among public**

**4^th^-grade students in the lowest percentiles of performancethose
most typically targeted for Title I services.** The main NAEP assessment
shows that, from 1990 to 1996, the average performance of the
lowest-achieving students improved steadily. NAEP scores of the lowest

25 percent improved by 8 points.

**However, a substantial achievement gap remains between students in the
highest- and lowest-poverty schools.** In 1998, 32 percent of students
in the highest-poverty schools met or exceeded the NAEP Basic level in
reading, about half the rate nationally of students in public schools.
In math, 42 percent of students in the highest-poverty schools scored at
or above the NAEP Basic level in 1996, compared with 62 percent in all
public schools (Exhibit 4).

![](media/image3.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1998, 61 percent of 4^th^-grade students attending
> public schools performed at or above the *Basic* level in reading, and
> in 1996, 62 percent of all 4^th^-graders scored at or above the
> *Basic* level in mathematics.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP
Reading and Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 1999.

**Despite the nationwide gap in performance, the percent of 4^th^-grade
students enrolled in highest-poverty public schools achieving at or
above the *Basic* level in mathematics exceeded the national average (62
percent) in 9 states**indicating that it is possible to bring these
students to high levels of achievement (Exhibit 5).

![](media/image2.wmf)

Exhibit reads: In Maine, 80 percent of 4^th^-graders who attended the
highest-poverty schools scored at or above the *Basic* level in
mathematics.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress, State NAEP
Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 1998.

##### Performance on State and District Assessments

Trends in student performance based on the assessments of individual
states and districts provide an additional perspective for measuring the
progress of students in high-poverty areas.

**Three-year trends reported by states and districts show progress in
the percentage of students in the highest-poverty schools meeting state
and local standards for proficiency in mathematics and reading.** Among
states and large urban districts that provided three-year trend data for
students in high-poverty schools, the results overall are positive.
Because changes in state assessment systems to comply with Title I
legislation, few states can currently provide three-year trend data on
students in high-poverty schools. Results from 13 large urban districts
are presented to show trends in student performance in areas in which
poverty and educational challenges are most highly concentrated.
Districts profiled are among the largest in the country, have student
populations that are at least 35 percent minority and 50 percent
eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, serve high concentrations of
students with limited English proficiency, are geographically diverse;
and have at least three years of achievement data on the same assessment
in reading and math for elementary and middle school students. As with
states, these districts are among those that provided data (which were
available in fall/early winter 1998).

-   The achievement of elementary school students in the highest-poverty
    schools improved in 5 of 6 states reporting three-year trends in
    reading, and in 4 of 5 states reporting trends in mathematics.
    Students in Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas made
    progress in both subjects.[^14]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ten of 13 large urban districts showed increases in the percentage
    of elementary students in the highest-poverty schools who met
    district or state proficiency standards in reading or math. Six
    districtsHouston, Miami-Dade County, New York, Philadelphia,
    San Antonio and San Franciscomade progress in both subjects.[^15]

## Title I Support for Systems Designed to Support Schools in Helping Students Meet High Standards 

##### Development of Standards and Assessments and the Role of Title I

Challenging standards of learning and assessments that ensure shared
expectations for all children are key policy drivers in Title I. Indeed,
support for the establishment of systems of standards and assessments
under Title I, as well as the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, is
consistent with a key purpose of the program, as outlined in 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 to requiring states to establish and use systems of
standards and aligned assessments to guide expectations for what
children should be expected to know and do, Title I has required that
states develop criteria for tracking the student performance of schools
and districts participating in the program. By the 1997-98 school year,
each state was to have adopted challenging content standards, in at
least reading and math, that specify what all children are expected to
know and be able to do, and challenging performance standards that
describe students' mastery of the content standards. By the year
2000-01, states are also to adopt or develop student assessment systems
that are aligned with standards in at least reading/language arts and
math.

**States are making significant progress in developing content
standards, but progress is considerably slower with respect to
developing performance standards according to the timeline set forth in
the statute**.

-   Forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have
    met the requirement for developing content standards in the core
    subjects of reading and math. One remaining state is approving its
    districts' standards; the other state has a waiver to extend the
    deadline to develop state standards. Federal assistance is credited
    with providing financial incentives and support that helped states
    adopt standards (Exhibit 6).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ![](media/image2.wmf)Less than half the states had approved
    performance standards by 1998. Variability in the rigor of standards
    is a concern, given the lack of evidence that states have
    benchmarked standards against common criteria, such as NAEP (Exhibit
    7).

Exhibit reads: In 1998, 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
had submitted evidence to the U.S. Department of Education that content
standards were 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.

**States are not required to have assessment systems (which reflect
standards) and include [all]{.underline} students until 2000-01.
However, progress in their development is worth noting**.

-   According to an independent review of state plans submitted to the
    U.S. Department of Education in 1997, 14 states had in place
    transitional assessment systems linked to state content
    standards.[^16]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In addition, a sizable number reported student achievement based on
    state assessment data according to categories established in the
    statute. For the 1996-97 school year, of the 48 states, plus the
    District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, that reported student
    achievement data through the Title I Performance Report, 21
    disaggregated results by school poverty levels, 12 reported results
    for low-income students, 19 provided data for
    limited-English-proficient students, and 16 reported achievement of
    migrant students.[^17]

**Issues regarding assessment of special populations are among the
greatest challenges reported by states in developing their assessment
systems.** The review of state practices in determining school and
district progress found that most states (44) had at least partially
developed policies or procedures for assessing [all]{.underline}
students but only 28 provided some evidence that these policies or
procedures were being implemented.[^18]

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

Title I is intended to be linked to state accountability so that states
will hold Title I schools to the same high standards for performance
expected for all schools. Under Title I 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. Title I schools and districts that fail
to make adequate yearly progress are to be identified for improvement.
Schools identified for improvement are to receive support and assistance
from states and districts. Those schools and districts that continue to
fail to make progress are subject to corrective actions. The performance
of districts and schools under Title I is to be publicly reported and
widely shared.

**States are making progress in implementing the accountability
provisions of Title I, although full implementation of accountability
under Title I is not required until final assessments are in place in
the 2000-01 school year.** But states are also facing real challenges as
they transform their educational systems into higher-performing,
results-based systems.

-   States have developed transitional measures for defining school and
    district progress under Title I, but there are concerns about the
    rigor of the measures. An independent review of state plans
    documented that only half of all states have set standards for
    measuring progress based on students reaching a proficient level of
    performance, rather than only a minimum level of competency. Most
    states do not have a specified timeline for having all students meet
    expectations.[^19]

-   There is considerable variation across states in the identification
    of Title I schools in need of improvement. In Texas, only 1 percent
    of Title I schools were identified for improvement in 1996-97. In
    New Mexico and Washington, D.C., over 80 percent of Title I schools
    were identified for improvement.[^20]

-   Although there is variation in the number and percentage of Title I
    schools identified for improvement across the states, evidence
    suggests that states are identifying their neediest schools. Schools
    identified for improvement tend to serve a greater proportion of
    poor students and have a larger minority enrollment.[^21]

-   A recent study of accountability in large urban districts finds that
    Title I has been "a model and an instigator" for standards-based
    reform and efforts to track student progress and improve
    schools.[^22] Nationally, 14 percent of districts report that Title
    I is driving reform in their districts as a whole to a great extent.
    Fifty percent of small poor districts and 47 percent of large poor
    districts report that Title I is driving reform to a great
    extent.[^23]

**A key concern is the extent to which identification of schools for
improvement under Title I is integrated with the accountability systems
states are putting in place for all schools.**

-   Although there is considerable overlap between schools identified
    for improvement under Title I and those identified through other
    state or local mechanisms, states report that they are having
    difficulty integrating the Title I requirements with their own
    systems. Parallel systems are operating in many states, with only 23
    state Title I directors reporting that the same accountability
    system is used for Title I as for schools in their state.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Research shows that state accountability systems that are "closer to
    home" are of greater value to educators and have more immediate
    consequences to schools and districts.

Recent findings suggest that state and Title I accountability
requirements are helping states, districts, and schools focus more on
the use of data for school improvement.

-   Research on accountability in 12 states and 14 districts found that
    a remarkably high level of attention was being paid to using data to
    inform decisionmaking. The study found that although outcome data
    was being required to be used for school improvement planning, many
    districts were going beyond requirements of the law to use the
    performance data to identify and develop strategies for staff
    development and curriculum improvement that address gaps in
    performance.[^24]

**The lack of capacity of state school support teams to assist schools
in need of improvement under Title I is a major concern.**

-   The State Improvement Grants that would have provided additional
    resources for the operation of school support teams were not funded
    in reauthorization. Although the main task for state school support
    teams has been to assist schoolwide programs, their charge also
    includes providing assistance to schools in need of improvement. In
    1998, only 8 states reported that school support teams have been
    able to serve the majority of schools identified as in need of
    improvement. In 24 states, Title I directors reported more schools
    in need of assistance from school support teams than Title I could
    assist.[^25]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Among schools that reported in 1997-98 that they had been identified
    as in need of improvement, less than half (47 percent) reported that
    they had received additional professional development or assistance
    as a result.[^26]

##### Targeting Title I Resources to Districts and Schools Where the Needs Are Greatest

**Historically, Title I funds were spread thinly to most districts and a
large majority of schools, undermining the program's capacity to meet
the high expectations set by policymakers*. ***The previous Chapter 1
formula and within-district allocation provisions spread funds to
virtually all counties, 93 percent of all school districts, and 66
percent of all public schools, yet left many of the nation's poorest
schools unserved. The 1994 reauthorization changed the allocation
provisions in an effort to improve the targeting of Title I funds on the
neediest districts and schools. In addition, Congress has recently
increased the proportion of Title I funds appropriated for Concentration
Grants in an effort to direct a greater share of the funds to
higher-poverty districts and schools.

**Changes in the allocation formula and procedures, enacted in the 1994
amendments, have had little effect on targeting at the state, county,
and district levels, but substantial impact on within-in district
targeting.** At the district level, the share of Title I funds allocated
to the highest-poverty quartile of districts remained unchanged (at 49
percent) from FY 1994 to FY 1997. At the school level, almost all (95
percent) of the highest-poverty schools (75 percent or more low-income
students) received Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 79 percent in
1993-94

(Exhibit 8). Funding for low-poverty schools (less than 35 percent
low-income students) declined from 49 percent to 36 percent over the
same period. At the secondary level, nearly all (93 percent)
highest-poverty secondary schools received Title I funds in 1997-98, up
from 61 percent in 1993-94.[^27]

> ![](media/image2.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: The proportion of highest-poverty schools (those with
> 75 percent or more low-income students) receiving Title I funding rose
> from 79 percent in 1993-94 to 95 percent in 1997-98.
>
> Source: Stullich, Donly, and Stolzberg, *Targeting Schools: Study of
> Title I Allocations Within School Districts*, 1999.

**Nearly all Title I funds are allocated to local school districts.**
States distribute 99 percent of their Title I funds to school districts
and retain only 1 percent for administration, leadership, and technical
assistance to districts and schools.[^28] Title I funds allocated to
school districts amounted to \$720 per poor child in FY 1999. Over 90
percent of Title I funds are used for instruction and instructional
support---much higher than the percentage of state and local funds (62
percent).[^29]

Although Title I accounts for a relatively small percentage of total
funding for elementary and secondary education (about 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 or other extended-time programs, and other strategies for
raising student achievement. For example, Title I funds used for
technology amounted to roughly \$237 million, nearly as much as the
appropriations for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology
Literacy Challenge Grants combined (\$257 million). Similarly, Title I
funds used for professional development amounted to \$191 million in
1997-98.[^30]

**Title I funds may help equalize resources for high- and low-poverty
schools.** Title I provides 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 3.3
computers in the highest-poverty schools in 1997-98 (26 percent of the
new computers), compared with 0.6 computers in low-poverty schools.
High-poverty schools' use of Title I funds for technology helped to
compensate for the fact that they received fewer computers from state or
local funds (4.8 computers, versus 12.4 in low-poverty schools).[^31]

**Increases in targeting have increased the number of high-poverty
schools served but have 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 were used to increase the number of
high-poverty schools served rather than to increase the intensity of
services in those schools.

### 

## Title I Services at the School Level

##### The Context for Standards-Based Reform

**There is evidence of progress for students in high-poverty schools
where staff members focus on challenging standards and strategies that
help students achieve them.** Preliminary findings from the
*Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance* (LESCP), a
study of instructional practices in 71 high-poverty schools found that

-   Students were likely to make better progress in reading if their
    teacher gave them more total exposure to reading in the content
    areas and opportunities to talk in small groups about what they had
    read.

-   Students in the bottom quarter of their class who had better growth
    in vocabulary and comprehension tended to have teachers who gave
    them more exposure to reading materials of at least one paragraph,
    reading content areas materials, working at a computer, and
    completing workbooks or skill sheets.

-   Teachers who used a curriculum that reflected National Council of
    Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards had students with higher
    gains in mathematics.

-   Students who started the year as low achievers could be helped to
    gain more skill in problem solving in mathematics when their
    teachers deliberately emphasized understanding and problem solving
    with them.

**Principals are reporting an increased use of content standards to
guide curriculum and instruction in their schools.** The proportion of
Title I principals who reported using content standards to guide
curriculum and instruction to a great extent increased substantially
from approximately half in 1995-96 to approximately three-quarters in
1997-98. Recent findings from a study of high-performing, high-poverty
schools carry this relationship one step further, finding that
implementing such reforms is associated with higher student performance.
The study found that in high-performing, high-poverty schools, 80
percent of principals reported using standards extensively to design
curriculum and instruction and 94 percent reported using standards to
assess student progress.[^32]

**However, most teachers do not feel very well prepared to use standards
in the classroom.** In 1998, only 37 percent of teachers in schools with
60 percent poverty or greater reported that they felt very well prepared
to implement state or district curriculum and performance standards.
This sense of preparedness is a key factor in predicting student
outcomes, according to the LESCP study of 71 high-poverty Title I
schools. The LESCP found that teachers' reported preparedness in both
subject matter and instructional strategies had a positive relationship
with student progress.[^33] The LESCP also found that district reform
policy had an influence on teachers' familiarity with standards-based
reform and their implementation of such reform in their classrooms.
Teachers in higher-reform districts were more likely than their peers in
lower-reform districts to be familiar with content and performance
standards and assessments, and their curriculum was more likely to
reflect the standards.

Another factor that may contribute to a teacher's sense of preparedness
is professional development. **In 1998, public school teachers,
regardless of the poverty level of their school, spent only a limited
amount of time in professional development, although they did focus on
topics that supported standards-based reform.** Most teachers are not
participating in intensive or sustained training---two essential
characteristics of effective professional development. Given the
relationship between teacher preparedness and student achievement, this
is a troubling finding. Over half (55 percent) of all teachers in
high-poverty schools reported spending less than 9 hours per year on
training in the content areas. Over two-thirds (70 percent) of teachers
in high-poverty schools reported receiving less than 9 hours per year of
professional development related to content and performance standards.
[^34]

##### Title I Support for Standards-Based Reform

**Schools are making better use of delivery models that integrate Title
I with the regular academic program.** Reliance on the pull-out model
(instruction outside the regular classroom) has decreased, while
in-class models (instruction in the regular classroom), schoolwide
programs, and extended-time instruction have all increased. Use of the
in-class model has increased dramatically since the years prior to
reauthorization, from 58 percent of Title I schools in 1991-92 to 83
percent in 1997-98. Use of the pull-out model declined from 74 percent
of Title I schools in 1991-92 to 68 percent in 1997-98. However, in
1997-98, over half (57 percent) reported using both approaches.[^35]

**Title I paraprofessionals are widely used as part of schools'
instructional programs.** In the 1997-98 school year, 84 percent of
principals in high-poverty schools reported using aides, as contrasted
with 54 percent in low-poverty schools.[^36] Although very few
paraprofessionals had the educational background necessary to teach
students, almost all (96 percent) were either teaching or helping to
teach students.[^37] Three-fourths of paraprofessionals (72 percent)
spent at least some of this time teaching without a teacher
present.[^38]

**Schoolwide programs have the potential to help integrate Title I
resources in standards-based reform at the school level.** Recent
findings show that schoolwide programs are more likely than targeted
assistance schools to use a strategic plan and to use models of service
delivery that better integrate Title I into the larger educational
program**.** Strategic plans allow Title I services to be considered
within the broader context of a school's reform goals, and can provide a
framework for better integration of Title I within the regular academic
program. In addition, as would be expected, principals in schoolwide
programs reported less use of the pull-out model than
targeted-assistance programs. They were also more likely to report using
extended-time programs.

**Less than half of Title I schools offer extended learning time
programs during the school year, although the proportion of schools
offering extended time has increased from 9 percent to 41 percent since
the last reauthorization.** Moreover, few students participate in these
programs. Extended-time programs offered during the school year (through
before-school, after-school, or weekend programs) serve 16 percent of
the students in the highest-poverty schools with such programs and 11
percent of the students in Title I schools with such programs.[^39]
Summer school programs serve 17 percent of the students in the
highest-poverty schools and 19 percent of the students in Title I
schools offering summer programs.[^40]

**Recent research on effective schools has found that such schools use
extended learning time in reading and mathematics to improve learning
and achievement**.[^41] In a recent study of higher-success and
lower-success elementary schools in Maryland, researchers found that the
more successful schools were seeing consistent academic gains as a
result of extended day programs.[^42] In another study of
high-performing, high-poverty schools, 86 percent of the schools
extended time for reading and 66 percent extended instructional time in
mathematics.[^43]

**Recent evidence indicates that secondary schools are making progress
in implementing service delivery models that are less stigmatizing and
better integrated with the regular academic program.** Secondary
students are still served in pull-out settings, but less commonly than
elementary students. Moreover, in the schools that do provide pull-out
services, this model of service delivery appears to be only one of
several such models. In addition to improving Title I delivery
strategies, secondary schools are making progress in implementing
standards-based reform. Title I services in secondary schools provide
supplementary services in support of schools' efforts to enable students
to achieve high standards. Most secondary school principals reported
using content standards to a great extent in reading (75 percent at the
middle school level and 62 percent at the high school level) and
mathematics (72 percent at the middle school level and 65 percent at the
high school level).[^44] Case studies of 18 secondary schools engaged in
school improvement suggest that state and local accountability systems
are prompting reform, and that Title I generally serves to support these
reform efforts. In states and districts with high-stakes accountability
systems, both core academic instruction and supplementary assistance
provided through Title I are often geared toward preparing students to
pass state or district assessments. [^45]

## Title I Support for Partnerships with Families, Schools, and Communities to Support Learning

**Title I supports for parental involvement and family literacy.** The
federal role in supporting parental involvement can be catalytic,
encouraging schools to get parents to help their children learn and to
participate in school activities and decisions. Principals and teachers
identify the lack of parental involvement as a significant barrier to
improvement, and see the need to engage parents to achieve reform,
especially in high-poverty schools. The new Title I school-parent
compacts can bring schools and parents together around their shared
responsibilities, but they need sustained support. Although the
proportion of Title I schools with school-parent compacts rose from 20
percent in 1994 to about 75 percent in 1998, there remain 25 percent
with no parent agreements. A substantial majority of schoolsespecially
those serving high concentrations of low-income children do find
compacts helpful in promoting parental involvement, particularly
higher-poverty schools, but principals continue to identify lack of
parental involvement as one of the major barriers to reform.[^46] In
addition, the Even Start family literacy program has shown results in
working with very needy families, but it needs to strengthen the
intensity and quality of services to improve performance.

## Special Title I Services

##### Title I Services to Students Attending Private Schools

**Reauthorization and recent court rulings have affected the
participation of private school students in Title I.** 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. Reauthorization in
1994 changed the allocation of Title I resources for these services,
linking it to the number of low-income students residing in attendance
areas instead of the level of educational need. The overturning of the
*Aguilar v. Felton* decision in June 1997 (*Felton* had restricted
service locations for students in religiously affiliated schools) adds
considerable flexibility to districts' options for providing Title I
services to eligible students enrolled in private schools.

-   Surveys have shown that the number of private school participants
    has declined by about 6 percent since the 1994 reauthorization, from
    177,000 in 1993-94 to 167,000 in 1996-97.

**Most Title I administrators and private school representatives agree
that they have established positive working relationships, but report
differently 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.

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 indicates that they are
taking advantage of the opportunity to provide instructional services on
religiously affiliated school premises. However, Title I administrators
in these districts also report 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.

##### Title I, Part B: Even Start Family Literacy Program

**The Even Start program (Title I, Part B) provides support to states
and local grantees 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.

**The national evaluation has documented that Even Start projects
successfully target services toward families who are most in need, and
that participating families consistently make gains on measures of
literacy.**

-   At least 90 percent of families participating in 1996-97 had incomes
    at or below the federal poverty level, and 85 percent of the adults
    had not earned a high school diploma or GED.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In 1995-96, the gap between scores of Even Start children and those
    for a national norms group was reduced by two-thirds in one year.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adult participants also made gains on tests of adult literacy.
    Parents also showed moderate gains on a measure of the home
    environment for literacy, gains not found in a control group of
    parents in a study of the Comprehensive Child Development Program.

**Working with such needy families poses challenges to providing
intensive services and engaging families over an extended period of
time.** Research has shown that service intensity and duration can
contribute to better outcomes. Although Even Start projects have
increased the amount of instruction they have offered in all core
service areas over time, only about 25 percent of all projects meet or
exceed the Department's performance indicator for the number of service
hours offered in the three core instructional components.

##### Title I, Part C: Migrant Education Program

**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.** Reauthorization established
a priority for services for migratory 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.
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.

**MEP summer-term and extended-time projects play an important role in
the education of migrant students.** Summer projects provide continuity
of instruct[^47]ion for migrant students, who experience a great deal of
educational disruption. Over the past decade, summer projects have grown
faster than the regular program, and they now serve approximately 60
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 over 283,000 in 1996-97.

**Effective coordination at the state level can increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of services to migrant children.** Consortia
arrangements designed to reduce administrative costs and increase
information sharing across states have grown since reauthorization.

-   As of August 1998, the Department had approved consortia
    arrangements involving 32 states, an increase from 15 states in
    fiscal year 1995.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Two years after the elimination of the Migrant Student Records
    Transfer System, most states and school districts rely on mail,
    telephone, and fax to transfer records for migrant students.

##### Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk of Dropping Out

**The Title I, Part D program is intended to serve neglected and
delinquent children and youth, often in juvenile and adult correctional
facilities.** The 1994 reauthorization made several major changes to the
Title I, Part D program. One change was increasing the number of hours
each week for instruction to help students to meet challenging academic
standards. The reauthorized program also offered institutions the option
of operating institutionwide programs, modeled after Title I schoolwide
programs, to help ensure that students' needs are being met in a
coherent and coordinated manner.

**Although states report that they are building facilities' capacity to
implement institutionwide programs, few facilities have implemented
them.** More than half of the states provided technical assistance on
"whole school" improvement, yet only 9 percent of neglected or
delinquent (N or D) facilities are institutionwide programs. Moreover,
states and institutions need to work on collecting appropriate data and
using it to inform program improvement. Institutions are generally
unable to collect comprehensive data on students' educational
experiences and transition to further education or employment.

### 

### 

## Options for Future Directions

##### Stay the Course: Maintain an Emphasis on Challenging Standards for All Students

Gains by students in the nation's highest-poverty schools, coupled with
evidence that aligning instruction with challenging standards can
substantially increase student achievement, point to the need to stay
the course of focusing instruction on challenging standards for all
students. Though there has clearly been progress in implementing
standards at all levels, full implementation in classrooms across the
country has yet to be accomplished. States, districts, and schools need
to continue to implement standards that challenge all students to
achieve at high levels, and to align curriculum, teaching, and
assessments with those standards. Reauthorization should address the
continuing challenges that limit Title I's capacity to be a stimulus and
support for better results for our nation's at-risk students.

##### Targeted High-Performance "Catch-Up" Grants to Strengthen the Highest-Poverty Schools 

**The continuing weak performance of the highest-poverty schools, those
with poverty in excess of 75 percent, remains one of America's most
pressing educational problems.** Although all Title I schools need
additional resources and assistance, the highest-poverty schools are the
neediest not only in terms of their populations served, but also in
terms of the progress they must make to improve their current
performance. In these schools, 7 out of every 10 children are currently
achieving below even the basic level of reading.

**Reauthorization should focus on the extraordinary needs of the
highest-poverty schools to improve teaching and learning for our most
at-risk students, while holding these schools accountable for continuous
improvement in student results.** If these grants were to target an
additional \$1.3 billion, or about 15 percent of current Title I funds,
they would be sufficient, when combined with current Title I funds and a
25 percent local match, to enable the highest-poverty schools to

-   Support a schoolwide model program of their choosing that is backed
    by evaluation evidence of effectiveness. Schools could carry out
    intensive programs aimed at improving early reading as in the
    Reading Excellence Act program, run a program to start their
    middle-school students thinking about college and planning for their
    futures, as in GEAR UP, or a combination of such approaches.

-   Within three years, achieve a ratio of modern multimedia computers
    to students of 5:1, a long-term national target and a goal that is
    especially important in high-poverty communities where children lack
    the home access to computers available in higher-income areas.

-   Provide a high-quality after-school instructional program for 50
    percent of all students, up from the current 12 percent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reduce class sizes in the early grades to 21 students per teacher,
    midway from current levels to the long-term national goal of 18
    students.

**In turn,**

-   **Recipient schools would make a commitment to continued progress in
    improving student outcomes as defined through annual outcome and
    service improvement targets. These would be described in a
    peer-reviewed schoolwide plan.** Schools would annually report
    progress against outcome and service performance objectives with the
    plan and reports.

-   **States and districts would need to make a commitment to assisting
    their highest-poverty schools.** States and districts would work
    with their schools to identify resources from all sources that could
    be combined for meaningful, concerted school reform. Districts would
    review their schools' planning and implementation and offer peer
    reviewers to work with the schools on a sustained basis. They would
    also share performance data, research on effective approaches, and
    information across schools engaged in reform.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **The highest-poverty schools would also have the highest priority
    for assistance from all federally supported technical assistance
    providers.** Comprehensive regional assistance centers and other
    technical assistance providers would place these schools at the head
    of the line for support, concentrating their efforts where they
    could do the most good.

These monies would raise the average amount of Title I funds that the
highest-poverty schools receive annually by 50 percent, to an estimated
\$336,000 for each school. These new monies could go out under the
current formulas to states and districts for their schools with poverty
rates of 75 percent or higher. If states lack schools in the
highest-poverty category, they would receive a minimum grant to be spent
on their most impoverished schools.

The resources to support the Targeted High-Performance School Grants
could come from increases in Title I funding and an off-the-top
set-aside for these schools in related federal programs such as 21^st^
Century Learning Communities, Reading Excellence Act, Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund, GEAR UP, and Class-Size Reduction. A set-aside
of one-third of the FY 2000 monies from these five programs for these
highest-poverty schools would provide about \$990 million under the
administration's FY 2000 budget request. The remainder to bring the
total to \$1.3 billion could come from channeling the \$320 million
proposed increase in Title I funding to these new grants.

Targeting additional funds to schools with high concentrations of
low-income students has advantages over targeting on low performance.
**First, high-performing, high-poverty schools should not be penalized
for their progress.** Second, low-performing schools should not be
rewarded for a lack of effort. High-performing schools need support,
recognition, and encouragement to sustain their gains. In addition,
targeting funds on the basis of poverty is consistent with the process
for allocating funds currently and would not require a different
mechanism.

##### Strengthen Instruction

**Progress in using Title I to support better instructional practices at
the school level remains limited by the continued use of
paraprofessionals who provide instruction, particularly in the
highest-poverty Title I schools.** Paraprofessionals in high-poverty
schools tend to have less formal education than those in low-poverty
schools, and they are often assigned to teach---sometimes without a
teacher present. Although many paraprofessionals have invested large
amounts of time and effort working in Title I schools and are an
important part of the school community, it is imperative that priorities
for their services be based solely on the needs of students. **Phasing
out** their use in instruction and promoting their use as parent
liaisons or in administrative functions should be a priority.

**Reauthorization should also support the establishment of career ladder
programs for paraprofessionals, so that those desiring to become
credentialed would be supported in doing so.** These programs could
include what recent survey data show that some districts are doing
already.

**Reauthorization should include resources for the development of
ongoing consumer guides on effective practices.** Schools are moving
toward adopting curriculum and whole-school reform models to frame their
improvement efforts. However little independent research has been
conducted to evaluate the efficacy of comprehensive school reform models
and better understand the conditions under which they can succeed. The
federal government should make such research and evaluation of
comprehensive model programs a priority through systematic study and
annual reporting in a consumer guide. To ensure the integrity and
independence of model appraisal, a quasi-governmental agency might be
established to oversee the integrity of the evaluation process and
reporting of results. This information would enable schools to become
better-educated consumers in selecting and implementing models most
likely to fit their circumstances and contribute to improved results.

##### Strengthen Parental Involvement

The general direction of Title I parent involvement policies and
compacts on supporting learning is consistent with research. Options
that would strengthen implementation include these:

-   Have schools report annually on measurable indicators of the
    effectiveness of parental involvement, as reflected in their own
    policies and compacts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Consolidate or coordinate parental involvement provisions across all
    elementary and secondary programs that have them to form one uniform
    parent provision. These programs are Title I, Even Start Family
    Literacy, Education of Migratory Children, Parental Information and
    Resource Centers, Impact Aid, Education for Homeless Children and
    Youth, Magnet Schools, 21^st^ Century Community Learning Centers,
    Indian Education, Technology for Education, and Safe and Drug-Free
    Schools and Communities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strengthen parental involvement activities in the early grades to
    support reading and family literacy, and in the middle and high
    school grades to encourage students to take challenging courses.

##### Focus on Accountability

#### 

**The use of school profiles designed to report school results and
progress has been shown to be a powerful tool for accountability and
school improvement. However, profiles often do not effectively reach
parents and community members.** They tend to be difficult to read, even
for the well-educated parent. Their scope of information is also
limited; few school report cards present information on teacher quality
or student rates of progress. Also, schools are limited by a lack of
comparable statewide or national information on what they are able to
accomplish. The federal government should facilitate state and local
school district efforts to provide coherent, comparative information on
school progress to their communities.

**The reauthorization should also ensure that accountability provisions
identify schools in need of improvement on the basis of the best
measures available to states and districts---regardless of whether their
final assessment systems are in place.** Schools already identified for
improvement, should remain so; time should not be lost as a result of
reauthorization in identifying and reaching schools with the greatest
needs.

**Reauthorization should address eliminating dual accountability
systems.** For Title I to be an effective lever for improvement, it
needs to be aligned with and supportive of the systems that states are
creating.

**Finally, Congress and those responsible for implementing and
supporting Title I programs should recognize that state and local
systems of standards, assessments and accountability are in flux and are
likely to keep changing over time.** Even established systems such as
those in Kentucky and Kansas, which were forerunners in the development
of aligned systems of standards and assessments, have revised their
efforts to reflect priorities of their state legislatures and boards.
The law should recognize this situation and offer states and districts
the flexibility to continue to implement measures of school
accountability under these conditions.

## Summary

This National Assessment of Title I has examined the program in the
context of the burgeoning standards-based reform movement in states and
school districts. Although there has clearly been progress in
implementing standards at all levels, full implementation in classrooms
across the country has yet to be accomplished. The new directions
proposed for reauthorization are designed to help speed up
implementation of standards, to help all children achieve at high
levels. Reauthorization should address the continuing challenges that
undercut Title I's capacity to be a stimulus and support for better
results for our nation's at-risk students

***.***

# FOREWORD

## Background and Context for the National Assessment of Title I

As the largest single federal investment in schooling for more than 30
years, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
\[P.L. 103-382\] provides over \$8 billion annually to school systems
across the country to improve education for children who attend schools
with high concentrations of poverty. Title I supports improvements in
teaching and learning and provides services that help children who are
most at risk of school failure to succeed in school. The program's
central objective is to support state and local efforts to help
[all]{.underline} children reach challenging standards by providing
additional resources for schools and students who have farthest to go in
achieving the goal.

The 1994 reauthorization of Title I of ESEA---through the enactment of
the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) \[P.L. 103-382\]---brought
about significant changes in key elements of this program. Six years
ago, the U.S. Department of Education reported to Congress on the
effectiveness of the program as it operated as Chapter 1. That report,
Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New
Directions,[^48] which drew from the Prospects longitudinal study,[^49]
found that Chapter 1 programs reinforced low expectations of the
students they served by providing students with remedial instruction and
holding them to lower academic and performance standards than other
students.

-   Different expectations were held for students in high- and
    low-poverty schools. Indeed, an "A" student in a high-poverty school
    would be about a "C" student in a low-poverty school when measured
    against a common test.[^50]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 1 students were often pulled out of their regular
    classrooms, adding an average of 10 minutes of instructional time
    per day and often failing to relate to the rest of the students'
    educational experience.[^51]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 1 did not fully contribute to high-quality instruction and
    often relied on teachers' aides who lacked educational
    credentials.[^52]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 1 had not kept pace with the growing movement, across the
    country, toward the establishment of challenging standards and
    assessments. Therefore, weaknesses in instruction were coupled with
    minimum competency assessments that tested primarily low-level
    skills.[^53]

The 1994 reauthorization addressed the limitations identified under
Chapter 1 by emphasizing the goal of holding [all]{.underline} students
to the same high state standards. These changes include the requirement
that Title I services be linked to the same rigorous standards that are
expected of all children and that aligned assessments measure students'
progress towards these standards. The statute also encourages
high-poverty schools to develop schoolwide approaches to improving
student performance, promotes attention to challenging curriculum and
accelerated instruction through high-quality teacher training and
extended learning time strategies, and encourages partnerships between
parents and staff in high-poverty schools.

Title I, along with other federally supported programs, was also
redesigned to better link its national purpose to state and local reform
efforts. The legislation coupled flexibility in the use of resources
with attention to accountability for results. Providing flexibility in
tandem with performance accountability is the centerpiece of Title I and
an overall focus of the National Assessment of Title I. The National
Assessment also examines the implementation of key Title I provisions at
the state, district, and school levels, analyzes which provisions make
the most difference, and suggests strategies for improved practices or
changes in statutory requirements.

## 

## The Mandate for a National Assessment of Title I

The mandate for the National Assessment of Title I (P.L. 103-382, Sec.
1501) identifies key issues to be examined by the U.S. Department of
Education. First and foremost is the progress of schools, local
districts and states toward the goal of helping all children served by
Title I reach challenging standards. The mandate also requires that the
Department report on progress toward achieving that goal by examining
key priorities in the law such as:

-   Ensuring challenging content and performance standards for
    [all]{.underline} children;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Targeting resources to areas where the needs are greatest;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Providing an enriched and accelerated educational program to
    children enrolled in Title I schools, and upgrading instruction by
    providing staff in participating schools with substantial
    opportunities for professional development;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Affording opportunities for parents of children (served by Title I)
    to participate in the education of their children at home and at
    school, such as the provision of family literacy services; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Providing greater decision-making authority over the use of Title I
    funds to schools in exchange for greater responsibility for student
    performance.

The focus on results in Title I is consistent with priorities
established for all federal programs through the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) \[P.L. 103-62\], which requires that
agencies establish performance goals and track indicators for every
program. The National Assessment of Title I reports progress on key
indicators identified for the Title I program under this Act. These
indicators reflect progress in three priority areas:

-   Improved achievement for students enrolled in high-poverty schools;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increases in the number of Title I schools using standards-based
    reform and effective strategies to enable all students to reach
    challenging standards; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Accelerated state and local standards-based reform efforts and
    assistance to Title I schools.

The National Assessment's interim report*Mapping Out the National
Assessment of Title* *I*---outlined challenges in planning and
conducting the National Assessment of Title I.[^54] Because Title I is
no longer conceived of as a separate supplemental program, progress
cannot be measured in isolation from changing state, district, and
school reform efforts and results. The National Assessment relied on
national measures of academic progress overall, as well as assessments
that states were developing aligned to their academic standards. Also,
the expansion of schoolwide programs blurred the distinction between
program participants and other children. Tracking the use of Title I
funds became problematic when schools were encouraged to pool their
resources from all sources to support schoolwide reform. Early
reductions in congressional appropriations for Title I evaluation
limited the Department's efforts to track progress of a nationally
representative cohort of students and schools similar to the *Prospects*
study, which informed the National Assessment of Chapter 1.[^55]

Nevertheless, these challenges created opportunities for bringing
together multiple sources of informationsupported both through the U.S.
Department of Education and other sourcesto provide a comprehensive
assessment of the implementation and impact of the 1994 amendments to
the program. Descriptions of key program evaluations and other
studiesboth ongoing and completedwhich informed the National
Assessment of Title I are listed in the Appendix.

## Independent Review Panel for the National Assessment of Title I and Study of the Federal Impact on Elementary/Secondary Reform

The National Assessment of Title I benefited from the involvement of an
Independent Review Panel composed of representatives of state and local
education agencies and private schools, school-level staff, parent
representatives, education researchers, and policy experts. The Panel,
mandated under Sections 1501 and 14701 of the ESEA, has met three to
four times a year since May 1995. It has defined issues, and reviewed
plans, analysis and draft text for the National Assessment of Title I
and a companion report, *Federal Education Legislation Enacted in 1994:
An Evaluation of Implementation and Impact*. Panel members also prepared
their own report, *Measured Progress: The Report of the Independent
Review Panel on the Evaluation of Federal Education Legislation*.

## Key Issues Addressed in This Report

In responding to Congress' mandate, the final report of the National
Assessment of Title I responds to Congress' mandate to examine the
progress of students served by the program and implementation of key
provisions. The report is organized around the following topics:

-   The performance of students in high-poverty schools and
    low-performing students, who are the prime beneficiaries of Title I
    services;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The implementation of systems designed to support schools in helping
    students meet high standards, including the establishment of systems
    of challenging standards and assessments, the role of Title I in
    holding schools accountable for results, targeting of Title I funds,
    and the allocation and use of resources in states, districts and
    schools;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The implementation of Title I services at the school level,
    including uses of schoolwide and targeted- assistance approaches for
    providing services in Title I schools, strategies for providing
    challenging curriculum and instruction in high-poverty Title I
    schools, qualifications of and support for staff (including aides)
    in Title I high-poverty schools, and Title I support for
    partnerships with families; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The implementation of additional Title I services targeted at
    special populations, including Services to Students Enrolled in
    Private Schools (under Part A), Even Start (Part B), Migrant
    Education Program (Part C), and Services to Neglected or Delinquent
    Children (Part D).

The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I concludes with a
summary of key findings and suggestions for future directions for Title
I legislation and program implementation.

#   {#section-5 .unnumbered}

#   {#section-6 .unnumbered}

# 1. INTRODUCTION

# 

## The Significance of Title I Support for Students at Risk 

Poverty is a significant problem for many of our nation's children. In
1997, the U.S. Bureau of the Census estimated that 20 percent of
American children under the age of 18 lived in poverty. This poverty
rate is about the same level as in 1965 (the year in which Title I was
first enacted), although it fluctuated during this period from a low of
15 percent in 1970 to a high of 22 percent in 1993).[^56] African
American and Hispanic childrenboth with poverty rates of 37 percentare
more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic white children to be
poor.[^57] Particularly in the urban core, communities are faced with
concentrations of poverty that pose formidable challenges for schools.
One-third of the children in America's cities live in poverty.[^58]

Because the effects of poverty on learning are profound, these
statistics translate into severe educational disadvantages for many
children and pose serious challenges for public education. At the
individual level, poverty has numerous correlates that inhibit learning.
Poor children are more likely than wealthier children to be exposed to
drug abuse, violence, and unhealthy living conditions.[^59] Low-income
students are far more likely to drop out of schoolin 1996, almost eight
times more low-income students dropped out than high-income students
did.[^60] Parents in economically disadvantaged families tend to have
limited education and involvement in their children's learning.[^61]
Teachers in schools with high concentrations of low-income students are
less likely to have high expectations regarding their students'
attainment of challenging academic standards, holding the students to
lower standards than those for more advantaged students.[^62]

But the effects of poverty on student achievement are not restricted to
students who are poor. Research shows that school‑wide poverty affects
student performance, independent of the students' own family background.
The achievement levels of both poor and non-poor students decline as
school poverty rates increase. Thus, high concentrations of poverty put
at-risk students at a double disadvantage.[^63]

Title I helps meet 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. Nearly all (95 percent) of the
highest-poverty schoolsthose where 75 percent or more of the students
are eligible for free- or reduced-price lunchreceive Title I funds
(Exhibit 1.1), accounting for 46 percent of Title I funding for schools
and enrolling 14 percent of the nation's students.[^64] Title I services
are also provided to disadvantaged children enrolled in private schools.

> ![](media/image2.wmf)Exhibit reads: Nearly all (95 percent) of the
> highest-poverty schools receive Title I funds, compared with 58
> percent of all schools.
>
> Source: Stullich, Donly, and Stolzberg, *Targeting Schools: Study of
> Title I Allocations Within Schools*, 1999.

***Title I also provides supplemental assistance to children who face
additional educational barriers---children whose needs are generally not
met by state and local funds. These include children who come from
families with low family literacy, the children of migrant agricultural
workers, and children who are neglected or delinquent.***

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
program, and hence their risk of school failure increases.[^65] Migrant
children's families move frequently to pursue agricultural work, and
thus the children must change schools frequentlya situation that has a
detrimental effect on their achievement. Neglected or delinquent
students are extremely educationally disadvantaged; many are
incarcerated in state juvenile and adult correctional facilities and
have experienced numerous disruptions in their education. These children
are served under other programs authorized under Title I, including:

-   Even Start Family Literacy Programs (Title IPart B), which supports
    literacy services and early childhood programs for disadvantaged
    families;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Education of Migratory Children (Title IPart C), which provides
    supplemental services at the state and local levels to assist
    children of migratory workers by providing continuity in their
    education and additional support services to address the barriers
    posed by their migrant status; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are
    Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk of Dropping Out (Title IPart D),
    which support instructional and support services in state and local
    facilities for neglected children and incarcerated youth.

Title I programs provided a total of \$8.4 billion in FY 1999. About
93 percent of Title I funding (\$7.676 billion) supported Basic and
Concentration Grants to school districts authorized under Part A
(Exhibit 1.2). Title I programs funded in FY 1999 also included Capital
Expenses for Private School Children (\$24 million), Even Start (\$135
million), Migrant Education (\$355 million), Services to Students who
are Neglected, Delinquent or At Risk of Dropping Out (\$40 million), and
Evaluation (\$7.5 million).[^66]

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Title I funds primarily support Basic and Concentration
> Grants to school districts (93 percent of all Title I funds).
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, *FY 2000 Budget Summary*, 1999.

**Title I funding for FY 1999 amounts to 2.5 percent of total current
expenditures for public elementary and secondary education for the
1999-2000 school year (projected).** Title I Basic and Concentration
Grants amount to 2.3 percent of total spending.[^67]

Over the past 30 years, funding for the Title I programs has increased
by over 40 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. Since the 1994
reauthorization, Title I funding grew from \$6.9 billion in FY 1994 to
\$8.4 billion in FY 1999a 17 percent increase after adjusting for
inflation. Over the same five-year period, funding for other
elementary-secondary programs administered by the Department of
Education (including other ESEA programs, Goals 2000, School-to-Work,
and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs) grew
from \$6.0 billion to \$11.4 billionan 80 percent increase after
adjusting for inflation. The increase for other elementary-secondary
programs was primarily due to a 72 percent increase for IDEA (\$2.2
billion) and new programs for Class Size Reduction (\$1.2 billion),
Technology (\$550 million), Reading Excellence (\$260 million), and
21^st^ Century Community Learning Centers (\$200 million). In FY 1999,
Title I funds accounted for 42 percent of total Department of Education
funds for elementary and secondary programs, down from 53 percent in FY
1994.

(Exhibit 1.3)

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: From FY 1994 to FY 1999, Title I funding grew from
> \$6.9 billion to \$8.4 billion, while funding for other
> elementary-secondary programs (including other ESEA programs, Goals
> 2000, School-to-Work, and IDEA) grew from \$6.0 billion to \$11.4
> billion.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.

***Federal education programs in general, and Title I in particular, are
much more targeted to high-poverty schools and districts than are state
and local funds.***

While school finance systems in most states target additional state
funds to districts with large numbers of poor students, they do not
fully compensate for funding disparities related to local property tax
bases. The districts in the highest poverty quartile, which have 49
percent of the nation's poor children, receive

27 percent of state education revenues and 18 percent of local education
revenues, but their share of state and local funds combined (23 percent)
is still less than their share of school-age children (25 percent).
In contrast, the districts in the highest poverty quartile receive 43
percent of federal education funds and nearly half (49 percent) of Title
I funds.[^68]

## What Title I Supports

In 1997-98, Title I (Part A) supported services for more than 45,000
schools, or 58 percent of all public schools in the country, a decline
from 62 percent in 1993-94. Almost two-thirds of elementary schools
receive funds, as do 29 percent of secondary schools. [^69] In 1997-98,
just over 16,000 Title I schools operated schoolwide programs, an
increase from 4,600 in 1994-95.[^70]

School districts use 90 to 93 percent of their Title I funds for
instruction and instructional supportmost often in reading and
mathmuch higher than the percentage of state and local funds used for
this purpose (62 percent). Nearly all Title I funds are allocated to
school districts, with only one percent used at the state and federal
levels for administration and technical support.[^71]

Although Title I accounts for a relatively small percentage of total
funding for elementary and secondary education (about 3 percent), the
program can often play a significant role in supporting local education
improvement efforts. Title I funds may also be used to provide
professional development, purchase computers, offer after-school or
other extended-time programs, and provide other strategies for raising
student achievement.

## Whom Title I Serves 

![](media/image2.wmf)Title I services reach more than 11 million
students enrolled in both public and private schoolsabout two-thirds of
whom are enrolled in elementary grades 1-6 (Exhibit 1.4). Students in
middle and secondary schools remain a small proportion of those served
overall.[^72]

> Exhibit reads: 37 percent of the children served in Title I are in
> grades 1- 3.
>
> > Source: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from
> > the *1996-97 Title I Performance Report*.

Minority students participate at rates higher than their proportion of
the student population. Some 28 percent of Title I participants are
African American, 30 percent are Hispanic, and 36 percent are
non-Hispanic white; the remainder are from other ethnic/racial
groups.[^73]

Among the 11 million students served by the Title I (Part A) program are
about 167,000 private school children, 300,000 migrant children, and
200,000 children identified as homeless. Title I services are also
provided to about 2 million students with limited English proficiency,
and 1 million students with disabilities.[^74] In 1996-97, Even Start
served some 48,000 children and almost 36,000 adults.[^75] Over 580,000
migrant children were served under the Migrant Education Program (Part
C) , and 200,000 neglected or delinquent youth were served in the Title
I N or D.[^76]

# 2. PROGRESS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS IN HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #### Key Findings                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| An examination of trends in the performance of students in the        |
| nation's highest-poverty public schools (those with 75 percent or     |
| more poor children), as well as progress of the lowest-achieving      |
| students shows positive gains in reading and math performance since   |
| the reauthorization of Title I.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Since 1992, and the reauthorization of Title I, 9-year-olds in    |
|     the highest-poverty schools gained 8 points in NAEP reading       |
|     scores, regaining the losses between the late 1980s and early     |
|     1990s. The lowest-achieving public school 4^th^-graders improved  |
|     by about half to one grade level in reading achievement between   |
|     1994 and 1998.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Math achievement has improved for all students and for students   |
|     in the highest-poverty schools. NAEP scores show an increase of   |
|     about 10 points for all 9-year-olds from 1986 through 1996.       |
|     Students in the highest-poverty schools made their greatest gains |
|     after 1992. Math scores also improved substantially among public  |
|     4^th^-graders in the lowest percentiles of performance. Scores of |
|     the lowest 10 percent and 25 percent of public school             |
|     4^th^-graders improved by 9 and 8 points, respectively (almost    |
|     one grade level) between 1990 and 1996.                           |
|                                                                       |
| Despite gains in reading and math performance, the students in the    |
| highest-poverty schools remain substantially below their more         |
| advantaged peers in meeting basic standards of performance in both    |
| reading and math.                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   In 1998, 32 percent of 4^th^-graders in the highest-poverty       |
|     schools scored at or above the NAEP *Basic* level in reading,     |
|     about half the national percentage.                               |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   In 1996, 42 percent of 4^th^-graders in the highest-poverty       |
|     schools scored at or above the NAEP *Basic* level in mathematics, |
|     compared with 62 percent of all public 4^th^-graders. Despite     |
|     this gap at the national level, there were 9 states in which      |
|     performance of students in the highest-poverty schools exceeded   |
|     the national average, indicating that it is possible to raise the |
|     performance of students in high-poverty schools to national       |
|     levels of achievement.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Three-year trends reported by states and districts show progress in   |
| the percentage of students in the highest-poverty schools who meet    |
| state and local standards for proficiency in mathematics and reading. |
| Among states and large urban districts that could provide three-year  |
| trend data for students in high-poverty schools, overall there is     |
| progress.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   The achievement of elementary school students in the              |
|     highest-poverty schools improved in 4 of 5 states in mathematics  |
|     and in 5 of 6 states in reading. Students in Connecticut,         |
|     Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas made progress in both         |
|     subjects.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Ten of 13 large urban districts showed increases in the           |
|     percentage of elementary students in the highest-poverty schools  |
|     who met district or state proficiency standards in math or        |
|     reading. Six districts---Houston, Dade County (Miami), New York,  |
|     Philadelphia, San Antonio, and San Francisco---made progress in   |
|     both subjects.                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##  Background

Schools with the highest concentrations of poverty---those in which more
than 75 percent or more students receive free- or reduced-price
lunches---face the greatest challenges in meeting the needs of all their
students. Ninety-five percent of these schools receive Title I
funds.[^77] Because Title I is designed to support the progress of
schools with high concentrations of poverty, and because most Title I
funds serve elementary schools, data reported in this chapter focus on
trends in performance of 9-year-olds in high-poverty schools and of
low-performing 4^th^-graders. For additional data on the achievement,
course-taking patterns, and dropout rates of older students, see the
companion report *Federal Education Legislation Enacted in 1994: An
Evaluation of Implementation and Impact*.

The Title I statute requires that by the 2000-2001 school year each
state will use assessments that are aligned with challenging standards
to measure the academic progress of all Title I schools and students.
Although this chapter presents available trends from state and local
assessments, it relies primarily on results from the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), which, though not necessarily aligned
with standards in all states, provides the only uniform basis of
comparing progress across states and between individual states and the
nation.[^78]

The interpretation of national student achievement trends in evaluating
Title I poses challenges. It is difficult to attribute gains in student
academic performance to the 3 percent of total funding contributed by
Title I, while disregarding the effect of the other 97 percent of the
resources in education. Indeed, the federal contribution should be
examined as an investment in the much larger enterprise. Attributing the
effect of the federal program apart from the progress of the broader
educational system poses challenges. It requires that evaluation examine
both national results for student performance and the extent to which
the federal program is being implemented in ways that may contribute to
gains for students likely to benefit from the program.

This chapter uses results from NAEP and from state and local assessments
to answer two basic questions:

-   Has student achievement, particularly the achievement of students in
    high-poverty schools and of the lowest-achieving students, improved
    over time?

-   To what extent are students, particularly those in the
    highest-poverty schools, meeting the standards being set for all
    students across the nation?

## Trends in Student Achievement Based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

**Indicator: Student performance on national assessments.** Between 1994
and 2002, performance of the lowest-achieving students and students in
the highest-poverty public schools will increase substantially on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Prior to 1986, when measures of school poverty were first collected on
NAEP, achievement data were reported by type of community in which the
school was located and by minority status of students. The results show
that throughout the 1970s and most of the 1980s there was a narrowing of
the gap in achievement between students in disadvantaged urban
communities and those in more advantaged communities, as well as between
minority and white students. The NAEP results document that the gap
narrowed by a third between 1971 and 1988.[^79] Although these are
imperfect measures of the conditions that put students at risk of school
failure, they are useful proxies of school poverty as minority students
are disproportionately found in high-poverty schools, and these schools
are disproportionately located in urban inner cities. In this chapter,
NAEP trend data from 1986 through 1996 are reported by school poverty
level, as one measure of the performance of students whom Title I is
intended to benefit.

Although comparing students' achievement by school poverty level is
preferable, this comparison is possible only on the Trend NAEP (see
Exhibit 2.1). On the Main NAEP assessments (the tests that measure more
current curricular emphasis and standards) trend data by poverty level
are unavailable because changes in the item measuring school-level
poverty make the comparisons unreliable. Trends on the Main NAEP,
therefore, are reported for the lowest percentile groups of students,
focusing on those students who score in the lowest 10 and 25 percent of
4^th^-graders in each assessment year. Like school poverty level, these
groups of low-achieving students are a good proxy for Title I
participation because over 80 percent of these low-achieving students
attend Title I schools.[^80]

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##                                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| #### Exhibit 2.1                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| #### How NAEP Tests Are Used to Report Progress                       |
|                                                                       |
| The National Assessment of Educational Progress consists of two       |
| separate tests, the **Trend Assessment** and the **Main Assessment**. |
| They differ in purpose, item content, sample, assessment years, and   |
| method of scoring results, and are used in this chapter to answer     |
| different questions about student progress.                           |
|                                                                       |
| The **NAEP Trend Assessment** is designed to measure long-term trends |
| in student performance on sets of items that have not changed since   |
| NAEP was first conducted in 1969.[^81] The test measures the          |
| performance of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students at the national      |
| level. Results are reported as average scores on a scale from zero to |
| 500 points. In this chapter, NAEP trend data for 9-year-olds are used |
| to answer the question, **Has student achievement improved over       |
| time?** The NAEP Trend Assessment is also used to report the          |
| performance of students by poverty level of the schools they attend   |
| as defined by percent of students participating in free or            |
| reduced-price lunch programs. Trend data reported by school poverty   |
| level is used to answer the question, **Has student achievement       |
| improved over time among students attending the highest-poverty       |
| schools?**                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| The **Main NAEP Assessment**, first conducted in 1990, is designed to |
| measure short-term trends in student performance on items reflecting  |
| more current curricular content and standards. The test measures the  |
| performance of students in grades 4, 8, and 12 at the national level, |
| and at the state level in states that elect to participate in State   |
| NAEP. Test scores are reported in two ways, as average scale scores   |
| and as the percentage of students achieving at established standards  |
| of performance. The standards are determined by expert judges at      |
| three levels of achievement: *Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.* Each  |
| of these measures is used as follows in this chapter:                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   The average scale scores of the lowest-achieving students (the    |
|     bottom 10 and 25 percent of scorers) are used to answer the       |
|     question, **Has student achievement of the lowest-performing      |
|     students improved over time?**                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   The percentages of students achieving at and above the *Basic*    |
|     and *Proficient* levels are used to answer the question, **Are    |
|     students in the highest-poverty schools achieving to the academic |
|     standards being set for all students across the nation?**         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***National Trends in Reading Achievement*** [^82]

### Has reading achievement of students in the highest-poverty schools improved over time? 

**The average reading performance of 9-year-olds was stable between 1988
and 1996. In contrast, the performance of students in the
highest-poverty schools, which was at its lowest in 1992, has improved
since the re-authorization of Title I, bringing scores back to their
earlier levels.** From 1992 to 1996, scores of 9-year-olds in the
highest-poverty schools rose by 8 scale score points, or close to one
grade level of improvement (Exhibit 2.2).

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1996, the average reading scale score for 9-year-old
> students in the highest-poverty schools was 188.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP Reading
> Trends, unpublished tabulations, 1998.

### Has reading achievement improved over time for the lowest-achieving students? 

**The lowest-achieving public school 4^th^-graders showed fairly
substantial improvements in reading between 1994 and 1998 on the Main
NAEP. The substantial gains for these studentsamong those targeted for
Title I servicessuggest that it was the performance of the lowest
achievers that raised the national average of all 4^th^-graders,
compared with the stable performance of higher-achieving students.**

Results of the Main NAEP reading assessment show that among
4^th^-graders scoring in the bottom 10 and 25 percent, the average scale
scores declined between 1992 and 1994 and then increased between 1994
and 1998 almost to their 1992 levels (see Exhibit 2.3). The substantial
gains since 1994---9 points among the bottom 10 percent and 5 points
among the bottom 25 percent---compared with the stable performance of
other higher achieving students, suggest that it was the performance of
the lowest achievers that raised the national average of all
4^th^-graders. Among 8^th^-graders in the lowest 25 percent, scores
increased by 6 points between 1994 and 1998. These results are
consistent with the results of the Trend NAEP, that is, since the
reauthorization of Title I there have been gains in reading achievement
among students whom Title I is intended to benefit.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1998, the average score of 4^th-^graders performing
> in the lowest 10 percent of students in the nation was 165 on the
> reading assessment.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP
> Reading, unpublished tabulations, 1999.

### Are students in high-poverty schools achieving to the academic standards in reading required of all students? 

**Despite the gains in reading among students targeted for Title I
services, the achievement gap between students in the highest-poverty
schools and all students remains substantial**.

In 1998, 32 percent of 4^th^-graders in the highest-poverty schools
performed at or above the *Basic* level of achievement in reading,[^83]
a rate about half that of all public 4th-graders in the nation (Exhibit
2.4). Ten percent of students in the highest-poverty schools performed
at or above *Proficient,*[^84] a rate one-third that of all public
4^th^-graders. The decline in performance of students as their school
poverty level increases shows the consistency of the gap between
students in poverty and their more advantaged peers.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1998, 77 percent of students attending low-poverty
> schools performed at or above the *Basic* level in reading.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP
> Reading, unpublished tabulations, 1999.

##### State Trends in Student Achievement in Reading Based on Main State NAEP

![](media/image2.wmf)**At the state level in 1998 there was substantial
variation in the reading performance of 4^th^-grade students in the
highest-poverty schools (Exhibit 2.5).** The percentage of students in
the highest-poverty schools scoring at or above the *Basic* level on
Main State NAEP ranged from a low of 19 percent to a high of 61
percentthe national average for all public school 4^th^-grade students.

> Exhibit Reads: In Maine, 61 percent of 4^th^-graders who attended the
> highest-poverty schools scored at or above the *Basic* level in
> reading.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, State NAEP
> Reading, unpublished tabulations, 1999.

***National Trends in Mathematics Achievement*** [^85]

## Has math achievement of students in the highest-poverty schools improved over time?

**Math achievement improved substantially for students in the
highest-poverty schools between 1992 and 1996, rising by 9 points, or
one grade level.** Since 1986 math achievement has improved for all
students and for students in the highest-poverty schools. Trend NAEP
scores show an increase of about 11 points for all 9-year-olds from 1986
to 1996. Following a decline in 1992, scores of students in the
highest-poverty schools increased, narrowing the gap with students in
more affluent schools to its 1986 margin (Exhibit 2.6).

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1996 the average mathematics scale score of
> 9-year-old students in the highest-poverty schools was 217.
>
> Source: : U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP
> Mathematics Trends, unpublished tabulations, 1998.

### Has math achievement improved over time for the lowest-achieving students?

**Between 1990 and 1996, math achievement improved among the
lowest-achieving students, those who are most targeted for Title I
services.** The Main NAEP assessment, which measures current standards
of content and performance, shows that from 1990 to 1996, the
performance of students in the lowest percentiles improved steadily. The
lowest 10 percent of 4^th^-graders gained 9 points, and the lowest 25
percent gained 8 points, roughly equivalent to one grade level (Exhibit
2.7). Similar gains were made by students on average as well as by those
in the top 10 percent of 4^th^-graders. Among the bottom 25 percent of
8^th^-graders there were gains of 7 points over this same period. These
results are consistent with those of the long-term trend NAEP, that is,
among all 4^th^-grade students and among those most targeted for Title
I, there were substantial improvements in math achievement since the
Title I reauthorization.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1996 the average mathematics score of 4^th^-grade
> students in the bottom 10 percent of the nation was 180.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP
> Mathematics, Summary Data Tables, http://nces.ed.gov/NAEP

### Are students in the highest-poverty schools achieving to the academic standards in math required of all students?

**Despite the gains in math among students targeted for Title I
services, the achievement gap between students in the highest-poverty
schools and all students remains substantial**.

In 1996, 42 percent of 4^th^-grade students attending the
highest-poverty schools scored at or above the *Basic* level of
achievement[^86] compared with 62 percent of all 4^th^-graders (Exhibit
2.8). Ten percent of students in the highest-poverty schools scored at
or above the *Proficient* achievement level[^87] compared with 19
percent of all 4^th^-graders.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1996, 62 percent of all 4^th^-graders scored at or
> above the *Basic* level in mathematics and 19 percent scored at or
> above *Proficient*.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP
> Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 1998.

##### State Trends in Student Achievement in Mathematics Based on Main State NAEP 

**At the state level in 1996 there was substantial variation in the
mathematics performance of 4^th^‑grade students in the highest-poverty
schools (Exhibit 2.9).** The percentage of students in the
highest-poverty schools scoring at or above the *Basi*c level on Main
State NAEP ranged from a low of 11 percent to a high of 80 percent. In 9
states, achievement of students in the highest-poverty schools met or
exceeded the national average for all public school students---62
percent at or above *Basic*[^88] indicating that it is possible to
bring these students to high levels of achievement.

The percentage of school-age children (ages 5-17) living in poverty
varies greatly by state, ranging from 13 percent to 31 percent.[^89]
Although, in general, there is an inverse correlation between state
poverty and student performance, these data illustrate notable
exceptions: In West Virginia, where 29 percent of school-age children
live in poverty, 61 percent of 4^th^-graders in the highest-poverty
schools scored at or above *Basic.* In Michigan and Kentucky, where 21
percent and 26 percent of children live in poverty, respectively, more
than half the students in the highest-poverty schools scored at or above
*Basic*.

> ![](media/image2.wmf)Exhibit Reads: In Maine, 80 percent of
> 4^th^-graders who attended the highest-poverty schools scored at or
> above the Basic level in mathematics.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
> Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, State NAEP
> Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 1998.

##### Trends in Student Achievement Based on State Assessment Results

**Indicator: Meeting or exceeding state performance standards**. By
2002, 32 states with aligned standards and assessments will report an
increase in the percentage of students in high-poverty schools who meet
proficient and advanced performance levels in reading and math on their
state assessment systems.

Trends in student performance based on the assessments of individual
states provide an additional perspective for measuring progress of
students in high-poverty schools. Because of changes in state assessment
systems to comply with Title I legislation, few states can currently
provide three-year trend data on students in high-poverty schools. The
six reported here are those from which data were made available through
the U.S. Department of Education's Title I Performance Report,[^90] and
subsequent requests made through late fall/early winter 1998-99. Data
from these states, which represent the earliest indicators of three-year
trends, are used to examine achievement growth among students in
high-poverty schools and to illustrate the monitoring of progress for
Title I services.[^91] The results reflect the percentage of students
meeting the states' definition of proficiencyas required for final
assessments under Title I.

The preponderance of evidence suggests progress in most of the states
reviewed. However, comparisons across the states are limited by several
factors. Specifically, the differences from state to state include the
assessment instruments used, the topics tested in each subject matter,
the definition and measurement of proficiency, the year and time of year
of assessment, and the grade levels tested. Because of these
limitations, progress for each state is summarized as yes/no
(improvement/no improvement) for each subject. Subject to these
constraints, the following conclusions are drawn (Exhibit 2.9):[^92]

-   The achievement of elementary school students in high-poverty
    schools (meeting an expected level of performance) improved in 4 of
    5 states in mathematics and in 5 of 6 states in reading.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The gap in the percentage of elementary school students in high- and
    low-poverty schools achieving at a proficient standard is narrowing
    in 4 out of 6 states in mathematics and in 2 of 6 states in reading.

## Exhibit 2.10

## Trends in State-Level Achievement for Elementary School Students

## in High-Poverty Schools

+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|        |                   | **Re    |         | #       |         |
|        |                   | ading** |         | ## Math |         |
|        |                   |         |         | ematics |         |
+========+===================+=========+=========+=========+=========+
| **S    | **Test**          | **G     | **Gap   | **G     | #       |
| tate** |                   | rowth** | Na      | rowth** | ## Gap  |
|        |                   |         | rrows** |         | Narrows |
|        |                   | **Year  |         | **Year  |         |
|        |                   | 1 --    | **Year  | 1 --    | **Year  |
|        |                   | Year    | 1 --    | Year    | 1 --    |
|        |                   | 3**     | Year    | 3**     | Year    |
|        |                   |         | 3**     |         | 3**     |
+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Conne  | Connecticut       | Yes     | No      | Yes     | Yes     |
| cticut | Mastery Test      |         |         |         |         |
+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Ke     | Instructional     | No      | No      | Not     | Not     |
| ntucky | Skills            |         |         | av      | av      |
|        | Information       |         |         | ailable | ailable |
|        | System            |         |         |         |         |
+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Maine  | Maine Educational | Yes     | Yes     | No      | Not     |
|        | Assessment        |         |         |         | app     |
|        |                   |         |         |         | licable |
+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Ma     | School            | Yes     | No      | Yes     | Yes     |
| ryland | Performance       |         |         |         |         |
|        | Assessment        |         |         |         |         |
|        | Program           |         |         |         |         |
+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| North  | North Carolina    | Yes     | No      | Yes     | Yes     |
| Ca     | End of Grade      |         |         |         |         |
| rolina |                   |         |         |         |         |
+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Texas  | Assessment of     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     |
|        | Academic Skills   |         |         |         |         |
+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **T    |                   | **5     | **2     | **4     | **4     |
| OTAL** |                   | YES/1   | YES/4   | YES/1   | YES/O   |
|        |                   | NO**    | NO**    | NO**    | NO**    |
+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Exhibit reads: Of the five states reporting three-year trends in
mathematics for elementary grades, four showed progress of students in
high-poverty schools meeting expected levels of performance.

Notes: Three-year trends are reported for either the 1994-95 through
1996-97 school years or the 1995-96 through 1997-98 school years.
High-poverty schools reported for Maine have 50 percent or more
low-income children. Elementary-school student achievement in reading
and mathematics in six states is described in the paragraphs and
exhibits that follow. For detailed information regarding student
achievement in other states see Blank et al., 1999.

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.11**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Connecticut Mastery |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Test: Grade 4**       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **Connecticut,**    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > which has used its  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Mastery Test since  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1994, shows gains   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in student          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > achievement across  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the state. Students |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in high-poverty     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, which      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > represent 10        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent of all the  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state's schools,    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > have also shown     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > continued           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > impro               |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| vement---particularly |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in math. However,   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in 1997 only 21     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent of students |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in high-poverty     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools were at or  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > above proficient in |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > math and 13 percent |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in                  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reading---compared  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > with 61 percent and |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 55 percent,         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > respectively, of    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > all students. In    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1997, 9 percent of  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-graders were  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > excluded from the   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state's test        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > because of          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > exemptions for      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > disabilities,       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > absences and        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > invalid test        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > scores.             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                       | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | 1995 | 1997 | **Ga | 1995 | 1997 | **     |
|                       |      |      | in** |      |      | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 48%  | 55%  | **   | 59%  | 61%  | **2%** |
|                       |      |      | 7%** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0-34% Poverty**   | 57   | 65   | *    | 70   | 70   | **0**  |
|                       |      |      | *8** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75-100% Poverty** | 8    | 13   | *    | 14   | 21   | **7**  |
|                       |      |      | *4** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > Test---CRT; levels  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > set in 1994.        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Connecticut         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Proficient          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition: Levels  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > are Reading Band 3/ |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Math Band 4Above   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the statewide goal  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > for reading/math.   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Students possess    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the knowledge and   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > skills necessary to |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > successfully        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > perform the tasks   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > and assignments     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > expected of         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-graders with  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > minimal teacher     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > assistance.         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.12**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Kentucky            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Instructional Skills  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Information System:   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Grade 4**             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > In reading, 33      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent of all      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-grade         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students in         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **Kentucky**        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools were at or  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > above the state's   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > expected level of   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > performance in      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1998, compared with |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 24 percent of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students in         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools. Reading    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > performance         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > improved slightly   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > for all students    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > between 1996 and    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1998 but declined   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > slightly among      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students in         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools. Kentucky   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > changed its math    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > test to grade 5 in  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1998, thus grade 4  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > trends cannot be    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reported.           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                       | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | 1996 | 1998 | **Ga | 1996 | 1998 | **     |
|                       |      |      | in** |      |      | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 31%  | 33%  | **   | 14%  | n/a  | *      |
|                       |      |      | 2%** |      |      | *n/a** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0-34% Poverty**   | 41   | 43   | *    | 20   | n/a  | *      |
|                       |      |      | *2** |      |      | *n/a** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75-100% Poverty** | 27   | 24   | **   | 12   | n/a  | *      |
|                       |      |      | -2** |      |      | *n/a** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > Test---CRT; levels  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > set in 1995.        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Kentucky Proficient |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition: Student |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > demonstrates a      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > knowledge of major  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > concepts even       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > though she/he       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > overlooks or        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > misunderstands some |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > less obvious ideas  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or details. Student |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > can apply core      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > concepts and skills |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > to solve problems.  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Student makes       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > connections among   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > major concepts.     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.13**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Maine Educational   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Assessment: Grade 4** |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > In reading, a large |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > majority of         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **Maine**           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-graders,      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > including those in  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, were at or |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > above the Basic     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > level of            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > proficiency in      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1998. Compared with |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1996, there were    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > increased           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percentages of      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students,           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > especially those in |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, reaching   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the Basic level in  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reading. In math,   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 72 percent of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students overall    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > had attained the    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > basic level in      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1998, and among     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students in         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, two-thirds |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > were at or above    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > basic. From 1996,   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > there were declines |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of 6 and 5          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percentage points,  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > respectively, in    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > attainment of the   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Basic level. In     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1998, 10 percent of |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-graders were  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > excluded from the   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state's assessment. |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Bas  |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | ic** |      |      | Bas  |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | ic** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | 1996 | 1998 | **Ga | 1996 | 1998 | **     |
|                       |      |      | in** |      |      | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 87%  | 89%  | **   | 78%  | 72%  | *      |
|                       |      |      | 2%** |      |      | *-6%** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0-34% Poverty**   | 92   | 93   | *    | 86   | 80   | **-6** |
|                       |      |      | *1** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **50-100% Poverty** | 83   | 87   | *    | 72   | 67   | **-5** |
|                       |      |      | *4** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > Test---CRT; levels  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > set in 1995.        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Maine Basic         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition (state   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > level between       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Novice and          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Advanced): Students |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > demonstrate a       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > command of          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > essential knowledge |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > and skills with     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > partial success on  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > tasks involving     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > higher level        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > concepts, including |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > applications of     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > skills, make        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > connections among   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > ideas, and          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > successfully        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > address problems    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > and tasks.          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.14**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Maryland School     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Performance           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Assessment Program:   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Grade 3**             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > In 1998, in both    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reading and         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mathematics, over   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 40 percent of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **Maryland**        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^-grade         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students met the    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > satisfactory level  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of performance. In  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > contrast, in        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, 16 percent |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of students         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > performed at the    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > satisfactory level  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in reading and 13   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent in math.    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Gains in reading    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > from 1996 to 1998   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in the percentage   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of students at the  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > satisfactory level  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > were as great in    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the high-poverty    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools as overall; |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > and in math the     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > gains were greater  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in high-poverty     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools. In 1998, 8 |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent of          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^-grade         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students were       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > excluded from the   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state assessment    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > because of          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > exemptions for      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > disabilities,       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > absences, and       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > invalid test        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > scores.             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Sa   |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | tisf |      |      | Sa   |      |        |
|                       | acto |      |      | tisf |      |        |
|                       | ry** |      |      | acto |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | ry** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | 1996 | 1998 | **Ga | 1996 | 1998 | **     |
|                       |      |      | in** |      |      | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 35%  | 42%  | **   | 39%  | 42%  | **3%** |
|                       |      |      | 6%** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0-34% Poverty**   | 48   | 55   | *    | 53   | 56   | **3**  |
|                       |      |      | *8** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75-100% Poverty** | 9    | 16   | *    | 8    | 13   | **5**  |
|                       |      |      | *7** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > Test---CRT; levels  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > set in 1993.        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Maryland            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Satisfactory        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition: A       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > realistic and       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > rigorous level of   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > achievement         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > indicating          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > proficiency in      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > meeting the needs   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of students.        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.15**     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **North Carolina End |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| of Grade: Grade 4**  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > In both reading    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > and mathematics,   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **North Carolina** |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > showed large       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > differences in     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > achievement        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > between students   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in high-poverty    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools and those  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in more advantaged |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, based on  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > an assessment      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > system that has    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > been in place      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > since 1993. Across |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > North Carolina,    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > more than          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > two-thirds of      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-graders were |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > at or above        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > proficient levels  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of performance in  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > both               |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|  subjects---compared |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > with about half of |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > all students in    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools.           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Nevertheless,      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students in the    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > highest-poverty    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools in the     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state have shown   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > significant        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > improvement in     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > math, and the gap  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in achievement     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > between high- and  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > low-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools has        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > narrowed. In 1997, |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4 percent of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students were      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > excluded from the  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state test in both |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reading and        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mathematics        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > because of their   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > limited English    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > proficiency or     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > disabilities.      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                      | **R  |      |      | ###  |      |        |
|                      | eadi |      |      |  Mat |      |        |
|                      | ng** |      |      | hema |      |        |
|                      |      |      |      | tics |      |        |
|                      | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                      | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                      | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                      | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                      | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                      | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                      |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                      | 1995 | 1997 | **Ga | 1995 | 1997 | **     |
|                      |      |      | in** |      |      | Gain** |
+----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**   | 64%  | 68%  | **   | 69%  | 75%  | **6%** |
|                      |      |      | 4%** |      |      |        |
+----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0--34% Poverty** | 73   | 77   | *    | 78   | 83   | **5**  |
|                      |      |      | *4** |      |      |        |
+----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75--100%         | 46   | 49   | *    | 49   | 57   | **8**  |
| > Poverty**          |      |      | *3** |      |      |        |
+----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > Test--CRT; levels  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > set in 1992.       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > North Carolina     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Proficient         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition: Level  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > III Students      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > consistently       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > demonstrate        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mastery of         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > grade-level        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > subject matter and |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > skills and are     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > well prepared for  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the next grade     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > level.             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.16**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Texas Assessment of |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Academic Skills:      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Grade 4**             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > From 1996 to 1998,  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the percentage of   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-graders in    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **Texas** achieving |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > at the proficient   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > level increased in  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > both reading and    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > math, bringing very |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > large majorities of |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students to the     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state's standards   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > for proficiency.    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Although narrowing, |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > gaps in achievement |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > between students in |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the highest- and    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > lowest-poverty      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools remain in   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > both subjects. In   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1998, 92 percent of |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-graders were  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > tested in both      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reading and math.   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Exclusions were due |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > primarily to        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students'           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > disabilities.       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | ###  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | Math |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | emat |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | ics  |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                       | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | 1996 | 1998 | Gain | 1996 | 1998 | Gain   |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 78%  | 89%  | **1  | 78%  | 86%  | **8%** |
|                       |      |      | 1%** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0--34% Poverty**  | 87   | 95   | *    | 87   | 92   | **5**  |
|                       |      |      | *8** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75--100%          | 67   | 82   | **   | 67   | 78   | **11** |
| > Poverty**           |      |      | 15** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > Test--CRT; levels   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > set in 1989.        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Texas Proficient    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition:         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|  Reading/Writing/Math |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > TLI score of 70 and |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > above.              |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

##### Trends in Achievement in Large Urban Districts

Attention to large urban districts serving high percentages of poor
students is important in reporting student achievement. These districts,
which have significant percentages of high‑poverty schools, receive a
large percentage of Title I funds. Results from 13 large urban districts
are presented to show trends in student performance in areas in which
poverty and educational challenges are most highly concentrated. The
results are reported as the percentage of students meeting the
definition of proficiency used in the district, as required for final
assessments under Title I.

Districts profiled are among the largest in the country, have student
populations that are at least 35 percent minority and 50 percent
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, serve high concentrations of
limited English proficient students, are geographically diverse, and
have at least three years of data on the same achievement test in
reading and math for elementary and middle school students. As with the
states, these are among those that provided data (which were available
in fall/early winter 1998). Almost all of the highest-poverty schools in
these districts receive Title I funds.[^93]

Of the 13 districts studied:

-   Ten showed increases in the percentage of elementary students in
    very high-poverty schools who meet the district or state proficiency
    standard in either mathematics or reading. Of these, seven showed
    evidence that the achievement gap between the highest-poverty and
    low-poverty schools is closing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Six districts showed increases in the percentage of elementary
    students (in the highest-poverty schools) meeting the district or
    state proficiency standard in both mathematics and reading. Of
    these, four showed evidence that the gap was narrowing in both
    subjects (Exhibit 2.17).

As with states, it is not possible to make direct comparisons of
achievement across districts because of the differences in the tests
employed, the grades assessed, and the definitions of proficiency.
Despite these limitations and the necessity of summarizing the results
simply as indicating progress or no progress, the preponderance of
evidence suggests that the districts have made progress in raising
student achievement, especially for students attending high‑poverty
schools. Note that three-year trends are reported for either the 1994-95
through 1996-97 school years or the 1995-96 through 1997-98 school
years.

## Exhibit 2.17

## District Achievement Trends for Students in High-Poverty Schools

+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
|           |            | **Rea  |           | *       |           |
|           |            | ding** |           | *Mathem |           |
|           |            |        |           | atics** |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| **D       | **Test**   | **Gr   | **Gap     | **G     | **Gap     |
| istrict** |            | owth** | N         | rowth** | N         |
|           |            |        | arrowed** |         | arrowed** |
|           |            | **Year |           | **Year  |           |
|           |            | 1 --   | **Year 1  | 1 --    | **Year 1  |
|           |            | Year   | -- Year   | Year    | -- Year   |
|           |            | 3**    | 3**       | 3**     | 3**       |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Baltimore | MSPAP      | No     | Not       | No      | Not       |
| City      |            | change | a         |         | a         |
|           |            |        | pplicable |         | pplicable |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Boston    | Stanford 9 | No     | Not       | Yes     | Yes       |
|           |            | change | a         |         |           |
|           |            |        | pplicable |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Chicago   | IGAP       | No     | Not       | Yes     | Yes       |
|           |            | change | a         |         |           |
|           |            |        | pplicable |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Detroit   | MEAP       | No     | Not       | Yes     | No        |
|           |            | change | a         |         |           |
|           |            |        | pplicable |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Houston   | TAAS       | Yes    | Yes       | Yes     | Yes       |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Jefferson | KIRIS      | Yes    | No        | No      | Not       |
| County    |            |        |           |         | a         |
| (Lo       |            |        |           |         | pplicable |
| uisville) |            |        |           |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Kansas    | MAT        | No     | Not       | No      | Not       |
| City, KS  |            |        | a         |         | a         |
|           |            |        | pplicable |         | pplicable |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Memphis   | TCAP       | No     | Not       | No      | Not       |
|           |            |        | a         |         | a         |
|           |            |        | pplicable |         | pplicable |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Dade      | Stanford 8 | Yes    | Yes       | Yes     | Yes       |
| County    |            |        |           |         |           |
| (Miami)   |            |        |           |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| New York  | CAT-5      | Yes    | Yes       | Yes     | Yes       |
| City      | (Math)     |        |           |         |           |
|           |            |        |           |         |           |
|           | CTBS       |        |           |         |           |
|           | (Reading)  |        |           |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| Phi       | Stanford 9 | Yes    | No        | Yes     | No        |
| ladelphia |            |        |           |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| San       | TAAS       | Yes    | Yes       | Yes     | Yes       |
| Antonio   |            |        |           |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| San       | CTBS       | Yes    | No        | Yes     | Yes       |
| Francisco |            |        |           |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
| **Total** | **12       | **7    | **4 Yes/3 | **9     | **7 Yes/2 |
|           | Different  | Yes/2  | No**      | Yes/4   | No**      |
|           | Tests**    | No**   |           | No**    |           |
|           |            |        | **6 Not   |         | **4 Not   |
|           |            | **4 No | App       |         | App       |
|           |            | Ch     | licable** |         | licable** |
|           |            | ange** |           |         |           |
+-----------+------------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+

Exhibit reads: In the 13 districts for which three-year trends in
achievement are reported, seven showed growth in the percentage of
elementary grade students in the highest-poverty schools who met the
district standards for proficiency in reading. Five showed a reduction
in the achievement gap between students in the highest- and
lowest-poverty schools in the district.

Following are descriptions of the assessment systems and results in
reading and math and how they vary in selected large urban districts.
More detailed descriptions of the remaining districts will be reported
in a forthcoming report.[^94]

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.18**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Baltimore Results   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| on the Maryland       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| School Performance    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Assessment Program:   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Grade 3**             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Students in         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools in          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **Baltimore City**  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > have not performed  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > well on the         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Maryland School     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Performance         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Assessment Program  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > (MSPAP) compared    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > with the rest of    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the state. MSPAP is |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > a performance       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > assessment          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > requiring           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > constructed         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > responses, and is   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > considered          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > challenging. In     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, only 8 to  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 9 percent of        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^-grade         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students met or     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > exceeded            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > performance         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > standards in        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reading and 7 to 13 |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent met         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > standards in        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mathematics in any  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > year. Over 65       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent of students |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in the district are |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > eligible for free   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or reduced-price    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > lunch, and 86       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent are         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > minority. All Title |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > I schools in the    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > district have 75    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent or more     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students eligible   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > for the free and    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reduced-price lunch |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > program.            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                       | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **19 | **19 | **Ga | **19 | **19 | **     |
|                       | 95** | 97** | in** | 95** | 97** | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 12%  | 13%  | **   | 16%  | 12%  | *      |
|                       |      |      | 1%** |      |      | *-4%** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0--34% Poverty**  | 31   | 25   | **   | 34   | 25   | **-9** |
|                       |      |      | -6** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75--100%          | 9    | 9    | *    | 13   | 8    | **-5** |
| > Poverty**           |      |      | *0** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > Test---CRT          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Maryland Proficient |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition:         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Satisfactorya      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > realistic and       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > rigorous level of   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > achievement         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > indicating          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > proficiency in      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > meeting the needs   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of students.        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.19**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Chicago Results on  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| the Illinois Goals    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Assessment Program:   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Grade 3**             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **Chicago**         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students, in        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > general, are        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > posting strong math |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > gains on the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Illinois Goals      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Assessment Program  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > (IGAP), a multiple  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > choice              |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|  criterion-referenced |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > test. An            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > overwhelming        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > majority of         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students (96        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent of          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^‑graders) in   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > low-poverty schools |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > have reached the    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state's standard.   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Students in         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools lag behind, |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > but they have made  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > impressive gains.   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > The percentage of   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^-graders       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > attending           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools who met or  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > exceeded state      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > goals in            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mathematics rose    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > from 60 percent in  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1994-95 to 72       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent in 1996-97. |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Reading performance |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > is less positive.   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > While students in   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > low-poverty schools |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > have made gains,    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students in the     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > highest-poverty     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools have        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > remained at lower   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > levels of           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > performance. In     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1994-95, 39 percent |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of 3^rd^‑graders in |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools met or      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > exceeded state      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > goals in reading,   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > and this            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > performance was     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > unchanged by        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1996-97. During     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > this same period,   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the percentage of   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students in         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > low-poverty schools |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > who met or exceeded |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state goals in      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reading rose from   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 75 percent to 85    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent. Eighty-two |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent of students |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in the district are |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > eligible for free   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or reduced-price    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > lunch and           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 89 percent are      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > minority.           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                       | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **19 | **19 | **Ga | **19 | **19 | **     |
|                       | 95** | 97** | in** | 95** | 97** | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 45%  | 44%  | **-  | 64%  | 75%  | *      |
|                       |      |      | 1%** |      |      | *11%** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0--34% Poverty**  | 75   | 85   | **   | 86   | 96   | **10** |
|                       |      |      | 10** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75--100%          | 39   | 39   | *    | 60   | 72   | **12** |
| > Poverty**           |      |      | *0** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > TestCRT; Illinois  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Proficient          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition: Meets   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > state goals         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.20**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Jefferson County    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| (Louisville) Results  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| on the Kentucky       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Instructional         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Results**             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Information System: |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Grade 4 (Reading),    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Grade 5 (Math)**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > In **Jefferson      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > County (Louisville, |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > KY) Public          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Schools,**          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-grade         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students' reading   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > performance, after  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > falling slightly in |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1995-96, recovered  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in 1996-97 on the   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Kentucky            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Instructional       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Results Information |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > System (KIRIS).     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > KIRIS has been      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > primarily a         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > performance-based   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > assessment since    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > its inception in    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1991-92. In         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1996‑97, 24 percent |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > of 4^th^-graders    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > attending           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools scored at   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or above the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > proficient level,   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > up from 21 percent  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in 1994-95. Over    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the same period,    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > children in         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > low-poverty schools |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > posted stronger     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > gains, rising from  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 43 to 52 percent of |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-graders       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > scoring at or above |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the proficient      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > level.              |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Unlike reading      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > scores, math scores |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > for children in the |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > highest-poverty     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools declined.   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > In the              |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > highest-poverty     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percentage of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 5^th^-graders       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > scoring at or above |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the proficient      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > level in math       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > declined from 13    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent in 1994-95  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > to 10 percent in    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1996-97. Fifty      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent of students |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > in the district are |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > eligible for free   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or reduced-price    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > lunch and           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 90 percent of the   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > highest-poverty     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools receive     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Title I funds.      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                       | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **19 | **19 | **Ga | **19 | **19 | **     |
|                       | 95** | 97** | in** | 95** | 97** | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 31%  | 38%  | **   | 21%  | 20%  | *      |
|                       |      |      | 7%** |      |      | *-1%** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **0--34% Poverty**  | 43   | 52   | *    | 29   | 32   | **3**  |
|                       |      |      | *9** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75--100%          | 21   | 24   | *    | 13   | 10   | **-3** |
| > Poverty**           |      |      | *3** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > Test---CRT          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Kentucky Proficient |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition: Student |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > demonstrates        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > knowledge of major  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > concepts even       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > though she/he       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > overlooks or        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > misunderstands some |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > less obvious ideas  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or details. Student |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > can apply core      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > concepts and skills |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > to solve problems.  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Student makes       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > connections among   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > major concepts.     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Student             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > communicates ideas  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > effectively.        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.21**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **Philadelphia        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Results on the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Stanford 9: Grade 4** |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **Philadelphia**    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > exhibits            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > improvement in      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 4^th^-grade reading |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > and math, for all   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > categories of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > poverty, over the   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > three analysis      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > years on the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Stanford 9, which   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > includes multiple   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > choice and short    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > constructed         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > response questions. |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > From 1995-96 to     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1997-98, the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percentage of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students attending  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools and meeting |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or exceeding        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > proficiency         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > standards increased |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > from 11 percent to  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 17 percent in       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reading, and from 7 |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent to 12       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent in math.    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Eighty percent of   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the districts'      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students are        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > eligible for free   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or reduced-price    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > lunch, and all      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Title I schools are |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > included in the     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > highest-poverty     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > category (75        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent or more     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > eligible for free   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > or reduced-price    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > lunch).[^95]        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                       | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **19 | **19 | **Ga | **19 | **19 | **     |
|                       | 96** | 98** | in** | 96** | 98** | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 16%  | 23%  | **   | 11%  | 16%  | **5%** |
|                       |      |      | 7%** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **35-49% Poverty**  | 40   | 54   | **   | 30   | 36   | **6**  |
|                       |      |      | 14** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75--100%          | 11   | 17   | *    | 7    | 12   | **5**  |
| > Poverty**           |      |      | *6** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Test---NRT; levels    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| set in 1996           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Proficient            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Definition: Scoring   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| above the 7^th^       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| stanine (Determined   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| by Test               |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Publisher---Harcourt  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Brace)                |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Exhibit 2.22**      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| **San Antonio Results |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| on the Texas          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Assessment of         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Academic Skills:      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| Grade 3**             |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Reading scores for  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^-grade         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > students in the     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > **San Antonio       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Independent School  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > District** show     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > improvement from    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 1995-96 to 1997-98  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > for students        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > overall as well as  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > for those in high-  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > and                 |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > moderate-poverty    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools.[^96]       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Overall, the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percentage of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^-graders       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > passing the reading |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > component of the    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > TAAS rose from 59   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent to          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 67 percent. In      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percentage rose     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > from 58 percent to  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 66 percent, while   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > the pass rate in    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > moderate-poverty    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools rose from   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 69 percent to 74    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent.            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > The trends in       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^-grade         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mathematics are     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mixed. Overall, the |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percentage of       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 3^rd^-graders       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > passing the         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mathematics         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > component of the    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > TAAS rose from 56   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent to 61       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent. In         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > high-poverty        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools, the        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percentage rose     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > from 55 percent to  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > 60 percent, but     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > moderate-poverty    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > schools saw a       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > decline from 65     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent to 62       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent.            |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > San Antonio serves  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > a very high         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > concentration of    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > poor children (91   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > percent eligible    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > for free or         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > reduced-price       |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > lunch) and a large  |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > minority population |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > (95 percent). The   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > TAAS reading and    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > mathematics tests   |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > are multiple-choice |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > criterion           |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > referenced.         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **R  |      |      | **M  |      |        |
|                       | eadi |      |      | athe |      |        |
|                       | ng** |      |      | mati |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | cs** |      |        |
|                       | **%  |      |      |      |      |        |
|                       | At/A |      |      | **%  |      |        |
|                       | bove |      |      | At/A |      |        |
|                       | Prof |      |      | bove |      |        |
|                       | icie |      |      | Prof |      |        |
|                       | nt** |      |      | icie |      |        |
|                       |      |      |      | nt** |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                       | **19 | **19 | **Ga | **19 | **19 | **     |
|                       | 96** | 98** | in** | 96** | 98** | Gain** |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **All Students**    | 59%  | 67%  | **   | 56%  | 61%  | **5%** |
|                       |      |      | 8%** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **50-74% Poverty**  | 69   | 74   | *    | 65   | 62   | **-3** |
|                       |      |      | *5** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > **75--100%          | 58   | 66   | *    | 55   | 60   | **5**  |
| > Poverty**           |      |      | *8** |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| > TestCRT; levels    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > set in 1989         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Texas Proficient    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > Definition:         |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| >                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|  Reading/Writing/Math |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > TLI score of 70 and |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| > above.              |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

## Conclusion

Trends in the performance of students in the nation's highest-poverty
public schools, as well as progress of the lowest-achieving students
show positive gains in reading and math performance since the
reauthorization of Title I. These trends are further substantiated by
the progress reported by some states and districts with three-year
trends in achievement. Despite these gains in the performance of
students in high-poverty schools, however, these students remain much
further behind their peers in meeting basic standards of performance in
both reading and math. Yet the results from some states show that
students in the highest-poverty schools can perform at national
levelsindicating that it is possible to bring students in the
highest-poverty schools to high levels of achievement.

**KEY PROVISIONS REGARDING THE ROLE OF TITLE I IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CHALLENGING STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS**

**Content and Performance Standards**

By the 1997-98 school year, each state was to have adopted challenging
content standards, in at least reading and math, that specify what all
children are expected to know and be able to do, **and challenging
performance standards** that describe students' mastery of the content
standards.

-   Performance standards must reflect at least three levels of
    achievement in order to measure progress.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If a state has content and performance standards, they must apply
    equally to all students, including Title I students. If a state does
    not intend to develop standards for all students, it still is
    required to do so for all children participating in Title I.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   States are to submit, to the U.S. Department of Education, evidence
    that standards have been developed.

**State Assessment Systems**

States are to adopt or develop **student assessment systems** that are
aligned with standards in at least reading/language arts and math.

-   These **final assessments**, which are required to be implemented by
    the 2000-2001 school year, are to be administered at least once
    during grades 3-5; 6-9; and 10-12, and are to allow for reporting
    based on standards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The assessments are to include reasonable adaptations and
    accommodations for students with diverse learning needs, and
    students with limited English proficiency, who are to be assessed to
    the extent practicable, in the language most likely to yield
    accurate information on what they know and can do to determine their
    mastery of skills in subjects other than English.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The assessments are also to be used in measuring the progress of
    Title I schools. They must allow for the disaggregation and
    reporting at the state, district, and school levels of students'
    results by gender, major racial/ethnic group, English proficiency
    status, migrant status, disabilities and economic status.

To provide states with sufficient time to develop assessment systems
aligned with standards, the statute includes a transitional
period---until the year 2000-2001---during which a state may use **a
transitional assessment** procedure for measuring progress on complex
skills, and holding schools accountable. In the meantime, however,
states are to develop timetables and a reporting schedule for completing
and field testing assessments.

States may allow districts local discretion to develop their own
standards and assessments as long as steps are taken to ensure that they
are rigorous and of high quality.

3.  **DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT**

**SYSTEMS, AND THE ROLE OF TITLE I**

**Key Findings**

States are making significant progress in developing content standards,
but 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.

-   Most recently, 48 states, plus Puerto Rico and the District of
    Columbia, have met the requirements for developing challenging
    statewide content standards. Prior to reauthorization, only 19
    states reported having challenging content standards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Twenty-one states, plus Puerto Rico, have met the requirement for
    the development of student performance standards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   States are not required to submit content and performance standards
    to the U.S. Department of Education for reviewonly evidence of
    their quality and rigor, which is hard to gauge based on their state
    plans. Expert reviews of standards, which could serve as a proxy
    guide, focus on varying criteria. One review that has examined
    standards over a three-year period suggests improvement in the
    quality of standards.

States are making progress in developing assessment systems that meet
the requirements established in Title I.

-   While final assessment systems are not required to be in place until
    2000-01, state plans are required to include a description of how
    states will develop final assessment systems and report on their
    progress to date. According to a review of state plans commissioned
    by the U.S. Department of Education, as of 1997, 14 states had
    provided evidence that they had in place transitional assessments
    aligned to state content standards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A sizeable number of states report student achievement based on
    state assessment data according to categories established in the
    statute. For the 1996-97 school year, of the 48 states, plus D.C.
    and Puerto Rico, that reported student achievement data through the
    Title I Performance Report, 21 disaggregated results by school
    poverty levels, 12 reported results for low-income students,
    19 provided data for students with limited English proficiency, and
    16 reported achievement of migrant students.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Challenges remain in ensuring that all students are included in
    assessment systems and that results are reported for various groups
    of students, as required by law.

## What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish?

Challenging standards of learning for all children and aligned
assessments that ensure high expectations for all students are key
policy drivers in Title I. Indeed, the purpose of the program as
outlined in the statute "is 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."[^97] In addition to
requiring states to establish and use systems of standards and aligned
assessments to guide expectations for what children should be expected
to know and do, Title I has required that states develop criteria for
tracking how well students are doing in schools served by the program
meet the standards.

A key indicator for the program is this: "By 2000-01, all states will
have assessments aligned with content and performance standards for core
subjects." These aligned systems are to support Title I schools in using
challenging standards to guide curriculum and instruction, and
assessments linked to the standards to measure their progress and inform
improvement efforts. This priority is reflected in a second key
indicator: "By the year 2000, all schools receiving Title I funds will
report the use of content standards to guide curriculum and
instruction." This chapter addresses the role of Title I in the
development of state standards and assessment systems designed to
promote high expectations for all students. Progress in implementing
accountability requirements is addressed in a subsequent chapter.

The establishment of challenging state standards and assessment systems
for all students rests on evidence showing that students work harder and
achieve more when they are challenged to meet higher expectations and
provided with the opportunity to do so. High standards for academic
achievement---when coupled with instruction and support that help
students reach those standards, valid and reliable assessments, and
accountability systems that hold schools responsible for improved
student achievement---can unite students, parents, teachers and
administrators, community residents, and school district staff around
the shared goal of improving learning. Committing to high academic
standards makes the unequivocal statement that all students are expected
to achieve academically.

Evidence provided by research and the best judgment of experts,
professional organizations, and local stakeholders contribute to
academic standards that codify expectations regarding instructional
content that all students should learn. By defining what students should
know and be able to do, standards keep schools focused on desired
results for students---and can stimulate local development of
content-rich curricula and the effective teaching strategies that make
results possible.[^98] Standards also indicate what assessments must
measure in order to show achievement. In return, good assessments can
make standards count by giving communities a mechanism by which to hold
schools accountable for achievement.[^99] Good assessments meet
acceptable standards of test quality and measure what students are
expected to learn; they are aligned with the standards and reinforce
what teachers are expected to cover in the classroom.[^100]

The requirement that Title I use the same standards and assessments that
states establish for all students was intended to integrate the program
with state reform efforts and ensure that students in Title I schools
are held to the same high standards as all students. Indeed, the
provisions in Title I requiring states to develop challenging content
and performance standards, aligned assessments, and systems of
accountability grew out of initiatives already under way in a number of
states in 1994. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act was to work with
Title I to support states and local districts in developing and
implementing standards and assessment systems.

Key statutory provisions go beyond a general requirement for standards,
assessments, and accountability, and provide a timeline and key
components to be addressed in their development. It is important to note
that the development of final assessments is not required until the
2000-01 school year.

## How Are Key Provisions Being Implemented?

States have made varying levels of progress in developing and
implementing systems of standards and aligned assessments that meet the
timelines set forth in the statute. States initially submitted plans to
the U.S. Department of Education in 1995 that included information on
their standards and assessments, and were to report major updates as
they developed standards and assessment systems.

##### Progress in Developing Content and Performance Standards

The requirement for content and performance standards under Title I was
designed to be consistent with the development of standards supported
under Goals 2000 and the policy direction in which many states were
moving. Soon after the 1994 enactment of both Goals 2000 and Title I,
about half of all states reported having content standards in math and
reading/language arts, while fewer than one-fifth reported having
performance standards in place.

Although states are not required to submit their standards to the U.S.
Department of Education for review, they must demonstrate that they have
developed content and performance standards by the 1997-98 school year.
Upon completing the development of standards, each state is required to
submit to the Department evidence (in updates to their state plans) that
standards are in place and that a rigorous process was used to adopt
standards. This evidence is examined by teams of peer reviewers,
including researchers and state and local practitioners.

Peer reviewers were charged with determining whether the plans addressed
key provisions in the statute, including the requirements that: (1) each
state adopt content and performance standards in reading/language arts
and math with input from a broad base of educational stakeholders for
three grade spans; (2) that the performance standards represent three
levels of proficiency; (3) the performance standards were aligned with
content standards; and (4) the standards were intended for all students,
including students with limited English proficiency and disabilities.

The peer reviewers also used the Department's guidance for approval,
which offered several ways for states to demonstrate that the content
and performance standards were challenging:

-   Conclusions from an independent peer review panel convened by the
    state to review its standards;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A detailed description of the process the state used to develop its
    standards and review their rigor (for example, a process to
    benchmark state standards to nationally recognized standards, which
    includes input from experts and other stakeholders); and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Evidence that student performance on an aligned state assessment is
    comparable to student performance on the NAEP.

**Standards Development in Maine**

Maine developed standards for four levels of student performance in
seven content areas. The performance standards include descriptions of
student work at each level within each content area. The descriptive
performance standards for reading, writing, and mathematics have been
further defined in terms of scores on the state assessment.

The process for developing performance standards in Maine included (1)
convening teachers, school administrators, and community members to
define four performance levelsboth generically and for each subject
area; (2) forming panels of teachers, administrators, and parents to
identify the quality of student work at each level and to determine cut
scores for each standard; and (3) using a modified Angoff technique to
check the process. Comparisons with NAEP levels indicate similar
distributions of students across levels.

**States have made substantial progress in developing content standards
and more moderate progress with regard to performance standards.** Most
recently, 48 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have
met the requirement for developing challenging state content standards,
and 21 states plus Puerto Rico have met the requirement for developing
student performance standards (Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2).[^101]

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In 1998, 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
> Rico submitted evidence to the U.S. Department of Education that
> content standards were 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.
>
> Note: Numbers include Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia are operating under
temporary waivers granting extensions for the development of performance
standards.[^102] The remaining four have submitted evidence, which has
not yet been approved. States have been granted extensions as late as
December 1999 to complete the development of standardsmost often
because they plan to establish performance standards once their final
assessments are developed.

A state requesting a waiver must describe where it is in the process of
developing performance standards and how long it expects it will take to
decide on final standards. It must include a timeline for the
development of standards during the waiver period and a description of
how the state plans to ensure that standards are challenging and have
been developed through broad-based consultation with relevant
stakeholders and other experts. States requesting waivers also must
provide evidence of their progress and a detailed timeline for
completing their work, based on the timeline submitted with their waiver
request.

##### Progress in Developing Assessment Systems

**Indicator: Aligned assessments.** By 2000-01, all states will have
assessments aligned with content and performance standards for core
subjects.

**States are making progress in developing assessment systems that meet
the requirements established in Title I.** State assessments aligned
with content and student performance standards which include reasonable
adaptations for students with diverse learning needs and allow for
disaggregation and reporting by gender, major racial/ethnic group,
English proficiency status, migrant status, students with disabilities,
and economically disadvantaged studentsare not required to be in place
until the 2000-01 school year.

Although final assessment systems are not required to be in place until
2000-01, states are required to describe how they will develop final
assessments and what their progress is to date. Key elements of these
descriptions include plans for administering assessments in the three
required grade spans and in the required content areas, evidence of
alignment with content standards, inclusion of students with special
needs, and plans for disaggregation of data by student groups. According
to a review of state plans[^103] for developing procedures for
determining school and district progress in helping all students attain
state standards, as of 1997, 14 states had provided evidence in their
state plans that they had in place transitional assessments aligned to
state content standards.[^104] The primary criteria used in determining
alignment are that the assessment addresses *all* of the content
standards and that it does not address any other content within the
subject areas assessed.[^105]

Despite slower progress in developing final assessment systems, a
sizeable number report student achievement based on state assessment
data according to categories established in the statute. For the 1996-97
school year, of the 48 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico that reported student achievement data through the *Title I
Performance Report*, 21 disaggregated results by school poverty levels,
12 reported results for low-income students, 19 provided data for
students with limited English proficiency, and 16 reported achievement
of migrant students (Exhibit 3.3).[^106]

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Twenty-one states disaggregate their assessment
> information by level of school poverty.
>
> Source: Blank, Manise, Braithwaite, and Langesen, *State Education
> Indicators with a Focus on Title I*, 1999.

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements?

Because standards-based reform and accountability represent a major
shift in educational practice, there are reasons to pay close attention
to the implementation of these Title I provisions. Few of these issues
can be addressed; most require changes in priorities and strategies for
implementation at the federal, state, and local levels.

**Many states are undertaking a process for developing standards and
assessment systems that differs from the linear approach indicated in
the statute.** Rather than establishing performance standards to inform
the development of assessments, many states are defining performance
standards concurrently with the development of their statewide
assessments. This approach is considered valid by experts, and indeed
for this reason many states have approved waivers allowing performance
standards to be developed later than anticipated in the statutory
timelines.[^107]

**While the process for reviewing state plans for the development of
standards and assessments appears to be rigorous and participatory, no
external assurance that the standards and assessments are rigorous is
required.** The statute does not require states to submit standards and
assessments to the U.S. Department of Education. A review of the
evidence provided by states shows that plans appear to be weak in
benchmarking standards against external criteria; only four states
provided evidence of rigor by comparing results with external
assessments (for example, NAEP).[^108] State NAEP scores may provide a
common benchmark for comparing results based on states' own standards to
a common measure (Exhibit 3.4^a^).

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: In Connecticut, a greater percentage of 8^th^-graders
> met the *Basic* level NAEP in mathematics than met the state's
> expected level on the state assessment.[^109]
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service,
> based on published reports of the National Assessment of Educational
> Progress and State Assessment data compiled by Westat, Inc.

**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 and standards; however, discrepancies among
independent reviews point to difficulties.** For four years the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT) has judged the "quality" of academic
standards by whether content standards were clear and specific enough to
provide the basis for a common core curriculum, and has reported
improvement over that time.[^110] The Council for Basic Education (CBE)
defined "rigor" of state standards based on the requirement that all
students learn the essential concepts and skills in math specified by
NAEP and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). A
review of standards in English language arts included the requirement
that all students learn the essential concepts and skills laid out in
the Council's Standards of Excellence in Education.[^111] In 1998, state
content standards were also reviewed by the Fordham Foundation for
clarity; adequacy of content; mathematical reasoning; and purposes,
audience, expectations, assumptions, organization, disciplinary
coverage, quality, and absence of "anti-literary" qualities in
English/language arts.[^112]

-   Overall, the grades assigned by these three groups to state content
    standards were average. Some states, such as California, Virginia,
    and Wisconsin, received grades of "A" or "B" in both subjects by
    both the AFT and CBE. Most states had a mix of grades across subject
    areas and reviewers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There were discrepancies among the grades assigned to standards by
    the independent reviewers, which highlights the difficulty in
    assessing the quality of standards. These discrepancies result in
    part from different criteria used for each review and some
    subjectivity across the reviews and reviewers. In addition, grades
    were given to state content standards at different times in their
    development, and at a different level of detail.[^113]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some reviews focused on the specificity of standards for their
    potential to guide curriculum.

Grades given by outside groups should be carefully considered because
states have often intentionally developed broadly worded standards to
provide for significant local discretion in how they would be
applied.[^114]

**The definitions and levels of alignment expected for standards and
assessments vary according to how they are worded.** A 1997 effort to
review the quality and alignment of standards and assessments in two
states, conducted by Achieve Inc., illustrates the challenge in
developing rigorous standards and high-quality assessments. The
assessment program in one state was found to be substantially more
comprehensive and demanding than what would be expected from the state's
standards. The reverse concern arose from a review of another state's
standards, which were judged to be "strong and well balanced" but were
not reflected in a challenging assessment system.[^115]

**Many states are establishing policies related to the assessment of
students with limited English proficiency (LEP) and students with
disabilities, but the policies vary across states and seldom include
strategies for making accommodations. Indeed, the assessment of special
populations is among the greatest challenges reported by states in
developing assessment systems.** A review of state practices in
determining school/district progress found that, as of 1997, most states
(43) had at least partially developed policies and/or procedures for
assessing *all* students but only 28 provided some evidence that these
policies or procedures were being implemented.[^116]

Policies for testing students with special needs vary. They may include
years spent in the district or country, years spent in a bilingual
program, scores on a language proficiency measure for LEP students,
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) or recommendations from teachers
or parents, and mandatory inclusion of virtually all students with
appropriate modifications or accommodations in test content and
administration.

The degree to which these policies are enforced also varies. The most
problematic issues center around the development and implementation of
accommodations and modifications---specifically, the cost and validity
of changes in assessment systems required for students with special
needs and the appropriateness of their use. The cost of developing and
administering modifications, such as translations and alternative
assessments, can be addressed directly through financial assistance.
Questions regarding comparability of results from modified or
alternative assessments can be addressed through disaggregated
reporting. States and districts must still identify trade-offs in order
to determine appropriate policies for including all students in an
assessment program.

More than half of the state administrators responsible for Title I
report that their states are having difficulty carrying out assessments
that provide for reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students
with limited English proficiency.[^117] In addition, about one-third of
states report having difficulty in the development or adoption of
assessments that provide for reasonable adaptations and accommodations
for students with special education needs and those who are migratory.
One-third also reported difficulty in establishing assessment systems
that allow comparisons between economically disadvantaged students and
their more advantaged peers.[^118]

**The emphasis in Title I and Goals 2000 on standards and aligned
assessments for all has contributed to rapid progress in the developing
of content and performance standards in mathematics and reading/language
arts, and that emphasis should remain a priority.** However, the pace of
progress in the development of performance standards lags because states
are developing their assessments at the same time, and because the rigor
and quality of standards are difficult to gauge. Finally, strategies
must be developed to ensure that the progress of *all*
childrenparticularly those with limited English proficiency is
considered as systems for setting goals and measuring progress are
established, and that reporting for various groups of students is
conducted.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #### Key Provisions Regarding Accountability in Title I               |
|                                                                       |
| ### Measuring                                                         |
| progress and identifying schools and districts in need of improvement |
|                                                                       |
| -   States must establish criteria for measuring school progress,     |
|     defined by continuous and substantial yearly improvement of each  |
|     school and district toward the goal of having all children who    |
|     are served by Title I meet state standards.                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   The measurement of progress developed by states must be rigorous, |
|     able to be applied within a reasonable time frame, and linked to  |
|     performance on a state's final assessment, and other measures.    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Because final assessments are not required to be in place until   |
|     the 2000-01 school year, a state may use, during the transitional |
|     assessment period, other criteria for measuring progress that     |
|     rely on accurate information about the continuous and substantial |
|     yearly progress of each school and district.                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Each Title I school is required to demonstrate, based on measures |
|     established by states, adequate yearly progress toward attaining  |
|     the state's performance standards. Schools and districts that     |
|     fail to make adequate progress for two consecutive years are to   |
|     be identified for improvement. School districts are also held     |
|     accountable through mechanisms similar to those established for   |
|     schools.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| ### Assistance and support for schools in need of improvement         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Schools and districts identified for improvement are required to  |
|     develop or revise their plans to address identified needs. States |
|     and districts are to provide technical assistance through school  |
|     support teams and other mechanisms to schools and districts       |
|     identified as in need of improvement.                             |
|                                                                       |
| ### Corrective actions and consequences for school performance        |
|                                                                       |
| -   If schools identified for improvement do not show progress,       |
|     states and districts can intervene with corrective actions.       |
|     Corrective actions must be taken in schools and districts that    |
|     fail to make progress for three or more years. However, some of   |
|     these sanctions (including reconstitution) cannot be applied      |
|     until final state assessment systems are in place.                |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   To promote increased accountability to families and communities,  |
|     Title I includes provisions for local education agencies to       |
|     publicly report on the progress of Title I schools.               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# THE ROLE OF TITLE I IN HOLDING SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE FOR PERFORMANCE AND IN SUPPORTING IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ###### **Key Findings**                                               |
|                                                                       |
| ##### Overall                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Attention to accountability across the states is high, and states |
|     are making progress in linking accountability to improvements in  |
|     student performance. Two states, North Carolina and Texas,        |
|     recently judged by Education Week to have the most comprehensive  |
|     statewide accountability systems in the nation, were recently     |
|     recognized by the National Education Goals Panel for significant  |
|     improvement in student performance on the National Assessment of  |
|     Educational Progress (NAEP). Significantly, in both states,       |
|     statewide standards and assessments have remained virtually       |
|     unchanged since the early 1990s.                                  |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Although states are making progress, designing accountability     |
|     systems for schools is an iterative process requiring continuous  |
|     revisions and improvements. States face technical, political, and |
|     capacity challenges in holding schools accountable for            |
|     performance.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| ##### Me                                                              |
| asuring Progress and Identifying Low-Performing Schools and Districts |
|                                                                       |
| -   Given the timeline set out in Title I, definitions of adequate    |
|     yearly progress are not required until final assessments are in   |
|     place in the 2000-01 school year. In the meantime, states have    |
|     developed transitional measures for defining the progress of      |
|     schools and districts under Title I. But there are concerns about |
|     the rigor of the measures, the consistency of the measures across |
|     states, and the integration of Title I accountability with state  |
|     and local accountability systems.                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   According to one assessment of transitional measures for adequate |
|     yearly progress, most states identified a target level for        |
|     student performance, but only half of the states were judged to   |
|     have set standards for measuring school progress based on         |
|     students' reaching a proficient level of performance, rather than |
|     meeting only a minimum level of competency. The majority of state |
|     transitional definitions determined adequate school progress on   |
|     the basis of average school performance, requiring about half of  |
|     students to meet the target performance level. Most states do not |
|     set a date by which all students are to meet expectations. States |
|     that are further along in developing student performance          |
|     standards tend to have more rigorous and clearly defined          |
|     accountability systems.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   There is considerable variation in the identification of Title I  |
|     schools in need of improvement across states. In Texas, only 1    |
|     percent of Title I schools were identified for improvement in     |
|     1996‑97. In New Mexico and Washington, D.C., more than 80 percent |
|     of Title I schools were identified for improvement.               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Schools identified for improvement tend to serve higher-poverty   |
|     students and have a larger minority enrollment. Schools           |
|     identified as in need of improvement were more likely to be in    |
|     the highest poverty category (75 percent or more students         |
|     receiving free or reduced-price lunch) and to have high minority  |
|     student enrollment (80 percent or more minority students).        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Title I is intended to be linked to state accountability so that  |
|     states will operate a single system, holding all schools,         |
|     including Title I schools, to the same high standards for         |
|     performance. Although there is considerable overlap between       |
|     schools identified for improvement under Title I and other state  |
|     or local mechanisms, and the majority of low-performing schools   |
|     identified by state or local accountability systems are Title I   |
|     schools, states still report that they are having difficulty      |
|     integrating the Title I requirements with their own systems and   |
|     there is evidence that parallel systems are operating in many     |
|     states.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   In some respects Title I may be driving states toward stricter    |
|     accountability systems. In some states and districts, Title I     |
|     identifies schools more broadly than the state systems, and in    |
|     high-poverty districts, Title I is driving reform to a greater    |
|     extent. According to one recent study of state accountability     |
|     systems, only 15 states are identifying low-performing schools as |
|     part of their state accountability while all but one state are    |
|     identifying low-performing schools under Title I.                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   A recent study of accountability in large urban districts finds   |
|     that Title I has been a "model and an instigator" for             |
|     standards-based reform and efforts to track student progress and  |
|     improve schools. Nationally, 14 percent of districts report that  |
|     Title I is driving reform in their districts as a whole to a      |
|     great extent. Fifty percent of small poor districts and 47        |
|     percent of large poor districts report that Title I is driving    |
|     reform to a great extent.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| ##### Ass                                                             |
| istance and Data-Driven Improvement Efforts in Low-Performing Schools |
|                                                                       |
| -   Recent findings suggest that state and Title I accountability     |
|     requirements are helping states, districts, and schools become    |
|     more data driven. A study of accountability in 12 states and      |
|     14 districts found a remarkably high level of attention paid to   |
|     using data to inform decision making. The study found that        |
|     whereas outcome data was required to be used for school           |
|     improvement planning, many districts were going beyond            |
|     requirements of the law to use this performance data to identify  |
|     and develop strategies for staff development and curriculum       |
|     improvements that address gaps in student performance.            |
|                                                                       |
| -   The capacity of state school support teams to assist schools in   |
|     need of improvement under Title I is a major concern. State       |
|     Improvement Grants intended to help states in operating school    |
|     support teams were not funded in the last reauthorization.        |
|     Although the main task for state school support teams has been to |
|     assist high-poverty schoolwide programs, their charge also        |
|     includes providing assistance to schools in need of improvement.  |
|     In 1998, only eight states reported that school support teams     |
|     have been able to serve the majority of schools identified as in  |
|     need of improvement. In 24 states, Title I directors reported     |
|     more schools in need of school support teams than Title I could   |
|     assist.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| #####                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| ##### Corrective Actions and Consequences for Performance             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Under Title I, the most severe corrective actions (such as        |
|     reconstitution) are not permitted until final assessments are in  |
|     place in 2000-01.                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   As part of their own state accountability systems for all         |
|     schools, states are taking actions to tie consequences to school  |
|     performance through public reporting of school performance,       |
|     incentives, rewards, and sanctions. Thirty-six states publicly    |
|     report on school performance, 14 states give monetary awards to   |
|     schools that meet performance standards, and 16 states have laws  |
|     that give them the power to close, take over, or overhaul         |
|     low-performing schools.                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish?

This chapter examines the school accountability provisions in Title
I---what the law required, how consistently and rigorously the
provisions for measuring school progress and identifying schools in need
of improvement are being implemented, the extent to which Title I is
drawing attention and assistance to schools with the greatest needs in
states, and how the accountability provisions in Title I might be
strengthened in the next reauthorization.

Evaluating the implementation of the accountability requirements under
Title I is a formidable challenge. The accountability system outlined in
Title I is ambitious, and tying school performance to consequences is a
high-stakes endeavor. The states are developing accountability systems
as this report is being written, and the process is a continuing one,
with ongoing revisions and improvement. States face numerous political,
technical, and resource issues in devising reliable ways to measure
student and school performance, identify schools in need of improvement,
and assist and intervene to improve low-performing schools.

The implementation of accountability measures discussed in this chapter
needs to be understood in the context of the time period specified for
states to complete the process. Full implementation of accountability
under Title I is not required until final assessments are in place by
the 2000-01 school year (Exhibit 4.1). In the interim, schools are to be
identified for improvement based on transitional measures of progress
adopted by the state and approved by the U.S. Department of Education

![](media/image1.wmf)

Nonetheless, there is evidence that accountability tied to consequences
is a motivating force, and some states are showing that holding schools
accountable for performance is leading to results. Texas and North
Carolina, two states recently recognized by the National Education Goals
Panel for significant gains on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) as well as for progress on 33 indicators related to
improving education, are also considered to have the two most
comprehensive state accountability systems in the nation.[^119] A recent
study by Rand researchers concludes that the most plausible explanation
for the test score gains in both states is the policy environment,
including the creation of an aligned system of standards, curriculum,
and assessments, and efforts to hold schools accountable for improvement
of *all* students.[^120] It is noteworthy that in both Texas and North
Carolina, statewide standards and assessments have remained virtually
unchanged since the early 1990s.

The concept of accountability for performance is not new to the
reauthorized Title I program. A decade ago, with the enactment of the
1988 Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement
Amendments (P.L. 100-297), Congress intended to send "a new and bold
message" that Chapter 1 programs were to be held accountable for
improving the academic performance of students served by Chapter
1.[^121] But there were flaws in the legislation. The emphasis on
accountability under Chapter 1 was not linked to states' own assessments
and was based on evidence of any gain (regardless of how minimal)
without regard to clear or challenging standards. In addition, there
were few consequences for failing schools. Improvement plans developed
for schools in need of improvement were generally less than ambitious.
As long as programs spent funds for intended purposes and followed
proper procedures, they were considered in compliance, regardless of the
achievement of Chapter 1 students. Moreover, in most states, the
accountability systems developed under Chapter 1 operated independent of
broader educational reform and school improvement efforts.[^122]

Findings regarding the minimal impact of Chapter 1 on school improvement
contributed to a significant rethinking of program accountability and a
new direction for the program that tied Title I accountability to the
broader accountability efforts of states.

The ultimate goal of the school accountability measures in the
reauthorized Title I has been to help all students reach challenging
standards by serving as an impetus for change in schools with the
greatest concentrations of disadvantaged children. In addition, it is
important to note that the accountability provisions in Title I apply to
**school and district** accountability for student performance, and do
not address **student** accountability. The provisions were largely
modeled on the systemic reform efforts already underway in 1994 in a
number of states.

Although it was Congress's intent that accountability under Title I be
consistent with existing state efforts, the statute, regulations, and
guidance do prescribe specific requirements and timelines for measuring,
reporting, and implementing accountability provisions. Under Title I,
each state is required to develop a definition of adequate yearly
progress for districts and schools based on the state assessment and
other measures. Schools and districts that fail to make adequate yearly
progress are to be identified for improvement and receive support and
assistance from states and districts. Those schools and districts that
continue to fail to make progress are subject to corrective actions. The
performance of districts and schools under Title I is to be publicly
reported and widely shared.

## How Are Key Provisions in the Law Being Implemented?

This section examines the implementation of the accountability
provisions in Title I. It focuses on progress in the following three key
areas:

######## Measurement and Identification

-   Rigor of measures of adequate yearly progress

-   Consistency in identifying schools in need of improvement

-   Integration of Title I with state and local accountability systems

######## Assistance and Support for Low-Performing Schools

-   Using performance data to guide improvement efforts

-   Assisting schools that are failing to meet standards

######## Corrective Actions and Consequences

-   Reporting publicly on school performance

-   Providing incentives and rewards for performance

-   Implementing corrective actions

Even though early reform states have had the advantage of pursuing
standards-based reform and creating systems of accountability for a
longer period of time, all states are making progress in implementing
the accountability provisions of Title I. Accountability is being tied
to student performance and learning. Attention is being drawn to
low-performing schools. But all states are also facing real challenges
as they transform their educational systems into higher-performing,
outcomes-based systems.

## Measurement and Identification

The concept behind the Title I requirement for developing measures of
adequate yearly progress was to have states establish explicit and
rigorous school targets for continuous improvement. In the interim,
while final assessments are being developed, states are required to
develop a procedure for identifying schools and LEAs in need of
improvement that relies on accurate information about continuous and
substantial yearly progress. States must develop measures of school
progress under Title I that are rigorous yet feasible for schools to
obtain, include all students, and can be integrated into state
accountability systems. States and districts also must devise meaningful
and valid measures that do the best job of identifying schools while
being clear and understandable.

**States have met the Title I requirement for developing transitional
definitions of adequate yearly progress. Because state standards are
evolving and state assessments changing, it has been difficult.**

In their state plans for Title I and ESEA, states outlined transitional
procedures for measuring adequate yearly progress and identifying
schools in need of improvement in spring of 1996. By 1997, all states
had satisfied the condition of determining continuous and substantial
progress for schools and districts as measured by interim criteria. Yet,
during that time period, states reported difficulty with creating
adequate yearly progress measures because of changes in state
assessments:

-   In 1996, after the first two years of the program's implementation,
    two-thirds of states reported that establishing criteria for
    adequate yearly progress was moderate to very difficult. Over half
    reported the need for more assistance in establishing
    criteria.[^123]

-   Two years later, in 1998, 19 of 45 state Title I directors reported
    being concerned about changing local assessments for their ability
    to identify schools in need of improvement. States (20 of 45) were
    even more concerned about the effect of changing state assessments
    in their efforts to identify districts in need of improvement.[^124]

Without final assessments in place, there are major challenges to
putting in place clear and consistent measures of school progress that
will be the basis for holding schools accountable for performance.

Because many states are developing or revising new assessment systems,
few are able to examine trends in the achievement of students.

-   In 1998, the Council of Chief State School Officers identified only
    13 states that had at least two years of consistent student
    achievement data from state assessments.[^125]

Even established systems such as those in Kentucky and Kansas, which
were forerunners in the development of aligned systems of standards and
assessments, have revised their efforts to reflect the priorities of
their state legislatures and boards. As a result, it has been very
difficult for states to have reliable and consistent measures of school
performance over time.

Although there is little debate about whether all schools should be
expected to reach high standards, there are many complex issues related
to how to measure school progress. Is it reasonable to see the same rate
of growth over time, or should schools be expected to progress at the
same pace when some have further to go than others? What are reasonable
targets for growth? There are a number of ways of examining performance
that may set different expectations for schools and students.

**According to a review of state transitional measures of school
progress in 1997, roughly equal numbers of states were requiring three
different approaches to measuring school progress.**

-   In 15 states, schools or districts were required to have a certain
    percentage of students attain a target performance level, an average
    performance level, or a composite index target every year.

-   In 20 states, the same rate of increase in performance was required
    for all schools and districts every year.

-   In 17 states, the required performance increase for schools and
    districts depended on their current performance.[^126]

The variety of approaches that states are developing to define adequate
yearly progress have different advantages and potential challenges. For
example, a comparison of school progress against absolute standards
communicates that standards apply to all students, but factors that
affect educational achievement are not necessarily taken into account.
Measures that compare rates of progress or measure school progress
against predicted performance focus attention on each school in its
context. But the approach also may hold students to lower standards and
is more complex and difficult to explain and understand.[^127]

######## A recent report of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights expressed concern about how the definitions of adequate yearly progress may set different expectations for students. Their report concluded that many of the transitional definitions of adequate yearly progress contain few or no specific provisions for ensuring that all groups of students (including students with limited English proficiency and economically disadvantaged students) make progress. Some state definitions set a single cut-off point for adequate yearly progress instead of requiring continuous improvement. In addition, the commission was concerned that many definitions require only very low rates of progress.[^128] 

######## Rigor of Measures of Adequate Yearly Progress 

A 1997 review of the state plans for determining school and district
progress under Title I examined various characteristics of the measures
and processes being used by states during the transitional period.[^129]
The review examined a number of attributes, some desired and others
required by Title I, and evaluated the rigor of transitional state
definitions of adequate yearly progress against those criteria.

**The review of how states measured up against various criteria for
judging school progress found that, as of 1997, states were employing
many different approaches, and that the approaches differed considerably
in rigor and comprehensiveness.**

-   Most states (47) had explicitly identified a target level for
    student performance. Half of the states had set standards for
    measuring school and district progress based on having students meet
    "proficient" levels of performance. Most other states measured
    progress based on a less-than-proficient target for performance,
    such as having students meet a minimum level of competency. A small
    number of states had no target level for student performance in
    their transitional definition of adequate yearly progress.

-   Less than one-third of the states' transitional definitions of
    adequate yearly progress included a requirement that virtually all
    students in a school need to eventually attain a specified level of
    performance. The majority of states defined adequate yearly progress
    on the basis of average school performance, with about half of a
    school's students expected to meet the target performance level.

-   Most states did not explicitly set a deadline for when schools
    should attain the target level of performance, nor did most states
    set a specific deadline by which all students would attain a
    proficient level performance. Of those that did, most states, 13 in
    1997, required a period of 10 years or less. Four required a period
    that extended beyond 10 years.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Twenty-two states determine school or district progress based on
    performance separately in at least reading/language arts and math;
    19 states determine progress after combining performance results
    from different subjects into a single index.

-   Half of states include local assessment results in determining the
    progress of schools. Very few employ additional indicators of school
    performance.[^130]

**The review of state plans also found that states further along in the
process of developing standards and assessment systems in 1997 had more
robust means of measuring school progress and identifying schools in
need of improvement, and seemed to have clearer, more rigorous
accountability systems.**

-   Almost all states with performance standards (12 out of 15)
    specified a target that required a proficient level of student
    achievement for schools to make progress. Most states without
    performance standards did not specify targets that required students
    to meet a proficient level of student performance in order for
    schools to make progress.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Half of the states with performance standards in 1997 had
    established deadlines by which all students should reach state
    standards, compared to only 10 out of 37 states without performance
    standards.[^131]

######## 

######## Consistency in Identifying Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement 

-   Despite ongoing changes in many states' assessment systems, most
    states have been able to identify schools in need of improvement
    under Title I using an interim measure developed specifically for
    Title I, or linked to their own accountability system. But there are
    wide variations in the percentages of districts and schools
    identified for improvement across the states. This variation may be
    explained in part by differences in the rigor of transitional
    definitions of adequate yearly progress, but is also likely due to
    the difficulties in low-performing schools with changing
    assessments, as well as realistic constraints on the capacity of
    states and districts to help identified schools.

**For the 1996-97 school year, the percentages of districts and schools
identified for improvement varied widely across states.**

-   For the 1996-97 school year approximately 7,000 schools, or 16
    percent of Title I schools overall, were identified for school
    improvement under Title I. Yet there was a good deal of variation in
    the range of schools identified for improvement across states.
    Nevada, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia identified more
    than half of their Title I schools as in need of improvement. In 18
    other states, such as Florida, Illinois, California, and Texas, less
    than 10 percent of Title I schools were identified for improvement
    (Exhibit 4.2).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In 1996-97, approximately 1,000 districts, or 8 percent of Title I
    districts were identified as in need of improvement. Ten states
    provided no information about districts in need of improvement and
    10 other states reported that they identified no districts in their
    states as in need of improvement (in two states there is only a
    single district). The largest percentages of districts identified
    for improvement were in Nevada and New Mexico (Exhibit 4.2).[^132]

**Exhibit 4.2**

Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement (1996-97)

+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
|            | *      |        |        | **Title |        |        |
|            | *Title |        |        | I       |        |        |
|            | I      |        |        | Dist    |        |        |
|            | Sch    |        |        | ricts** |        |        |
|            | ools** |        |        |         |        |        |
+============+========+========+========+=========+========+========+
| **State**  | *      | **     | **P    | **Total | **     | **P    |
|            | *Total | Number | ercent | \#      | Number | ercent |
|            | \#     | Identi | Identi | Title   | Identi | Identi |
|            | Title  | fied** | fied** |  I Dist | fied** | fied** |
|            |  I Sch |        |        | ricts** |        |        |
|            | ools** |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| # Alabama  | 789    | 248    | 31%    | 126     | 23     | 18%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Alaska     | 205    | 24     | 12%    | 48      | 0      | 0      |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Arizona    | 778    | 42     | 5%     | 321     | 28     | 9%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Arkansas   | 799    | 101    | 13%    | 312     | 44     | 14%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Bureau of  | 173    | 160    | 92%    | 173     | \--    | \--    |
| Indian     |        |        |        |         |        |        |
| Affairs    |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| California | 4,166  | 330    | 8%     | 876     | \--    | \--    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Colorado   | 549    | 15     | 3%     | 167     | 1      | 1%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| C          | 398    | 95     | 24%    | 117     | 10     | 9%     |
| onnecticut |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Delaware   | 112    | 29     | 26%    | 21      | 0      | 0      |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| District   | 97     | 82     | 85%    | 1       | 1      | 100%   |
| of         |        |        |        |         |        |        |
| Columbia   |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Florida    | 916    | 29     | 3%     | 67      | 0      | 0      |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Georgia    | 987    | 236    | 24%    | 180     | 0      | 0      |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Hawaii     | 117    | 37     | 32%    | 1       | \--    | \--    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Idaho      | 372    | 45     | 12%    | 110     | 20     | 18%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Illinois   | 2,305  | 93     | 4%     | 806     | 14     | 2%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Indiana    | 844    | 242    | 29%    | 285     | \--    | \--    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Iowa       | 799    | 28     | 4%     | 379     | 28     | 7%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Kansas     | 672    | 147    | 22%    | 302     | 65     | 22%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Kentucky   | 886    | 356    | 40%    | 175     | 77     | 44%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Louisiana  | 841    | 30     | 4%     | 66      | 1      | 2%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Maine      | 416    | 127    | 31%    | 188     | 58     | 31%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Maryland   | 269    | 59     | 22%    | 24      | 0      | 0      |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Mas        | 841    | 97     | 12%    | 247     | 23     | 9%     |
| sachusetts |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Michigan   | 1,964  | 641    | 33%    | 603     | 10     | 2%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Minnesota  | 887    | 98     | 11%    | 350     | 36     | 10%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| M          | 670    | 129    | 19%    | 153     | 37     | 24%    |
| ississippi |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Missouri   | \--    | \--    | \--    | \--     | \--    | \--    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Montana    | 618    | 53     | 9%     | 309     | 35     | 11%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Nebraska   | 480    | 102    | 21%    | 320     | 60     | 19%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Nevada     | 91     | 64     | 70%    | 17      | 14     | 82%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| New        | 233    | 1      | 0%     | 130     | 0      | 0      |
| Hampshire  |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| New Jersey | 1,173  | 185    | 16%    | 460     | 40     | 9%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| New Mexico | 487    | 394    | 81%    | 88      | 71     | 81%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| New York   | 2,593  | 410    | 16%    | 645     | 61     | 9%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| North      | 974    | 74     | 8%     | 117     | 0      | 0      |
| Carolina   |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| North      | 281    | 16     | 6%     | 207     | \--    | \--    |
| Dakota     |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Ohio       | 1,789  | 680    | 38%    | 595     | \--    | \--    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Oklahoma   | 1,079  | 37     | 3%     | 542     | 38     | 7%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Oregon     | 647    | 29     | 4%     | 179     | 2      | 1%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Pe         | 1,735  | 215    | 12%    | 479     | 31     | 6%     |
| nnsylvania |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Puerto     | 1,358  | 435    | 32%    | 1       | \--    | \--    |
| Rico       |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Rhode      | 138    | 23     | 17%    | 37      | \--    | \--    |
| Island     |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| South      | 477    | 88     | 18%    | 91      | \--    | \--    |
| Carolina   |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| South      | 380    | 10     | 3%     | 389     | 10     | 3%     |
| Dakota     |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Tennessee  | 738    | 118    | 16%    | 139     | 7      | 5%     |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Texas      | 3,923  | 40     | 1%     | 1,010   | 4      | 0      |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Utah       | 255    | 7      | 3%     | 40      | 0      | 0      |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Vermont    | 230    | 14     | 6%     | 60      | \--    | \--    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Virginia   | 699    | 152    | 22%    | 133     | 46     | 35%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Washington | 905    | 176    | 19%    | 286     | 93     | 33%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| West       | 471    | 60     | 13%    | 55      | 0      | 0      |
| Virginia   |        |        |        |         |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Wisconsin  | 1,666  | 139    | 8%     | 388     | 0      | 0      |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| Wyoming    | 127    | 23     | 18%    | 42      | 5      | 12%    |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
| ###        | **45   | **7    | *      | **1     | *      | **8%** |
| #### TOTAL | ,399** | ,065** | *16%** | 2,857** | *993** |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+

Source: U.S. Department of Education, 1996-97 *Title I Performance
Reports*. Information for Missouri is not included because the state did
not report the number of schools and districts in need of improvement.

**Schools identified for improvement tend to serve higher-poverty
students and have a larger minority enrollment.**

-   Schools identified as in need of improvement were more likely to be
    in the highest-poverty category (75 percent or more students
    receiving free or reduced price lunch) and to have high minority
    student enrollment (80 percent or more minority students).[^133]

-   Schools identified for improvement for two or more years were more
    likely to be schoolwide programs and to have relatively high
    minority enrollment (50 percent or more minority students).[^134]

-   Large, high-poverty districts were more likely than other districts
    to have identified schools in need of improvement. Two-thirds of
    large poor school districts, compared with about 20 percent of
    districts nationally and one-third of small poor districts, formally
    identified schools in need of improvement.[^135]

**During the transition, states and districts have found it difficult to
effectively communicate the criteria and consequences of being
identified for improvement.** **In 1997-98:**

-   More than a third of states reported that they are finding it
    difficult to convey to schools the criteria that are used in
    identifying schools in need of improvement.[^136]

-   Twelve percent of Title I school principals in a 1997-98 survey
    reported that their schools had been identified for improvement, and
    75 percent reported their schools had not been identified. However,
    an additional 13 percent of principals were uncertain as to whether
    their schools had been identified for improvement.[^137]

-   Twelve percent of large poor districts and 9 percent of districts
    nationwide do not know whether their district as a whole is making
    adequate yearly progress according to the state's Title I
    criteria.[^138]

-   Across 12 school districts with schools in need of improvement in
    1998, most local educators other than district Title I directors
    knew little about the specific procedures that trigger school
    identification under Title I.[^139]

######## Integration of Title I with State and Local Accountability Systems

A key issue facing Title I is the extent to which identification of
schools for improvement under Title I is compatible with the
accountability measures that states are putting into place for all
schools. Ideally, Title I should help create a seamless, coherent system
where accountability for Title I schools fits in within the
accountability measures used for all schools.

**Research shows that there is significant overlap of schools identified
for improvement under Title I and schools identified for improvement
under some other state or local designation, but that two parallel
systems are operating in many states.**

-   In fall 1998, only 23 state Title I directors reported that the same
    accountability system is used for Title I as the system defined by
    the state for all schools.[^140]

Preliminary findings from a study examining the congruence of state,
district, and Title I procedures for identifying schools in need of
improvement in five prominent jurisdictions (Kentucky, Maryland,
New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco) show that there is
considerable overlap between schools identified for improvement under
Title I and those identified in their state or local systems. The
majority of low-performing schools identified by state or local
accountability systems are Title I schools. But the study also raises
some concerns about the extent to which an integrated system exists.

-   Of the five sites in the study, only in Kentucky were the "lists" of
    schools that were identified for improvement by state or local
    accountability or by Title I held in a common record system. Even
    collecting the information on what schools had been identified was
    difficult for the researchers.

-   Where identification of schools by the state/local and Title I
    systems is not congruent, the discrepancy stems primarily from
    differences in the criteria used for identification. These
    differences in criteria derive from differences in the purposes of
    the systems, differences in who identifies the schools, and problems
    of administrative coordination.

-   Even systems that were taking accountability seriously were having
    difficulty fully integrating the Title I requirements.

-   The study noted that the inconsistencies between Title I and state
    and local accountability systems may cause significant difficulties
    when states implement corrective actions. Some research shows that
    regardless of how schools are identified, they are undergoing
    improvement efforts. But the inconsistency between Title I and state
    and local systems may become particularly problematic when
    corrective actions begin.[^141]

**The lack of consistency between Title I and state and local
accountability is one concern. Another is the rigor of accountability
systems and whether the requirements in Title I are driving states
toward more challenging accountability systems for all schools.**

-   A recent study of accountability in large urban districts finds that
    Title I has been a "model and an instigator" for standards-based
    reform and efforts to track student progress and improve
    schools.[^142]

-   ![](media/image1.wmf)Nationally, 14 percent of districts report that
    Title I is driving reform in their districts as a whole to a great
    extent. Fifty percent of small poor districts and 47 percent of
    large poor districts report that Title I is driving reform to a
    great extent.[^143]

-   According to one recent report, 15 states identify low-performing
    schools as part of their state accountability systems. At the same
    time, all but one state identifies low-performing schools under
    Title I.[^144]

-   In some jurisdictions schools have been able to meet expectations
    for state accountability but not for progress under Title I. For
    example, New York identifies schools for school improvement that are
    farthest from reaching the state standard. Under Title I, however,
    New York City identifies any schools that are not making adequate
    yearly progress toward the state standard. As a result, 89 percent
    of the schools identified under the state's Schools Under
    Registration Review (SURR) system in New York City are also
    identified for school improvement under Title I. However, only 9
    percent of the schools identified for school improvement under Title
    I are also identified under SURR.[^145]

**Although the goal of Title I is to have single, integrated state
accountability systems, there are limits to the capacity of Title I to
drive statewide change.**

-   Accountability systems "closer to home" are of greater consequence
    to educators. State and local systems tend to be more clearly
    specified and understood by educators and have more immediate
    consequences to schools and districts. The lack of clarity and
    specified consequences for Title I schools that fail to improve
    during the transitional period may contribute to low saliency for
    Title I accountability.[^146]

## Assistance and Support for Low-Performing Schools

Accountability provisions under Title 1 are intended to help schools use
performance data to guide improvement efforts and to support states and
districts in assisting schools that are failing to meet standards.

######## Using Performance Data to Guide Improvement Efforts 

Collecting data on student and school performance and progress in Title
I is not envisioned solely as a means of holding schools accountable.
One of the hopes in shifting toward a more outcome-based education
system is to move away from collecting data for compliance and
monitoring purposes, in favor of using measures of performance for
effective decision making as well as to guide instruction and
improvement efforts. Recent findings suggest that Title I requirements
may be contributing to an increased use of data for planning and
improvement purposes.

**Recent findings suggest that state and Title I accountability
requirements are helping states, districts, and schools become more data
driven.** Because Title I gave states, districts, and schools
significant flexibility in using funds to support programs that best
meet the needs of particular students, the program stresses the need to
analyze outcome data, assess needs, and focus on continuous improvement.

-   Research on accountability in 14 districts by the Consortium for
    Policy Research in Education found a remarkably high level of
    attention being paid to using data to inform decision making. The
    study found that although outcome data were required to be used for
    school improvement planning, many districts were going beyond
    requirements of the law to use the data to identify professional
    development activities that would address gaps in performance, plan
    curriculum and instruction, assign personnel, and develop remedial
    programs for students.[^147]

-   A report on accountability in 12 districts with stable systems,
    innovative practices, and a large number of low-performing
    schools**---**in Kansas, New York, North Carolina, and
    Oregon**---**found that educators were paying attention to
    performance data. Several of the districts used technology to make
    the data accessible and all gave schools assistance in interpreting
    and using data. Larger districts had greater skills in using data to
    give principals and teachers "good, quick feedback, sliced and diced
    in a variety of ways." [^148]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A recent study of accountability in large urban districts affirms
    that many districts "have gone from virtually ignoring student
    achievement data and other indicators of school success to embracing
    it." School improvement plans are becoming more focused on data, and
    plans are being used more to guide practice, goal setting, and
    monitoring.[^149]

######## Assisting Schools That Are Failing to Meet Standards

Assistance and intervention for schools identified as in need of
improvement are a priority for the Title I program. Although Congress
did not fund the State Improvement Grants intended to help states
operate school support teams authorized in the legislation, states are
using their administrative set-aside funds to operate school support
teams. But the demand for assistance is high, and the capacity of states
and districts to provide it is limited.

Ideally, assistance to schools identified as in need of improvement is
timely, focused on the lowest- performing schools, and based on what is
known about effective practices for helping to turn around
low-performing schools. Efforts must focus on providing students with
challenging curriculum and instruction, creating a high-quality
professional development program, helping schools use data to drive
improvement, and using resources more strategically to support
comprehensive change.

**States have tended to develop school support systems composed of a
group of distinguished educators, staff from existing intermediary
organizations (such as education service centers), or state staff.**

-   Kentucky's STAR (School Transformation Assistance and Renewal)
    program, for example, assigns distinguished educators to schools "in
    crisis" to help school staff develop and implement data-driven
    improvement plans. States such as Massachusetts, Illinois, and
    Louisiana designate state staff to work with schools in need of
    improvement. Maryland has developed a mentor school model that pairs
    schools identified as in need of improvement with schools designated
    as distinguished.[^150]

-   A recent study of school support teams identified a number of
    strengths. State coordinators believe that school support teams,
    despite limited capacity, are providing support for school reform
    and schoolwide programs. States find peer consultation to be
    particularly effective, and schools seem to benefit from assistance,
    as evidenced by more creative plans and more integrated approaches
    to funding.[^151]

**Assistance to schools in need of improvement by states and districts
tends to be ongoing and focused on professional development, planning
and needs assessment, and identification of promising practices.**

-   States report that schools and districts most frequently request
    assistance for identifying successful strategies for improving
    instruction, conducting needs assessments, and using assessment
    information from multiple sources.[^152]

-   "More professional development" is the most common strategy
    identified by districts for helping schools in need of improvement.
    More than 70 percent of districts with such schools reported using
    this strategy.[^153]

**The biggest challenge facing state school support teams and other
assistance providers is lack of *capacity*. Demand for assistance is
high, but states and districts have limited resources to provide
assistance to all of the schools that need it.**

-   In early feedback from states and districts after the
    reauthorization of Title I, administrators reported the need for a
    great deal more technical assistance to districts and schools not
    making adequate progress. Baseline findings at the district level in
    1996 indicated that almost 20 percent of districts reported needing
    information and support in providing technical assistance to schools
    not making adequate progress, and districts with the highest poverty
    levels reported the greatest need.[^154]

-   According to one study, three years after the reauthorization of
    Title I, 10 states still had no identifiable school support team
    systems.[^155]

Source: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-Up State Survey*, 1998.

**States have limited capacity to provide assistance because school
support teams have limited resources and competing priorities. State
Improvement Grants intended to help states operate school support teams
were not funded during reauthorization. Moreover, the first priority of
state school support teams has been to assist schoolwide
programs---schools in need of improvement come second.**

-   A study of accountability systems in five jurisdictions found that
    support provided to low-performing schools varied substantially from
    jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even from school to school. Much of
    the assistance was focused on helping schools develop improvement
    plans, as required by the law. The primary source of support was the
    state or district, with Title I appearing "peripheral and sporadic."
    [^156]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Among schools that reported in a 1998 survey that they had been
    identified as in need of improvement, less than half (47 percent)
    reported that they had received additional professional development
    or technical assistance as a result of being identified for
    improvement. However, high- poverty schools (65 percent) identified
    for improvement were more likely to receive assistance.[^157]

## Corrective Actions and Consequences

Accountability for performance is meaningless without consequences for
results. Although consequences and corrective actions are an important
part of the accountability provisions in Title I, most of the provisions
do not have to be put in place until after final assessments (2000-01
school year). As part of their state accountability systems some states
are implementing measures, including sanctions, under their own
accountability systems.

######## 

######## Reporting Publicly on School Performance

**Public reports of school performance, "school profiles" or "report
cards," are increasingly being used as an important tool for
accountability and school improvement.** Although Title I does not
require uniform reporting on school performance, all states are required
to provide results on statewide assessments to districts and schools.
Title I requires districts to do an annual review of school progress and
publish the results in school profiles that include information on
student achievement disaggregated by demographic subgroups in order to
draw the attention of states, districts, and schools to the gaps between
disadvantaged students and other students. This provision is not
required under Title I until final assessments are in place. Still:

-   As part of their own state accountability systems, 36 states have
    developed annual school report cards.[^158]

**According to some analyses of school report cards across states, the
reports are being used to a limited extent to rate low-performing
schools, compare school performance to other schools in the state, or
inform parents and the public about school performance.**

-   An analysis of early report cards indicates that they were heavy on
    "input measures" that described the characteristics of schools,
    rather than on measures of quality or performance.[^159]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Only 19 states currently rate the schools or identify low-performing
    schools statewide, and only 13 require school report cards to be
    sent home to parents under state accountability systems.[^160]

-   In focus groups held around the country, most parents and taxpayers
    said they had never seen a report card on individual public schools
    in their communities. Many school report cards do not include
    information that parents and the public want to know, and say they
    need, to evaluate schools.[^161]

**Exhibit 4.4**

**School Report Cards**

+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| **State** |   | **Annual   |   | **Report   |   | **Report    |   | **Report      |
|           |   | School     |   | Cards Sent |   | Cards       |   | Cards Compare |
|           |   | Report     |   | Home**     |   | Compare     |   | Scores in     |
|           |   | Cards**    |   |            |   | School      |   | Similar       |
|           |   |            |   |            |   | Performance |   | Schools or    |
|           |   |            |   |            |   | to State    |   | Districts**   |
|           |   |            |   |            |   | Average**   |   |               |
+===========+===+============+===+============+===+=============+===+===============+
| # Alabama | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Alaska    | Y |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Arizona   | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Arkansas  |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| C         | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
| alifornia | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Colorado  |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Co        | Y |            |   |            | Y |             | Y |               |
| nnecticut | e |            |   |            | e |             | e |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             | s |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | ( |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | h |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | i |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | g |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | h |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | s |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | c |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | h |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | o |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | o |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | l |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | s |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | o |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | n |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | l |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | y |               |
|           |   |            |   |            |   |             | ) |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Delaware  | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Florida   | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             | Y |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             | e |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             | s |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Georgia   | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Hawaii    | Y |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Idaho     |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Illinois  | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Indiana   | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Iowa      |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Kansas    | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Kentucky  | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Louisiana | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Maine     |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Maryland  | Y |            |   |            |   |             | Y |               |
|           | e |            |   |            |   |             | e |               |
|           | s |            |   |            |   |             | s |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Mass      | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
| achusetts | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Michigan  | Y |            | Y |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Minnesota | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Mi        |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
| ssissippi |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Missouri  | Y |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Montana   |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Nebraska  |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Nevada    | Y |            | Y |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| New       |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
| Hampshire |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| New       | Y |            |   |            | Y |             | Y |               |
| Jersey    | e |            |   |            | e |             | e |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             | s |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| New       | Y |            |   |            | Y |             | Y |               |
| Mexico    | e |            |   |            | e |             | e |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             | s |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| New York  | Y |            |   |            | Y |             | Y |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             | e |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             | s |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| North     | Y |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
| Carolina  | e |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| North     |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
| Dakota    |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Ohio      | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Oklahoma  | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Oregon    |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Pen       | Y |            |   |            | Y |             | Y |               |
| nsylvania | e |            |   |            | e |             | e |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             | s |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Rhode     | Y |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
| Island    | e |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| South     |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
| Carolina  |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| South     | Y |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
| Dakota    | e |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Tennessee |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Texas     | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             | Y |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             | e |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             | s |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Utah      |   |            |   |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Vermont   | Y |            |   |            | Y |             | Y |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             | e |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             | s |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Virginia  | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| W         | Y |            | Y |            |   |             |   |               |
| ashington | e |            | e |            |   |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            |   |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| West      | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             |   |               |
| Virginia  | e |            | e |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Wisconsin | Y |            | Y |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            | e |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            | s |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| Wyoming   | Y |            |   |            | Y |             |   |               |
|           | e |            |   |            | e |             |   |               |
|           | s |            |   |            | s |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+
| **TOTAL** | 3 |            | 1 |            | 2 |             | 9 |               |
|           | 6 |            | 3 |            | 5 |             |   |               |
+-----------+---+------------+---+------------+---+-------------+---+---------------+

Source: Education Week, *Quality Counts*, 1999.

######## Providing Incentives and Rewards for Performance

In addition to identifying schools in need of improvement, Title I
requires states to designate distinguished schools---schools where
adequate yearly progress has been achieved for three years, where
virtually all students in schools meet state performance requirements,
or where significant progress has been made in raising the achievement
of low-performing students. Title I also provides states with the
opportunity to reserve funds to reward performance or provide incentives
to schools. Some states are already identifying distinguished schools
under Title I, and many of the states' own accountability systems
include incentives and rewards.

-   According to a recent survey of state Title I directors, 28 states
    designate schools that have a record of improving student
    performance as distinguished.[^162]

-   Fourteen states give monetary awards for schools that meet
    performance standards. In nine states the money can be used for
    salary bonuses.[^163]

-   A study of accountability systems in Kentucky and
    Charlotte-Mecklenburg found that although bonuses seem to be less of
    an incentive to teachers than thanks and praise, teachers tended to
    agree that bonuses were an important symbol of accountability.
    Negative outcomes, such as being labeled as a low-performing school,
    seemed to have an equal motivating force.[^164]

######## 

######## Implementing Corrective Actions

According to Title I, schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress
for three years after being identified for school improvement are
subject to corrective actions, such as withholding funds, changing
decision-making authority in schools or districts, reconstituting
schools, or authorizing student transfers to other schools. Although
Title I requirements for these corrective actions are not to be put in
place until after final assessments (2000-01 school year), some states
are implementing accountability measures including sanctions, under
their own accountability systems.

-   Sixteen states have laws to give them the power to close, take over,
    or overhaul chronically failing schools. According to one source,
    only three states have closed or reconstituted schools (New York,
    Oklahoma, Texas), for a total of 55 schools nationwide.[^165]
    Another source indicates that 8 states have reconstituted a school
    or a district.[^166]

-   A number of school districts such as Chicago, San Francisco, and
    Philadelphia have their own reconstitution or "takeover"
    policies---but most have reconstituted only a handful of schools,
    and no schools have been reconstituted under the authority of Title
    I.

**Although Title I includes a requirement for corrective actions for low
achievement, most such actions cannot go into effect under Title I
until** **after final assessments are in place.** Corrective actions
under Title I---including withholding funds to districts or schools,
revoking authority for schools to be schoolwide programs, changing
governance arrangements in schools or districts, reconstitution and
authorizing transfers to other public schools---have not been required
to date under Title I.

**As many states begin to implement sanctions and corrective actions as
part of their own state accountability systems, they face some
resistance.**

-   As one recent study explained, "Despite threats to impose severe
    penalties, few states are ready or willing to impose them. Most
    educators also remain opposed to accountability as it is being
    pursued in many states."[^167]

-   In contrast to the support found among the public, parents, and
    employers, most teachers *think it is a bad idea* to overhaul
    persistently low-performing schools, have principals work under
    contracts that could be terminated if schools fail to reach goals,
    or tie student performance to financial incentives for teachers and
    principals.[^168]

**Accountability for performance under Title I starts with the school.
But states and districts are beginning to set their sights on holding
students accountable for performance, and are creating policies to end
social promotion.**

-   The problem of social promotion---promoting students from grade to
    grade when they are unprepared and have not met standards---is an
    often hidden but potentially large problem. Research indicates that
    from 10 to 15 percent of young adults who graduate from high school
    but have no further formal education---up to 340,000 high school
    graduates each year---cannot balance a checkbook or write a letter
    to a credit card company to complain about a bill.[^169]

-   A recent survey shows that 32 percent of parents, 26 percent of
    teachers, and 63 percent of employers do not believe a high school
    diploma is a guarantee that students have mastered the basics.[^170]

-   According to the American Federation of Teachers, 10 states have
    established statewide policies for ending social promotion.[^171]
    Districts such as Chicago, Cincinnati, and Boston have stepped up
    efforts to end social promotion.

-   Where states and districts have established policies for ending
    social promotion, clear standards have been set for performance,
    coupled with extra assistance and intervention to help students meet
    those standards through preschools and early childhood programs,
    after-school and summer school programs, and attention to students
    with special needs.

**Policies to allow students in low-performing schools the choice to
transfer to another school, although not yet permitted to be implemented
under Title I, are being implemented in some districts and states across
the nation, and may help provide incentives to improve failing
schools.**

###### 

-   Boston Public Schools, for example, has a controlled public school
    choice system where parents can register their children in one of at
    least 23 elementary schools and at least 5 middle schools within
    their assignment area, plus several citywide schools. High school
    students may choose from among 12 citywide high schools. In
    addition, students may apply for several special high schools and
    programs. In 1991, when the district began the policy, Samuel Mason
    Elementary School was the least chosen in the system, with only 130
    students attending the school. By 1996, the school had turned itself
    around to become one of the most chosen in the district.[^172]

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements?

The data presented in this chapter raise some key questions that should
guide future directions of accountability provisions under Title I.

-   How can state accountability systems and Title I be aligned while
    meeting the requirements of Title I, under which states must set
    accountability standards that are rigorous, include all students,
    and help all students reach proficiency?

-   Because states and districts have limited resources to provide the
    level of assistance needed to turn around low-performing schools,
    how can strong accountability be better tied to improving
    performance?

This section suggests ways that accountability can be strengthened in
the next reauthorization.

##### Help states move toward a single, integrated, and rigorous accountability system

The message the Department is getting from the field is to stay the
course on standards-based reform and accountability for performance. But
Title I cannot be expected to drive systemwide accountability,
particularly in districts where most of the schools do not receive Title
I funds. States need to adopt statewide accountability systems that are
based on student achievement data that are aligned to challenging state
standards, include *all* students, and use multiple measures and
indicators. Such statewide systems would identify schools in need of
improvement and offer quick interventions; support strong corrective
actions in schools that continue to need improvement; and provide
recognition and rewards for schools that demonstrate improvements in
student achievement. Such state accountability systems would ensure that
all students, particularly economically disadvantaged students, have
opportunities to be successful learners and would take appropriate steps
to intervene when students are not making progress.

######## 

##### Build capacity for targeting technical assistance toward the neediest schools

One of the biggest problems facing states is their lack of capacity to
help schools meet expectations and intervene when schools need
assistance. This chapter has presented evidence that states and
districts are struggling to improve their capacity to help
low-performing schools.

To address the issue of inadequate capacity, a percentage of Title I
funds should be reserved to support interventions in low-performing
schools and rewards for school improvement*.* These funds would be
targeted to ensure that interventions are significant and meaningful
enough to turn around low-performing schools. Funds would be used to pay
for external experts to work with the schools to turn around
performance, to implement professional development and curriculum
improvements outlined in school improvement plans, to extend learning
time for students in low-performing schools, to pay for reconstitution
costs, and to provide rewards for improved performance.

##### Implement strong corrective actions for lowest-performing schools

States must identify and take clear, strong, and swift corrective
actions in the schools with the greatest needs in the state. Rather than
waiting until several years after final assessments are in place,
schools with the lowest levels of student performance that have been
identified as in need of school improvement for three or more
consecutive years should be subject to corrective actions under Title I,
even if such designation was under the transitional assessment and
accountability system.

In the case of persistently low-performing schools, corrective actions
should include giving parents and students alternatives, including the
choice to attend another public school. Title I funds can be used to
help fund alternatives, including paying for the cost of transferring
students to another public school.

##### Publicly report state, district, and school profiles of student achievement in clear, and more meaningful ways 

Research suggests that states, districts, and schools are making better
use of data for decisions about school operation, classroom practice and
bringing about school improvement, but they have a long way to go.
Effective report cards should be useful for school improvement as well
as for informing parents and the public about school performance.
Therefore, all districts should produce annual school profiles, made
available to parents and the public, that report on student achievement
disaggregated by demographic subgroups of students, and by other
nonacademic indicators that the public and parents care about, such as
attendance and dropout rates, class size, teacher professional
qualifications, parental involvement, and school safety and discipline.
These profiles should provide timely information and be focused on
performance rather than process indicators.

***Help schools end social promotion and provide extra assistance and
interventions to help students meet standards***

As states set standards for performance and hold schools accountable for
student achievement, educators must face the issue of how to deal with
students who fail to meet performance expectations. Research shows that
neither passing students along from grade to grade when they are
unprepared nor retaining students to repeat a grade is an effective
strategy for meeting the needs of students who fail to reach standards.
As part of their accountability systems, states should make a commitment
to address high rates of social promotion and retention of failing
students by intervening with strategies to help all students achieve to
high standards.

##### Promote state accountability for performance

Accountability for school performance must be shared throughout the
system. Although states, districts, and schools are taking advantage of
the flexibility in Title I to design educational programs that best meet
the needs of their students, one of the challenges at the federal level
has been a limited ability to hold states accountable for implementing
provisions of Title I. To address this issue, under the Government
Performance and Results Act, states are asked to submit progress reports
to the federal government in a timely fashion, and include information
on progress against program performance indicators such as those
featured in this chapter, from the U.S. Department of Education's annual
Strategic Plan.

## Conclusion

States are making progress in implementing accountability systems. Yet
as one recent report notes, "states have completed only the first few
miles of a marathon when it comes to holding schools accountable for
results. Many have a long way to go in making their accountability
systems clear, fair and complete." [^173]

Recognizing that we are examining accountability in the context of a
transitional period, our findings suggest some concern about the
implementation of Title I accountability measures. Most important is the
issue of the compatibility of state and local accountability systems
with Title I accountability provisions. Accountability under Title I is
not meant to operate as a separate system, but there is some evidence to
suggest that these systems are less well integrated than the Title I
legislation envisioned. In addition, many states have found it difficult
to define adequate yearly progress and have been uneven both in their
identification of schools in need of improvement and in the assistance
they provide to low-performing schools. Our findings about corrective
actions and consequences implemented by states under their own
accountability systems suggest that although these measures can be
effective, educators have shown some resistance to the measures, and
putting them into place under Title I when final assessments are in
place will be an upcoming challenge for the program.

**KEY PROVISIONS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF TITLE I FUNDS**

### Allocations to School Districts

Since the Title I program began in 1965, the Department of Education has
made allocations to the county level, and states have suballocated these
funds to school districts within each county. However, beginning in FY
1999, the law requires the Department of Education to make allocations
directly to school districts without regard to county boundaries.

Allocations are based primarily on Census Bureau estimates of the number
of poor school-age children (ages 5-17) in each county or district. The
law requires use of updated census poverty data for counties in FY 1997
and for school districts in FY 1999 (unless the Secretaries of Education
and Commerce jointly determined that use of this data would be
inappropriate or unreliable).

Funds may be allocated using up to four statutory formulasBasic Grants,
Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and the Education Finance
Incentive Program. Basic Grants currently distribute

86 percent of the funds (FY 1999), and the remaining funds are allocated
through Concentration Grants; the other two formulas have never been
funded.

-   **Basic Grants.** Funds are allocated based on each county or
    district's number of formula-eligible children. The county or
    district allocations are adjusted using state average per-pupil
    expenditures, a factor intended to compensate for differences in the
    cost of education. The formula also incorporates minimum
    eligibility, hold-harmless, and state minimum grant provisions.

-   **Concentration Grants.** Similar to Basic Grants, except that funds
    go only to counties and school districts with high numbers (over
    6,500) or percentages (over 15 percent) of poor children.

-   **Targeted Grants.** Similar to Basic Grants, but uses weighted
    child counts that result in higher allocations per poor child for
    districts with higher numbers or percentages of poor children.

-   **Education Finance Incentive Program.** Funds would be allocated to
    states through a formula that is based on a count of all school-age
    children (not just poor children), multiplied by fiscal effort and
    equity factors. This formula would provide higher levels of funding
    to states that have higher levels of fiscal effort and within-state
    equalization (as defined in the law). States would suballocate these
    funds to school districts in proportion to other Title I funds.

### Within-District Allocations

School districts allocate funds to eligible schools based on each
school's number of low-income children, typically using data from the
free and reduced-price lunch program. A school is eligible if its school
attendance area has a poverty rate that is at least equal to the
district average poverty rate or 35 percent (whichever is less).
However, districts may choose to concentrate their Title I funds on
their highest-poverty schools and limit school eligibility to a poverty
level that is higher than the district-wide average.

Districts may give schools different amounts per poor child as long as
schools with higher poverty rates receive higher allocations per poor
child than schools with lower poverty rates. Districts must ensure that
each school's Title I allocation is at least 125 percent of the
district-wide allocation per poor child (this provision applies only if
the district serves schools with poverty rates below 35 percent).

# 5. TARGETING RESOURCES TO DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS

# WHERE THE NEEDS ARE GREATEST

# 

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Key Findings**                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   More than 90 percent of Title I funds are used for instruction    |
|     and instructional support---much higher than the percentage of    |
|     state and local funds used for these purposes (62 percent). Funds |
|     spent at the federal and state levels amount to 1.5 percent of    |
|     total funding.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Title I funds that districts and schools used for technology      |
|     (\$237 million) amounted to 37 percent of total support for       |
|     technology from Department of Education programs. Title I funds   |
|     paid for 12 percent of all new computers that schools received in |
|     1997-98.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Title I spending on professional development (\$191 million)      |
|     amounted to 27 percent of federal funding for professional        |
|     development at the district and school levels.                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Title I resources in high-poverty schools can be sufficient to    |
|     pay most if not all of the additional costs of many model         |
|     programs for raising the achievement of disadvantaged students.   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Districts in the highest-poverty quartile receive 49 percent of   |
|     all Title I funds, about the same as their share of the nation's  |
|     poor school-age children, compared with only 23 percent of state  |
|     and local funds.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Formula changes have had little effect on targeting at the school |
|     district level. The share of Title I funds received by the        |
|     highest-poverty districts has remained unchanged (at 49 percent)  |
|     from FY 1994 through FY 1997. District-level targeting will not   |
|     change substantially in FY 1998 and FY 1999 because of special    |
|     100 percent hold-harmless provisions enacted for those years.     |
|                                                                       |
| -   School-level targeting within districts increased substantially   |
|     after the 1994 reauthorization. Almost all (95 percent) of the    |
|     highest-poverty schools (75 percent or more poverty) received     |
|     Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 79 percent in 1993-94. The      |
|     proportion of low-poverty schools (less than 35 percent poverty)  |
|     receiving Title I funds declined from 49 percent to 36 percent    |
|     over this period.                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Low-poverty schools account for 30 percent of Title I schools but |
|     receive only 18 percent of Title I funds. However, those          |
|     low-poverty schools that receive Title I funds tend to receive    |
|     substantially larger funding levels per low-income student        |
|     (\$1,001) compared with the highest-poverty schools (\$617) and   |
|     Title I schools overall (\$613).                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Nearly all (93 percent) high-poverty secondary schools received   |
|     Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 61 percent in 1993-94. The      |
|     overall percentage of secondary schools that receive Title I      |
|     funds declined from 36 percent to 29 percent over the same        |
|     period. Secondary schools that do receive Title I funds tend to   |
|     receive smaller allocations per low-income student (\$483) than   |
|     elementary schools (\$643).                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Recent census updates of poverty data reflect a shift toward      |
|     large urban areas, particularly in the Northeast, and away from   |
|     small rural areas, partly reversing previous shifts that occurred |
|     in the 1990 census.                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish?

Historically, Title I funds have been spread thinly among a large
majority of districts and schools, undermining the program's capacity to
meet the high expectations set by policymakers. The previous Chapter 1
formula and within-district allocation provisions spread funds to
virtually all counties, 93 percent of all school districts, and 66
percent of all public schools, yet left many of the nation's poorest
schools unserved. In an effort to improve the targeting of Title I funds
on the neediest districts and schools, the 1994 reauthorization created
the new Targeted Grants formula and changed the within-district
allocation provisions. In addition, Congress increased the proportion of
Title I funds appropriated for Concentration Grants, in an effort to
direct a greater share of the funds to higher-poverty districts and
schools.

This chapter first describes changes in the Title I formulas that
allocate funds to states and school districts and in the provisions
governing how districts allocate funds to schools. The chapter then
discusses the amount of Title I funds used at the district and school
levels for instruction and other purposes and the targeting of Title I
funds at the school district and school levels. The chapter also
discusses the effects of different formulas for allocating funds to
school districts, the effect of the 1994 poverty updates, and the change
to allocating funds directly to school districts.

##### Changes in Title I Formulas That Allocate Funds to States, Counties, and School Districts

Under the antecedent Chapter 1, 90 percent of the funds were distributed
through Basic Grants, which go to almost all school districts, and 10
percent were distributed through Concentration Grants to districts with
more than 15 percent poverty or 6,500 poor children. To improve the
targeting and fairness of allocations, several changes were authorized:

-   **New Targeted Grants formula.** The reauthorized Title I provided
    that "new money" (funds above the FY 1995 level) was to flow through
    Targeted Grants, a weighted formula that provides higher per-pupil
    amounts to counties and districts with higher percentages or numbers
    of poor children. However, this formula has never been funded.

-   **Increased appropriations for Concentration Grants.** Allocations
    for school districts continue to flow primarily through the Basic
    Grant formula that has been used since the beginning of the Title I
    program in 1965. However, Concentration Grants have recently been
    used to allocate an increasing percentage of Title I funds, rising
    from 4 percent in 1989 to 10 percent in 1996 and 14 percent in 1999.
    Concentration Grants provide funding only to districts with
    relatively high concentrations of poor children (more than 15
    percent poverty or 6,500 poor children).

-   **Use of updated census poverty data.** To address concerns about
    the use of out-of-date poverty data from the decennial census for
    Title I allocations, Congress mandated that these allocations use
    biennial poverty estimates prepared by the Census Bureau. The first
    intercensal estimates, which provided county-level poverty and
    population estimates for 1994 (for income year 1993), were first
    used for Title I allocations in FY 1997. The Census Bureau has also
    prepared updated 1996 estimates for school districts, intended for
    use in the FY 1999 allocations, as discussed below.

-   **Allocating funds directly to school districts.** Historically,
    Title I funds have been allocated to school districts through a
    two-stage process, with the Department allocating funds to the
    county level and states then suballocating those funds to school
    districts within each county. Beginning in FY 1999, the Department
    will allocate Title I funds to school districts using updated census
    poverty data. However, the law permits states to redistribute Title
    I funds for districts with less than 20,000 persons (which account
    for 80 percent of districts and 27 percent of school-age children),
    as well as to adjust for boundary changes, allocations to charter
    schools, and other issues.

##### Changes in How Districts Allocate Funds to Schools 

Title I procedures require districts to rank-order their schools on the
basis of the percentage of children from low-income families. Schools
with poverty rates above the districtwide average are eligible for
Title I, but previously there were several exceptions to this rule that
permitted districts to spread their funds among a larger number of
schools. Changes enacted in the 1994 reauthorization that affect
within-district allocations include the following:

-   **Stronger within-district targeting provisions.** School
    eligibility requirements were tightened in the reauthorization to
    exclude schools below the average poverty rate for the district
    (unless the school has a poverty rate of 35 percent or more).
    Districts were no longer allowed to serve all schools if the
    variation in school poverty rates was less than 10 percentage
    points, or to grandfather in a school that had become ineligible. In
    addition, districts are now required to serve all schools at or
    above 75 percent poverty before serving any schools below that
    poverty levela change intended to increase the number of
    high-poverty schools, particularly high schools and middle schools,
    that receive Title I funds. Finally, districts must ensure that each
    school's Title I allocation is at least 125 percent of the
    districtwide allocation per poor child, a provision intended to
    ensure that funds are not spread too thinly across schools; however,
    this provision does not apply if the district serves only schools
    with poverty rates of 35 percent or more.

-   **Waiver authority.** New waiver provisions were added to ESEA
    during the 1994 reauthorization to allow greater flexibility for
    states and districts to adapt federal education programs to the
    educational needs of their students and communities. This waiver
    authority could affect the school-level targeting of Title I funds,
    because it may be used to waive certain within-district allocation
    rules.

## How Are Key Provisions Being Implemented?

##### Uses of Title I Funds

**Nearly all Title I funds are allocated to local school districts.**
States distribute 98.8 percent of their Title I funds to school
districts and retain only 1.2 percent for administration, school
improvement programs, and technical assistance to districts and schools.
At the federal level, funds for Departmental administration are not
retained from Title I appropriations but instead are provided through a
separate appropriation; however, across all elementary and secondary
programs, funds spent on program administration account for 0.5 percent
of total funding for these programs.[^174]

More than 90 percent of Title I funds are used for instruction and
instructional support---much higher than the percentage of state and
local funds used for these purposes (62 percent). About four-fifths of
Title I funds are used for instruction; these funds are primarily used
to hire teachers and aides, but also support purchases of computers and
instructional materials. About 10 percent of the funds are used for
program administration. The remaining funds are used mainly for
instructional support, including professional development, curriculum
and program development, and support services for students such as
health services and guidance counseling.[^175]

Although Title I accounts for a relatively small percentage of total
funding for elementary and secondary education (about 2.5
percent),[^176] the program plays a significant role in supporting local
education improvement efforts because it provides flexible funding that
may be used for supplementary instruction, professional development,
technology, after-school and other extended-time programs, and other
strategies for raising student achievement.

**For example, Title I funds used for professional development amounted
to \$191 million in 1997-98 (27 percent of federal funds that school
districts use for professional development).** **Title I funds used for
technology amounted to \$237 million (37 percent of federal support for
technology in schools).** Title I funds used for technology primarily
support purchases of new computers; Title I funds paid for 12 percent of
all new computers that schools received in 1997-98.[^177]

**Title I funds may help equalize resources for high- and low-poverty
schools.** Title I provides 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 3.3 computers in the highest-poverty schools in 1997-98 (26
percent of the new computers), compared with 0.6 computers in
low-poverty 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 (4.8 computers, versus 12.4 in
low-poverty schools).[^178]

**Title I resources in high-poverty schools can be sufficient to pay
most if not all of the additional costs of many model programs for
raising the achievement of disadvantaged students.** The first-year cost
of operating 23 different model programs for schoolwide reform has been
estimated as ranging from a low of \$12,000 up to a high of \$588,000,
with a median cost of \$130,000.[^179] A typical elementary school with
enrollment of 500 students and a poverty rate of 75 percent would
receive a total Title I allocation of about \$231,000 (that is, about
\$617 per child eligible for free or reduced-price lunches).[^180] Based
on these estimates, Title I funds could cover the full cost of 19 of the
model programs, or between

86 and 95 percent of three of the higher-cost models. In addition, the
total cost of implementing many of the model programs could be reduced
by reassigning current staff.

##### Relative Targeting of Title I Funds in Comparison with State and Local Funds

**Federal education programs in general, and Title I in particular, are
much more targeted to**

**high-poverty districts than are state and local funds.** The districts
in the highest-poverty quartile, which have 25 percent of the nation's
school-age children and 49 percent of the nation's poor children,
receive 43 percent of federal funds and 49 percent of Title I funds,
compared with only 23 percent of state and local funds. In contrast,
districts in the lowest-poverty quartile, which have 25 percent of all
children and 7 percent of the poor children, receive 11 percent of
federal funds and 7 percent of Title I funds but 30 percent of state and
local funds.[^181] Similarly, the U.S. General Accounting Office found
that federal funds provided an average of \$4.73 per poor student
nationwide for every \$1 provided to each student, while state funds
provided an additional \$0.62 per poor student in state funding.[^182]

State funds, on average, compensate partially but not fully for funding
disparities related to local property tax bases. Districts in the
highest-poverty quartile receive 18 percent of local education revenues
and 27 percent of state education revenues, but their share of state and
local funds combined (23 percent) is still less than their share of
school-age children (25 percent).

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: The poorest school districts receive 43 percent of all
> federal revenues, compared with 23 percent of state and local
> revenues.
>
> Source: Chambers, Lieberman, Parrish, Kaleba, Van Campen, and
> Stullich, *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding:
> Preliminary Report*, 1999.

Because Title I funds are allocated to school districts and schools
based on their numbers of poor school-age children, they help to
alleviate disparities in school funding and to support district and
school efforts to close the achievement gap.

##### Impact of Formula Changes on District-Level Targeting

**The formula changes enacted in the 1994 reauthorization have had
little effect on targeting at the school district level.** Title I funds
continue to go to 93 percent of all school districts, the same
percentage as in 1987-88.[^183] Districts in the highest-poverty
quartile continue to receive the same share of funds (49 percent) in FY
1997 as they did in FY 1994, although there is a slight shift away from
the lowest-poverty quartile (from 8 percent to 7 percent of total
funds).[^184]

The primary vehicle for increasing targeting, the new Targeted Grants
formula, has not been funded. Although the 1994 Amendments stated that
any funds over the FY 1995 appropriations level would be allocated
through this formula, Congress has since overridden that requirement
through special language in appropriations bills. Instead, increases in
Title I appropriations have been directed through the old Basic Grant
and Concentration Grant formulas.

Although Congress did substantially increase funding for Concentration
Grants (including a 49 percent increase for Concentration Grants in FY
1997), this has not had a substantial impact on district-level
targeting. Despite the large percentage increase for Concentration
Grants, this formula still allocates only 14 percent of total funding,
so the overall distribution of funds closely resembles the distribution
of Basic Grants (under which 49 percent of the funds goes to the poorest
quartile of districts). In addition, hold-harmless provisions (including
a 100 percent hold-harmless in FY 1996) have limited any increases in
targeting. The FY 1998 and FY 1999 appropriations bills also included
100 percent hold-harmless provisions, so little change in district-level
targeting can be expected to occur in those years as well.

##### Targeting of Title I Funds to Schools

**At the school level, Title I funds go to nearly all (95 percent) of
the highest-poverty schools**---those where 75 percent or more of the
students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Schools with
lower poverty rates are less likely to receive Title I funds, with only
36 percent of the lowest-poverty schools (less than 35 percent poor)
receiving these funds (Exhibit 5.2).[^185]

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Almost all of the highest-poverty schools (95 percent)
> receive
>
> Title I funds, compared with 36 percent of the lowest-poverty schools.
>
> Source: Stullich, Donly, and Stolzberg, *Targeting Schools: Study of
> Title I Allocations Within School Districts*, 1999.

**Nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of Title I school funds go to
schools with poverty levels of 50 percent or more.** This partly
reflects the relatively high proportion of poor students in high-poverty
schools (61 percent), as well as the fact that high-poverty schools are
more likely to receive Title I funds than are low-poverty schools
(Exhibit 5.3).[^186]

**Although low-poverty schools account for 30 percent of all Title I
*schools,* they receive only 18 percent of Title I *funds*.** However,
low-poverty schools tend to receive substantially larger allocations per
low-income student. Schools with poverty rates below 35 percent receive
an estimated \$1,001 per low-income student, on average, for the
1999-2000 school year, compared with \$617 for schools with 75 percent
or more poverty. Overall, funding for Title I schools amounted to an
average of \$613 per low-income student.[^187]

**Exhibit 5.3**

**Title I Funding for High- and Low-Poverty Schools, 1999-2000**

+---------------+---------------+----------------+---------------------+
| School        | Proportion of | Proportion of  | Average Amount of   |
| Poverty Level |               |                | Title I Funds Per   |
|               | Low-Income    | Title I Funds  | Low-Income Student  |
|               | Students      |                |                     |
+---------------+---------------+----------------+---------------------+
| 0-34%         | 25%           | 18%            | \$1,001             |
+---------------+---------------+----------------+---------------------+
| 35%-49%       | 14%           | 9%             | \$530               |
+---------------+---------------+----------------+---------------------+
| 50%-74%       | 28%           | 27%            | \$519               |
+---------------+---------------+----------------+---------------------+
| 75%-100%      | 33%           | 46%            | \$617               |
+---------------+---------------+----------------+---------------------+
| All Schools   | 100%          | 100%           | \$613               |
+---------------+---------------+----------------+---------------------+

Exhibit reads: The lowest-poverty schools receive only 18 percent of
Title I funds, but they receive more Title I funds per low-income
student (\$1,001) than do the highest-poverty schools (\$617).

Note: Figures are based on data collected in the 1997-98 school year.
Average school allocations have been adjusted to reflect increased
appropriations from FY 1997 to FY 1999 and the addition of funds that
are used for districtwide programs and services related to instruction
and instructional support.

Source: Chambers, Lieberman, Parrish, Kaleba, Van Campen, and Stullich,
*Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Preliminary Report*,
1999.

Although some districts allocate equal per-pupil amounts to each of
their Title I schools, others choose to target most of their funds to
their highest-poverty schools while also providing support for less
intensive services in lower-poverty schools. A study of Title I
within-district targeting found that, in a sample of 14 large urban
districts, half of the districts provided higher allocations to
higher-poverty schools. For example, one district provided \$1,075 per
pupil to schools with 85 percent poverty or above,

\$806 to schools with poverty of 75 to 85 percent, \$538 to schools with
poverty of 50 to 75 percent, and \$269 to schools with poverty of 35 to
50 percent.[^188]

**The percentage of the highest-poverty schools (those with poverty
rates of 75 percent or higher) receiving Title I funds increased
significantly after reauthorization, from 79 percent in 1993-94 to 95
percent in 1997-98.** Over the same period, the proportion of
low-poverty schools (less than 35 percent poor) receiving Title I funds
declined from 49 percent to 36 percent. Overall, the percentage of
schools receiving Title I funds declined slightly, from 62 percent in
1993-94 to 58 percent in 1997-98

(Exhibit 5.4).

**Exhibit 5.4**

**Change in Proportion of Schools Served by Title I, by School Poverty
Level**

**1993-94 to 1997-98**

+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| School poverty | Proportion |            |            | Number of  |
| rate           | of Schools |            |            |            |
|                | Receiving  |            |            | Title I    |
|                | Title I    |            |            | Schools    |
|                | Funds      |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                | 1993-94    | 1995-96    | 1997-98    | 1997-98    |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Low-poverty    | 49%        | 45%        | 36%        | 13,499     |
|                |            |            |            |            |
| (0-34%)        |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Mo             | 72%        | 75%        | 64%        | 8,529      |
| derate-poverty |            |            |            |            |
|                |            |            |            |            |
| (35%-49%)      |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| High-poverty   | 77%        | 86%        | 81%        | 11,985     |
|                |            |            |            |            |
| (50%-74%)      |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| H              | 79%        | 93%        | 95%        | 10,814     |
| ighest-poverty |            |            |            |            |
|                |            |            |            |            |
| (75%-100%)     |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| All schools    | 62%        | 66%        | 58%        | 45,227     |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

Exhibit reads: The percentage of the highest-poverty schools receiving
Title I funds rose from 79 percent in 1993-94 to 95 percent in 1997-98,
while the proportion of low-poverty schools receiving such funds
declined.

Source: Stullich, Donly, and Stolzberg, *Targeting Schools: Study of
Title I Allocations Within School Districts*, 1999.

**In 1997-98, for the first time, half (50 percent) of all Title I
schools had poverty rates of 50 percent or more, up from 41 percent of
Title I schools prior to reauthorization (1993-94).** Over the same
period, the proportion of Title I schools that had low poverty levels
declined from 42 percent to

30 percent.[^189]

To examine the change in the distribution of Title I funds among schools
since reauthorization, the study of Title I within-district targeting
examined changes in school allocations from 1994-95 to 1996-97 in a
sample of 17 large school districts. Although this is a small number of
districts, the sample includes many of the nation's largest school
districts and accounts for 17 percent of all Title I funds.

In these districts, the total amount of Title I funds allocated to low-
and moderate-poverty schools fell substantially over this two-year
period---by 87 percent for schools that were under 35 percent poor, and
by 51 percent for schools that were 35 to 49 percent poor (Exhibit 5.5).
At the same time, funding for high-poverty schools rose---by 16 percent
for schools over 75 percent poor and by 20 percent for schools that were
50 to 74 percent poor. However, most of the funding increase for
high-poverty schools came from increased funding rather than increased
targeting, because low-poverty schools in these districts received only
2 percent of the funds prior to reauthorization.[^190]

![](media/image2.wmf)

Exhibit reads: In a sample of 17 large urban districts, low-poverty
schools experienced a substantial decline in Title I funding from
1994-95 to 1996-97, while funding for high-poverty schools rose 16 to 20
percent.

Source: Stullich, Donly, and Stolzberg, *Targeting Schools: Study of
Title I Allocations Within School Districts*, 1999.

**Increases in targeting have increased the number of high-poverty
schools served but have not necessarily increased the intensity of
services.** In the 17 largest school districts, the size of school
allocations was essentially unchanged from 1994-95 to 1996-97 (at about
\$470 per low-income pupil).[^191] This finding suggests that the growth
in total funding and the redirection of some funds away from low-poverty
schools were used to support Title I programs in newly-funded schools
rather than to increase the intensity of services in existing Title I
programs.

##### Title I Funding for Secondary Schools

**The percentage of the highest-poverty secondary schools receiving
Title I funds rose markedly after reauthorization, from 61 percent in
1993-94 to 74 percent in 1995-96 and 93 percent in**

**1997-98** (Exhibit 5.6). Historically, school districts have tended to
focus their Title I funds on the elementary grades, and many
high-poverty middle schools and high schools received no Title I funds,
even though elementary schools with much lower poverty levels were
funded. By 1997-98, however, nearly all of the highest-poverty secondary
schools (those with poverty rates of 75 percent or more) were receiving
Title I funds (as is the case with the highest-poverty *elementary*
schools).

> ![](media/image2.wmf)
>
> Exhibit reads: The percentage of the highest-poverty secondary schools
> (those with poverty rates of 75 percent or higher) that received Title
> I funding rose from 61 percent in 1993-94 to 93 percent in 1997-98.
>
> Source: Stullich, Donly, and Stolzberg, *Targeting Schools: Study of
> Title I Allocations Within School Districts*, 1999.

**Overall, however, the percentage of all secondary schools receiving
Title I funds declined from 36 percent in 1993-94 to 29 percent in
1997-98.** Increases in services to high-poverty secondary schools were
offset by decreases in services to low-poverty secondary schools.[^192]

**Secondary schools that do receive Title I funds tend to receive
smaller amounts of funds per low-income student (\$483, on average) than
do elementary schools (\$643).** However, the *highest-poverty*
secondary schools receive funding levels similar to those in the
highest-poverty elementary schools (\$579 and \$622,
respectively).[^193] In a sample of 17 large school districts, the
highest-poverty secondary schools experienced a 19 percent increase in
the size of their per-pupil allocations from 1994-95 to 1996-97 (while
overall per-pupil allocations remained unchanged).[^194] Overall,
secondary schools received 15 percent of all Title I funds allocated to
schools in 1997-98, while 85 percent went to elementary schools.[^195]

##### Effect of Waivers on School-Level Targeting

New waiver provisions were authorized under IASA and Goals 2000 in order
to give states and school districts more flexibility to adapt Title I
and other federal education programs to the educational needs of their
students and communities. **Of the 242 federal waivers granted for the
first three school years after the waiver provisions were enacted, 55
percent concerned within-district targeting provisions.** In addition,
10 states granted 504 waivers of statutory provisions for the 1996-97
school year under the "Ed-Flex" waiver authority, and 86 of these
waivers (17 percent) related to Title I targeting provisions (Exhibit
5.7). Most requests for targeting waivers were approved.

**Exhibit 5.7**

**Share of Waivers Pertaining to Title I Targeting,**

### School Years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98

+-----------------------+------+------+--------+------+------+------+
|                       | T    | Ed-  | F      |      |      |      |
|                       | otal | Flex | ederal |      |      |      |
|                       | Wa   |      | Waiver |      |      |      |
|                       | iver | Wa   | Re     |      |      |      |
|                       |      | iver | quests |      |      |      |
|                       | Requ |      |        |      |      |      |
|                       | ests | Requ |        |      |      |      |
|                       |      | ests |        |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+------+------+--------+------+------+------+
|                       |      |      | All    | 199  | 199  | 199  |
|                       |      |      | F      | 5-96 | 6-97 | 7-98 |
|                       |      |      | ederal |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+------+------+--------+------+------+------+
| Total waivers         | 746  | 504  | 242    | 103  | 43   | 89   |
+-----------------------+------+------+--------+------+------+------+
| Title I targeting     | 220  | 86   | 134    | 87   | 21   | 26   |
| waivers               |      |      |        |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+------+------+--------+------+------+------+
| Percent of all        | 29%  | 17%  | 55%    | 84%  | 49%  | 29%  |
| waivers               |      |      |        |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+------+------+--------+------+------+------+
| Percent of Title I    | 89%  | 100% | 85%    | 88%  | 70%  | 90%  |
| targeting waiver      |      |      |        |      |      |      |
| *requests* that were  |      |      |        |      |      |      |
| approved              |      |      |        |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+------+------+--------+------+------+------+

Exhibit reads: Targeting waivers are more prevalent among federal waiver
requests (55 percent) than among Ed‑Flex waivers (17 percent). Targeting
waivers declined from 84 percent of federal waiver decisions in 1995-96
to 29 percent in 1997-98.

Note: Analysis of Ed-Flex waivers is based on state reports of waivers
granted in 1996 and 1997.

Source: Stullich, Donly, and Stolzberg, *Targeting Schools: Study of
Title I Allocations Within School Districts*, 1999.

In many cases, waivers were requested and approved to ease the
transition to new targeting provisions. Waivers of within-district
targeting provisions were much more common in the first year after
reauthorization. However, many of the waivers granted for 1995-96 were
for three years, so there may be an increase in targeting waivers in
1998-99 if these districts reapply for waivers.

Requests to serve ineligible schools were by far the most common type
(71 percent) of targeting waiver requests. Such waiver requests were
often accompanied by requests to provide schools with allocations that
were less than 125 percent of the district per-pupil allocation (30
percent of waiver requests).[^196] However, in many cases districts were
able to serve ineligible schools without going below the 125 percent
minimum (often by choosing not to serve high schools and middle
schools).

Targeting waivers approved by the Department of Education have had a
small effect on the overall targeting of Title I funds, although the
impact was often significant in individual districts receiving these
waivers. Schools affected by approved targeting waivers amount to only 1
percent of all Title I schools nationally. However, waivers to serve
ineligible schools caused a 34 percent increase in the number of schools
receiving Title I funds in the waiver districts. Overall, targeting
waivers resulted in a reduction in the median school allocation per
pupil in waiver districts of 18 percent in 1995-96 and 12 percent in
1997-98.[^197]

##### Impact of Individual Title I Formulas on Targeting

![](media/image2.wmf)**The Targeted Grants formula would target
substantially more funds to the highest-poverty school districts than
the other three formulas.** The Targeted Grants formula would direct 63
percent of the funds to the districts in the highest-poverty quartile
(which have 25 percent of the nation's children and 50 percent of the
poor children). In contrast, the Concentration and Basic formulas direct
59 percent and 49 percent of the funds, respectively, to the
highest-poverty quartile.[^198]

> Exhibit reads: The poorest school districts would receive 63 percent
> of the funds under the Targeted Grants formula, compared with 59
> percent under Concentration Grants, 49 percent under Basic Grants, and
> 46 percent under Incentive Grants.
>
> Source: Chambers, Lieberman, Parrish, Kaleba, Van Campen, and
> Stullich, *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding:
> Preliminary Report*, 1999.

**Use of the Education Finance Incentive Program formula would reduce
the overall targeting of Title I funds,** because this formula would
direct only 46 percent of the funds to the districts in the
highest-poverty quartile. This situation occurs partly because the
Incentive formula allocates funds to states based on the *total* number
of school-age children, whereas the other three formulas use the number
of *poor* school-age children.

**The Concentration formula is an "all or nothing" formula that gives
the same proportional benefit to districts that barely qualify as to
those with very high poverty rates, while the weighted formula used for
Targeted Grants provides funding levels that gradually increase with the
poverty level of school district.** The "cliff effect" inherent in the
Concentration formula causes counties and districts with 14.9 percent
poverty to receive no Concentration money, while those with 15.1 percent
poverty receive the same proportional benefit as counties with 70
percent poverty.

**Some concern has been expressed that the Targeted Grants formula
favors urban districts over rural ones, but the evidence is mixed.**
Both the Targeted and the Concentration formulas recognize that
educational needs are greater in districts with large *numbers* of poor
children as well as districts with high *percentages* of poor children.
It is true that small rural districts with moderately high poverty rates
tend to do less well under the Targeted formula than large urban
districts with large numbers of disadvantaged children but somewhat
lower poverty percentages. However, it is also true that the districts
that do best under the Targeted Grants formula are poor rural districts,
because the highest-poverty rates are found in rural school districts.

**In order for either the Concentration or Targeted formulas to have a
substantial effect on the overall targeting of Title I funds, it would
be necessary to allocate a high proportion of total funds through one of
these more targeted formulas.** Because 86 percent of the funds are
currently allocated through the Basic Grant formula, the overall
distribution of funds closely resembles the distribution of Basic Grant
funds. If half of all Title I funds were allocated through the
Concentration formula, the share of total funds going to the poorest
school districts could be expected to rise to about 54 percent (from
49 percent currently). If half of all Title I funds were allocated
through the Targeted formula, the share of total funds going to the
poorest school districts could be expected to rise to about 56 percent.

##### Using Updated Poverty Data for Title I Allocations

Under the 1994 amendments, Congress mandated that, beginning in FY 1997,
Title I allocations use updated poverty estimates prepared by the Census
Bureau. The purpose of this new requirement was to address long-standing
concerns about the fairness and accuracy of allocations based on the
decennial census, which becomes increasingly out-of-date as the decade
progresses. Congress also mandated that the Department contract with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate the reliability and
usefulness of the census updates.

The first set of updated county-level data extended the census
population and poverty estimates from 1990 to 1994 (income year 1993).
The Census Bureau's model-based estimates incorporated data from the
decennial census and the annual Current Population Survey, as well as
administrative data from federal income tax returns and the food stamp
program. An NAS panel of experts concluded in 1998 that the Census
Bureau's estimates were "demonstrably superior to estimates from the
1990 census," and

FY 1998 allocations were based on these estimates (which had been
partially used for the FY 1997 allocations).[^199] The impact of the new
poverty updates on Title I allocations is being phased in gradually
because of hold-harmless provisions and other factors.[^200]

**From 1990 to 1994, the number of poor school-age children rose in
almost every state and in more than 70 percent of the nation's
counties.** Poverty *rates* rose in 64 percent of the nation's counties.
However, large poverty increases tended to be concentrated in a
relatively small number of counties; only 23 percent of counties
experienced increases greater than the national average.

**Changes in state shares of the nation's poor children show a bicoastal
shift toward the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, which were hardest hit by
the recession of the early 1990s.**[^201] In general, an increasing
share of the nation's poor children will tend to result in an increasing
share of Title I funds. States in the Northeast experienced large
increases in numbers of poor children, largely reversing previous
declines in poverty recorded in the 1990 census. However, although most
of these states now have more poor children than in 1980, they still
have a smaller share of the nation's poor children. Other states with
noteworthy increases in poverty include California, where the number of
poor children rose 55 percent from 1990 to 1994, and Florida (up 45
percent). Southern states tended to see substantial reductions in their
shares of the nation's poor children, although they continue to be among
the poorest states in the United States.

![](media/image25.wmf)

Exhibit reads: The percentage change in state shares of the nation's
poor school-age children between 1990 and 1994 shows a shift toward the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts. States like Mississippi now have a
decreased share of the nation's poor children, while the share of poor
children in states such as Massachusetts and California has grown.

> Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, estimates
> of school-age and poor children for 1990 and 1994.

**Because poverty rates rose markedly throughout the nation from 1990 to
1994, most states and counties that lose Title I funds because of the
new data do so because of *below-average increases* in poverty rather
than actual *decreases*.** About one-fourth (29 percent) of the nation's
counties will experience relative reductions in Title I funding as a
result of reductions in their number of poor children, and another 47
percent will lose funding because their increases in poverty were
smaller than the national average.

**High-poverty counties tended to experience reductions in their share
of the nation's poor children, while large urban counties (which contain
a majority of the nation's poor children) tended to experience
increases.** Only 8 percent of the counties that had above-average
poverty rates in 1990 will benefit from use of the updates. However,
two-thirds of the counties with more than 50,000 school-age children
(which contain 60 percent of the nation's poor children) experienced an
increase in their share of the nation's poor children (55 percent, on
average). In contrast, small counties with less than 5,000 school-age
children (which contain 8 percent of all poor children) tend to
experience reductions; 90 percent of these counties experienced
reductions that averaged 22 percent.

##### Allocating Title I Funds Directly to School Districts

Since Title I's inception, the law has directed the Secretary of
Education to make allocations directly to school districts using census
poverty data, but allowed the Secretary to allocate funds to the county
level (with state suballocations to school districts) if the census
poverty data for school districts were not satisfactory. Historically,
the Secretary elected not to make allocations directly to school
districts because of concerns about the reliability of the census
estimates for school districts, particularly small districts, which are
subject to high sampling error. States suballocated Title I funds to
school districts within each county using the "best available data on
the number of children from low-income families."[^202] Most states used
data from the census, the free and reduced-price lunch program, or state
welfare programs.[^203]

In the 1994 reauthorization, Congress revised the law to require that
allocations be made directly to school districts beginning in FY 1999
using census poverty estimates, unless the Secretaries of Education and
Commerce jointly determine that use of the data would be inappropriate
or unreliable. This change resulted from several concerns about the
existing two-stage allocations process. First, the requirement that
county allocations be suballocated to districts within each county
resulted in inequities for some high-poverty school districts that were
eligible for Concentration Grants but did not receive these funds
because they were located in counties that were not eligible (although
the law allowed states to reserve up to 2 percent of the funds for
allocations to such school districts). Second, district eligibility and
allocations were based on inconsistent data across states that use
different low-income data with different income thresholds. Finally, the
two-stage process made it difficult to examine the impact of proposed
formula changes on school district allocations.

The Census Bureau released 1996 poverty estimates for school districts
in fall 1998, and in January 1999 the National Academy of Sciences panel
recommended that these estimates be used to make direct Title I
allocations to school districts for the 1999-2000 school year. **The NAS
panel noted that although these estimates "have potentially large errors
for many school districts, the panel nonetheless concludes that they are
not inappropriate or unreliable to use for direct Title I allocations to
districts as intended by the 1994 legislation" and that they "are
generally as good as---and, in some instances, better than---estimates
that are currently being used."**[^204] The Secretaries of Education and
Commerce subsequently decided to follow the NAS panel's recommendation.

**The impact of the new allocations process on the distribution of funds
is unclear at this time.**

First, none of the school district allocations computed by the U.S.
Department of Education will be final, because states will need to make
adjustments for eligible school districts that are not covered in the
census data. These include charter schools that are treated as school
districts for Title I allocation purposes (about 500 in 1999), certain
regional districts and other agencies that receive Title I funds, and
districts that were newly created or had boundary changes since the
1995-96 school year. In addition, the law permits states to redistribute
Title I funds for districts with populations of less than 20,000
persons, which account for 80 percent of all districts (and 27 percent
of school-age children). Finally, because the FY 1999 appropriations law
included a 100 percent hold-harmless provision (for both Basic and
Concentration Grants), most districts will receive about the same amount
of Title I funds as in the prior year despite the use of the new poverty
data.

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed Through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements?

**Reauthorization should address the issue of providing substantial
additional resources to schools in the highest-poverty category.** A
significant proportion of any new funding for Title I should be devoted
to targeting extra resources on the poorest schools. To make a
substantial difference in the resources that the highest-poverty schools
receive, an estimated \$1.3 billion in additional funds would be
necessary annually. Such monies would raise the average annual amount of
Title I funds that high-poverty schools receive by 50 percent, to an
estimated \$336,000 for each school. These new monies could go out under
the current formulas to states and districts for their schools with
poverty rates of 75 percent or higher. If states do not have schools in
this poverty category, they would receive a minimum grant to be spent on
their schools closest in poverty.

Targeting additional funds based on high poverty has advantages over
targeting on low performance. High-performing, high-poverty schools
should not be penalized for their progress. Nor should low-performing
schools be rewarded for a lack of effort. High-performing schools need
support, recognition, and encouragement to sustain their gains. In
addition, targeting funds on the basis of poverty is consistent with the
current process for allocating funds and would not require a different
mechanism.

**These funds need to be in sufficient amounts to enable schools to
improve teaching and learning through a variety of strategies tailored
to the needs of their students.** With these funds, high-poverty schools
could implement comprehensive school reform along the lines of the
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program, reduce class size in
the early grades as provided by the Class Size Reduction Program,
operate a high-quality extended-time program as in the 21^st^ Century
Learning Communities Program, carry out intensive programs aimed at
improving early reading as in the Reading Excellence Act program, run a
program to help middle-school students think about college and plan for
their futures as in GEAR UP, or a combination of such approaches. Rather
than be required to apply for these federal funds separately, schools
would be automatically eligible to participate in such programs using
these additional Title I funds and would receive assistance tailored to
making these strategies successful in their schools.

**KEY PROVISIONS FOR TITLE I SERVICES**

**AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL**

Title I emphasizes giving children an enriched and accelerated
educational program by supporting schoolwide reform and targeted
services; upgrading instruction through substantial professional
development; and offering greater decision-making authority and
flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater
responsibility for student performance. Title I is to work within the
broader reform context to support high standards for all children and
high-quality teaching to those standards.

**Schoolwide Programs**

-   Expands eligibility and flexibility for schoolwide programs by
    lowering the minimum poverty level at which a school can become a
    schoolwide program from 75 percent to 50 percent, and permitting the
    combining of Title I funds with other federal, state, and local
    funding to bring all resources together to improve achievement for
    all students, particularly low-achieving students;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires a comprehensive needs assessment of the school, based on
    students' performance relative to state content and performance
    standards;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires use of schoolwide reform strategies that provide
    opportunities for all children to meet the state's proficient and
    advanced levels of student performance and are based on effective
    means of improving achievement, and increasing the amount and
    quality of learning time; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires schools to provide activities to ensure that students
    having difficulty mastering any standards will receive effective,
    timely additional assistance.

## Targeted Assistance Programs

-   Targets children who are failing or most at risk of failing to meet
    the state's performance standards;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires use of effective instructional strategies to provide
    accelerated, high-quality curriculum; recommends extended-time
    approaches and minimizing the use of pull-out approaches;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Focuses on improving integration and coordination with the regular
    education program;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires instruction by highly qualified staff;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires professional development opportunities for administrators
    and staff; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Requires strategies to increase parental involvement, such as family
    literacy services.

    **Professional Development and Staff Capacity**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Emphasizes high-quality teaching and professional development for
    all staff (and parents, when appropriate) to help all children meet
    state student performance standards; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Encourages district support for career ladders and improved
    educational attainment for paraprofessionals.***

# 6. TITLE I SERVICES AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL

**Key Findings**

**Title I in the Broader Context of Standards-Based Reform**

***Effects of District Reform Policies***

**District reform policies appear to influence the level of
implementation of standards in the classroom.**

-   In a study of 71 high-poverty Title I schools, teachers in
    higher-reform districts (those districts that have more fully
    implemented a standards-based system of instruction) were more
    familiar with the elements of standards-based reform and used
    curricula in mathematics and reading that reflected content
    standards to a greater extent in the classroom than did teachers in
    lower-reform districts.

    ***School Awareness of, and Teacher Preparedness to, Teach to
    Standards***

**About half of Title I principals nationally report moderate levels of
implementation of various reform strategies. Teachers are becoming more
aware of the components of standards-based reform but report being not
well equipped to use them.**

-   In 1995-96, about two-thirds of the teachers in schools enrolling
    more than 75 percent low-income students reported using curricula
    aligned with high standards and slightly over half (56 percent)
    reported using instructional strategies aligned with high standards
    to a great extent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In 1998, only 37 percent of teachers in schools enrolling 60 percent
    or more low-income students reported that they felt very well
    prepared to implement state or district curriculum and performance
    standards.

**In 1998, teachers in high-poverty schools spent limited time in
professional development, although they did focus on topics that
supported standards-based reform.**

-   Over half (55 percent) of all teachers in high-poverty schools
    report spending less than 9 hours per year on training in the
    content areas. Moreover, over two-thirds (70 percent) of teachers in
    high-poverty schools report receiving less than 9 hours per year of
    professional development related to state or district curriculum and
    performance standards, yet this topic was the most common one on
    which teachers received training (80 percent received professional
    development in this area).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Other common topics included new methods of teaching (78 percent),
    integration of educational technology (76 percent), and in-depth
    study in the subject area (75 percent).

    ***Promising Instructional Practices in Title I Schools***

**Research on high-performing, high-poverty schools shows that these
schools use standards extensively to design curriculum and instruction
and to assess both student and teacher performance.**

The recent National Academy of Sciences' synthesis of reading research
suggests the need for a balanced approach that exposes children to the
sound structure of words and builds conceptual knowledge and
comprehension. Expert opinion in mathematics instruction calls for
orienting curriculum and instruction toward students' conceptual
understanding and mathematical reasoning.

There are many ways to teach to high standards, particularly given
different levels of student and teacher proficiency. Case studies on
effective schoolwide programs found more differences than similarities
in the instructional approaches used across the schools. This finding
confirms recent reporting that information on the effectiveness of model
programs to implement comprehensive reform is quite limited.

Preliminary findings from a longitudinal evaluation of school change and
performance in 71 high-poverty schools show that the following
strategies were associated with larger student gains in reading and
mathematics subtests of the Stanford-9 assessment:

-   Fourth-graders were likely to make better progress in the Reading
    Open-Ended subtest (which measures initial understanding,
    interpretation, and critical analysis skills) if their teacher gave
    them more exposure to reading in the content areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Students in the bottom quarter of their class who had better growth
    in the Reading Closed-Ended subtest (a combination of vocabulary and
    comprehension) tended to have teachers who gave them more exposure
    to reading materials of at least one paragraph, talking in small
    groups, and completing workbooks or skill sheets. These students
    also had better growth on the Comprehension subtest when their
    teachers provided them more exposure to working at a computer.

-   Teachers who used a curriculum that reflected National Council of
    Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards had students with higher
    gains in mathematics.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The students who started the year as low achievers could be helped
    to gain more skill in problem solving in mathematics when their
    teachers deliberately emphasized understanding and problem solving
    with them.

    **Title I Support for Standards-Based Reform**

**Since the last reauthorization, Title I services in schools have
changed significantly in some ways but not in others.**

***Title I Staffing***

-   Despite the fact that Title I teachers have good credentials, half
    of the instructional staff employed in Title I are
    paraprofessionals, a staffing pattern unchanged from prior to
    reauthorization.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Paraprofessionals are used in many Title I schools for teaching and
    assisting in teaching even though their educational backgrounds do
    not qualify them for such responsibilities. Paraprofessionals tend
    to be used more heavily in the highest-poverty schools, where only
    10 percent of paraprofessionals have bachelor's degrees. Eighty-four
    percent of principals in high-poverty schools report using
    paraprofessionals, as contrasted with 54 percent in low-poverty
    schools.

    ***Schoolwide Programs***

**Schoolwide programs have increased substantially with the lowering of
the poverty threshold for eligibility. Most promising is their potential
to help integrate Title I resources in standards-based reform at the
school level.**

-   Since 1995, the number of schools implementing schoolwide programs
    has more than tripled, from about 5,000 to approximately 16,000.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Schoolwide program schools are making greater use of strategic plans
    than are targeted-assistance schools, and are more likely to use
    alternative service delivery strategies that integrate Title I
    instruction with the school's overall academic program.

    ***Extended Learning Time Programs***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Less than half (41 percent) of Title I schools are using Title I
    funds to implement extended learning time programs, up from 9
    percent before reauthorization. However, schools that offer
    extended-time programs typically serve a small percentage of their
    students (11 percent, on average) in these programs.

    ***Use of Technology***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   About one-quarter (26 percent) of Title I teachers use computers in
    daily instruction, but 31 percent report never or hardly ever using
    them. Use of the Internet is limited.

    ***Secondary Schools***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Case studies of Title I programs in secondary schools demonstrate
    that they are using service delivery models that are less
    stigmatizing and better integrated with the regular academic program
    than they were prior to 1994. Title I is often geared toward
    preparing high school students to pass state or district
    assessments.

## What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish?

As discussed in the preceding chapters, the reauthorization of Title I
established systems of support to help schools improve teaching and
learning for all students. The development of standards and aligned
assessments is intended to provide a framework for the implementation of
standards-based reform in the classroom. The effective use of Title I
resources also plays an important role in determining the types of
services provided and their potential effect. With more than 90 percent
of funds going to instruction and instructional support, the next task
is to examine Title I services at the school level. How are these
instructional services provided and how does Title I operate at the
school level, in this broader context of standards-based reform?

The 1994 reauthorization made a number of changes to support more
effective services and to improve the quality of teaching in Title I
schools, in accordance with findings from earlier evaluations of Title
I. These evaluations documented the federal program's support for
instruction guided by the conventional wisdom about how best to help
students at risk of educational failure: identify their deficiencies,
teach discrete skills, and require that they master basics before being
introduced to more advanced concepts and skills. Yet the studies showed
that remediation was not helping students catch up to their appropriate
grade levels and attain higher-level thinking and reasoning skills. Not
all students were being held to the same standards. Schools that opted
for pull-out strategies, sometimes involving complicated logistics,
offered most Chapter 1 students a schedule of supplementary activities
that averaged only 10 minutes of additional instruction per day.[^205]

Moreover, the previous National Assessment of Chapter 1 reported that
Chapter 1 did not add high-quality instruction to students' days, but
often relied on skill drills without providing the context the students
needed to understand how to use the skills.[^206] In addition, few
Chapter 1 teachers received high-quality professional development
explicitly linked to the curricular goals that their students were
expected to achieve or to the specific obstacles that blocked students'
success. About half of the Chapter 1 instructional staff were teacher's
paraprofessionals who lacked the qualifications of teachers.

The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA made a number of changes to improve
services and the quality of teaching in Title I schools. The legislation
placed a strong emphasis on schoolwide reform to help all students in
high-poverty schools meet challenging standards. It required that
enriched and accelerated instruction be provided through Title I to
enable students to meet the challenging state standards set for all
students. It called for minimizing pull-out strategies to encourage the
full integration of Title I into the school's education program. The
legislation also encouraged high-quality professional development.

**Research on high-performing, high-poverty schools shows that these
schools use standards extensively to design curriculum and instruction,
and to assess both student and teacher performance.** The 1994 statute
encouraged schools to adopt strategies that have been proven effective
in raising student performance in high-poverty schools.

This chapter discusses how the key provisions in Title I support
standards-based reform in school; it examines the district policy
context, teacher preparedness to teach to standards, promising
instructional practices, and Title I service delivery models.

## Title I in the Broader Context of Standards-based Reform

### 

Title I can only be as effective as the systems that support it. The
federal role in implementing Title I is to provide funding to improve
the education of at-risk children in high-poverty schools and to provide
goals and guidelines that encourage high-quality programs. State and
district policies must also support education reform through developing
a system in which standards and assessments are aligned and through
assisting schools as they implement standards-based reform in
classrooms. Title I, as was pointed out in earlier chapters of this
report, can serve to drive reform, especially in high-poverty districts.

##### Effects of District Reform Policies

In a study of 71 high-poverty Title I schools, teachers in higher-reform
districts (those districts that have more fully implemented a
standards-based system of instruction) were more familiar with the
elements of standards-based reform and used them to a greater extent in
the classroom than teachers in lower-reform districts.[^207] These
findings indicate that school districts can bring about education reform
at the classroom level.

**In the higher-reform districts, more teachers reported that their
mathematics and reading curricula reflected content standards and
curriculum frameworks to a great extent.**[^208] The Longitudinal
Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP) used documents
provided by school district offices to create ratings on several
indicators of standards-based reform policies in 1998. The following
indicators were used to distinguish between those districts with
policies that highly reflect standards-based reform and those at the
other end of the continuum:

-   District uses standards and aligned curriculum materials in at least
    reading and mathematics, with standards clearly linked to state or
    national professional standards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   District and school improvement plans are based on standards and
    linked to performance standards' proficiency levels.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some assessments are based on performance at each development level.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   District reports assessment data in terms of its own or the state's
    proficiency levels (for example, novice, proficient, satisfactory).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   District has defined adequate yearly progress according to the
    state's standards or it has built on the state's definition to
    derive its own.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   District has policies to reward or sanction schools on the basis of
    their achievement of the district and/or state standards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   District periodically reports on the status of the schools' and
    district's achievement to the public in readable and understandable
    formats using disaggregated data.

The results show differences in teachers' reports, in the expected
direction, across these different policy environments. Teachers tended
to be more familiar with content and performance standards and
assessments in higher-reform districts, and they were more likely to use
curricula that were aligned with those standards and assessments. The
differences were less pronounced in the extent to which mathematics
curriculum reflected the policy instruments (Exhibit 6.1).

######  

**Exhibit 6.1**

**Teachers' Familiarity with and Adherence to Standards and
Assessments**

**in Reading and Mathematics, by District Policy Environment, 1998**

+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| #######                    | Higher-Reform      | Lower-Reform       |
|                            |                    |                    |
| #######                    | Districts          | Districts          |
|                            |                    |                    |
|                            | (n = 4 districts)  | (n = 4 districts)  |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **Teachers Report That     |                    |                    |
| They Are Very Familiar     |                    |                    |
| with:**                    |                    |                    |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **Reading**                |                    |                    |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Content standards          | 51%                | 31%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Curriculum frameworks      | 55%                | 31%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Student assessments        | 56%                | 40%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Performance standards      | 51%                | 29%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **Mathematics**            |                    |                    |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Content standards          | 53%                | 40%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Curriculum frameworks      | 55%                | 35%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Student assessments        | 56%                | 46%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Performance standards      | 48%                | 37%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **Teachers Report That     |                    |                    |
| Their Curriculum Reflects  |                    |                    |
| to a Great Extent:**       |                    |                    |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **Reading**                |                    |                    |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Content standards          | 58%                | 39%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Curriculum frameworks      | 52%                | 38%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Student assessments        | 51%                | 37%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Performance standards      | 45%                | 36%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **Mathematics**            |                    |                    |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Content standards          | 57%                | 50%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Curriculum frameworks      | 55%                | 47%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Student assessments        | 48%                | 47%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Performance standards      | 46%                | 46%                |
+----------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+

> Exhibit reads: In districts with higher-reform policy environments, 51
> percent of teachers reported that they were very familiar with content
> standards in reading, compared with 31 percent in lower-reform
> districts.
>
> Source: Turnbull, Welsh, Heid, Davis, and Ratnofsky, *Longitudinal
> Evaluation of School Change and Performance: Interim Report*, 1999.

##### School Awareness of, and Teacher Preparedness to Teach to, Standards

**Indicator: Using content standards to guide curriculum and
instruction.** By the year 2000 all schools receiving Title I funds will
report using content standards to guide curriculum and instruction.

It appears that school staff are aware of the need to implement
standards in classrooms, and this familiarity with standards is a
necessary first step to change teaching and learning in Title I schools.
The second step is implementation, and more work appears to be needed on
this. Principals are reporting an increased use of content standards to
guide curriculum and instruction in their schools and are building their
schools' capacities to implement standards through the use of a variety
of reform strategies, but teachers do not feel very well prepared to use
standards in the classroom.

The proportion of Title I principals who reported using content
standards to guide curriculum and instruction to a great extent
increased from about half in 1995-96 to three-quarters in 1997-98
(Exhibit* *6.2).[^209]

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: The proportion of Title I principals who reported using
> content standards to guide reading curriculum and instruction to a
> great extent increased from 48 percent in 1995‑96 to 74 percent in
> 1997-98.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, *Status of Education Reform in
> Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Principals' Perspectives*,
> 1998; Heid and Webber, *School-Level Implementation of Standards-Based
> Reform: Findings from the Follow-up Public School Survey on Education
> Reform*, 1999.

Almost half (49 percent) of Title I principals reported they were
familiar to a great extent with the expectation to apply high
state-approved standards to all students. Principals who reported a high
familiarity with Title I reforms were more likely than principals with
low familiarity to report implementing key reforms in their schools
(Exhibit 6.3), including implementing professional development related
to content standards (91 percent versus 76 percent), restructuring the
school day (58 percent versus 41 percent), and extending the school day
(35 percent versus 17 percent). In addition, one-third (33 percent) of
Title I principals reported that standards for teacher quality were
linked to a great extent to student content and performance
standards.[^210]

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: Principals who reported a high familiarity with Title I
> reforms were more likely than principals with low familiarity to
> report implementing professional development related to content
> standards (91 percent versus 76 percent).
>
> Source: Heid and Webber, *School-Level Implementation of
> Standards-Based Reform: Findings from the Follow-up Public School
> Survey on Education Reform*, 1999.

Recent findings from a study of high-performing, high-poverty schools
carry this relationship one step further, finding that implementing such
reforms indeed improves performance. The study found that in
high-performing, high-poverty schools, 80 percent of principals reported
using standards extensively to design curriculum and instruction and 94
percent reported using standards to assess student progress.[^211]

**Principals in Title I schools report moderate levels of implementation
of various reform strategies.** Among the strategies most commonly
employed to a great extent were using a strategic plan to help students
achieve at high levels (52 percent), providing professional development
to enable staff to teach the content students are expected to learn (45
percent), and using assessments for school accountability and continuous
improvement (44 percent). Other strategies the principals reported using
to a great extent were assessments that measure performance against the
content that students are expected to learn (37 percent). In schools
with more than one-fifth limited English proficient (LEP) student
enrollment, 53 percent of principals reported their school made
adaptations to a great extent for LEP students to achieve to high levels
of performance; 21 percent in schools with 0-9 percent LEP enrollment
reported doing so. [^212]

Principals reported that their schools would not need to make changes to
a great extent in order to implement many key reform strategies. Only 17
percent said that a "great extent" of change would be required to use
student performance results for school accountability and continuous
improvement. Similarly, few principals believed that a great extent of
change would be needed to assess student performance against high
standards (16 percent), apply high state-approved standards to all
students (14 percent), minimize pull-out programs (16 percent), or
provide extended learning time programs (18 percent).[^213]

These findings may indicate that principals believe they are well on the
way to implementing reforms and may be overestimating their capacity to
implement these strategies. Alternatively, it may indicate that Title I
reforms are compatible with the reforms that schools have already
implemented.

**Teachers are becoming more aware of the components of standards-based
reform but report not being very well equipped to use them.**

-   In 1995-96, 40 percent of the teachers in schools enrolling more
    than 75 percent low-income students reported using curricula aligned
    with high standards to a great extent. Slightly over half (56
    percent) reported using instructional strategies aligned with high
    standards to a great extent. That same year, only about half thought
    they understood the concept of standards very well and even fewer
    (38 percent) felt very well equipped to implement them. [^214]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In 1998, only 35 percent of teachers in schools with 60 percent
    poverty or greater reported that they felt very well prepared to
    implement state or district curriculum and performance
    standards.[^215]

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **East St. Louis: Centerville Elementary School**                     |
|                                                                       |
| ####### **Alignment Works**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| > Centerville Elementary in East St. Louis has made a dramatic        |
| > turnaround over the past decade, transforming itself from a         |
| > low-achieving to high-performing school. Despite poverty (86        |
| > percent) and related needs of its students, attendance has soared   |
| > to 95 percent and student achievement exceeds both the state        |
| > averages and the district averages on the Illinois Goal Assessment  |
| > Program in reading and mathematics. A key to the school's success   |
| > was Centerville staff's participation in a learning and data        |
| > analysis process that enabled the school to better align            |
| > curriculum, instruction, and assessments. The learning process      |
| > involved the principal, teachers, staff, and parents at this Title  |
| > I schoolwide program school.                                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > The school used "test coaches" to arm teachers with innovative      |
| > teaching strategies. The training provided by the test coaches      |
| > revamped the way that teachers thought about teaching and resulted  |
| > in greatly improved test scores. The school staff analyzed all      |
| > available data and spent several months reviewing test scores. They |
| > identified weaknesses and strengths and made determinations about   |
| > where they needed improvement. They discussed the skills of the     |
| > staff and made note of where additional professional development    |
| > was needed. They studied the curriculum and assessment instruments, |
| > and they reported their findings to the group. They comprehensively |
| > analyzed the programs currently in place.                           |
|                                                                       |
| ### A teacher recall                                                  |
| s, "The major change at Centerville has been our taking a look at our |
|  curriculum and what we were teaching to determine if we were aligned |
|  with the state goals. We also asked ourselves if what we were teachi |
| ng and requiring our students to learn was what was assessed by the s |
| tate. The whole process made us more aware of the changes that we nee |
| ded to implement in our program. It has made me more conscientious."  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP)
study of 71 high-poverty Title I schools substantiates the findings of
national studies. Almost all teachers reported that they were familiar
with content standards (89 percent were familiar with reading standards
and 90 percent were familiar with mathematics standards).[^216] About
one-half (51 percent) of the teachers have aligned their reading and
mathematics curriculum with the content standards to a great
extent.[^217] At the same time, case studies of exemplary high-poverty
schools show that standards can help to galvanize school staff around
improving the curriculum and aligning their instruction.

**According to the LESCP, teachers' reported preparedness in both
subject matter and instructional strategies was positively related to
academic progress for 4^th^-grade students:**[^218]

-   For both low- and higher-achieving students, 4th-graders with better
    growth in reading skills tended to have teachers who rated
    themselves better prepared to use a variety of assessment strategies
    and to teach heterogeneous groups.

-   For low-achieving students, growth in reading skills was also higher
    for those whose teachers rated themselves well prepared to take
    students' existing skills into account, use small-group instruction,
    and integrate reading/language arts with content areas.

-   In mathematics, low-achieving students achieved more growth in their
    ability to communicate and reason mathematically and to apply
    problem-solving strategies if their teachers rated themselves well
    prepared to take students' existing skills into account, teach
    heterogeneous groups, use cooperative learning groups, and use the
    textbook as a resource.

**However, participation in professional development was not strongly
associated with changes in teachers' sense of preparedness or their
instructional practices over the two years of the LESCP study.** Only 22
to 23 percent of teachers of reading and math reported that professional
development experiences during the past year helped them "to a great
extent" to adapt their teaching to meet state standards or curriculum
framework requirements. Teachers were somewhat more likely to say that
professional development had greatly increased their *motivation* to
draw from a wide variety of pedagogical methods (28 to 29 percent), but
less likely to report that it greatly increased their *confidence in
their ability* to use new pedagogical approaches (17 to 18
percent).[^219]

In order to have a real effect on teachers' skills and sense of
preparedness, districts must provide teachers with professional
development that is sustained and intensive. Exhibit 6.4 summarizes
factors that characterize high-quality professional development.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Exhibit 6.4                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| ##### Criteria for High-Quality Professional Development              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Focus on academic success for all students and let it drive the   |
|     organization of instruction;                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Cultivation of teachers' knowledge of content and human           |
|     development;                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Use of methods that are intensive, sustained, and embedded into   |
|     the daily life of school and that build on participants' existing |
|     knowledge, immerse them in stimulating processes, allow for       |
|     teamwork, and spread out over time to permit participants to      |
|     digest new ideas, try them out, and solicit thoughtful feedback;  |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Expanded roles for teachers as mentors, peer coaches, leaders,    |
|     designers, planners, and facilitators; and changes in school      |
|     organization---shifting authority, responsibility, and time---to  |
|     nurture collegial relationships and critical analysis of          |
|     practice;                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Linkages across initiatives and ties to relevant curricula,       |
|     assessments, and standards; and                                   |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Data-based continuous improvement to maintain the quality of      |
|     professional development at high levels.                          |
|                                                                       |
| > Sources: U.S. Department of Education, *Professional Development    |
| > Principles*; American Federation of Teachers; National Education    |
| > Goal #4; and Improving America's Schools Act, Section 2001 (4).     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**In 1998, public school teachers, regardless of the poverty level of
their school, spent a limited amount of time in professional
development, although they did focus on topics that supported
standards-based reform.** Therefore, most teachers are not participating
in intensive or sustained training---two essential characteristics of
effective professional development. Over half (55 percent) of all
teachers in high-poverty schools reported spending less than 9 hours per
year on training in the content areas. Over two-thirds (70 percent) of
teachers in high-poverty schools reported receiving less than 9 hours
per year of professional development related to content and performance
standards. Public school teachers were more likely to have participated
in professional development that focused on education reform. The most
common topics included state or district curriculum standards (81
percent), integration of educational technology (78 percent), new
methods of teaching (76 percent), and in-depth study in the subject
area.[^220]

Teachers in high-poverty schools face greater challenges in teaching
their students and therefore have greater needs for training and
assistance. Recent data have found that teachers in high-poverty schools
are receiving more professional development in particular areas where
they have special needs. The percentage of teachers from high-poverty
schools participating in professional development that deals with
"classroom management" (61 percent) is much higher than the percentage
of teachers from low-poverty schools participating in such professional
development (40 percent). In addition, the percentage of teachers from
high-poverty schools participating in professional development that
deals with addressing the needs of students with limited English
proficiency or from diverse cultural backgrounds"(44 percent) is much
higher than the percentage of teachers from low-poverty schools
participating in such professional development (25 percent). [^221]

### *Promising Instructional Practices in Title I Schools*

The recent National Academy of Sciences' synthesis of reading research
suggests 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 6.5 and 6.6 present
some more specific tenets of effective instruction in reading and
mathematics instruction.

**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, or found that instructional
strategies were not the essential factors in schools'
effectiveness.[^222] 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.

Indicator: Comprehensive, research-based approaches to improve
curriculum and instruction. **An increasing percent of Title I schools
will use comprehensive, research-based approaches to improve curriculum
and instruction.**

### Exhibit 6.5

### Reading Instruction

The newly released study by the National Academy of Sciences,
*Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children,* reports on an
emerging consensus about how children best learn to read. The study
emphasizes that excellent instruction from qualified and effective
teachers who effectively and deliberately plan their instruction to meet
the diverse needs of children is the main way to prevent reading
difficulties. These teachers:

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Present explicit instruction for reading and writing, both in the
    context of authentic and isolated practice;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Create multiple opportunities for sustained reading practice in a
    variety of formats;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Carefully choose instructional-level text from a variety of
    materials; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adjust the grouping and explicitness of instruction to meet the
    needs of individual students.

Adequate initial reading instruction requires that children use reading
to obtain meaning from print, have frequent and intensive opportunities
to read, are frequently exposed to spelling-sound relationships, learn
about the nature of the alphabetic writing system, and understand the
structure of spoken words.

Source: National Academy of Sciences, *Preventing Reading Difficulties
in Young Children, 1998.*

### Exhibit 6.6

### Mathematics Instruction

As summarized in a recent document from the Mid-Continent Regional
Education Laboratory, measurable learning in mathematics is influenced
by the following practices:

-   Focusing on problem solving;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Defining basic skills to involve more than computation;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Emphasizing reasoning and thinking skills, concept development,
    communicating mathematically, and applying mathematics;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Integrating topics of numeration, patterns and relations, geometry,
    measurement, probability and statistics, algebra, and algorithmic
    thinking; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Taking advantage of calculators and computers to extend students'
    mathematical reach.

While integrating these principles, instructional strategies should
encourage multiple solutions to problems and draw heavily on children's
prior mathematical knowledge.[^223] Two instructional strategies that
increase mathematical understanding and problem-solving proficiency are
"(1) orienting curriculum and instruction toward conceptual
understanding of the material, and (2) broadening the range of the
mathematical content studied"---aspects of teaching in which low-income
children are often short-changed.[^224]

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

Source: 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.

##### Reading Instruction

Positive associations between growth in 4^th^-graders' reading skills
and exposure to certain instructional activities was found by the
Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP)
conducted in 71 high-poverty Title I schools. For example:[^225]

-   Both low- and higher-achieving students who had better growth in
    reading comprehension skills tended to have teachers who had them
    spend more time talking in small groups about what they read.
    Low-achieving students also had better growth in reading
    comprehension when their teachers provided them more exposure to
    reading content area materials.

-   Low-achieving students had better growth in vocabulary skills when
    their teachers provided them more exposure to reading materials of
    at least one paragraph, reading aloud, and working at a computer.

The LESCP has also noted some positive changes in classroom reading
activities over the two years of the study. More 3^rd^, 4^th^, and 5^th^
grade teachers reported using a larger number of reading activities
every day, especially with their lowest-achieving students, and the
classroom experiences of typical and lowest-achieving students became
more similar. In 1998, 58 percent of the teachers (up from 47 percent in
1997) reported that their lowest-achieving students read books that they
choose themselves almost every day, and read aloud almost every day (76
percent in 1998, up from 62 percent in 1997). In 1998, more teachers
reported that the lowest-achieving students talked in small groups about
what they had read (38 percent, up from 28 percent in 1997), although
this number is still small, given its positive association with student
growth for all students.[^226]

**Principles of Literacy at Work**

A recent study by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory at Brown University found that the principles articulated in
the National Academy of Sciences' reading report were being put to work
in 12 high-poverty urban elementary schools in Massachusetts where
students were outperforming others in their districts. For example, in
these schools, "Literacy is taught through a range of techniques that
combine literature-based and phonics approaches," and "Reading
instruction occurs in small groups so that teachers can focus on
students' individual needs." There is also an emphasis on reading and
literacy that allows students and teachers to spend a considerable
amount of time on literacy instruction, extended reading, and writing.
Teachers use student work and assessments as well as other data to
improve their instruction.

Source: Dwyer, Piontek, Seager, DiMartino, & Graham, *Indicators of
Capacity for School Reform: Project Massachusetts Literacy Study, Report
of Phase I Findings*, 1998.

##### Mathematics Instruction

An important component of effective practice in mathematics instruction
is students' exposure to high-level content. The LESCP found that a
teacher's emphasis in the curriculum showed some relationship to
4^th^-graders' gains in mathematics skills. Moreover, the curriculum's
reflection of NCTM standards was associated with gains for all
students.[^227] Patterns in learning gains in mathematics depended on
students' prior achievement relative to that of their classmates.
Students with initially higher achievement were especially likely to
gain more with teachers who covered a wider array of topics.[^228] The
students who started the year as low-achievers could be helped to gain
more skill in problem-solving when their teachers deliberately
emphasized understanding and problem-solving with them. Specifically,
the LESCP found:

-   Higher achievement gains in a variety of mathematics skills for both
    low- and higher-achieving 4^th^‑grade students were associated with
    greater exposure to assignments taking more than one week, reviewing
    completed homework in class, and drilling in computational skills.
    These achievement gains appeared to be related to the frequency of
    these activities rather than their duration.[^229]

-   Instruction focused on critical thinking skills, rather than
    memorization, seemed to be especially beneficial for low-achieving
    students. These students achieved more growth in their
    problem-solving skills when their teachers emphasized understanding
    concepts, solving equations, solving word problems, and solving
    novel problems; in contrast, an emphasis on memorizing facts or
    collecting and interpreting data was not associated with greater
    achievement gains.[^230]

## Title I Support for Standards-Based Reform

Legislation cannot mandate all that happens in classrooms, but it can
provide support for effective practices that can lead to better
instruction, the provision of better services, and higher student
achievement.

**Since the last reauthorization, the delivery of Title I services in
schools has changed significantly in some ways but not in others.**
Schools are making better use of delivery models that integrate Title I
with the regular academic program. The sole use of the pull-out
(instruction outside the regular classroom) model has decreased, while
in-class models (instruction in the regular classroom), schoolwide
programs, and extended-time instruction have all increased. Use of the
in-class model has increased dramatically since the years prior to
reauthorization, from 58 percent of Title I schools in 1991-92 to
83 percent in 1997-98. Use of the pull-out model declined from 74
percent of Title I schools in 1991-92 to 68 percent in 1997-98. However,
in 1997-98, over half (57 percent) reported using both approaches.[^231]

Title I funds may be used for a variety of services and activities, most
commonly for instruction and instructional support in reading and
mathematics. Title I funds are also used to support professional
development, to purchase instructional materials including computers,
and to support extended-time programs for students. One-third of
districts (30 percent) use Title I funds to expand the use of technology
in their district.[^232]

Reading and mathematics remain the principal areas of instruction in
Title I targeted assistance programs (schoolwide programs are designed
to support the entire instructional program and not just certain subject
areas). In 1997-98, 98 percent of Title I targeted assistance schools
provided instruction in reading and 65 percent provided mathematics
instruction; 10 percent also reported providing instruction in English
as a Second Language (ESL).[^233]

##### Title I Staffing

Since the last reauthorization, the numbers of Title I teachers and
paraprofessionals and their levels of education have increased, but
staffing patterns have not changed much. Title I paraprofessionals are
as prevalent as they were in the last reauthorization, and they still
spend a majority of their time teaching despite their lack of the
educational background to do so. Moreover, paraprofessionals are more
common in high-poverty schools. These findings are of concern, given
teachers' potential to influence the lives, experiences, and achievement
of all students, particularly those in high-poverty schools.

In 1996, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future issued
a report that reached the following conclusions:[^234]

-   What teachers know and can do is one of the most important
    influences on what students learn.

-   Recruiting, preparing, and retaining good teachers is the central
    strategy for improving our schools.

-   School reform cannot succeed unless it creates the conditions in
    which teachers can teach and teach well.

These conclusions were the result of an analysis of several hundred
studies of teaching, schooling, and reform initiatives. Recent studies,
which examine the effect of school resources on achievement, have
confirmed these conclusions and have found that teacher quality is the
most significant determinant of student achievement. Several of these
studies have concluded that teacher quality or instructional quality is
as important as poverty status in predicting student achievement.[^235]

Moreover, some studies have found that teacher quality has a greater
effect on students who are at risk than other students. Sanders and
Rivers determined that having one of the most effective teachers
increased low-achieving students' test scores 39 points more than having
one of the least effective teachers.[^236] These findings highlight the
importance of high-quality teachers for all students, and at-risk
students in particular.

To gain a better sense of how services are delivered at the classroom
level, it is useful to examine the mix of teachers and paraprofessionals
supported by Title I funds, the poverty levels of the schools they work
in, and their respective roles in working with students. Numbers of
teachers and paraprofessionals supported through Title I have increased
since the last assessment of Chapter 1. The last assessment, based on
1993 data, reported 72,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) Chapter 1 teachers
and 65,000 FTE paraprofessionals.[^237] Recent data from a 1997-98
school-year survey found the following:

-   Nationwide, approximately 74,700 teachers were supported through
    Title I. About 48,000 teachers were in schools with 50 percent
    poverty or greater, but a significant 15,900 were in schools with
    poverty levels below 35 percent.[^238]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Virtually all Title I teachers had a permanent/regular teaching
    credential and a bachelor's degree. Half had a master's
    degree.[^239]

-   Approximately 76,900 paraprofessionals were supported through Title
    I and about two-thirds (69 percent) of all Title I schools used
    paraprofessionals in 1997-98. About 52,000 paraprofessionals were in
    schools with 50 percent poverty or greater, and 10,600 were in
    schools with less than 35 percent poverty. [^240]

##### Use of Title I Paraprofessionals 

**Half of the instructional staff supported through Title I are
paraprofessionals, a staffing pattern that did not change with
reauthorization.** Paraprofessionals are most commonly used in
high-poverty schools, where 84 percent of principals reported using
Title I funds for paraprofessionals, contrasted with 53 percent in
low-poverty schools.[^241]

If paraprofessionals are to work effectively, it is important to clearly
define their roles and responsibilities. Part of the necessary
organizational support for paraprofessionals is direct supervision by a
certified teacher.[^242] Yet recent studies are finding that this
support is not necessarily provided to Title I teacher
paraprofessionals. In addition, continuing a tendency identified in the
last assessment of Chapter 1, paraprofessionals are used in many Title I
schools for teaching and assisting in teaching, although their
educational backgrounds do not qualify them for such responsibilities.

**In the 1997-98 school year, although very few paraprofessionals had
the educational background necessary to teach students, almost all (98
percent) of the paraprofessionals were either teaching or helping to
teach students.** Three-fourths (76 percent) of paraprofessionals spent
at least some of this time teaching without a teacher present, and 41
percent reported that half or more of the time they spent teaching or
helping to teach was on their own, without a teacher present. [^243]

-   Teacher aides in high-poverty schools are more likely to lack the
    educational background that would qualify them to teach or help
    teach children. Only 10 percent of Title I aides in the
    highest-poverty elementary schools have a bachelor's degree,
    compared with 19 percent nationwide. Virtually all (99 percent)
    paraprofessionals had a high school diploma or a GED.[^244]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Most (88 percent) paraprofessionals taught or helped to teach
    reading, language arts or English, and three-fourths (73 percent)
    taught or helped to teach mathematics. About one-fifth (21 percent)
    taught or helped to teach English as a Second Language (ESL) or
    bilingual education.[^245]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Other responsibilities reported by a majority of paraprofessionals
    included preparing teaching materials (84 percent), correcting
    student work, taking roll or doing other administrative duties (81
    percent), testing students (77 percent), and doing yard or cafeteria
    duty (56 percent). Just over half (54 percent) of paraprofessionals
    reported working or meeting with parents.[^246]

A slightly different picture emerges when examining the percentage of
time that paraprofessionals actually spend on such responsibilities. In
1997-98, principals reported that paraprofessionals spent most of their
time working one-on-one or in small groups with students (85 percent);
the rest of their time was spent doing clerical tasks and working with
parents.[^247]

**Indicator: Educational improvement of paraprofessionals and teacher
paraprofessionals.** By the year 2000, 35 percent of Title I school
principals will report increased district support for the educational
improvement of paraprofessionals and teacher paraprofessionals.

Although paraprofessionals are spending a majority of their time
teaching, they have limited opportunities to advance their skills.
Principals report that less than half of school districts are supporting
paraprofessionals by providing career ladders (38 percent), funding for
higher education classes (33 percent), and release time for classwork or
studying for higher education courses (22 percent).[^248]
Paraprofessionals also receive limited in-service training. Although
over three-quarters (78 percent) reported receiving such training in the
1997-98 school year, most received less than 2 days of training.[^249]

##### Schoolwide Programs

Schoolwide programs have the potential to help integrate Title I
resources to support standards-based reform at the school level. Recent
findings show that schoolwide programs are more likely to use a
strategic plan and to use models of service delivery that better
integrate Title I into the larger educational program.

**Schoolwide programs have increased substantially with the lowering of
the poverty threshold for eligibility.** Although schoolwide programs
were previously allowed only in schools with 75 percent or greater
poverty, the reauthorizing legislation permitted schools at the 60
percent poverty level to become schoolwide programs in the 1995-96
school year, and those at the 50 percent level beginning in the 1996‑97
school year. This change in the eligibility threshold opened the door
for many previously ineligible schools to operate schoolwide programs
and resulted in a substantial increase in the number of schoolwide
programs. The percentage of Title I schools operating schoolwide
programs increased from 10 percent in 1994-95 to 33 percent in 1996-97
and 37 percent in 1997-98. Indeed, by 1997-98, 73 percent of eligible
schools were using the schoolwide option. [^250] Of those eligible
schools that are not operating schoolwide programs, most reported that
they were considering implementing schoolwide programs. [^251] In
contrast to findings from a 1993 study that nearly half of principals of
Title I schools eligible for schoolwide programs were not aware of this
option, this no longer appears to be a problem.[^252]

Findings from a study of schoolwide programs serving migrant students
sheds some light on why schools choose to implement schoolwide programs.
**Gaining more flexibility in service delivery or instructional grouping
was the most commonly noted reason for deciding to implement a
schoolwide program.** More than half of schools reported that the
schoolwide program fit in better with their overall school program, and
about one-half reported that it gave them more discretion in their use
of federal funds.[^253]

**Schoolwide programs are more likely to use a strategic plan than are
targeted assistance schools.** Three-fifths (61 percent) of principals
in schoolwide programs reported using a strategic plan to a great extent
for enabling students to achieve to high levels of performance, as
contrasted with less than half of targeted-assistance programs (45
percent).[^254] Because schoolwide programs are required to have a
comprehensive reform plan, this is not a surprising finding.

**Strategic plans allow Title I services to be considered within the
broader context of a school's reform goals, and provide a framework for
better integration of Title I within the regular academic program.**
They may also lead to a stronger vision and sense of mission in schools.
A recent study of successful schoolwide programs in Texas found that
such programs had a common vision of high academic expectations for all
students. The Texas schools had a sense of mission that was evident in
every aspect of planning, organization, and use of resources in the
schools.[^255]

**Schoolwide programs are also more likely to use alternative service
delivery strategies that have the potential to better integrate Title I
instruction with a school's overall academic program**. Principals in
schoolwide programs reported less use of the pullout model than targeted
assistance programs, as would be expected. It is important to note,
however, that most schools using a pull-out model, regardless of whether
schoolwide or targeted assistance, also used the in-class model to
provide services. Overall, 68 percent of Title I schools used a pullout
model, with 53 percent of schoolwide programs and 80 percent of targeted
assistance programs reporting use of this model. Eighty-three percent of
all Title I schools reported using an in-class model, with no
significant differences between schoolwides and targeted assistance
programs.[^256]

**Schoolwide programs frequently combine Title I funds with other
resources to support schoolwide program activities.** Close to
three-fourths (73 percent) of all schoolwide programs reported that they
combine their Title I funds with other federal or state and local
resources.[^257] However, in most cases schools do not receive
individual dollar allocations from federal programs other than Title I
or from the district's general fund; rather, they receive allocations of
personnel and other resources and have access to professional
development opportunities and other services.[^258] Thus, while these
schools appear to be integrating non-Title I resources into their
schoolwide programs, they are probably not [commingling
funds]{.underline} in a fiscal sense. The federal resources most
commonly used by schoolwide programs were Title IV (43 percent) and
Title II (35 percent), followed by Goals 2000 (21 percent) and Title VI
(17 percent). Schoolwides also reported combining resources from private
sources (41percent) and state compensatory education programs (33
percent).[^259]

##### Extended Learning Time Programs

Less than half of Title I schools offer extended learning time programs,
although their number has increased significantly since the last
reauthorization. However, few students participate in these programs,
despite recent evidence of their effectiveness.

Extended learning time programs can improve student achievement when
coordinated with challenging curricula and thoughtful instruction.[^260]
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. Recent research on effective schools has found that such
schools use extended learning time in reading and mathematics to improve
achievement. In a recent study of higher-success and lower-success
elementary schools in Maryland, researchers found that the more
successful schools were seeing consistent academic gains as a result of
extended-day programs.[^261] In a study of high-performing, high-poverty
schools, 86 percent of the schools extended time for reading and 66
percent extended instructional time in mathematics.[^262]

In addition to the ESEA focus on extending learning time, Congress has
recently appropriated \$200 million for 21^st^ Century Community
Learning Centers after-school programs in FY1999, an increase from the
FY 1998 level of \$40 million. The expansion is part of the
administration's effort to encourage children's continued learning after
school. The program targets rural and inner-city schools.

**Indicator: Extended learning time programs.** By the year 2000, 60
percent of Title I schools will operate extended learning time programs
to extend and reinforce student learning.

**One-third (35 percent) of Title I school principals reported in
1997-98 that they were familiar to a great extent with the legislation's
new emphasis on extending learning time, and 41 percent of all Title I
schools implemented such opportunities in the 1997-98 school year.**
Principals from high-poverty schools were more likely to report using
Title I funds to implement extended learning time programs (54 percent,
compared with 28 percent in low-poverty schools). Principals from
high-poverty Title I schools were also more likely to implement summer
instructional programs (41 percent, compared with 29 percent in
low-poverty schools).[^263]

Use of extended-time and summer programs has increased dramatically
since the reauthorization. The percentage of Title I elementary schools
offering summer school programs rose from 15 percent in 1991-92 to 41
percent in 1997-98. Similarly, the percentage of Title I elementary
schools with before- or after-school programs grew from 9 percent in
1991-92 to 39 percent in 1997-98.[^264]

**However, schools that offer extended-time programs typically serve a
small percentage of their students in these programs.** Extended-time
instructional programs during the school year (before- and after-school
and weekend programs) serve only 16 percent of the students in the
highest-poverty schools that offer such programs and 11 percent of the
students in Title I schools with these programs. Summer instructional
programs serve 17 percent of the students in the highest-poverty schools
with summer programs and 19 percent of the students in Title I schools
with such programs.[^265] According to Title I school principals in the
1997-98 school year, before-school programs averaged 4 hours a week and
after-school programs averaged 5 hours a week. Summer programs averaged
5 weeks per year and 16 hours per week.[^266]

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Milwaukee: Hawley Environmental School**                            |
|                                                                       |
| **Extending Learning Time**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| At Hawley Environmental School, a high-poverty, high-performing       |
| school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, an extended-time education program    |
| was one successful component of the school's reform strategy.         |
|                                                                       |
| The Hawley After-School Math Club for 4^th^- and 5^th^-graders was    |
| organized because of low achievement of some groups of students in    |
| mathematics. The group meets weekly, with the busing schedule         |
| adjusted to allow this extra time at school. The school social worker |
| is an integral part of the club. He said:                             |
|                                                                       |
| > I can get into the academics, like after-school math and tutoring.  |
| > As social workers, we pride ourselves in ensuring that families get |
| > the most out of what our schools have to offer, and it is nice to   |
| > know that I can have some impact upon academics. Not only do I do   |
| > the after school math block, \[but\] when kids are in need of       |
| > homework help, I am the liaison between the school, the home and    |
| > the community, finding programs where they can \[get help\] in      |
| > their immediate neighborhood.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| At Hawley, student achievement exceeds the state average on both      |
| state tests and nationally normed assessments. In addition, all       |
| students in 3^rd^ grade passed the state assessment in reading in     |
| 1998, and 5^th^-graders' scores on the science assessment increased   |
| by 50 percentage points for the same year. Fifth-graders' assessment  |
| mathematics scores have shown steady upward movement for the past 10  |
| years, with 89 percent now scoring at or above the national average.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### *Use of Technology* 

The use of technology also supports teaching and learning in Title I
schools. **Title I plays an important role in supplying high-poverty
schools with computers, paying for 27 percent of the new computers that
the highest-poverty schools received in 1997-98 (and 12 percent of new
computers in schools overall).** Title I funds were used to purchase an
average of 3.3 computers in the highest-poverty schools and 0.6 computer
(4 percent of the new computers) in low-poverty schools. Use of Title I
funds for technology helped high-poverty schools' to compensate for the
fact that they received fewer computers from state/local funds (4.8
computers, versus 12.4 in low-poverty schools).[^267]

**Most teachers report that their lessons require students to use
computers, but relatively few incorporate the use of computers on a
daily basis** (Exhibit 6.7). More than two-thirds of Title I teachers
(69 percent) and classroom teachers (70 percent) say that their lessons
require students to use computers at least once or twice a month, but
only 26 percent of Title I teachers (and 17 percent of classroom
teachers) rely on computer usage on a daily basis. [^268]

**Teachers typically do not integrate use of the Internet into their
instruction or expectations for their students.** Two-thirds say their
lessons "never" or "hardly ever" require students to use the Internet
(69 percent of Title I teachers and 67 percent of classroom teachers).
[^269]

However, with the recent establishment of the E-rate for schools, which
provides discounted access to the Internet, there may be a rapid
increase in the use of the Internet as a part of classroom instruction.
It will be important to provide the necessary professional development
to teachers to appropriately integrate its use in classroom instruction.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: 73 percent of Title I teachers report that their
> lessons never or hardly ever require use of the Internet, while 33
> percent report that their lessons never or hardly ever require use of
> computers.
>
> Source: Chambers, Lieberman, Parrish, Kaleba, Van Campen, and
> Stullich, *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding:
> Preliminary Report*, 1999.

School principals reported that insufficient understanding by teachers
of ways to integrate technology into the curriculum was the most common
barrier to effective use of technology (70 percent of all schools).
Teachers themselves also reported that their insufficient understanding
was a barrier (45 percent of classroom teachers and 49 percent of Title
I teachers). However, teachers were more likely to express concern about
an insufficient number of computers (71 percent of classroom teachers
and 58 percent of Title I teachers), lack of software that is integrated
with the school's curriculum (60 percent and 51 percent, respectively),
and insufficient technical support (49 percent and 45 percent,
respectively).[^270]

##### Title I Services in Secondary Schools

Recent evidence indicates that schools are making progress in
implementing service delivery models that are less stigmatizing and
better integrated with the regular academic program. Secondary students
are still served in pull-out settings, but less commonly than elementary
students are. Moreover, in the schools that do provide pull-out
services, they appear to be one of several models of service delivery.

Although Title I remains primarily an elementary school program, more
high-poverty secondary schools are receiving funds than was the case
before reauthorization in 1994. The proportion of the highest-poverty
secondary schools (where at least 75 percent of the students are
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches) that receive Title I funds
rose from 61 percent in 1993-94 to 93 percent in 1997-98. This increase
is probably due to the new requirement that districts provide Title I
funds to all schools at or above the 75 percent poverty level
(regardless of grade level) before serving any schools below that
poverty level.

However, it is still true that relatively few secondary schools receive
Title I funds. Only 29 percent of all secondary schools received Title I
funds in 1997-98, compared with 67 percent of all elementary schools.
Moreover, secondary schools that do receive Title I funds tend to
receive smaller allocations than elementary schools (\$372 and \$495,
respectively), although allocations in the *highest-poverty* secondary
schools were comparable to those in the highest-poverty elementary
schools. Overall, secondary schools received 15 percent of Title I
funds, although they accounted for 33 percent of low-income students
(and 44 percent of all students).[^271]

**Prior to the 1994 reauthorization, a 1991 study of Title I services in
20 secondary schools had shown that Title I played only a small role in
the daily lives of most participating students, often providing no more
than one period a day of instruction.** Schools relied frequently on the
"replacement" model, which enabled them to substitute Title I classes
that were tailored to the particular needs of low-performing students
for the students' core academic classes. The 1991 study concluded that
in order to minimize the stigma that students feel when they are singled
out for remediation, secondary schools should do more to integrate Title
I services with regular instruction, and that Title I instruction should
help students improve their skills by using challenging content and
age-appropriate materials.[^272]

In the 1997-98 school year, according to secondary school principals
nationally, services were provided in the following manner:

-   The most common use of Title I funds was to serve targeted children
    in an in-class setting (78 percent reported by middle schools, 85
    percent reported by high schools). Approximately 47 percent of
    students in high schools and 58 percent in middle schools are served
    in pull-out settings, compared with 72 percent in elementary
    schools. Approximately 42 percent of secondary schools and
    45 percent of middle schools serve students using both pull-out and
    in-class approaches.[^273]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Professional development was also a common use of Title I funds in
    secondary schools (71 percent).[^274]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   About 43 percent of secondary schools reported providing extended
    learning time opportunities for targeted students, while 44 percent
    reported providing summer learning opportunities.[^275]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Well over half (59 percent) of Title I high schools reported
    implementing schoolwide programs in 1997-98, up from 11 percent in
    1995-96.[^276]

**In addition to improving Title I delivery strategies, secondary
schools are making progress in implementing standards-based reform.**
Title I services in secondary schools provide supplementary services to
enable students to achieve high standards. Most secondary school
principals reported using content standards to a great extent in reading
(75 percent at the middle-school level and 62 percent at the high school
level) and mathematics (72 percent at the middle-school level and 65
percent at the high school level).[^277]

Case studies of 18 secondary schools engaged in school improvement
efforts illustrate that although Title I has not served as the impetus
for standards-based reform in those schools, there have been significant
improvements in the quality and delivery of services that are provided
through the program since the last reauthorization.[^278] This study
demonstrates that secondary schools are engaging in standards-based
reform primarily as a result of state and local accountability systems,
and Title I generally serves to support these reform efforts. In states
and districts with high-stakes accountability systems, both core
academic instruction and supplementary assistance provided through Title
I are often geared toward preparing students to pass state or district
assessments.

Virtually none of the case study schools used Title I funds to hire
certified teachers who teach core classes designed for Title I students.
In these schools, Title I is well integrated into schools' general
academic program, and poses no significant barriers to school reform
efforts. It provides resources that enable secondary schools to offer
extra academic assistance to low-performing students. Schools use their
Title I resources to fund computer resource labs and to pay teachers and
paraprofessionals who provide in-class and extended-time academic
assistance.

The picture of Title I and educational improvement that is painted by
recent evidence is encouraging. Title I secondary schools are
integrating Title I into their operations with far fewer problems than
were found in the earlier study of Title I in secondary schools. In
addition, Title I secondary schools demonstrate a greater commitment to
high standards and high achievement than was true earlier, even though a
significant part of the current commitment appears to result from
high-stakes tests. Title I can play an important role by adding to and
supporting ongoing state and local reforms.

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements?

Title I should continue its strong emphasis on increasing the alignment
of curriculum and instruction with challenging academic standards, but
teachers, schools, and districts need more technical assistance to
improve the implementation of standards-based systems in the classroom.
Principals and teachers are increasingly familiar with this approach to
improving education and are working to implement changes in curriculum
and instruction to support standards set or adopted by their states.
However, principals need more technical assistance in particular areas,
and teachers need more professional development. Standards-based reform
has motivated both elementary and secondary schools to eliminate the
dual system in which Title I students were not receiving challenging
instruction**. Moreover, schools and districts that are adopting this
system are seeing results. Therefore, the federal government must
provide greater assistance to schools and districts in implementing a
high-quality standards-based system**.

-   Title I teachers are well credentialed and experienced, but are
    receiving inadequate professional development to implement all
    components of a standards-based system in the classroom. Not only do
    teachers spend very few hours in professional development, but they
    also feel that they are not very well prepared to implement the
    components of a standards-based system.

-   Half of Title I instructional staff are paraprofessionals who have
    teaching or assisting in teaching as their primary responsibilities,
    yet paraprofessionals are not teachers and do not have the
    educational background to perform teaching duties. This mismatching
    of responsibilities to staff qualifications must change in the
    future. Schools need to think differently about the use of
    paraprofessionals and consider other roles for them, restructuring
    their time to accommodate the most useful roles. The use of
    paraprofessionals in instruction should be phased out.

-   It is encouraging that pull-out approaches to service delivery are
    almost always used in combination with other service delivery
    models, such as in-class. Federal guidance and technical assistance
    should continue to support alternative models of service delivery
    and should support research to determine the most effective modes of
    delivery. Additional resources should be provided to high-poverty
    schools to implement comprehensive, research-based school reform.
    Districts need to provide better technical assistance to schools in
    choosing comprehensive reform.

-   Title I schools can draw on a range of research-based model programs
    and approaches developed by independent organizations to improve
    their effectiveness in helping all children reach challenging
    standards. Some of these models have strong or at least promising
    research evidence of positive effects on student achievement. In
    many high-poverty schools, Title I funds are sufficient to cover
    most if not all of the additional cost of these models (see page
    76).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   More research is needed on the effectiveness of individual school
    reform models. **A recent 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,**" with six additional
    programs having research evidence characterized as "promising"
    (Exhibit 6.8).[^279] This finding does not necessarily mean that the
    other approaches are ineffective, but, rather, that there is little
    rigorous evaluation of these programs. Moreover, there are varying
    perspectives about the appropriate methodology for evaluating these
    programs. As a result, schools often make decisions and spend
    thousands of dollars without having much concrete information on how
    particular strategies will address the improvements needed in their
    schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Targeted assistance schools, like schoolwide programs, should be
    required to submit comprehensive reform plans for their schools
    which describe how Title I services will support standards-based
    reform. The plans should also describe how the school will design
    its services, monitor progress on an ongoing basis, and make changes
    based on the self-monitoring. Schoolwide program plans should also
    be strengthened and should require measurable goals and objectives
    more tightly linked to teaching and learning.

-   Despite relatively high familiarity with the Title I provisions
    encouraging the establishment of extended learning time programs,
    less than half of Title I schools have implemented these programs
    and few students in these schools participate in them. Because
    staffing patterns and school operations need to be changed to
    accommodate learning time outside the regular school day, additional
    technical assistance and dissemination of information on
    extended-time strategies is necessary.

-   Classrooms appear to be making progress in using best practices in
    instructional methods, but they still have a good deal of work to do
    in using methods that encourage high-level thinking and
    understanding. Districts need to provide technical assistance to
    schools to help them improve their instructional strategies and
    align them with high standards.

**Exhibit 6.8**

**Schoolwide Reform Approaches 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        |         |      |      |      |      |        |
+----------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+--------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| KEY PROVISIONS REGARDING TITLE I SUPPORT FOR PARENT INVOLVEMENT       |
|                                                                       |
| Each local education agency (LEA) shall have a written policy that    |
| (1) gets parents involved in joint development of the LEA Title I     |
| plan; (2) provides coordination, technical assistance, and support to |
| help schools implement and build capacity for parental involvement;   |
| (3) coordinates and integrates parental involvement strategies,       |
| including those under Head Start and Even Start; (4) annually         |
| evaluates the effectiveness of the parental involvement policy plan;  |
| and (5) if the district receives more than \$500,000 from Title I,    |
| reserves at least 1 percent of Title I funds to carry out parental    |
| involvement provisions.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| In addition, LEAs are required to report on the progress of schools   |
| toward improving student performance through "school report cards" or |
| school profiles made available to parents, school staff, and the      |
| community.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Written School Policy:                                                |
|                                                                       |
| The written policy shall cover:                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Timely information about Title I supported programs;              |
|                                                                       |
| -   School performance profiles;                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   A description of the curriculum and forms of assessment used;     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Opportunities for regular meetings to formulate suggestions and   |
|     share opinions;                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   School-parent compacts; and                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Efforts to build capacity for parental involvement, including     |
|     helping parents understand the National Education Goals and       |
|     standards and assessments, assistance (including literacy         |
|     assistance) in improving children's performance, and training     |
|     teachers and other school staff in how to reach out to and        |
|     communicate with parents.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| School-Parent Compact:                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Each school shall develop with parents a school-parent compact (that  |
| is, a written agreement) that:                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Outlines how the school staff, parents, and students will share   |
|     responsibility for improved achievement (for example, school      |
|     staff are to be accessible and open to parents and responsive to  |
|     parents' educational concerns, and parents are to regularly       |
|     attend parent-teacher conferences and ensure that homework is     |
|     completed and that children come to school prepared to learn);    |
|     and                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Addresses the importance of ongoing communication between         |
|     teachers and parents and provides frequent reports to parents on  |
|     their children's progress.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# 7. TITLE I SUPPORT FOR PARTNERSHIPS WITH FAMILIES, SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES TO SUPPORT LEARNING

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Key Findings**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| **Parents have a central role in helping their children achieve to    |
| high standards, and schools need to work with parents to ensure       |
| adequate learning opportunities for all children**. The 1994 Title I  |
| amendments increased parents' roles as partners with the schools to   |
| support children's learning. This new approach, centering on          |
| school-parent compacts, promises to help parents understand what      |
| standards are and how schools and parents can work together to enable |
| their children to meet them.                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Three decades of research support the effectiveness of the parents    |
| and home environment in helping children learn through ensuring high  |
| attendance, encouraging reading, and monitoring television.           |
| New research also finds positive effects on children's behaviors when |
| schools make a commitment to promoting parent involvement using       |
| written agreements known as compacts.                                 |
|                                                                       |
| However, many schools have not yet made the commitment to supporting  |
| a meaningful partnership with parents for learning.                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Schools find compacts helpful in promoting many desirable         |
|     behaviors, but compacts are used in only three-quarters of Title  |
|     I schools and parents remain less involved with their children's  |
|     schools than is desirable.                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Many schools do not offer the outreach and assistance that        |
|     parents need to help their children succeed in school.            |
|                                                                       |
| Principals find that the two main challenges to strengthening         |
| parental involvement are the lack of time, on the parts of both staff |
| and parents, to work on family issues, and the lack of education on   |
| the part of parents. The latter is particularly true in high-poverty  |
| schools. There are also challenges created by legislative overlaps    |
| among the provisions for parental involvement in so many federal      |
| programs.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **The general direction of Title I parental involvement policies and  |
| compacts on supporting learning is consistent with research, but      |
| options that would strengthen implementation include the following:** |
|                                                                       |
| -   Having schools report annually on measurable indicators of the    |
|     effectiveness of parental involvement, as reflected in their own  |
|     policies and compacts. Annual school reports could include        |
|     measures of parental satisfaction with school quality and         |
|     communication, and measures of parental involvement, such as      |
|     regular attendance at parent-teacher conferences and the extent   |
|     to which children come to school with homework complete. Schools  |
|     could also report annually on the resources and activities they   |
|     devote to support parental involvement.                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Consolidating or coordinating parental involvement provisions     |
|     across all elementary and secondary programs that have them to    |
|     form one parent provision. These programs are Title I, Even Start |
|     Family Literacy, Education of Migratory Children, Parental        |
|     Information and Resource Centers, Impact Aid, Education for       |
|     Homeless Children and Youth, Magnet Schools, 21^st^ Century       |
|     Community Learning Centers, Indian Education, Technology for      |
|     Education, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities.        |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Strengthening parental involvement activities in the early        |
|     elementary grades in the areas of supporting reading and family   |
|     literacy and in middle school and high school grades to encourage |
|     students to take challenging courses.                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish?

**While parents have always had a role in Title I, the 1994 amendments
strengthened the role of parents in the education of their children.**
Earlier authorizations of Title I emphasized a governance role for Title
I parents through parent advisory councils (PACs). These district and
school-level quasi-governing bodies were a response to evidence that
Title I funds were not reaching the intended students. Although the role
of the PACs was reduced with the 1981 amendments, governance councils
served as the primary vehicle for involving parents until the enactment
of the 1994 amendments. Although the PACs have helped ensure financial
accountability, which was one of their original purposes, studies have
not found that the parental governance role did much to raise student
achievement.[^280]

The 1994 legislation introduced a new provision that emphasizes the role
of family involvement in children's learning. This provision, known as a
school-parent compact, clarifies the responsibilities that parents
should have to help their children learn and the ways in which schools
should support parents at home and ensure a supportive learning
environment for children at school.

Compacts can be constructed in a number of ways and the elements to be
included can depend on the wishes of the schools and parents involved.
In addition, schools may get parents involved outside the mechanism of
the compact itself, for example in a governance or other role. One
well-known framework[^281] specifies six types of parental involvement:

-   Parenting;

-   Communicating;

-   Volunteering;

-   Learning at home;

-   Decision-making; and

-   Collaborating with the community.

Most of these parental involvement activities are included in one way or
another in the 1994 Title I legislation and many of these activities,
including communicating, and volunteering, could be incorporated within
a school-parent compact. The bottom line is that what goes into the
parental policy and compact should support learning, but how that is
done is a matter of local choice.

**Research supports the direction taken by the 1994 legislation.** This
emphasis on parents as partners in their children's learning is
consistent with three decades of research supporting the critical role
that families play in their children's academic success.[^282] All types
of families can help their children learn at challenging academic
levels. Studies of individual families show that what the family does in
developing language, motivating children, monitoring homework, and
limiting television watching is more important to student success than
family income or education.[^283]

-   A recent study of over 2,000 households determined that the number
    of hours spent reading at home significantly influences children's
    comprehension of reading passages. [^284]

Family literacy has also been shown to play an important role in
children's learning and achievement. A number of studies,[^285] while
not comparing programs for literacy with control groups, have
nonetheless shown effects related to increasing family literacy:

-   A follow-up study of one model of a family literacy program found
    that when parents and children from at-risk families are provided
    the opportunity to "learn how to learn together" that parents gain
    confidence in their own abilities, in the abilities of their
    children, and in the operations of the schools; and most children in
    the family literacy program achieve as well as or better than their
    peers, at least through third grade.[^286]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A study of 542 families enrolled at 32 urban family literacy sites
    found that participants in the family literacy program gained more
    than did participants in programs focusing primarily on either
    adults or children; and children gained more on both measures of
    development and emergent literacy.[^287]

The Title I legislation requires districts to coordinate necessary
literacy training from other sources to help parents work with their
children to improve their children's achievement. Where such resources
are not available, districts may use their Title I funds to provide
literacy training.

**Both parents and teachers have voiced the need for further parental
involvement:**

-   In one survey, 79 percent of parents reported that they want to
    learn more about how to be involved in their children's
    learning.[^288]

-   Most teachers, especially those in inner-city schools, would like to
    see an increase in the level of parental involvement in education.
    The majority of teachers feel that many parents take too little
    interest in their children's education.[^289]

Other studies have pointed out that parents need help from the schools
if they are to be effective in their roles as educators. School efforts
in assisting parents had a greater impact on parents' continued
involvement in children's education than whether parents finished high
school or not, whether they had one child or five children, whether the
parents were married or not, or whether the family was in poverty or
not.[^290] Many parents said they would be willing to spend more time on
homework or other learning activities with their children if teachers
gave them more guidance.[^291]

**The keystone of school reform is the emphasis on high standards to
which all children should achieve.** However, in the discussions of
standards and their value for increasing achievement, the central role
of parents is sometimes ignored. There is evidence that parents are not
adequately aware of the standards used in their children's schools.

-   In a 1997 survey conducted with 700 representative parents of
    children in grades K-12, parents were asked how much they knew about
    the curriculum and academic goals for their child's grade. Only
    55 percent said they knew "a lot," while 34 percent said they knew
    only "a little."[^292]

-   A second 1997 survey of 376 parents asked how well the school
    explained the school's achievement goals. Only 52 percent said "very
    well." Of the remaining parents, 93 percent wanted to know more.
    Among nonwhite parents, a full 100 percent wanted to know
    more.[^293]

Although parents may not always be fully informed about the details of
standards, most parents favor them.

-   The same study asked parents whether they thought that having
    guidelines for what students are expected to learn and know helps
    improve students' academic performance; 82 percent agreed that such
    guidelines were helpful.[^294]

-   When asked which was worse for a child struggling in school---to
    have to repeat a grade, or to be passed to the next grade and
    expected to keep up with the work---only 19 percent said it was
    worse to repeat a grade. Thus parents themselves are not in favor of
    "social promotions."[^295]

The focus on parental involvement is consistent with principals' views
that stronger parent involvement is essential to their efforts to
achieve high standards. Schools see family involvement as connected with
achieving high standards. When principals were asked about barriers to
applying high standards to all students, inadequate parent involvement
was one of their most frequent responses---particularly in the
highest-poverty schools (Exhibit 7.1).

![](media/image2.wmf)

Exhibit reads: In the highest-poverty schools, 72 percent of principals
identify inadequate parent involvement as a major barrier to
implementing high standards.

> Source: U.S. Department of Education, *Status of Education Reform in
> Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Principals' Perspectives*,
> 1998.

## How Are the Key Title I Provisions Being Implemented?

**Indicator:** By the year 2000, 60 percent of Title I participating
schools will report that their school staffs find school-parent compacts
and other tools very helpful to better communication between parents and
schools and to better student learning.

**Compacts are a growing presence in Title I schools, but 25 percent of
Title I principals do not yet have them in place four years after they
were required.** Prior to the 1994 legislation, only about 20 percent of
parents nationwide indicated that their children attended schools with
parent compacts. In 1997, 37 percent of a sample of parents in Title I
schools had signed in-class agreements and 32 percent had signed at-home
agreements to assist their children.[^296] In the 1997-98 school year, a
nationally representative study of public schools found that 74 percent
of Title I principals indicated they had written compacts. In schools
with 50 to 75 percent and 75 to 100 percent low-income students, 8 out
of 10 schools had compacts. Among the schools with the fewest poor
students, the proportion declined to 6 out of 10. The fact that a higher
proportion of high-poverty schools had agreements is evidence that these
principals are responding to their greater perceived needs.[^297]

**A majority of Title I schools indicate that compacts help promote
family involvement, but fewer indicate that they are "very" helpful.**
Title I principals were asked to rate the helpfulness of compacts in
achieving different types of school and family outcomes. Responses
tended to differ by school poverty, with the highest-poverty schools
finding compacts most helpful (Exhibit 7.2).

![](media/image3.wmf)

Exhibit reads: In the highest-poverty schools, 85 percent of principals
found Title I compacts helpful in supporting homework completion.

Source: Heid and Webber, *School-Level Implementation of Standards-Based
Reform: Findings from the Follow-up Public School Survey on Education
Reform*, 1999.

About 8 out of 10 principals in high-poverty Title I schools rated
compacts as helpful, as did a majority of principals in low-poverty
schools.

-   Across all schools, about 30 percent of the principals considered
    compacts "very helpful"---about half of the number needed to meet
    the indicator in 2000.

-   Principals perceived compacts as having the greatest impact on
    homework completion, school climate, student discipline, and reading
    at home---factors that are amenable to intervention by school-family
    partnership activities.

    Case studies provide further insights into the compact process. In
    case studies of five schools that developed strong written compacts,
    researchers found that in four of the five schools, the compact
    functioned as a supportive component of a much larger and
    well-established parent involvement program. In the fifth school,
    the compact served as the primary catalyst for more intensive
    involvement by families.[^298]

**Data from the Prospects study of student outcomes (1998) provide
evidence that when compacts are effectively implemented, positive
student outcomes, including higher achievement, result.** Schools with
compacts were compared with non-compact schools on parental involvement
and student achievement.[^299] Schools with compacts had higher levels
of family involvement in those activities in which parents worked
directly with their own children. These activities included parents'
monitoring of homework and reading with their children. The study
concluded that, after controlling for other factors, positive student
outcomes found in compact schools were associated with the greater
involvement of parents in supporting their own children's learning.
Other activities, such as volunteering and decision making, may be
valuable in their own right but were not shown to significantly affect
learning.

In a second study from the same time period[^300] an examination of ten
schools found that four aspects of parent involvement in their own
children's education correlated highly with achievement and other
outcomes. These were: the parent caring about what occurred in the
Chapter 1 (Title I) classroom; the parent encouraging the student to
read; the parent keeping track of the child's progress in school work;
and the parent making sure that there was a place for the child to study
at home.

Because the data in the first study covered the early 1990s, before the
Title I compact requirement, compact schools were ones that initiated
the compact on their own and presumably were committed to its success.
Now that compacts are required in all Title I schools, achieving this
level of commitment in all schools will take more effort.

## How Involved Are Parents?

Studies have identified three factors associated with greater family
engagement in schools:

-   Parents' understanding of their importance for their children's
    success in school;

-   Parents' having a sense of efficacy about what to do to help their
    children; and

-   Parents' belief that schools want them to help their children.[^301]

Because the implementation of compacts is still incomplete, there is
little evidence about the effectiveness of implementation. However,
there are some baseline data against which we can begin to measure
effects in the future. In 1996 (too early for compact provisions to show
an effect), principals' reports indicated that whereas 73 percent of
parents in low-poverty Title I schools attended most or all schoolwide
parent-teacher conferences, only 33 percent of parents in high-poverty
schools did the same.[^302] Parents in high-poverty schools also have
lower attendance in other school-sponsored events such as open houses,
plays, sports events, and science fairs. The same survey shows that 62
percent of Title I schools have parental involvement activities; a 1998
follow-up survey shows essentially no change.

Other studies show that parental involvement with schools and with their
children's education inside and outside the classroom is not yet so high
as might be desired.

-   In a longitudinal study of 71 high-poverty Title I schools, over
    half (55 percent) of 4^th^-grade teachers said that "few or none" of
    their low-achieving students had parents who were at least
    moderately involved.[^303]

-   More recent data from another study show that only 35 percent of
    elementary school teachers asked parents to sign off on students'
    homework "almost daily," and only 37 percent sent home reading
    activities parents can use with students "almost daily."[^304]

-   In the national survey of 376 parents, parents responded to a number
    of questions about their involvement; 37 percent said they had
    signed agreements supporting in-class learning, and 32 percent had
    signed at-home learning support agreements. Thirty-nine percent said
    they signed homework each night. When parents were asked whether the
    school had asked them how they could support parents, 62 percent
    said yes, but only 46 percent said the school had formally
    asked.[^305]

## How Do Districts and Schools Support Parent Involvement?

Title I schools use a variety of strategies for getting parents involved
in their children's education. Common strategies are parent advisory
councils (81 percent of Title I schools), home-based education
activities designed to reinforce classroom instruction (70 percent),
parental resource centers (67 percent), liaison staff designated to work
with parents (67 percent), and family literacy programs (44 percent).
Elementary schools are more likely than secondary schools to use
home-based activities and family literacy programs.[^306]

At the district level, 23 percent of Title I coordinators report using
Title I funds "a great deal" to support the building of partnerships
with parents and communities, and 30 percent report using Title I funds
"a great deal" to support professional development focused on building
partnerships with parents and community. Classroom teachers reported
that they spent 7.2 hours in the 1997-98 school year in professional
development focused on parental or community involvement, and Title I
teachers reported spending 5.7 hours on this topic of professional
development.[^307]

Districts are required to issue school profiles or "school report cards"
and make them available to parents, school staff, and the broader
community. As noted in a recent study released in *Education Week*,
school profiles do not always provide parents with the information that
they want.[^308] For example, parents want to know about student
progress, but not just from test scores (Exhibit 7.3). As for the
credibility of such report cards, parents rated reports from nonprofit
watchdog organizations higher (8 on a scale of 1-10) than those from
principals. Finally, school report cards are not reaching the parental
audience; only 39 percent of parents in the tested groups had ever seen
one, compared with 51 percent of educators.

**Exhibit 7.3**

Information on School Report Cards

+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **What Parents, Taxpayers, and Educators**    | **School Report      |
|                                               | Cards**              |
| **Want to Know about Education**[^309]        |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| ### Student Performance                       |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Statewide test scores                         |                  |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Attendance rates                              |                  |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Dropout rate                                  |                  |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Graduation rate                               |                   |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| SAT/ACT scores                                |                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| \% of students promoted to next grade         |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| \% of students who go on to a 4-year college  |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| \% of students with an "A" or "B" average     |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| ### School Resources and Quality Indicators   |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Teacher qualifications                        |                   |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Class size                                    |                   |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Per-pupil spending                            |                   |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Teacher salaries                              |                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Course offerings                              |                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| School safety                                 |                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| \% of parents who attend parent-teacher       |                     |
| conferences                                   |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Parental satisfaction surveys                 |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Student satisfaction surveys                  |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Hours of homework per week                    |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Number of students per computer               |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| ### Demographics                              |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Number of students                            |                  |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Poverty (free/reduced-price lunch)            |                  |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Race/ethnicity                                |                  |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Limited English proficiency                   |                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Students with disabilities                    |                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Title I                                       |                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Migrant                                       |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| Gender                                        |                     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+

 = Commonly reported;  = Rarely reported

> Exhibit reads: School report cards commonly report student performance
> on statewide tests but rarely report the percentage of students with
> an "A" or "B" average.
>
> Source: List of items from A-Plus Communications, *Reporting Results,*
> 1999. Frequency of reported items from U.S. Department of Education,
> Planning and Evaluation Service reviews of state school report cards.

## Challenges to Family-School Partnerships

##### Challenges to Principals, Parents, and Teachers

If family-school partnerships were easily achieved, strengthening family
involvement would not be such a major concern. Principals identify the
primary barriers to strengthening parental involvement as the lack of
staff and parent time to work on family issues.[^310] Principals in the
highest-poverty schools also identify parents' lack of education as a
major reason for lack of parent involvement (Exhibit 7.4).

Time limitations are a serious problem for all schools, regardless of
their poverty level. Teachers must learn how to teach to the new
academic standards. Although greater family involvement would ultimately
help them achieve their learning goals, finding the time to work with
families is increasingly difficult.

For high-poverty schools, parents' lack of education is the next most
frequently cited barrier to family engagement in their children's
education. Teaching parents how to help their children learn, as well as
improving family literacy, are activities that can be undertaken by
Title I districts, schools, and parental resource centers.

![](media/image2.wmf)

> Exhibit reads: 81 percent of the principals in the highest-poverty
> schools and 88 percent of the principals in low-poverty schools report
> parents' lack of time as a major reason for lack of parent
> involvement.
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Education, *Parent Involvement in
> Children's Education: Efforts by Public Elementary Schools*, 1998.

Depending on the poverty level of the school, principals say parental
involvement is the topic on which they most need more information---32
percent in low-poverty schools and 49 percent in the highest-poverty
schools. (Only 20 and 16 percent of principals in highest and
low-poverty schools, respectively, say that they are implementing parent
involvement activities "to a great extent.")[^311]

Low-income parents also need the schools' help to achieve a true sense
of efficacy about their ability to support their children's learning at
home. Out-of-school reading is especially critical to how well students
read in school. However, when less-educated parents read with their
children, they do not use optimal educational techniques. Often, they
fail to question their children about what they have read. Also,
children are allowed to select reading material that does not
appropriately challenge and advance their reading skills. Schools can
help by providing parents with training in family literacy and with
appropriate reading materials aligned with school instruction.

Teachers are also more likely to assume that low-income and
less-educated parents cannot help their children. Yet studies of school
outreach consistently find that parents are much more likely to become
involved when teachers encourage and assist parents to help their
children. Many parents want to do more to help their children, and
research suggests that they will if encouraged.

Other barriers to family involvement include the following:[^312]

-   **School organization and practices.** As children get older, their
    parents are less likely to attend a school event or volunteer at
    their children's schools. High schools, with their departmental
    structures and larger, more impersonal settings, may be particularly
    daunting to parents. Schools that rely solely on traditional
    approaches to getting parents involved, such as open houses, are
    less likely to be successful than schools that use a more varied set
    of approaches.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Lack of external support for family-school partnerships.** There
    may be a lack of support from the district or the state for
    partnerships. Neighborhoods may lack necessary resources such as
    libraries or social services. Work schedules that do not include
    flex time or other accommodations will hamper parents' involvement
    with schools.

Title I provisions supporting parental involvement are designed to
address and help overcome these challenges.

##### Challenges Created by Legislative Overlaps

There are at least 10 other ESEA programs that authorize some sort of
parent involvement. Some programs emphasize parents' roles in school
governance and instructional decisionmaking, while others focus more on
parents' helping their children learn at home. A few important ESEA
authorities have no, or only vestigial, parental involvement provisions.
In these cases, principals may not think to include parents in their
children's education. The current set of legislative provisions
therefore is not optimal for a unified approach to parental involvement.

The proliferation and fragmentation of legislation relating to services
for parents and parental involvement represent an overlap and eventual
dilution of time and other resources. A principal of a single school
that has a number of these programs is likely not to be able to run a
single, comprehensive program to enhance parental involvement, outreach,
literacy, and other services.

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed Through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements?

### 

##### Include Performance Indicators for Parental Involvement in School Profile Reports

Each school should be accountable to parents for teaching children well,
and parents should be responsible for reinforcing their children's
instruction. Reporting on how well schools and parents are fulfilling
their obligations would become a visible commitment to the importance
they attach to strengthening parental involvement.

Under Title I parental involvement legislation, schools are required to
issue school profiles or report cards. These profiles could include how
well the responsibilities of schools and parents, as they themselves
define them in their compacts, are being fulfilled. The parental
involvement section of a school profile could annually report on the
following:

-   **Parents' satisfaction with the school.** Some possible indicators
    of how well the schools are doing include the percentage of parents
    who believe the school communicates effectively and regularly to
    them about their child's performance, the percentage of parents who
    believe the school is providing academically challenging work, and
    the percentage of parents who feel their needs for help for their
    children or for themselves are being taken into account.

-   **Parents' fulfillment of their responsibilities.** In terms of
    parents upholding their end of the compact, one could ascertain the
    percentage of parents who regularly attend parent-teacher
    conferences, the percentage of parents who sign homework (or
    students who come to school with homework completed), and the
    percentage of parents who are responsive to their children's teacher
    when the teacher asks for their help.

-   Schools could also report annually on the resources and activities
    they devote to support parent involvement.

### The profile reports could give each school the flexibility to adjust results to take into account the special needs of certain parents, such as those who speak a language other than English. In such cases, however, the school should also indicate the services it may offer to help these parents become involved in their children's education. 

##### Provide a Unified Statement

As the Title I legislation on school-level parental requirements now
stands, many sections are partially overlapping and confusing. There are
separate provisions for a compact, for a parental involvement policy,
and for capacity building. These provisions could be melded together,
with the school-family compact at the heart of it and policy development
and capacity building supporting the compact.

In addition, parental involvement provisions should be made consistent
across all ESEA program authorities. Some 10 other programs have
parental involvement provisions. For example, the program on Education
of Migratory Children requires Migrant Education programs to provide for
advocacy and outreach activities for migratory children and their
families, including informing and helping such children and families
gain access to other education, health, nutrition, and social services.
The Goals 2000 program authorizes funding of nonprofit organizations to
provide training, information, and support to parents of children from
birth through secondary school, specifically those in low-income urban
and rural areas. Funds could be commingled so that there is one coherent
approach to parental involvement. The underlying purpose of parental
involvement, especially of the compact, is to ensure that schools and
parents work together. It should make no difference to parents whether
their child is eligible for migrant funds, Title I funds, bilingual
funds, or none of the above. It is a waste of the limited amount of
resources schools have available to support parental involvement to have
requirements across programs so dispersed and disconnected.

##### Provide Technical Assistance and Resources for Parental Involvement with an Emphasis on Helping Parents through Family Literacy

Principals, teachers, parent coordinators, and others who work with
parents all need training and assistance on making the
parent-as-educator role most effective. Good approaches to compacts and
other types of parent-school liaisons have been identified by research.
The federal parent centers, as a network, could set up an electronic
library of these useful approaches that would be available to all school
professionals and aides who work with parents. The Comprehensive Centers
and other organizations could also help parents in their efforts to
support their children's learning. This assistance can be a vital part
of the legislation, and can work to ensure that high-quality parental
training is provided.

### There are some new programs that support learning and involve parents in particularly critical areas of early reading and taking challenging middle-school courses. These programs, which should also be linked with efforts under Title I, include the following: 

### The Reading Excellence Act, which is designed to enhance reading in the early grades. This Act stresses the importance of family literacy and represents a potentially major source of federal resources to support literacy in the homes of Title I children. 

### The GEAR UP program, which encourages middle-school students to look toward college early, and especially to take the math and science courses that will enable them to enter postsecondary education. GEAR UP recognizes the important influence that all families could exert to ensure that schools offer and their children take advantage of challenging coursework, especially in math and science. 

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ###### **KEY PROVISIONS REGARDING TITLE I SERVICES TO**               |
|                                                                       |
| ###### **PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS**                                    |
|                                                                       |
| #####                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| ### Ta                                                                |
| rgeting and Allocation of Title I Services to Private School Students |
|                                                                       |
| Title I, Section 1120, mandates that school districts provide Title I |
| services to eligible private school students who reside in            |
| participating public school attendance areas.                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   The allocation of Title I resources for these services is linked  |
|     to the number of low-income students residing in the attendance   |
|     areas of participating public schools.                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   These services must be equitable with services provided to public |
|     school students.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| ### Consultation                                                      |
|  Between Public and Private School Representatives Regarding Services |
|                                                                       |
| To ensure that Title I services meet the educational needs of         |
| participating private school students, the law requires districts to  |
| consult with private school representatives in a "timely and          |
| meaningful" fashion before making "any decisions that affect the      |
| opportunities of eligible private school children" to participate in  |
| Title I activities and services.                                      |
|                                                                       |
| ### Locations and Strategies for Serving Private School Students      |
|                                                                       |
| Between 1965 and 1985, Title I instructional and support staff served |
| eligible private school students in private school facilities,        |
| including those operated by religious organizations. In 1985, in      |
| *Aguilar v. Felton*, the Supreme Court ruled that federally funded    |
| staff working in religiously affiliated schools constituted excessive |
| entanglement between church and state.                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   Following the *Aguilar* decision, and with extensive guidance     |
|     from the U.S. Department of Education, districts adopted a range  |
|     of approaches to serve eligible students who were enrolled in     |
|     religious schools. These included purchasing or leasing mobile    |
|     units equipped as classrooms, transporting religious school       |
|     students to nearby public schools for instructional support, and  |
|     establishing computer laboratories in religious schools, overseen |
|     by noninstructional technicians who were barred from providing    |
|     any direct instruction.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Districts could cover the expenses related to compliance with     |
|     *Aguilar* with funds taken off the top of their Title I           |
|     allocation for administrative expenses. Federal appropriations    |
|     made a capital expense fund available to states to use to         |
|     reimburse districts for these capital expenditures.               |
|                                                                       |
| ## In June 1997, in *Agosti                                           |
| ni v. Felton*, the Supreme Court overturned the *Aguilar* decision an |
| d ruled that Title I instructional staff can provide instructional se |
| rvices to eligible students in religiously affiliated schools. The ru |
| ling adds considerable flexibility to districts' options for providin |
| g Title I services to eligible students enrolled in private schools.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##  

# TITLE I SERVICES TO STUDENTS ATTENDING

# PRIVATE SCHOOLS

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Key Findings**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   The total number of private school Title I participants has       |
|     declined by about 6 percent since the 1994 reauthorization, from  |
|     177,000 in 1993-94 to 167,000 in 1996-97. Decreases in the number |
|     of private school students served were reported by one-third of   |
|     all districts and two-thirds of the districts that serve the      |
|     largest numbers of private school students.                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   In some cases, the decline in allocations for Title I services to |
|     private school students has been quite large. An analysis of      |
|     Title I allocations in 15 large urban districts found that in 8   |
|     of these districts, allocations declined by 39 to 56 percent from |
|     1994-95 to 1996-97. However, other districts experienced          |
|     increases or smaller decreases in these funds, and across all 15  |
|     districts, funding for private school students declined by 10     |
|     percent.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Most Title I administrators and private school representatives    |
|     agree they have established positive working relationships in     |
|     communicating about Title I services to private school students.  |
|     Despite these generally positive assessments, national survey     |
|     results show significant variation in 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.                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Almost all districts that serve eligible private school students  |
|     provide them with supplementary academic instruction. A very      |
|     small number provide other allowable services (for example,       |
|     counseling, health services, homework assistance, and             |
|     professional development).                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   A preliminary review of the experiences of nine large urban       |
|     districts indicates that they are taking advantage of the         |
|     opportunity to provide instructional services on religiously      |
|     affiliated school premises. However, Title I administrators in    |
|     these districts also report 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.                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish?**

School districts have provided Title I services to private school
students since 1965, when ESEA was first enacted. Since that time, a
series of Supreme Court decisions associated with the separation of
church and state and changes in the law have greatly influenced how
districts provide these services. Between 1965 and 1985, Title I
instructional and support staff served eligible private school students
on private school campuses, including those operated by religious
organizations.[^313] In 1985, in *Aguilar v.* *Felton*, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that federally funded staff working in religious schools
represented an excessive entanglement between church and state and
therefore was not permissible. As a result, services were provided in
neutral sites, including mobile units, public schools, and computer
laboratories in private schools. A separate appropriation for capital
expenses was provided to help districts comply with the *Aguilar*
ruling.

The 1994 amendments made significant changes to the identification and
targeting of private school students and to specified consultation
requirements between districts and private schools:

-   The allocation of funds for serving students is linked to the number
    of students from low-income families residing in the attendance
    areas of participating public schools. As with students in public
    schools, the number of children from low-income familiesrather than
    the level of educational disadvantagegenerates Title I funds to be
    used for instructional support.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The language requiring consultation between Title I administrators
    and private school representatives was strengthened. The new
    provision states that district Title I staff must consult in a
    "timely and meaningful" fashion with private school representatives.
    Section 1120 also specifies the topics that should be discussed in
    the consultation process, including how children's needs will be
    identified, what services will be offered, how and where services
    will be provided, how the services will be assessed, how extensive
    the equitable services will be, and what proportion of the
    district's Title I funds will be available for these services.

In June 1997, in *Agostini v. Felton*, the Supreme Court reversed the
earlier ruling in the *Aguilar* case and determined that Title I
instructional staff could provide instructional services to eligible
students in religiously affiliated schools. This ruling affords
districts considerable flexibility in providing services. Title I
services may be provided inside religious school buildings or through
any service delivery locations that were previously used. This means
that issues related to the use of capital expense funds and choices
about some service delivery options created in response to *Aguilar*
should become less important. Other factors, such as determining the
number of eligible private school students, consultation, and assessment
of student learning, will continue to be important.

## How Is the Program Being Implemented?

##### Participation of Private School Students in Title I

**The total number of private school students served by Title I has
declined by 6 percent since the 1994 reauthorization.** Just over
167,000 private school students (1 percent of all Title I participants)
received Title I services in 1996-97, compared to 177,000 in 1993-94.
About 2,000 school districts (or about 13 percent of all districts)
provide Title I services to eligible private school students.[^314]

**Some districts showed substantial fluctuations in private school
student participation in Title I in the two years immediately after the
enactment of the new law.** About one-third of all districts, and
57 percent of the districts that serve the largest numbers of private
school students, reported decreases in their participation in 1995-96,
the first year after the implementation of the Title I amendments.
Subsequently, 48 percent of the districts that experienced the initial
declines reported that the declines continued for a second year. At the
same time, 24 percent of all districts reported an increase in the
number of private school participants.[^315]

**Local allocations for services for private school students also
fluctuated immediately following enactment of the 1994 amendments.**
National survey data indicate that while only 30 percent of all
districts allocated less funding for private school students in 1995-96,
such reductions occurred in almost two-thirds of the districts serving
the largest numbers of private school students. Overall, 43 percent of
the districts that experienced a decline in these allocations witnessed
additional declines in 1996-97. In contrast, a quarter of those
districts that reported a decline in 1995-96 reported an increase in
1997-98.[^316]

**In some cases, the decline in allocations for Title I services to
private school students has been quite large.** For example, an analysis
of Title I allocations in 15 large urban districts found that in 8 of
these districts, allocations declined by 39 to 56 percent over the
two-year period from 1994-95 to 1996-97. Allocations increased in only 3
districts, with four districts showing small decreases in funding
(21 percent or less). The 8 districts with the largest reductions tended
to have relatively small allocations for private school students prior
to reauthorization, accounting for 10 percent of total allocations for
private school students in these 15 districts in 1994-95. Overall,
across all 15 districts, funding for private school students declined by
10 percent, while total Title I funding in these districts increased by
5 percent.[^317]

##### Consultation between Public and Private School Representatives Regarding Services

Consultation between district Title I administrators and representatives
of private school organizations is necessary to ensure that the services
are appropriate to meet student learning needs and to accurately count
the number of private school students who come from low-income families.
Most Title I administrators and private school representatives agree
that they have established positive working relationships in
communicating about Title I services to private school students.[^318]

However, despite these generally positive assessments, national survey
results point to significant differences in reports about who is
actually involved in consultation and about the topics that are
discussed. Title I administrators report more consultation on a wider
variety of topics than representatives of private school organizations.
Private school representatives were most likely to report less
consultation on issues related to program funding and student
achievement results. For example, Title I administrators in 72 percent
of districts surveyed reported consultation on the determination of
administrative costs, capital expenses, and per-pupil allocation of
resources. About a third of private school representatives reported
consultation in these areas.[^319]

##### Instructional and Support Services for Private School Students

**Almost all districts that serve eligible private school students
provide them with supplementary academic instruction.** A very small
number of these districts provide other allowable services (e.g.,
counseling, health services, homework assistance, professional
development). Districts report that the overall configuration of
services changed little between 1994-95 and 1996-97.[^320]

Since the 1985 *Aguilar* decision, districts have adopted a variety of
approaches to providing supplementary instruction to private school
students. Some districts have relied on Title I instructional staff to
provide services in facilities outside religiously affiliated schools.
Other districts, particularly those serving the largest numbers of
private school students, have worked with private schools to establish
computer laboratories in private school buildings. In these cases,
instructional services are provided through computer-assisted
instruction (CAI). Students working in computer laboratories are
supervised by noninstructional technicians, and the district relies on
the computer systems to monitor and report on their progress. These
students receive little or no direct instruction from Title I
instructional staff. Some districts rely on a combination of strategies
to provide supplementary instruction.

**Overall, representatives of private school organizations prefer
face-to-face instruction by Title I instructional staff to
computer-assisted instruction and generally report that these staff
services are of higher quality than CAI instruction.**[^321] However, in
a finding that speaks directly to the importance of the consultation
process, 73 percent of private school representatives who reported they
were heavily involved in decisions about the use of CAI said that these
services were of high quality and met students' needs. In contrast, only
11 percent of those who reported little or no involvement rated CAI
services in the same way.[^322]

Some districts provide Title I services to private school students after
school or during the summer. Overall, about 60 percent of Title I
administrators in districts providing these services report that private
school students participate in them. At the same time, about 40 percent
of private school representatives say they did not know whether the
districts that serve their students offered extended-time services.
[^323]

##### Use of Assessments to Measure the Achievement of Private School Students Receiving Title I Services

Districts are required to assess the progress of participating private
school students in meeting challenging standards. They use various
instruments to make these assessments. About a quarter (23 percent)
reported using state assessment instruments that are linked to
standards; 49 percent reported using transitional assessment
instruments, and 38 percent reported using some other kind of
instrument.[^324] Many Title I administrators reported that they shared
the results of these assessments with private school principals, private
school teachers, and parents of private school students. As was the case
with other findings about consultation and communication, private school
representatives reported considerably less sharing, and many said that
they did not know whether or not the results were shared. [^325]

##### Early Impact of Agostini

Under the Supreme Court's ruling in the *Agostini* decision, Title I
instructional staff can again provide supplementary instructional
services in facilities operated by religiously affiliated schools.
Beginning in 1997-98, school districts and private school organizations
started to work together to reconfigure Title I services to take
advantage of the new options available to them.

**A preliminary review of the experiences of nine large urban districts
indicates that they are taking advantage of the opportunity to provide
instructional services in religiously affiliated schools.**[^326]
However, Title I administrators in these districts also report that they
continue to provide at least some of the instructional services in
neutral sites on or near religious school grounds, with several of the
districts relying more heavily on these facilities than others. The most
common reason for continuing this arrangement is the lack of space in
private school buildings. Seven of the nine districts reported receiving
reimbursement for capital expenses to cover the costs of providing these
services.

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements?

The organization and administration of Title I services to private
school students are in transition. The Supreme Court's decision in
*Agostini v. Felton* gives districts considerable flexibility in
providing these services, particularly in terms of opportunities to
provide additional face-to-face instruction by Title I instructional
staff. As these new service delivery models become available, it is
possible that there will be increased demand for services and increased
participation. The transition to new service delivery models, along with
the possible increases in participation, will continue to require
careful planning and coordination between district officials and private
school representatives. For this reason, the lessons learned about the
gaps in communication and information about this area of Title I are
important. Policymakers, program administrators, and leaders of private
school organizations will need to work together to explore these issues
and discuss strategies for enhancing communication.

With extensive input from key stakeholders, the Department issued new
guidance in July 1997 to help districts take advantage of the
opportunities to improve services to private school students that are
available to them under the *Agostini* decision. The 1997 guidance has
been widely distributed to Title I programs, private schools, and
private school organizations.

**Most important, however, is the need to disseminate information and
offer technical assistance on effective strategies** for
consultation**,** counting the number of low-income private school
students, using extended time for Title I services as public schools are
increasingly doing, providing effective professional development and
parental involvement opportunities, and assessing student performance.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #### KEY PROVISIONS OF THE TITLE I, PART B, EVEN START PROGRAM        |
|                                                                       |
| The Even Start program (Title I, Part B) provides support to states   |
| and local grantees for family literacy programs that integrate early  |
| childhood education, adult literacy or basic education, and parenting |
| education for the purpose of breaking the cycle of poverty and        |
| illiteracy in low-income families.                                    |
|                                                                       |
| As of the 1995-96 program year, all Even Start grantees were to have  |
| implemented the changes made to the legislation in the 1994           |
| reauthorization. The key requirements of the Even Start legislation   |
| are as follows:                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Identify, recruit, and serve families most in need of services,   |
|     as determined by income level, parents' literacy or English       |
|     proficiency skills, and other need-related indicators;            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Screen and prepare parents to participate fully in Even Start     |
|     services and activities;                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Design services to accommodate participants' work schedules and   |
|     other responsibilities, and schedule and locate services to allow |
|     joint participation by parents and children;                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Offer high-quality, intensive instructional programs that promote |
|     adult literacy and empower parents to support the educational     |
|     growth of their children, and developmentally appropriate early   |
|     childhood educational services that prepare children for success  |
|     in school;                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Provide and monitor integrated instructional services to parents  |
|     and children through home-based programs;                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Provide services for at least a three-year age range, which may   |
|     begin at birth;                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Provide services on a year-round basis, including the provision   |
|     of some program services, instructional or enrichment, during the |
|     summer months;                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Provide special staff training, including training for child care |
|     staff, to develop the skills necessary to work with parents and   |
|     young children in the full range of Even Start instructional      |
|     services;                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Coordinate with other programs, such as those administered by     |
|     ESEA, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the            |
|     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Job Training     |
|     Partnership Act, the Head Start program, and volunteer literacy   |
|     programs; and                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Provide for an independent evaluation of the program.             |
|                                                                       |
| Local projects are also required to build on existing services and to |
| cooperate with the national evaluation. Key new provisions in the     |
| 1994 legislation include allowing younger teen parents to             |
| participate, requiring projects to serve at least a three-year age    |
| range of children, requiring year-round services, and requiring a     |
| partnership rather than a collaboration between the applicant         |
| entities.                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# 9. TITLE I, PART B, EVEN START 

# FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAM

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Key Findings**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Even Start projects have successfully targeted services toward    |
|     families who are most in need. The second national evaluation     |
|     found that at least 90 percent of families participating in       |
|     1996-97 had incomes at or below the federal poverty level.        |
|     Eighty-five percent of adults who enrolled in 1996-97 had not     |
|     earned a high school diploma or GED.                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   On average, Even Start projects have increased the amount of      |
|     instruction they have offered in all core service areas over      |
|     time, and participation rates have improved. However, only about  |
|     25 percent of all projects meet or exceed the Department's        |
|     performance indicator for the number of service hours offered in  |
|     the three core instructional components.                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Children and adults receiving Even Start services have            |
|     consistently made gains on measures of literacy. In 1995-96, the  |
|     gap between the standard gains of Even Start children and         |
|     children in the national norms group on the Preschool Language    |
|     Scale (PLS) was reduced by two-thirds. Adult participants at the  |
|     median in pretest scores gained more than one grade level in      |
|     reading and nearly one grade level in math by the posttest, as    |
|     measured by the Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE).            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Parents also showed moderate gains on a measure of the home       |
|     environment for literacy, gains not found in a control group of   |
|     parents in a study of the Comprehensive Child Development         |
|     Program.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ####                                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish?

The link between the education of a child's parents, especially that of
the mother, and the child's own school success has long been recognized.
There is also strong evidence that families provide essential support
for literacy development by providing opportunities for children to
develop the language skills that are prerequisites to greater literacy.
Families can build this foundation by directly transferring knowledge
about print, by engaging in literacy practices, by ensuring that
literacy activities are both fun and meaningful, and by modeling the use
of literacy in the home. Yet families differ enormously in the extent to
which they provide a supportive environment for a child's literacy
development.[^327] The link between poverty and low literacy is also
strong. Parents with little education or poor English skills often
cannot get jobs that will allow them to escape poverty. The children of
these parents are less likely to receive early literacy training at home
or to be enrolled in a preschool program; as a result, the risk of
school failure increases.[^328]

The underlying assumption of Even Start is that adults with low
educational attainment who participate in adult education and parenting
education will develop the necessary skills to enhance their young
children's educational outcomes as well as their own.[^329] Even Start
was first authorized in 1988 by the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Elementary and Secondary School
Improvement Act.[^330] Subsequent amendments, including the program's
reauthorization under Title I, have resulted in considerable improvement
in the basic program design. Changes made in the 1994 reauthorization
placed greater emphasis on the following:

-   Targeting services to those families most in need, with special
    attention to teenage parents;

-   Promoting continuity and retention of grantees by requiring projects
    to provide services to at least a three-year age range of children
    and to provide services over the summer months;

-   Focusing on family services by allowing projects to involve
    ineligible family members in appropriate family literacy activities;
    and

-   Requiring stronger collaboration between schools and communities in
    the application and implementation process.

Amendments subsequent to the 1994 reauthorization include a requirement,
enacted in 1996, that instructional services be intensive.[^331] Recent
amendments included in the FY 1999 Appropriations Bill for Health and
Human Services, Labor, and Education address the need for local
evaluations to collect data on program effectiveness and require the
Department to provide technical assistance to states and Even Start
projects to ensure that local evaluations provide accurate information
on the effectiveness of local projects. The legislation also requires
states to develop results-based indicators of program quality and to use
these indicators to monitor, evaluate, and improve Even Start programs.

## How Does the Program Operate?

Title I, Part B, is distinct from the support for preschool services
allowed under Title I, Part A, although each Even Start project funded
must be coordinated with Title I, Part A. Title I, Part A, focuses on
enabling schools to provide opportunities for children served to acquire
the knowledge and skills contained in challenging state content and
student performance results.[^332] However, preschool services for
children who are most at risk of failing to meet the state's challenging
performance standards are one of many allowable district expenditures
under Part A of this program. Of some 11 million students served under
Title I, Part A, about 260,000 are preschool-age children.[^333]

Preschool programs under Title I, Part A, must comply with the Head
Start Performance Standards[^334] or use the family literacy model in
Title I, Part B. Few recent data on program quality or performance are
available for preschool programs funded under Title I, Part A. Title I,
Part B, has been studied over the past 10 years, with results available
from two completed four-year national evaluations. Thus this section
focuses on the Even Start program, including its early childhood
education component.

Title I, Part B, provides for formula grants to states, which then award
discretionary subgrants to eligible entities to carry out Even Start
programs. Eligible entities are partnerships composed of one or more
local educational agencies and one or more nonprofit community-based
organizations, public agencies other than a local educational agency,
institutions of higher education, or other public or private, nonprofit
organizations other than a local educational agency.

The Even Start program has grown significantly since its inception and
over the period of the second national evaluation. In the 1989-90
program year, the Even Start program provided \$14.8 million in funding
to 76 grantees serving more than 2,700 children and 2,900 adults.[^335]
In the 1992-93 program year, with \$70 million in funding, the program
converted to state administration of 340 Even Start projects serving
more than 28,000 children and 23,000 adults.[^336] In 1996-97, Even
Start's funding reached \$102 million, supporting 637 local projects and
serving approximately 48,000 children and 36,000 adults.[^337]

## How Is the Program Being Implemented?

Evaluation findings provide data on the effectiveness of selected
programmatic practices, specifically that intensity of services, service
location, parent-child joint activity time, and literacy-based parenting
education are important to family outcomes.[^338]

A substantial body of research on the effectiveness of early childhood
education programs shows that gains are enhanced by a high level of
exposure to a high-quality, center-based program. Much of the evaluation
evidence regarding Even Start supports this finding: Adults and children
with high participation in Even Start\'s core services had larger
learning gains than those with low participation. In addition:

-   Children in projects that emphasized center-based programs had
    larger learning gains than children in projects that emphasized
    home-based services.[^339]

-   Families in projects that allowed large amounts of time for
    parent-child joint activities had better home environments (e.g.,
    more materials in the home, parent-child learning activities,
    approaches to discipline) than families in projects that had smaller
    amounts of parent-child joint time.[^340]

-   In Even Start's early years, projects received strong messages from
    the federal level to focus on literacy-based parenting education.
    Findings from the first national evaluation showed that there was a
    positive relationship between parents' participation in parenting
    education and their children's vocabulary test scores. The second
    national evaluation produced anecdotal evidence that parenting
    education has become less focused on literacy. If this is the case,
    it may help explain the disappearance of the relationship between
    amount of parenting education and child test gains in the second
    national evaluation.[^341]

In each of the three core areas that were examined in the second Even
Start national evaluation (1993-94 through 1996-97), participating
children and parents have made gains. However, in a small-scale
experimental study of five projects during the first national evaluation
(1989-90 through 1992-93), families in a control group achieved similar
gains on most measures, suggesting that gains for Even Start families
may not be due solely to participation in the program.[^342] It is
important to note that although control group families were restricted
from participating in Even Start, they were not restricted from
participating in any other early childhood, parenting, or adult
education programs they could find on their own. Thus control group
families may have received educational services similar to those
provided through Even Start. In addition, this study was conducted
during the early years of the program, and important changes to the
program have been made since the time of the study.

The second national evaluation assessed program outcomes through a
sample study of Even Start projects and did not include a control group
to gauge whether or not gains were due solely to participation in Even
Start. The outcomes described below come from this sample study and are
based on data from participants who remained in Even Start long enough
for at least two rounds of data collection. As a result, the findings
below cannot be generalized to the universe of Even Start participants.

The following findings are organized around key indicators identified
for the program under the Government Performance and Results Act.

##### Outcomes for Children and Their Parents

**Indicator: Children's language development and reading readiness**. By
fall 2001, 60 percent of Even Start children will achieve significant
gains on measures of language development and reading readiness.

In the area of child cognitive development, children in the national
evaluation achieved gains on the PreSchool Inventory (PSI), a test of
school readiness skills, and the Preschool Language Scale (PLS), a test
of language development, that were larger than might be expected on the
basis of development alone.

-   In 1994-95, 66 percent of Even Start children achieved
    moderate-to-large gains on the PSI.[^343] In 1995‑96, this figure
    was 81 percent. In 1994-95, 44 percent of children achieved
    moderate-to-large gains on the PLS. In 1995-96, this figure was 50
    percent.[^344]

-   In 1995-96, the gap between the gains in the standard scores of Even
    Start children and the children in the national norms group on the
    PLS was reduced by two-thirds.[^345]

**Indicator: Adult literacy achievement.** By fall 2001, 40 percent of
Even Start adults will achieve significant learning gains on measures of
math skills, and 30 percent will achieve such gains on measures of
reading skills.

Participating parents achieved significant, moderate gains in the domain
of adult literacy, as measured by the Tests of Adult Basic Education
(TABE), an assessment of achievement, and the Comprehensive Adult
Student Assessment System (CASAS), an assessment of adults' capacity to
apply basic skills to functional situations.

-   In 1994-95, 26 percent of the adults who took the TABE math
    achievement test achieved a moderate-to-large gain between pretest
    and posttest. In 1995-96, this figure was 24 percent. In TABE
    reading achievement, 31 percent of adults achieved a
    moderate-to-large gain in 1994-95; 20 percent did so in
    1995-96.[^346]

-   Adults made gains on the CASAS comparable to those seen in the first
    Even Start national evaluation and in other adult education
    programs.[^347] In 1994-95, 44 percent of adults made a
    moderate-to-large gain on the CASAS math test; in 1995-96, 55
    percent did so. For the CASAS reading test, the figures are
    27 percent in 1994-95 and 24 percent in 1995-96.[^348]

-   Participants at the median in pretest scores gained more than one
    grade level in reading and nearly one grade level in math by the
    posttest, as measured by the TABE.[^349]

**Indicator: Adult educational attainment.** By fall 2001, 25 percent of
adult secondary education Even Start participants will earn their high
school diploma or equivalent.

-   In 1995‑96, 18 percent of all Even Start participants who received
    adult secondary education or GED training earned a GED.[^350]

**Indicator: Parenting skills.** Increasing percentages of parents will
show significant improvement on measures of parenting skills, home
environment, and expectations for their children.

Parents made significant, moderate gains on the Home Observation for
Measurement of the Environment Screening Questionnaire (HSQ), which is
intended to measure the quality of cognitive stimulation and emotional
support that parents provide to their children.

-   During the second national evaluation, depending on the age of the
    child and the year in question, between 36 and 54 percent of parents
    scored 75 percent or higher correct on the HSQ posttest.[^351]

-   On average, parents' posttest scores on the HSQ showed moderate
    gains both for parents of children less than three years old and for
    parents of children between three and six years old. By comparison,
    parents from a control group in a study of the Comprehensive Child
    Development Program did not achieve gains on the HSQ.[^352]

##### Targeting of Services

**Indicator: Recruitment of most in need.** The projects will continue
to recruit low-income, disadvantaged families with low literacy levels.

As is consistent with the purpose of the program to target families who
are most in need, Even Start projects have served a highly disadvantaged
population:

-   More than 80 percent of families in the last two program years of
    the second national evaluation had annual incomes below \$15,000.
    Family income has been consistently low. According to a conservative
    estimate, at least 90 percent of families participating in Even
    Start in 1996-97 had incomes at or significantly below the federal
    poverty level.[^353]

-   Forty-three percent of 1996-97 new enrollees relied on government
    assistance as their major source of income. Only 26 percent of
    participating parents in 1996-97 were employed at the time they
    enrolled in Even Start (although the data suggest that
    nonparticipating spouses in many two-parent families were
    employed).[^354]

-   Most participating parents lacked a high school diploma or its
    equivalent. Forty-five percent of 1996-97 new enrollees had reached,
    at a maximum, grade 9 before enrolling in Even Start. Another
    42 percent had reached grades 10-12 but had not graduated.[^355]

-   The percentage of adult participants who have limited proficiency in
    English has increased over time. Some 39 percent of parents who
    enrolled in 1996-97 reported speaking languages other than English
    at home, up from 34 percent in 1992-93. The percentage of primarily
    Spanish-speaking parents rose from 26 percent in 1992-93 to 32
    percent in 1996-97. About 30 percent of all 1996-97 new enrollees
    (three-fourths of those who spoke languages other than English at
    home) were unable to read or speak English well or at all.[^356]

-   Even Start is serving more teen parents, reflecting priorities in
    the statute. The percentage of teen parents increased from 9 percent
    of Even Start parents in 1994-95 to 17 percent of new parent
    enrollees in 1996-97.[^357]

The ethnic composition of Even Start participants has also shifted
substantially since the program\'s inception. Hispanics, 22 percent of
all Even Start parents in 1992-93, now represent the largest group of
Even Start parents (39 percent). Whites are the second-largest group of
Even Start parents (32 percent), followed by African Americans (21
percent). Asians/Pacific Islanders and American Indians have
consistently represented less than 10 percent of the parent
population.[^358]

##### Service Intensity and Participation

**Indicator: Service hours.** By fall 2001, half of projects will offer
at least 60 hours of adult education per month, 20 hours of parenting
education per month, and 65 hours of early childhood education per
month.

Over the years, Even Start projects have significantly increased the
amount of instruction offered in all three core components. During the
second national evaluation, the amount of adult education services
offered increased by 25 to 30 percent. The amount of early childhood
education offered increased by

10 percent in the same period. The amount of parenting education, while
generally increasing over time, seems to have stabilized at the level it
reached in 1994-95 (around 200 hours per year).[^359] However, only
about 25 percent of all projects meet or exceed the Department's
performance indicator for the number of service hours offered in the
three core instructional components.

-   In 1995-96, about half of projects offered 32 hours or more of adult
    education per month, 13 hours or more of parenting education per
    month, and 34 hours or more of early childhood education per
    month.[^360]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   During the second national evaluation, projects offered the three
    core instructional services an average of 10 months during the year.
    In 1996-97, the average number of hours offered was between 335 and
    430 hours of adult education, depending on the educational level;
    196 hours of parenting education; and between 406 hours and 588
    hours of early childhood education, depending on the age
    group.[^361]

**Indicator:** Participation, retention, and continuity. By fall 2001,
at least 60 percent of new families will stay in the program for more
than one year.

Families' actual participation in the services offered has varied over
the years. However, there is a clear, continuing relationship between
the amount of services that projects offer and the amount of which
participants avail themselves. The average number of hours spent in
adult education has been holding steady at about 95 hours per year for
several years. Participation in parenting education declined from an
average of 58 hours per year in 1992-93 to about 30 hours per year for
1994-95 through 1996-97.[^362]

-   Of new families who entered the program in 1995-96, 41 percent
    stayed for more than one year.[^363] Almost 5 percent met
    family-defined goals and 6 percent moved out of the area.[^364]

-   In 1996-97, 93 percent of families participated in all three core
    components of the program.[^365]

-   Participation in early childhood education remained stable and
    substantial (at least 90 percent) throughout the first eight years
    of Even Start. In 1996-97, 95 percent of the children enrolled in
    Even Start participated in some form of early childhood education
    and 22 percent participated for 10 to 12 months.[^366]

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements? 

Although Even Start participants continue to show gains, there is no
clear evidence to date that these gains can be attributed to the
program. Even Start is a complicated program that builds on existing
services, and the quality of implementation varies widely. Several
issues remain to be addressed through improved program implementation
and increased attention to program results.

**Even Start projects' goals and objectives should be clear, measurable,
and focused on literacy.** The profound needs of families served make it
difficult to keep the focus on literacy at times, but this focus is
crucial to the success of the program's meeting its goal of breaking the
cycle of poverty and illiteracy. On the evaluation side, information
about Even Start participants' progress toward literacy skills is key at
all levels. The national evaluation could help focus projects on
literacy by designating a common set of rigorous and objective outcome
measures, and giving local projects flexibility by allowing them to
choose from a set of approved measures. The Department will also be able
to work with states in developing their indicators of quality through
the Statewide Family Literacy Initiative grants authorized by the
Reading Excellence Act. The Department will also provide technical
assistance to states and local projects to ensure that local evaluations
accurately measure program effectiveness.

**Accountability and local evaluation efforts should be strengthened.**
A recent review of a sample of local Even Start evaluation reports calls
into question the usefulness of these efforts to local projects. One way
to strengthen local evaluation is to reframe it as a continuous
improvement effort, with projects setting clear, concrete program
outcome goals that can be used as a framework for them to identify
promising strategies for service provision and to critically examine
what they do. Projects would rigorously and objectively assess
participants' outcomes and use this information for program improvement.
States could use reliable information on project results to hold
projects accountable. The Reading Excellence Act requires states that
receive Even Start funding to develop indicators of program quality and
to use them to monitor, evaluate, and improve local projects. These
indicators might begin to build an infrastructure for a continuous
improvement framework.

**The quality of Even Start services should be improved.** The
legislative framework that drives Even Start makes ensuring quality
difficult, because the requirement to build on existing services means
that Even Start is only as good as the services it brings together. In
order for Even Start to be successful, local projects must be very
careful not only to collaborate as the legislation requires, but also to
work to ensure that collaborations are ones that can produce the
literacy outcomes expected of Even Start. The Department may need to
provide guidance for states and local projects in determining which
services should be used to create an Even Start program. Evaluations and
studies can also inform quality issues through comparisons of program
outcomes with some set of performance standards and a study of the
collaborations that Even Start projects arrange.

**The intensity of Even Start services and retention must be improved.**
Even Start, with its ability to serve families with children from birth
through age 7, has the potential to be a multiyear program. Thus the
most important effects of Even Start may come in the long term.
Furthermore, the level of services has a direct, positive relationship
on the extent to which families participate, which is in turn related to
better outcomes. Unfortunately, the intensity of Even Start services
varies widely, and few projects meet a level of intensity that might be
expected to produce large literacy gains for the families who are most
in need. Projects need more clarity about what levels of service count
as intensive. The Reading Excellence Act specifies several results-based
indicators of quality that states must develop and use for evaluating
local projects. The legislation could add another specific indicator for
states to develop on the levels of intensity and duration of
participation that are necessary to achieve state-defined outcomes. For
further guidance, the Department of Education's program performance plan
for Even Start sets target levels of service intensity using evidence
from Even Start national evaluations and the Guide to Quality for Even
Start.

Even Start families, who have such profound educational and economic
needs, must have intensive, sustained services to achieve substantial
outcomes. The Department has encouraged states to provide multiple-year
services through policy and technical assistance. However, fewer than
half of new families remain in the program for more than a year
(although projects report that for about 10 percent of new families the
reason for leaving the program is that they meet their goals or move
within the first year). Only when families participate over time can
Even Start be expected to produce the kind of outcomes intended.
Increasing the number of services offered, and making them more
flexible, are critical to increasing the retention of families. Because
many of Even Start's potential outcomes will not occur until long after
a family's participation in the program ends, only a study of families
over an extended period of time would provide concrete information on
the long-term value of the short-term gains measured in the national
evaluation.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #### Key Provisions of the Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Program |
|                                                                       |
| The Migrant Education Program (MEP) provides formula grants to states |
| to be used for supplemental education and support services for the    |
| children of migrant agricultural workers and fishers. Key provisions  |
| of the 1994 reauthorization are as follows:                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Establish a priority for services for migratory children whose    |
|     education has been interrupted during the school year and who are |
|     failing, or at risk of failing, to meet their state's content and |
|     performance standards;                                            |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Ensure that migrant children are provided with appropriate        |
|     educational services (including support services such as health   |
|     and social services) that address their special needs in a        |
|     coordinated and efficient manner;                                 |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Require that states transfer student records and other data to    |
|     other states and schools as students migrate;                     |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Target the most recently mobile children, who experience the most |
|     disruption in schooling, by limiting the population counted to    |
|     those who have moved within the previous three years; and         |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Encourage the formation of consortia of states and other          |
|     appropriate entities to reduce administrative and other costs for |
|     state MEPs and to make more funds available for direct services   |
|     for children.                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

###  

# 10. TITLE I, PART C, MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Key Findings**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   If all students are to meet high standards, adequate support is   |
|     needed for students who are failing to meet those standards.      |
|     There is some evidence that migratory children who are failing to |
|     meet state standards have the highest priority for instructional  |
|     services. According to 80 percent of principals of schoolwide     |
|     programs, migrant students who fail to meet their state's content |
|     and performance standards have the highest priority for           |
|     instructional services.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   MEP summer-term and extended-time projects play an important role |
|     in the education of migrant students. Summer projects provide     |
|     continuity of instruction for migrant students, who experience a  |
|     great deal of educational disruption. Over the past decade,       |
|     summer projects have grown faster than the regular program. The   |
|     number of summer participants increased 181 percent from 1984-85  |
|     to 1996-97 (from 100,895 to 283,026), compared to a 52 percent    |
|     increase (from 311,615 to 473,261) for the regular program.       |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Effective coordination at the state level will increase the       |
|     efficiency and effectiveness of services to migrant children. A   |
|     primary component of effective coordination at the state level is |
|     the consortium arrangement, which reduces administrative costs    |
|     and increases information sharing among many states. For FY1998,  |
|     the Department had approved consortia arrangements involving a    |
|     total of 32 states, an increase from arrangements involving 15    |
|     states in FY 1995.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   Inter- and intrastate coordination includes the task of           |
|     transferring student information when migrant students must       |
|     change schools. The 1994 reauthorization eliminated the previous  |
|     Migrant Student Records Transfer System (MSRTS) in response to    |
|     the many reports detailing a system that was expensive but did    |
|     not transfer data efficiently. Two years after the elimination of |
|     the MSRTS, most states and school districts relied on mail,       |
|     telephone, and fax to transfer records for migrant students.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## 

## What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish? 

Migrant children are among the most educationally and economically
disadvantaged groups in the nation. Their movement across local and
state boundaries creates a need for federal support, because no single
school districtand, in many cases, no single stateis responsible for
the education of a migrant child. Several studies have documented the
detrimental effect that changing schools has on student achievement.
According to a 1994 General Accounting Office study, 41 percent of
3^rd^-graders who had changed schools three or more times since first
grade were low achievers in reading, compared with 26 percent of
3^rd^-graders who had not moved once.[^367] A similar relationship held
for math (33 percent vs. 17 percent).[^368] The study also reported that
migrant children are much more likely than other children to have
changed schools frequently: about 40 percent of migrant children have
changed schools frequently, compared with about 17 percent of all
children.[^369]

Migrant students also have a greater need for limited-English-proficient
and English as a Second Language services than other students.
Approximately 83 percent of migrant students participating in the MEP
program in the 1996-97 school year were Hispanic.[^370] A study of Title
I schoolwide schools that serve migrant students showed that more than
half of the migrant students had limited English proficiency, compared
with about one-quarter of non-migrant students.[^371]

The 1994 reauthorization focused on helping migrant children meet the
same high standards expected of all children by supporting services that
address their special needs and sustain and accelerate their progress in
school. It sought to improve instructional continuity through better
coordination among states and districts serving migrant children. The
Migrant Student Records Transfer System was eliminated, and states were
required to develop their own methods of transferring student records.
The reauthorized law also sought to target the neediest students for
support services by defining currently migratory students as those who
have moved within the past three years, as opposed to six years in the
previous statute.

## How Does the Program Operate?

Migrant Education Program funds are allocated through a statutory
formula based on each state's per‑pupil expenditure for education and
counts of migratory children, ages 3 through 21, residing within the
state. In 1996-97, states reported 473,261 MEP participants in the
regular term and 283,026 in the summer term.[^372] California identified
the largest number of migratory students (208,739) in the 1996-97 school
year.[^373] Texas identified the second largest number of students
(115,043), and five other statesFlorida, Washington, Oregon, Kansas,
and Kentuckyeach reported more than 20,000 students eligible for
funding.[^374]

## How Is the Program Being Implemented?

Evaluation findings show that the MEP is making progress in implementing
the provisions of the 1994 statute. Information from program
evaluations, the State Performance Report, and grant applications show
that the MEP is working to help migrant students meet challenging
standards by targeting students with the greatest need, meeting the
special needs of migrant students in a coordinated manner and
coordinating information within and among states. However, the
Department does not yet have the achievement data needed to determine
whether migrant students are improving their academic performance.

The following findings are organized around performance indicators
identified for the program under the Government Performance and Results
Act.

##### Priority for Students at Risk of Failing to Meet Standards

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Indicator: Migrant Students Participation in State Assessments**. The
  number of states that include migrant students in state assessments
  linked to high standards will increase, reaching 52 in 2001.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The heart of the 1994 statutethat all students should be expected to
meet high standardsdepends on adequate support for students who are
failing to meet those standards. There is some evidence from schoolwide
program schools that migratory children who are failing to meet state
standards do have the highest priority for instructional services. It is
possible, however, that because *all* students who are failing to meet
state standards have the highest priority to receive support services,
schools are assuming that migrant students are included in this group.
In addition, most schools do not yet disaggregate their assessments by
migrant status and therefore do not report on the performance of migrant
students. In 1996-97, only 15 states included migrant students in their
state assessment reports.[^375] It is also unclear whether most migrant
students are participating in state assessments, and if they are,
whether their test scores are being reported within the aggregate
scores. In a recent survey of state coordinators, only 15 states
responded that many or almost all of migrant students are
assessed.[^376]

With these caveats in mind, there is some indication that schools are
paying particular attention to migrant students who fail to meet state
standards. When asked what types of migrant children or youth have the
highest priority for instructional services, the majority of principals
of schoolwide program schools (80 percent) reported that migrant
children or youth failing to meet their state's content and performance
standards had the highest priority for instructional services.[^377]
Migrant children or youth who enrolled after the start of the year
(reported by 42 percent) had the second highest priority to receive
instructional services.[^378] These same two groups of students also had
the highest priority for support services.[^379]

##### Appropriate and Coordinated Services

The appropriate use of MEP funds and the coordination of services are
necessary preconditions for effective programs. The study of migrant
students in schoolwide programs indicated that funds are used to serve
migrant students appropriately. First, those schools that specifically
targeted instructional services to meet their migrant students' special
learning needs were the schools with the greatest proportion of migrant
students.[^380] Second, schools that reported having MEP funds available
were more likely to offer extended-day or year-round programs, and
schools that were more likely to provide these programs just for migrant
students included those with MEP funds available, larger numbers of
migrant students, or high proportions of migrants among their LEP
students.[^381] Third, support services intended specifically for
migrants were more likely to be found in schools with more migrants,
transient migrants, more MEP dollars, and the involvement of migrant
parents or staff in schoolwide planning.[^382]

**There is some evidence that schools that serve migrant students are
addressing the issue of coordination**. A central function of the
Migrant Education Program is to reduce the negative effects of
educational disruptions on the instructional opportunities and academic
achievement of migrant students. Through inter- and intrastate
coordination, school districts with the help of state education agencies
are using MEP funds to help design, implement, or support innovative
mechanisms to improve the continuity of instruction for migrant
students.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Indicator: Schoolwide programs**. Migrant programs will demonstrate
  increasing levels of collaboration as demonstrated by the number of
  schoolwide programs operated.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The increased prevalence of schoolwide programs that serve migrant
students is one indicator of greater program coordination. Schoolwide
migrant programs increased from 1,541 in the 1995-96[^383] school year
to 2,626 in 1996-97.[^384] The boxes that follow provide further
examples of effective coordination of services.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Texas Migrant Interstate Program**[^385]                            |
|                                                                       |
| Texas shares the responsibility of educating migrant students with 44 |
| other states in the nation. The need to efficiently share information |
| with schools and school districts in those receiving states has led   |
| to several innovations. The ***Texas Migrant Interstate Program***    |
| (TMIP) located in Pharr, Texas, provides services to improve the      |
| coordination of educational services for secondary-level migrant      |
| children. Since its inception in 1980, the goal of TMIP's efforts has |
| been to increase the graduation rate of the migrant student           |
| population.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| TMIP staff provides information to educators and counselors in        |
| receiving states on what students attending Texas schools need for    |
| coursework, grade promotion, and graduation. Staff members also       |
| provide advice to educators and school guidance counselors to help    |
| individual students accumulate and transfer course credits for grade  |
| promotion or graduation.                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Technology is an invaluable tool for coordination among schools and
states and for connecting students to continuous educational resources.
Several projects across the country have received federal grants to use
technology to improve educational access and continuity for migrant
students and to transfer student records and information---Project
Estrella is one of them.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Project Estrella**[^386]                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Project Estrella uses technology to help high school students accrue  |
| credits toward graduation, obtain guidance and instructional support, |
| and develop academic skills. Participants in Project Estrella receive |
| laptop computers to enable them to keep up with their studies.        |
| Students use the computers to complete coursework and prepare for the |
| Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). Family members can use    |
| the computers for their own studies. Estrella students agree to work  |
| on on-line courses and spend time with their mentors for 10 hours a   |
| week. All students are connected to the Interstate Student            |
| Coordinator through e-mail, and each student has his or her own       |
| cyber-mentor.                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Coordinating educational services also means ensuring that they form a
seamless web. This has led to the development of extended-time,
alternative, and summer-term programs for migrant students.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Indicator: Summer-term projects**. An increasing number of migrant
  children will be served by summer and intersession programs.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+---------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| ######## Portable Assisted Stud |   | **Summer Migrants Access        |
| y Sequence Program (PASS)[^387] |   | Resources through Technology    |
|                                 |   | (Project SMART)**[^388]         |
| The PASS program is a           |   |                                 |
| correspondence program that has |   | Project SMART takes the         |
| been operating in several       |   | classroom to migrant students   |
| states for over a decade. It    |   | via distance learning for eight |
| enables high school students to |   | weeks during the summer. In the |
| take courses from remote        |   | summer of 1998, 19 states       |
| locations that meet high school |   | participated in Project SMART,  |
| graduation requirements.        |   | in programs involving more than |
| Students work with mentors who  |   | 22,000 migrant students.        |
| issue portable learning         |   | Project SMART is also           |
| packets, provide tutoring and   |   | experimenting with supplying    |
| instruction, and administer     |   | students with laptop computers  |
| tests. Students who participate |   | equipped with modems so that    |
| in PASS programs work           |   | students can transfer lessons   |
| independently and tailor their  |   | to teachers in Texas for        |
| studies to their own schedules. |   | instruction and feedback.       |
|                                 |   |                                 |
|                                 |   | Texas also offers an algebra    |
|                                 |   | distance learning project in    |
|                                 |   | which classes are broadcast     |
|                                 |   | twice a week and each student   |
|                                 |   | is provided with a laptop       |
|                                 |   | computer, modem, graphing       |
|                                 |   | calculator, and Internet        |
|                                 |   | access. During the broadcasts,  |
|                                 |   | students receive direct         |
|                                 |   | instruction, guided practice,   |
|                                 |   | and homework assignments. In    |
|                                 |   | the 1996 school year, Project   |
|                                 |   | SMART students successfully     |
|                                 |   | completed 222,266 lessons,      |
|                                 |   | about 88 percent of those       |
|                                 |   | attempted.                      |
+---------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

-   MEP summer-term and extended-time projects play an important role in
    the education of migrant students. Summer projects provide
    continuity of instruction for migrant students, who experience a
    great deal of educational disruption. Over the last decade, summer
    projects have grown faster than the regular program, and they now
    serve 60 percent of the number of students served during the regular
    term.[^389] The number of summer participants increased 181 percent
    from 1984-85 to 1996-97 (from 100,895 to 283,026), compared to a 52
    percent increase (from 311,615 to 473,261) for the regular program.
    [^390]

Like summer-term projects, extended-time programs provide additional
learning time that migrant students may need to make up for prior
educational disruption. They also build upon and reinforce the curricula
that migrant students are learning during the school day. Extended-time
programs grew from 1,783 projects during the 1995-96[^391] school year
to 2,082 projects in 1996-97.[^392]

##### Targeting the Neediest Children

The change in the targeting provisionto focus services on students who
have moved within the past three yearsis intended to ensure that MEP
programs serve the neediest students. The number of migrant students
served by the program has declined since reauthorization, yet funding
has remained flat. Therefore, it appears that the change in eligibility
has encouraged programs to concentrate services on the children who need
them the most. Between 1994-95 and 1996-97, participants in the program
declined by 15 percent.[^393]

##### State Coordination

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Indicator: State Consortia**. An increasing number of students will
  be served by consortia states.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective coordination at the state level will increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of the services provided to migrant children. A
primary component of effective coordination at the state level is the
consortium arrangement, which reduces administrative costs and increases
information sharing among many states. For FY 1998, the Department
approved consortia arrangements involving a total of 32 states, an
increase from arrangements involving 15 states in FY 1995.[^394] The
incentive grant awards range in size from \$28,099 to \$84,298. Each
consortium has its own mission and goals. Several of the consortia were
formed to facilitate the transfer of records. Other consortia share
resource materials, model practices in educating migrant students, and
provide greater access to technology to improve the education of migrant
students.

The Consortium Arrangement to Facilitate Migrant Student Achievement
(CAFMSA)[^395] is one example.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######## The Cons                                                     |
| ortium Arrangement to Facilitate Migrant Student Achievement (CAFMSA) |
|                                                                       |
| CAFMSA will develop and share a procedure among its partner states    |
| that will quickly assess the specific academic needs of migrating     |
| children in core curriculum areas for grades 9-12. This procedure     |
| will enable educators in the partner states to provide migrant        |
| students with appropriate classroom intervention and improve student  |
| achievement. The seven states participating in this consortium are    |
| Colorado (the lead state), Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New        |
| Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah. These states estimate that the        |
| consortium will permit approximately \$280,000 of MEP basic grant     |
| funds to be redirected from program administration into direct        |
| services for migrant children.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##### Transfer of Student Information

Inter- and intrastate coordination includes the task of transferring
student information when migrant students must change schools. Since the
program's inception in 1966, the law has required states to implement
procedures for the timely transfer of migrant students' education
records as the students move from one school to another.[^396] For 20
years, states fulfilled their obligation by participating in the Migrant
Student Records Transfer System (MSRTS). Congress eliminated the MSRTS
in the 1994 reauthorization in response to the many reports detailing a
system that was expensive but did not transfer data efficiently.

Two years after the elimination of the MSRTS, most states and school
districts relied on mail, telephone, and fax to transfer records for
migrant students. However, it is encouraging that about 27 states have
some type of electronic system in place, although many of these systems
are used for maintaining, rather than transferring, student records.

**Exhibit 10.1**

**Methods used to Transfer Migrant Student Records**

**Between States and School Districts in 1996-97**

  ------------------------------ -------------------- --------------------
  **Method of Transfer**         **Between States**   **Between
                                                      Districts**

  Mail                           18 states            17 states

  Phone or fax                   16 states            14 states

  Electronic transmission        7 states             7 states

  NCS                            6 states             5 states

  Red Bag                        5 states             5 states

  State systems                  n/a                  5 states

  MIS 2000                       4 states             3 states

  Migrant Student Network        3 states             3 states
  Service                                             

  Hard copy                      8 states             n/a

  New generation                 7 states             n/a
  ------------------------------ -------------------- --------------------

> Exhibit reads: Most states transfer records for migrant students to
> other states by mail (18 states) and telephone or fax (16 states).
> These are also the most prevalent methods for transferring student
> records to other districts within the same state.
>
> Source: Anderson and Turnbull, unpublished tabulations from *Living in
> Interesting Times: Early State Implementation of New Federal Education
> Laws*.

It is not clear whether these methods are effective, although when asked
an open-ended question about problems in implementing the MEP since
reauthorization, seven state directors of MEP programs cited the lack of
a national records transfer system as a major hindrance to
implementation.[^397] The Office of Migrant Education has helped state
MEP directors develop effective methods of transferring records by (1)
pilot-testing electronic records exchange, (2) providing one-time grants
in FY 1995 to all states for records transfer, and (3) developing
information on how different electronic systems can connect.

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements?

##### Expansion of Summer Projects

Despite the expansion of summer projects and their perceived value to
migrant students, the bulk of MEP funds continue to be spent during the
regular term. Summer projects are concentrated, intensive learning
experiences for students. Because these projects are academic programs
tailored to students' needs and coordinated with the students'
instructional program during the year, they may have a greater effect
than other services that are provided in isolation. To increase the
overall effect of the MEP program, it may make sense to increase the
statutory emphasis on summer programs or provide separate funding for
these programs.

##### Records Transfer

It is likely that more efficient methods of transferring information
could be developed than mail, phone, and fax, on which many states now
rely. Moreover, in a recent meeting of state coordinators, there
appeared to be a consensus that greater federal leadership is needed in
this area because states lack adequate systems for transferring records.
Federal guidance, oversight, and technical assistance to states in
developing systems for records transfer could be expanded.

Additionally, there could be more specific federal requirements for
states to follow in developing records transfer systems, and model
systems could be developed. This guidance could ensure uniformity in
state systems and in the information stored in those systems. At present
no consensus exists on what information should be included on a record,
and therefore the states do not necessarily collect the information that
other states need.

A third possibility is the creation of a new federally funded migrant
records transfer system, to be developed in consultation with the
states. This system should have the capacity to be updated and adapted
as technology advances. The old system was unsuccessful because it was
outmoded and no longer useful to states.

##### Effective Targeting

Because not all migrant students are as transitory as others, it is
clear that targeting provisions could be strengthened to encourage
states to recruit and serve the neediest migrant studentsthose who are
the most mobile and those who have moved most recently. The current
targeting provisions address those who have moved the most recently but
not those who are the most mobile. A priority for services could be
established for students who move more than once during a school year.

##### Standards and Participation in State Assessments

Because states are not required to disaggregate their state assessment
data by migrant status until 2001, most states have not yet done so.
Without disaggregated data, states are not able to report performance
levels for migrant students as a group, and do not know whether migrant
students are participating in state assessments or meeting state
standards. In addition to disaggregating assessment data by migrant
status, states could be required to report on the participation of
migrant students in state assessments and on barriers to their
participation. This reporting requirement would give states and the
federal government more accurate information on the participation of
migrant students in state assessments and allow baselines and targets
for migrant student participation to be set. It would also help the
federal government identify barriers that hinder migrant students'
participation in assessments, including language and mobility, or other
factors.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #### KEY PROVISIONS OF TITLE I, PART D, PROGRAMS FOR CHILDRE          |
| N AND YOUTH WHO ARE NEGLECTED, DELINQUENT, OR AT RISK OF DROPPING OUT |
|                                                                       |
| The 1994 ESEA reauthorization made several major changes to the Title |
| I, Part D program to strengthen the quality of academic instruction   |
| supported by this program and to improve coordination among programs  |
| serving neglected or delinquent students. Key provisions in the 1994  |
| reauthorization are as follows:                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Increase the minimum number of instructional hours that           |
|     institutions must provide to be eligible for the program. Adult   |
|     correctional facilities now must provide 15 hours of instruction  |
|     per week, and an institution or community day program for         |
|     neglected or delinquent (N or D) children must provide 20 hours   |
|     per week. Previously, Chapter 1 required institutions to provide  |
|     only 10 hours of instruction per week.                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Emphasize challenging standards for all students. Part D services |
|     are designed with the expectation that children and youth who are |
|     neglected, delinquent, or at risk of dropping out of school will  |
|     meet the same challenging academic and content standards expected |
|     of all children.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Allow State N or D institutions for juveniles to operate          |
|     institutionwide programs, modeled after Title I schoolwide        |
|     programs. Institutions may use Title I funds in combination with  |
|     other federal and state education funds, and are encouraged to    |
|     increase coordination and collaboration among programs serving N  |
|     or D students.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Require state education agencies (SEAs) to reserve funds for      |
|     transition services for N or D youth after their release from an  |
|     institution or program.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Create the Subpart 2 program to serve children and youth who are  |
|     in locally operated correctional facilities (including            |
|     institutions for delinquent children) and noninstitutionalized    |
|     at-risk children and youth.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Require SEAs (and school districts, in the case of Subpart 2      |
|     programs) to assess the effect of their programs on participants  |
|     using multiple and appropriate evaluation measures.               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# TITLE I, PART D, PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WHO ARE NEGLECTED, DELINQUENT, OR AT RISK 

# OF DROPPING OUT

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Key Findings**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   States are experiencing an increase in flexibility and            |
|     coordination. The percentage of state education administrators    |
|     who reported that the reauthorized legislation gave them          |
|     considerably or somewhat more administrative flexibility in       |
|     implementing the N or D program rose from 40 percent in 1996-97   |
|     to 57 percent in 1998.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   States are building the capacity of N or D programs to implement  |
|     high standards by supporting technical assistance and             |
|     professional development. Over half (58 percent) of state         |
|     administrators reported that Part D funds supported technical     |
|     assistance on content or performance standards in 1996-97.        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Establishing institutionwide programs is an important strategy to |
|     ensure that students' needs are being met in a coherent and       |
|     coordinated manner. Although states are expanding the capacity of |
|     their facilities to implement institutionwide programs, few       |
|     facilities have implemented them. More than half of the states    |
|     provided technical assistance on whole school improvement, yet    |
|     only 9 percent of N or D facilities are institutionwide programs. |
|                                                                       |
| -   States and institutions need to work on collecting appropriate    |
|     data and using it to inform program improvement. Institutions are |
|     generally unable to collect comprehensive data on students'       |
|     educational experiences and their transition to further education |
|     or employment.                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## What Did Reauthorization Seek to Accomplish?

The educationally disadvantaged population eligible to be served by Part
D has been growing over the past decade. In particular, the number of
juvenile arrests for violent crimes is increasing; despite declines in
1995 and 1996, arrests in 1996 were 60 percent above the 1987
level.[^398] In addition, the average length of stay in a correctional
facility for Title I N or D participants increased from 8 months to over
13 months during the 1980s,[^399] further increasing the number eligible
to be served by this program. According to the most recent evaluation of
the Subpart 1, State Agency N or D program, conducted in 1991, these
youth are on average three years behind their peers in grade level, and
42 percent have dropped out of school (compared with a national dropout
rate of 9 percent among 14- to 21-year-olds for that year).[^400] For
many of these youth, education in a correctional facility will be their
last experience with formal education.[^401]

The most recent evaluation, conducted before reauthorization, revealed
that the program had some short-term successes but was less successful
in bringing about long-term change.[^402] That evaluation showed that
few (15 percent) of Chapter 1 N or D participants complete high school
or receive their GED while institutionalized.[^403] While all youth
under the age of 16 returned to school after release, only two-thirds of
16- and 17-year-olds enrolled in school and one-third of the enrolled
16- and 17-year-olds dropped out

within 10 months. Furthermore, only one-quarter of 18- or 19-year-old
Chapter 1 participants enrolled in school after release.[^404] Most
participants found jobs after being released, but the jobs were
typically low-paying, and about two-thirds of employed youth had gone
through more than one job.[^405] In addition to having inadequate
education and employment after release, within 5 months after their
release, 16 percent of program participants had had some trouble with
the law, and five months later another 27 percent of those remaining in
the community had problems with the law.[^406]

Poor-quality educational programs may have contributed to participants'
difficulties after leaving institutions. Education programs often
conflicted with other institutional objectives that received greater
priority,[^407] and the instruction that was provided tended to rely on
out-of-date materials and outmoded instructional strategies that taught
isolated, lower-order skills.[^408] To improve the quality of
instruction received by incarcerated youth, the reauthorized statute
increased instructional time for students in state agency and locally
operated programs and emphasized holding students to high academic
standards. Greater coordination among agencies serving neglected or
delinquent students was encouraged to improve the quality and coherence
of services provided; coordination could be facilitated through the
implementation of institutionwide programs. In addition, the 1994
statute required that programs provide transition services to facilitate
students' postrelease education or employment and to reduce recidivism.

## How Does the Program Operate?

Title I, Part D, as amended, provides support to states, local agencies,
and schools for supplemental programs that meet the special education
needs of children and youth in institutions for neglected, delinquent,
or at-risk children. It comprises two programs:

-   The State Agency Neglected or Delinquent program (Subpart 1)
    provides federal financial assistance to states that operate
    educational programs for children and youth in institutions or
    community day programs for N or D children and for youth in adult
    correctional facilities. The Department allocates funds to state
    education agencies (SEAs) through a formula based on the number of
    children and youth enrolled in a regular program of instruction at
    state-operated facilities and community day programs. SEAs in turn
    suballocate Subpart 1 funds to state agencies that operate education
    programs. Congress appropriated \$39 million for this program in FY
    1998.

-   The Subpart 2 program provides assistance to school districts to
    serve (1) children and youth in locally operated correctional
    facilities, including institutions for delinquent children, and (2)
    non-institutionalized at-risk children and youth. The Department of
    Education determines how much Part D, Subpart 2 funding is
    apportioned for each state when it calculates annual Title I, Part A
    allocations. The formula is based on October caseload data on the
    number of children and youth living in local institutions for
    delinquent children and local adult correctional institutions. SEAs
    award Subpart 2 funds to school districts with high numbers or
    percentages of youth residing in correctional facilities. This
    program was funded at \$49 million in FY 1998.

Overall, a total of 4,059 institutions participated in the Title I State
Agency N or D Program in school year 1996-97.[^409] Of this total, 376
(9 percent) operated institutionwide programs, in which state and
federal funds are combined to reform the entire educational program in
an institution. The State Agency N or D program served 88,512 children
in institutions for neglected children, 98,767 in institutions for
delinquent children, and 24,159 in adult correctional facilities. The
Local Agency N or D program served 70,428 students.[^410]

## How Is the Program Being Implemented?

Although there has been no evaluation of the effectiveness of the Part
D, Subpart 2 program, the program has proven to be difficult to
administer and confusing to the states. In addition, there are
indications that the funding mechanism for the program is not operating
effectively. Title I, Part A counts of children and youth living in
locally operated correction facilities and institutions for delinquent
children generate money for school districts to fund dropout prevention
programs, which serve youth at educational risk. At-risk youth include
school-age youth who are at risk of academic failure, have drug or
alcohol abuse problems, are pregnant or are parents, have previously
come into contact with the juvenile justice system, are at least one
year behind the expected grade level for their age, are migrant or
immigrant, have limited English proficiency, are gang members, have
previously dropped out of school, or have high absentee rates at school.

School districts receiving Subpart 2 funds generally must use them to
operate (1) programs for noninstitutionalized, at-risk children and
youth and (2) programs for children and youth in locally operated
correctional facilities and institutions for delinquent children that
have established formal agreements with the school district regarding
the services to be provided. This situation acts as a disincentive for
local institutions to submit October case load counts to SEAs as part of
the Department of Education's annual N or D survey because there is no
guarantee that these institutions will receive any services from the
funds their children generate. In addition, requiring that districts
split their Subpart 2 funds between serving delinquent children in
institutionalized settings and at-risk children in district-based
programs tends to spread limited funding thinly and makes it difficult
for districts to operate viable programs of sufficient size, scope, and
quality for either group of students.

At the state level, a study of state implementation of ESEA programs
surveyed state education administrators, and found that there has been
movement toward meeting the key provisions that relate to state-level
administration in the 1994 statute.[^411] This progress may be the
result of the compatibility of the *Improving America's Schools Act*
(IASA) with state reform efforts. When asked how federal legislation
fits with state reform goals, 21 state education administrators said
that there was no mismatch between the new legislation and their states'
policies.[^412] Several administrators said that IASA goals ran parallel
to their state's reform movement.[^413] Although there has been progress
in implementing state-level provisions, there are no recent evaluations
that assess the efficacy of services at the facility level. It is
difficult to conduct evaluations of programs serving students in
correctional institutions because of the inadequacy of data collection
on these students; few institutions collect data on the educational
histories, needs, experiences, and postrelease outcomes of incarcerated
youth.[^414]

The following findings pertain to the Subpart 1 program.

##### Administrative Flexibility and Coordination

States are experiencing an increase in flexibility and coordination. In
the 1996-97 school year, only about 40 percent of state education
administrators reported that the reauthorized legislation gave them
considerably or somewhat more administrative flexibility in implementing
the N or D program.[^415] This proportion increased to 57 percent in
1998.[^416] More administrators also reported that consolidating
administrative funds affects the way they do their job, although less
than half of administrators reported that their N or D program is part
of the state's consolidation of administrative funds. [^417]

In addition, the vast majority of state N or D administrators reported
conducting administrative or operational activities in coordination with
other federally funded education programs. These activities included
monitoring local projects, holding local application/planning workshops,
providing technical assistance to districts and schools, and deciding
how to allocate program resources to districts and schools.[^418] In
response to an open-ended question on overall successes since the 1994
reauthorization, 10 administrators cited increased coordination and
collaboration across programs and among schools districts serving N or D
students. Program administrators reported working with other programs
that now serve their students, and including sections on communication
with local juvenile centers in school plans.[^419]

##### Support for Challenging Standards

States are building the capacity of N or D programs to implement high
standards for all students, but these programs need further assistance
in implementing them. States are providing professional development and
technical assistance to help facilities implement challenging standards.
Approximately 58 percent of state education administrators reported that
Part D funds supported technical assistance on content or performance
standards in 1996-97.[^420] In addition, more than half of state
administrators reported that they encouraged subgrantees to focus their
professional development on content or performance standards, student
assessment, and meeting the needs of special populations in
1996-97.[^421]

States support the provisions of the legislation that emphasize high
standards. When asked which provisions of the legislation were the most
helpful in meeting their program's goals or improving student
achievement, administrators from eight states stated that the provisions
relating to high standards had helped to raise expectations for N or D
students.[^422] However, when asked in what areas they thought their
state had the furthest to go in meeting its own reform goals, seven
state N or D administrators cited developing and implementing
assessments and helping all students to meet high standards.[^423]

##### Institutionwide Programs

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Indicator: Institutionwide programs.** An increased number of
  institutions will operate institutionwide programs that improve
  curriculum and instruction throughout the institution.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing institutionwide programs is an important strategy to ensure
that students' needs are being met in a coherent and coordinated manner.
Although states are building facilities' capacity to implement
institutionwide programs, few facilities have yet implemented them. More
than half of the states provided technical assistance on whole school
improvement,[^424] yet only 9 percent of N or D facilities are
institutionwide programs.[^425]

##### Evaluation and Use of Data

State education administrators appear to be using data to meet various
reporting requirements but not to improve the quality of N or D programs
or to identify programs that need extra resources. Administrators
reported that the most common types of data they required local
districts, schools, and subgrantees to collect were performance results
from the state assessment, followed by performance results from other
tests, dropout rates, and absentee rates.[^426] Few state administrators
reported that they required local districts, schools, or subgrantees to
collect information on grades, extracurricular activities, or classroom
work and performance.[^427] Therefore, it appears that states do not
have comprehensive information on students' academic and vocational
progress---key indicators of program success.

The most common use of student performance data was to report to the
federal government, followed by reporting to local school districts,
schools, and subgrantees and reporting to managers within state
agencies.[^428] Approximately half of state education administrators who
responded (a third of all administrators) use student performance data
to identify schools and districts that need help.[^429] Approximately a
third of administrators who responded (less than a quarter of all
administrators), reported that they used student data to identify
program services that need to be extended or reduced or to assess the
progress of underserved ethnic or demographic groups.[^430]

In addition, a recent study assessed the quality and availability of
data on the education of incarcerated youth.[^431] The study found that
although most of the pilot states involved in the study were able to
provide reliable information on students' educational experiences while
in custody, only one state was able to collect adequate data on
students' postrelease education and employment. These findings were
confirmed by a recent preliminary analysis of 14 state Title I, Part D
evaluations.[^432] States did not collect sufficient or consistent data
on outcomes to support an analysis of program effectiveness. Most states
collected data on academic outcomes, but only 3 out of 14 provided data
on transition services, and only 4 out of 14 collected data on
postrelease outcomes such as school reenrollment and postrelease
employment.[^433] Many states indicated that there are significant
barriers to the collection of postrelease data, including
confidentiality issues and poor relationships with parole
agencies.[^434]

##### ***Program Outcomes***

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Indicator: Progress and Achievement.** An increased number of states
  will show that N or D students are improving their academic or
  vocational skills, and educational attainment.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The critical question to be asked in evaluating how the law is being
implemented is whether the program has been effective. Are the new
provisions improving the quality of the program, and is there evidence
that this improvement is having a positive effect on students? Although
little data are available on overall program outcomes for N or D
students, some states have demonstrated success in particular outcome
areas.

# 

+---------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| **Iowa**[^435]                  | # | **California**[^436]            |
|                                 |   |                                 |
| > In one institution, 97        |   | > Students enrolled in the      |
| > percent of 97 Title I         |   | > California Youth Authority's  |
| > students improved at least    |   | > 14 targeted-assistance        |
| > one grade level after three   |   | > programs showed overall       |
| > months of targeted-assistance |   | > improvements of between       |
| > programming. In another       |   | > 1.4 months and 4.5 months in  |
| > institution, 61 percent of    |   | > grade equivalency scores for  |
| > the 23 students obtained a    |   | > every month of Title I        |
| > GED, with standardized test   |   | > instruction provided. These   |
| > scores also showing           |   | > data are based on pre- and    |
| > improvement. The remaining    |   | > posttest scores for           |
| > facilities' data had          |   | > 488 reading students, 520     |
| > methodological flaws that     |   | > math students, and 406        |
| > prevented accurate            |   | > language students in          |
| > interpretation.               |   | > 1996-1997.                    |
+---------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

## What Issues Remain to Be Addressed through Changes in Practice or Statutory Requirements?

##### Subpart 2 Program

The current allocation mechanism for the Subpart 2 program is confusing
because students in institutions generate funds that are not necessarily
used for their benefit. This situation could be improved by requiring
school districts receiving Title I, Part A funds for children and youth
in locally operated correctional facilities and delinquent institutions
to reserve these funds to provide services for these children that are
comparable to those received by other Title I students in the district.
In addition, Title I, Part A funds could be increased and states could
be required to use Title I, Part A to support dropout prevention
programs and programs for at-risk youth.

This requirement would be identical to the current requirement that
districts reserve Title I, Part A funds for children in institutions for
neglected children; it also is similar to the way that districts
reserved funds for delinquent children and youth under Chapter 1. This
change would (1) guarantee that Title I funds generated by children and
youth in local correctional facilities and institutions for delinquent
children would support services for children in those facilities and (2)
eliminate the confusing aspects of the current law.

##### Guidance and Technical Assistance

Findings pertaining to the state agency program suggest that
administrators are making progress in implementing the key, state-level
provisions in the 1994 statute, but that there is a need for greater
technical assistance and dissemination of information about these
provisions and the ways in which they are beneficial to N or D
facilities. Guidance could illustrate how consolidating administrative
funds could be useful to program administrators, how administrators can
replicate the experience of programs that have increased collaboration
and coordination across programs serving N or D students, and how
institutionwide programs benefit N or D students.

##### Evaluation and Use of Data

Another major area for guidance and technical assistance pertains to the
use of data for evaluating students and program performance. The
Department needs to develop appropriate guidelines and guidance for
evaluating this population. Only 7 states have performance indicators
for the N or D program, and only 12 more are in the process of
developing them.[^437] Few states collect performance data other than
test results. Program administrators need to be taught how performance
indicators can guide program improvement and how to collect the
appropriate data to inform their indicators. The Department may want to
pilot a program that provides incentive grants to states to improve
their data collection systems. Revamping data collection systems is
expensive yet crucial to improving states' ability to evaluate programs
that serve incarcerated students. The states and federal government both
have an interest in improving data collection on these students.

The Department's guidance for Part D has provided that the state or
local educational agency should use the same state assessment system
used for all children, unless the SEA determines that the state
assessments are not available or would not provide accurate information
about the progress of children in institutions for neglected or
delinquent children. Under those circumstances, more appropriate or more
accurate assessments may be used, along with any additional indicators
to measure the progress of students participating in these programs.

This guidance does not require states to assess N or D students in any
way other than using their state assessments. As a result, few states
collect any other type of performance data on these students. Yet state
assessments may not provide an appropriate indication of progress for
programs that serve children and youth in institutions for delinquent
children. Because of high turnover and limited length of stay in many of
these institutions, state and local agencies may not be able to use the
same measures that are applied to youth attending a school in a more
traditional setting. It is very difficult to measure progress over short
periods of time.

In addition, incarcerated, delinquent youth in particular are likely to
have dropped out or not to have attended school regularly for many
years. For these students, the assessments given to other students their
age may not be appropriate. However, there is a tension between
assessing students appropriately and ensuring that they are exposed to
challenging academic content. It is important to expose these students
to challenging content, but it is not realistic to assess them at their
grade level when they are three or more years behind. Students may also
demonstrate success in areas other than academic achievement---for
instance, by acquiring a job or making a successful transition to a
community-based program. Programs serving this population need
assistance in developing more appropriate and varied criteria by which
the effect of these programs on participants will be evaluated.

# 12. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR TITLE I

# 

**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."

***Since reauthorization, the National Assessment of Title I has
evaluated the implementation and impact of Title I and finds promising
results as well as continuing challenges in carrying out reform. The
recent achievement gains of students whom Title I is intended to benefit
provide a clear indication that Title I, and the larger educational
system it supports, is moving in the right direction.***

**An examination of trends in the performance of students in the
nation's highest-poverty public schools, as well as progress of the
lowest achieving students shows positive gains in reading and math
performance since the reauthorization of Title I. These trends are
further substantiated by the progress reported by some states and
districts with three-year trends in achievement.**

-   Since 1992, the national reading trend results have improved for
    9-year-olds in the highest-poverty public schools (those with 75
    percent or more low-income children), increasing by 8 points (close
    to one grade level). This improvement regained ground lost in the
    late 1980s. The lowest achieving public school 4^th^-graders showed
    fairly substantial improvements in reading between 1994 and 1998 on
    the main NAEP. The substantial gains, 9 points among the bottom 10
    percent and 5 points among the bottom 25 percent, suggest that it
    was the performance of the lowest achievers that raised the national
    average of 4^th^-graders.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Since 1992 and continuing through reauthorization, trend results on
    national math assessments have improved for 9-year olds, especially
    among students in the highest poverty public schools whose scores
    rose by 9 points (close to one grade level). Public school
    4^th^-grade students in the lowest percentiles of performancethose
    most typically targeted for Title I services---also showed
    substantial improvements in math scores on the main NAEP test.
    Scores of students in the lowest 25 percent improved by 8 points
    between 1990 and 1996.

**Three-year trends reported by states and districts also show progress
in the percentage of students in the highest-poverty schools meeting
state and local standards for proficiency in math and reading.**

-   The achievement of elementary school students in the highest-poverty
    schools improved in 5 of 6 states reporting three-year trends in
    reading and in 4 of 5 states reporting trends in mathematics.
    Students in Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas made
    progress in both subjects.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The National Assessment selected 13 of the largest urban school
    systems, districts that represent a geographic cross-section of the
    nation's regions and that had at least three years of consistent
    data on student outcomes. The most severe educational deficits are
    found in the highest-poverty schools in urban communities. Ten of 13
    large urban districts that report three-year trends showed increases
    in the percentage of elementary students in the highest poverty
    schools who met district or state proficiency standards in either
    reading or math. Six districts, including Houston, Miami-Dade
    County, New York, Philadelphia, San Antonio and San Francisco made
    progress in both subjects. No district showed significant
    achievement losses.

***Title I schools are benefiting from improved resource targeting,
improved alignment of curriculum with standards, and a more cohesive
school program through greater use of the schoolwide option and
clarification of parent roles through Title I compacts.***

**Changes in the allocation formula and procedures, enacted in the 1994
amendments, have improved targeting of funds to the highest-poverty
schools.** Almost all (95 percent) of the highest-poverty schools in the
nation received Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 79 percent in 1993-94.
These additional funds have gone primarily to add the highest-poverty
schools to the program, rather than to increase Title I per pupil
expenditures. Also, school districts use 90 to 93 percent of their Title
I funds for instruction and instructional supportmost often in reading
and math.

**The emphasis on linking federally supported Title I services to state
and local reform efforts is influencing practice in high-poverty
schools**. Principals in high-performing, high-poverty schools report
using standards to guide curriculum and instruction, and using standards
to assess student progress. Additionally, teachers in districts
implementing standards-based reforms are more likely than their
colleagues in other districts to be familiar with content and
performance standards and assessments, and their curriculum is more
likely to reflect the standards.

**There is also evidence of progress for students in high-poverty
schools where staff members focus on challenging standards and
strategies that help students achieve them.** **Preliminary findings
from a study of instructional practices in 71 high-poverty elementary
schools show:**

-   Students were likely to make better progress in reading if their
    teacher gave them more total exposure to reading in the content
    areas and opportunities to talk in small groups about what they had
    read,

-   Teachers who used a curriculum that reflected National Council of
    Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards had students with higher
    gains in mathematics; and

-   Students who started the year as low achievers could be helped to
    gain more skill in problem solving in mathematics when their
    teachers deliberately emphasized understanding and problem solving
    with them.

**Schoolwide approaches help support educational programs focused on
learning.**

-   Flexibility available to high-poverty schools (those with 50 percent
    or more low-income children) offers the potential to help integrate
    Title I resources with school-level reforms. Recent findings show
    that schools implementing schoolwide programs are more likely than
    those using targeted approaches for providing Title I servicesto
    use a strategic plan and models of service delivery that can
    integrate Title I into the larger educational program.

***Despite progress since the 1994 reauthorization, continuing
challenges remain to be addressed.***

**Large performance gaps for students in the highest-poverty schools.**
While the performance of students in high-poverty schools is improving,
they remain much further behind their peers in meeting basic standards
of performance in both reading and math. In 1998, the percentage of
4^th^-grade students in the highest-poverty public schools who met or
exceeded the NAEP *Basic* level in reading was about half the national
rate, and progress in reading overall is only back to 1988 and 1990
levels. For math, the percentage of students in the highest-poverty
schools scoring at or above the *Basic* level was two-thirds that of the
national average.

Yet some states are showing that students in their highest-poverty
schools can perform at national levelsindicating that it is possible to
bring these students to high levels of achievement. In nine states, the
percentage of fourth-grade students in the highest-poverty public
schools achieving at or above the *Basic* level exceeded the national
average---showing that higher performance is attainable.

**The neediest schools receive limited assistance.** Schools enrolling
the highest concentrations of poor children are most likely to be
identified as in need of improvement, and the capacity of states and
districts to provide them with assistance is often limited. In 1998,
only 8 states reported that school support teams have been able to serve
the majority of schools identified as in need of improvement. In 24
states, Title I directors reported more schools in need of school
support teams than Title I could assist. Approximately one-third of
high-poverty schools identified for improvement had not received any
additional professional development or assistance as a result of being
identified.

**Inadequate teacher preparation.** A significant number of Title I
schoolsparticularly those with high concentrations of low-income
childrencontinue to employ non-certified paraprofessionals as
instructional aides. **Aides comprise half of the instructional staff
funded by Title I. Only 10 percent of instructional aides in the
highest-poverty schools possess college degrees, but aides are often
found providing instruction.**

Along with the evidence that high-achieving high-poverty schools focus
attention on challenging standards for all students, comes the reality
that many teachers are not prepared to teach to challenging standards.
In a 1998 survey, only about one-third of teachers in schools with 60
percent or more poor children believe they are well equipped to use
standards in the classroom. This is particularly noteworthy given
evidence that teachers' reported preparedness in both subject matter and
instructional strategies had a positive relationship with student gains.

**Inadequate implementation of parent involvement provisions.** Although
the percentage of schools with parent compacts rose from 20 percent in
1994 to about 75 percent in 1998, there remain 25 percent of schools
with no parent agreements. A substantial majority of schools find
compacts helpful in promoting parent involvement, especially
higher-poverty schools, but principals continue to identify lack of
parent involvement as one of their major reform barriers.

##### 

**Weak Title I accountability and parallel accountability in some
states.** Full implementation of the accountability requirements under
Title I is not required until final assessments are in place in the

2000-01 school year. During the transitional period, states are making
progress in developing definitions of adequate yearly progress and
identifying schools and districts in need of improvement. States further
along in developing performance standards tend to have more rigorous and
clearly defined accountability systems.

## Options for Future Directions

##### Stay the Course: Maintain an Emphasis on Challenging Standards for All Students

Gains by students in the nation's highest-poverty schools, coupled with
evidence that aligning instruction with challenging standards can
substantially increase student achievement, point to the need to stay
the course of focusing instruction on challenging standards for all
students. Though there has clearly been progress in implementing
standards at all levels, full implementation in classrooms across the
country has yet to be accomplished. States, districts, and schools need
to continue to implement standards that challenge all students to
achieve at high levels, and to align curriculum, teaching, and
assessments with those standards. Reauthorization should address the
continuing challenges that limit Title I's capacity to be a stimulus and
support for better results for our nation's at-risk students.

##### Targeted High-Performance "Catch-Up Grants" to Strengthen the Highest-Poverty Schools

**The continuing weak performance of the highest-poverty schools, those
with poverty in excess of 75 percent, remains as one of America's most
pressing educational problems.** Although all Title I schools need
additional resources and assistance, the highest-poverty schools are the
neediest not only in terms of their populations served, but also in
terms of the progress they must make to improve their current
performance. In these schools, seven out of every ten children are
currently achieving below even the basic level of reading.

**Reauthorization should focus on the extraordinary needs of the
highest-poverty schools to improve teaching and learning for our most
at-risk students, while holding these schools accountable for continuous
improvement in student results.** If these grants were to target an
additional \$1.3 billion, or about 15 percent of current Title I funds,
they would be sufficient when combined with current Title I funds and a
25 percent local match to enable the highest-poverty schools to:

-   Support a schoolwide model program of their choosing that is backed
    by evaluation evidence of effectiveness. Schools could carry out
    intensive programs aimed at improving early reading as in the
    Reading Excellence Act program, run a program to start their middle
    school students thinking about college and planning for their
    futures as in GEAR UP, or a combination of such approaches.

-   Within three years, achieve a ratio of modern multimedia computers
    to students of 5:1, a long-term national target and a goal that is
    especially important in high-poverty communities where children lack
    the home access to computers available in higher income areas.

-   Provide a high-quality after-school instructional program for 50
    percent of all students, up from the current 12 percent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reduce class size in the early grades to 21 students per teacher,
    midway from current levels to the long-term national goal of 18
    students.

**In turn,**

-   **Recipient schools would commit to continued progress in improving
    student outcomes as defined through annual outcome and service
    improvement targets. These would be described in a peer-reviewed
    schoolwide plan.** Schools would annually report progress against
    outcome and service performance objectives with the plan and
    reports.

-   **States and districts would need to commit to assisting their
    highest poverty schools.** States and districts would work with
    their schools to identify resources from all sources that could be
    combined for meaningful, concerted school reform. Districts would
    review their schools' planning and implementation and offer peer
    reviewers to work with the schools on a sustained basis. They would
    also share performance data, research on effective approaches, and
    information across schools engaged in reform.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **The highest-poverty schools would also be the highest priority for
    assistance from all federally supported technical assistance
    providers.** Comprehensive regional assistance centers and other
    technical assistance providers would place these schools at the head
    of the line for support, concentrating their efforts where they
    could do the most good.

These monies would raise the average amount of Title I funds that the
highest-poverty schools receive annually by 50 percent to an estimated
\$336,000 for each school. These new monies could go out under the
current formulas to states and districts for their schools with poverty
rates of 75 percent or higher. If states lack schools in the highest
poverty category, they would receive a minimum grant to be spent on
their most impoverished schools.

The resources to support the Targeted High-Performance School Grants
could come from increases in Title I funding and an off-the-top
set-aside for these schools in related federal programs such as 21^st^
Century Learning Communities, Reading Excellence Act, Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund, GEAR UP and Class Size Reduction. A set-aside
of one-third of the FY 2000 monies from these five programs for the
highest-poverty schools would provide about \$990 million under the
administrations' FY 2000 budget request. The remainder to bring the
total to \$1.3 billion could come from channeling the \$320 million
proposed increase in Title I funding to these new grants.

Targeting additional funds to schools with high concentrations of
low-income students has advantages over targeting them on
low-performance*. First, high-performing, high-poverty schools should
not be penalized for their progress.* Nor should low-performing schools
be rewarded for a lack of effort. High-performing schools need support,
recognition, and encouragement to sustain their gains. In addition,
targeting funds on the basis of poverty is consistent with the process
for allocating funds currently and would not require a different
mechanism.

##### Strengthen Instruction

**Progress in using Title I to support improved instructional practices
at the school-level remains limited by the continued use of
paraprofessionals who provide instruction---particularly in the
highest-poverty Title I schools.** Paraprofessionals in high-poverty
schools tend to have less formal education than those in low-poverty
schools, and they are often assigned to teach---sometimes without a
teacher present. While many paraprofessionals have invested large
amounts of time and effort working in Title I schools, and are an
important part of the school community, it is imperative that priorities
for their services be based solely on the needs of students. **Phasing
out** their use in instruction and promoting their use as parent
liaisons or in administrative functions should be a priority.

**Reauthorization should also support the establishment of career ladder
programs for paraprofessionals, so that those desiring to become
credentialed would be supported in doing so.** These programs could
include what some districts are doing already, based on recent survey
data.

**Reauthorization should include resources for the development of
ongoing consumer guides on effective practices.** Schools are moving
toward adopting curriculum and whole school reform models to frame their
improvement efforts. However, little independent research has been
conducted to evaluate the efficacy of comprehensive school reform models
and better understand the conditions under which they can succeed. The
federal government should make such research and evaluation of
comprehensive model programs a priority through systematic study and
annual reporting in a consumer guide. To ensure the integrity and
independence of model program appraisals, a quasi-governmental agency
might be established to oversee the integrity of the evaluation process
and reporting of results. This information would enable schools to
become better educated consumers in selecting and implementing models
most likely to fit their circumstances and contribute to improved
results.

##### Strengthen Parent Involvement

The general direction of Title I parent involvement policies and
compacts on supporting learning is consistent with research. Options
that would strengthen implementation include:

-   Having schools report annually on measurable indicators of the
    effectiveness of parent involvement, as reflected in their own
    policies and compacts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Consolidating or coordinating parent involvement provisions across
    all elementary and secondary programs that have them to form one
    uniform parent provision. Such programs include Title I; Even Start
    Family Literacy; Education of Migratory Children; Parental
    Information and Resource Centers; Impact Aid; Education for Homeless
    Children and Youth; Magnet Schools; 21^st^ Century Community
    Learning Centers; Indian Education; Technology for Education; and
    Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strengthening parent involvement activities in the early elementary
    grades in the areas of supporting reading and family literacy and in
    the middle and high school grades to encourage students to take
    challenging courses.

#### 

##### Focus on Accountability

**The use of school profiles designed to report school results and
progress has been shown to be a powerful tool for accountability and
school improvement. However, profiles often do not effectively reach
parents and community members.** They tend to be difficult to read, even
for the well-educated parent. They are also limited in their scope of
information, with few school report cards presenting information on
teacher quality or student rates of progress. Also schools are limited
by a lack of comparable statewide or national information on what they
are able to accomplish. The federal government should facilitate state
and local school district efforts to provide coherent, comparative
information on school progress to their communities.

**The reauthorization should also ensure that accountability provisions
identify schools in need of improvement based on the best measures
available to states and districts---regardless of whether their final
assessment systems are in place.** Schools already identified for
improvement, should remain so; time should not be lost as a result of
reauthorization in identifying and reaching schools with the greatest
needs.

**Reauthorization should address eliminating dual accountability
systems.** For Title I to be an effective lever for improvement, it
needs to be aligned and supportive of the systems states are creating.

**Finally, Congress and those responsible for implementing and
supporting Title I programs should recognize that state and local
systems of standards, assessments and accountability are in flux and are
likely to keep changing over time.** Even established systems such as
those in Kentucky and Kansas, which were forerunners in the development
of aligned systems of standards and assessments, have revised their
efforts to reflect the priorities of their state legislatures and
boards. The law should recognize this and offer states and districts the
flexibility to continue to implement measures of school accountability
under these conditions.

## Summary

This National Assessment of Title I has examined the program in the
context of the burgeoning standards-based reform movement in states and
school districts. Though there has clearly been progress in implementing
standards at all levels, full implementation in classrooms across the
country has yet to be accomplished. The new directions proposed for
reauthorization are designed to help speed up standards implementation,
to help all children achieve at high levels. Reauthorization should
address the continuing challenges that undercut Title I's capacity to be
a stimulus and support for better results for our nation's at-risk
students.

# APPENDIX A

# 

# TITLE I EVALUATION STRATEGY

# 

##### The Changing Character of Title I

Title I now provides more than \$8 billion per year to fund systemwide
supports and additional resources for schools to improve learning for
students at risk of academic failure, particularly in schools with large
concentrations of low-income children.

The 1994 reauthorization of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act brought about significant changes in key elements of this
program, which focuses on providing at-risk students in low-income
communities with the opportunity to achieve to challenging state
standards.

##### Implications for Evaluation

The 1994 reauthorization mandated the National Assessment of Title I and
an Independent Review Panel of experts and state, local, and parent
representatives to advise on the conduct of the assessment. The National
Assessment benefited from the open discussion and exchange of ideas
generated by the independent review panel.

Because the legislation intended that the Title I program not operate in
isolation from the system it is meant to support, progress cannot be
evaluated in isolation from state and local reform efforts and results.
The National Assessment relied on national measures of academic progress
overall, as well as state and local assessments. Also, the expansion of
schoolwide programs blurred the distinction between program participants
and other children.

Control group evaluations are not feasible, nor would they be legal in
Title I because they would deny services to certain students. There are
no schools similar to Title I schools that are operating outside the
state system of standards. Also, with improved targeting there are
virtually no schools in the highest-poverty categories that are not
receiving Title I funds.

Title I is succeeding only to the extent that the system in which Title
I is investing \$8 billion is succeeding. Specifically, Title I is
succeeding only if its target population of the most educationally
disadvantaged students in Title I schools have better outcomes.

# 

##### The Evaluation Approach

In the absence of a single, large-scale control-group study, the
National Assessment looked at multiple information sources to provide
different perspectives on Title I outcomes for low-achieving students.
The National Assessment used the various sources to determine if they
all appeared to be showing consistent trends in recent student
performance. In addition, the National Assessment looked at
implementation to assess the extent to which implementation was changing
in the intended directions required by the legislation.

A criterion of progress of low-achieving students also overcomes bias
should Title I schools not target their lowest-performing students, but
"cream" their better students to raise test scores.

The indicators used by the National Assessment for Title I are also
consistent with the indicators submitted under the Government
Performance and Results Act legislation. These indicators have been
previously submitted to the Congress.

The methods of the assessment were extensively discussed with the
Independent Review Panel that Congress mandated to advise the
Department.

##### Student Outcomes

The National Assessment of Title I drew from multiple sources to track
the performance of students whom Title I is intended to benefit. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was used because it
is the only national source of information that allows for break-outs by
school poverty and by low achievement. State assessment trends were used
because Title I legislation uses school progress on state assessments as
its indicator of success. Large urban district trends were used because
of their high concentrations of poverty.

-   **Student outcomes on the National Assessment of Educational
    Progress (NAEP) in the highest-poverty schools (76 percent or more
    poverty) long-term trends, and for the most recent main NAEP
    assessment.** All low achievers in these schools should be eligible
    for assistance and Title I should be accountable for their
    improvement. Title I succeeds in these schools only to the extent
    that scores of low achievers improving.

> **Results:** Using the scale scores on the long-term trend assessment
> in reading and math, the NAEP results indicated positive improvements
> in student performance since reauthorization. However, while the
> performance of students in the highest-poverty schools is improving,
> they remain much further behind their peers in meeting basic standards
> of performance in reading and math on the main NAEP assessments.

-   **Trends in student achievement of the very lowest performing
    students in the nation.** Approximately 86 percent of the lowest
    achievers (that is, those below the 10^th^ percentile) are in Title
    I schools. Because Title I is intended to serve the lowest achievers
    and most are in Title I schools, progress in the outcomes of lowest
    achievers is a valid proxy measure for Title I outcomes.

> **Results.** NAEP scores for the lowest achievers in both reading and
> math improved during the 1990s.

-   **Trends in student outcomes in highest-poverty schools on a state's
    own assessment.** The Title I legislation holds schools accountable
    for improving student performance against state performance
    criteria. Because most state assessments are changing, only six
    states could report three-year trends for the percentage of students
    meeting expected levels of performance in the highest-poverty
    schools. Again, in these schools, Title I is working only if all low
    achievers on average are improving.

> **Results.** Scores improved in 5 of 6 states for reading and 4 of 5
> states with data for math.

-   **Trends in student outcomes in the highest-poverty schools (75
    percent or more poverty) in major urban centers.** Large cities are
    places of high concentration of poverty and a major priority group
    for Title I. Virtually all of the highest poverty schools
    participate in Title I, and raising the scores of the lowest
    achievers in these schools is one measure of Title I success.

> **Results.** Among the highest-poverty schools in the largest cities,
> 10 of 13 districts had improvements in either math or reading, and 6
> districts had improvements in both.

-   **One-year longitudinal gains**. The Longitudinal Evaluation of
    School Change and Performance, a study of 71 high-poverty schools,
    links trends in student performance to classroom practices.

**Results.** Although not nationally representative, because of funding
limitations, the study shows that students progress in high-poverty
schools that focus their instruction on challenging standards.

##### Title I Implementation

**Although the implementation of key provisions focused on
standards-based reform under Title I is uneven across the states,
districts, and schools, it is moving overall in the directions the
legislation intended.** The fact that fairly dramatic programmatic
changes have occurred is further evidence of a causal relationship
between the types of system changes intended by Title I and student
outcomes. There are no procedures to evaluate how many of these changes
would have occurred in the absence of Title I, but we do know that
impediments to reform, such as parallel assessment systems, are being
eliminated. Highlights of implementation changes include:

-   Almost all (95 percent) of the highest-poverty schools (75 percent
    or more poverty) received Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 79
    percent in 1993-94.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   States are making progress in implementing state content and student
    performance standards, and principals in Title I schools are
    reporting more use of content standards to guide curriculum and
    instruction in their schools.

-   Instruction focused on challenging standards was associated with
    student gains in achievement in high-poverty schools.

-   Schools are making progress in integrating Title I services with
    their regular academic program, and the percentage of Title I
    schools offering extended learning time has increased from 9 percent
    to 41 percent since 1994.

##### Continuing Challenges to Improve Student Outcomes and Implementation

## The National Assessment of Title I also identified major challenges that continue to confront Title I.

## 

-   **The National Assessment highlights that large gaps in student
    achievement remain between high-poverty and low-poverty schools.**
    The National Assessment explicitly identifies continuing academic
    challenges. For example, in 1998, the percentages of 4^th^‑graders
    in the highest-poverty public schools who met or exceeded the NAEP
    *Basic* level in reading was only about half the national rate, and
    progress in reading is only back to 1988 and 1990 levels.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **The National Assessment also highlights important continuing
    weaknesses in implementation.** Many Title I teachers feel
    ill-equipped to implement standards and are receiving inadequate
    professional development. Teacher's aides with inadequate
    credentials continue to provide instruction, often without a teacher
    present. Technical assistance cannot reach all the schools that have
    been identified for improvement. Accountability in Title I remains
    extremely weak.

# APPENDIX B

+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Descriptions  |       |          |                        |       |
| of Key Program  |       |          |                        |       |
| Evaluations and |       |          |                        |       |
| Other Studies   |       |          |                        |       |
| (Ongoing and    |       |          |                        |       |
| Completed)**    |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
| **That Informed |       |          |                        |       |
| the National    |       |          |                        |       |
| Assessment of   |       |          |                        |       |
| Title I**       |       |          |                        |       |
+=================+=======+==========+========================+=======+
| **Study or      | **Sp  | **Data   | **Data Collected and   | **R   |
| Survey**        | onsor | Pro      | Collection Dates**     | eport |
|                 | /Data | viders** |                        | ing** |
|                 | C     |          |                        |       |
|                 | ollec |          |                        | *     |
|                 | tor** |          |                        | *Date |
|                 |       |          |                        | (s)** |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Baseline      | Pla   | All      | Initial information on | 1998  |
| State           | nning | states,  | implementation of new  |       |
| Implementation  | and   | federal  | provisions of          |       |
| Study**         | Evalu | program  | state-administered     |       |
| ***(Living in   | ation | di       | ESEA and Goals 2000    |       |
| Interesting     | Se    | rectors, | programs. Key issues   |       |
| Times, 1998)*** | rvice | and      | include standards      |       |
|                 | (PES) | state    | development,           |       |
|                 |       | research | assessment systems,    |       |
|                 | C     | or       | technical assistance,  |       |
|                 | ontra | ev       | and state supports for |       |
|                 | ctor: | aluation | school improvement.    |       |
|                 | P     | spe      | Focus is on how        |       |
|                 | olicy | cialists | legislative framework  |       |
|                 | St    | in state | and federal resources  |       |
|                 | udies | e        | are incorporated into  |       |
|                 | A     | ducation | the context of state   |       |
|                 | ssoci | agencies | school improvement     |       |
|                 | ates, |          | efforts.               |       |
|                 | Inc.  |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Collection Date: 1996  |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Follow-Up     | PES   | All      | Follow-up information  | Fall  |
| State           |       | states,  | on implementation of   | 1999  |
| Implementation  | C     | federal  | new provisions of ESEA |       |
| Study**         | ontra | program  | programs and Goals     |       |
|                 | ctor: | di       | 2000. Focus is on how  |       |
| Ongoing         |       | rectors, | legislative framework  |       |
|                 | P     | and      | and federal resources  |       |
|                 | olicy | state    | are incorporated into  |       |
|                 | St    | research | the context of state   |       |
|                 | udies | or       | school improvement     |       |
|                 | A     | ev       | efforts. Key issues    |       |
|                 | ssoci | aluation | include standards      |       |
|                 | ates, | spe      | development,           |       |
|                 | Inc.  | cialists | assessment and         |       |
|                 |       | in state | accountability         |       |
|                 |       | e        | systems, technical     |       |
|                 |       | ducation | assistance, and state  |       |
|                 |       | agencies | support for school     |       |
|                 |       |          | improvement.           |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Collection Date: 1998  |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Baseline      | PES   | District | Baseline information   | 1997  |
| Local           |       | admini   | on districts' efforts  |       |
| Implementation  | C     | strators | to support the         |       |
| Study**         | ontra | of       | implementation of ESEA |       |
| *(Reports* *on  | ctor: | Federal  | programs, particularly |       |
| Reform from the | Urban | ESEA and | Title I, and Goals     |       |
| Field, 1997)*   | Insti | Goals    | 2000 within the        |       |
|                 | tute, | 2000     | context of state and   |       |
|                 | Inc.  | programs | local reforms.         |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       | (na      | Collection Date: 1996  |       |
|                 |       | tionally |                        |       |
|                 |       | repres   |                        |       |
|                 |       | entative |                        |       |
|                 |       | sample)  |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Local         | PES   | Na       | Follow-up information  | S     |
| Implementation  |       | tionally | on districts' efforts  | ummer |
| Study**         | Co    | repres   | to support the         | 1999  |
|                 | ntrac | entative | implementation of ESEA |       |
| Ongoing         | tors: | sample   | programs, particularly |       |
|                 | P     | of       | Title I, and Goals     |       |
|                 | olicy | district | 2000 within the        |       |
|                 | St    | admini   | context of state and   |       |
|                 | udies | strators | local reforms. Focuses |       |
|                 | A     |          | on program governance, |       |
|                 | ssoci |          | supports for effective |       |
|                 | ates, |          | instruction, and       |       |
|                 | Inc.  |          | family/community       |       |
|                 | and   |          | partnerships.          |       |
|                 | Urban |          |                        |       |
|                 | Insti |          | Collection Date: 1998  |       |
|                 | tute, |          |                        |       |
|                 | Inc.  |          |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Public School | PES,  | Public   | Baseline information   | 1998  |
| Surveys on      | O     | school   | on principals' and     | and   |
| Education       | ffice | pr       | teachers' perceptions  |       |
| Reform**        | of    | incipals | of standards-based     | Ja    |
|                 | E     | and      | reform, and the extent | nuary |
| ***(Status of   | ducat | teachers | to which reform        | 1999  |
| Education       | ional |          | activities were being  |       |
| Reform in       | Res   | (na      | implemented in their   |       |
| Public          | earch | tionally | schools during the     |       |
| Elementary and  | and   | repres   | 1995-96 school year.   |       |
| Secondary       | I     | entative | Focused on awareness   |       |
| Schools,        | mprov | sample)  | and implementation of  |       |
| 1998)***        | ement |          | standards and          |       |
|                 | (     |          | assessment systems.    |       |
| ***(Status of   | OERI) |          | Also collected         |       |
| Education       | and   |          | information regarding  |       |
| Reform in       | Nat   |          | parent involvement,    |       |
| Public          | ional |          | sources of technical   |       |
| Elementary and  | C     |          | assistance, and uses   |       |
| Secondary       | enter |          | of technology in the   |       |
| Schools:        | for   |          | classroom. Teacher     |       |
| Teachers'       | Educ  |          | surveys also collected |       |
| Perspectives,   | ation |          | information on         |       |
| 1999)***        | Stati |          | professional           |       |
|                 | stics |          | development.           |       |
|                 | (     |          |                        |       |
|                 | NCES) |          | Collection Date:       |       |
|                 |       |          | 1995-1996              |       |
|                 | C     |          |                        |       |
|                 | ontra |          |                        |       |
|                 | ctor: |          |                        |       |
|                 | We    |          |                        |       |
|                 | stat, |          |                        |       |
|                 | Inc.  |          |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Follow-Up     | PES   | Public   | Follow-up to 1995-96   | June  |
| Public School   |       | school   | survey, addressing     | 1999  |
| Survey on       | C     | pr       | principals'            |       |
| Education       | ontra | incipals | familiarity and        |       |
| Reform**        | ctor: |          | implementation of      |       |
|                 | We    | (na      | standards-based reform |       |
| *               | stat, | tionally | and Title I provisions |       |
| *(*School-Level | Inc.  | repres   | supporting reform,     |       |
| Implementation  |       | entative | changes in Title I     |       |
| of              |       | sample)  | service delivery since |       |
| Standards-Based |       |          | reauthorization,       |       |
| Reform:         |       |          | parent involvement,    |       |
| Findings from   |       |          | technology use, and    |       |
| the Follow-up   |       |          | sources of technical   |       |
| Public School   |       |          | assistance. Data also  |       |
| Survey on       |       |          | collected regarding    |       |
| Education       |       |          | accountability and     |       |
| Reform,         |       |          | school improvement     |       |
| 1999)***        |       |          | status.                |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Collection Date:       |       |
|                 |       |          | 1997-98                |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Longitudinal  | PES   | 71       | Information on the     | S     |
| Evaluation of   |       | el       | impact of              | ummer |
| School Change   | C     | ementary | implementation of      | 1999; |
| and             | ontra | schools  | Title I's              |       |
| Performance**   | ctor: | in       | reauthorization on     | S     |
|                 | We    |          | teaching and learning, | pring |
| *               | stat, | 18       | focusing on the        | 2000  |
| **(Longitudinal | Inc.  | m        | curriculum and         |       |
| Evaluation of   |       | oderate- | instruction enacted in |       |
| School Change   |       | to       | classrooms, on student |       |
| and Performance |       | high     | performance as         |       |
| in Title I      |       | -poverty | measured by a          |       |
| Schools:        |       | school   | nationally uniform     |       |
| Interim Report, |       | d        | instrument, and on     |       |
| 1999)***        |       | istricts | changes over time.     |       |
|                 |       | in 7     |                        |       |
|                 |       | states   | Collection Dates:      |       |
|                 |       |          | Spring 1997, 1998,     |       |
|                 |       |          | 1999                   |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **National      | PES   | School   | Information on how     | 1999, |
| Longitudinal    |       | pr       | schools are            | 2000  |
| Survey of       | C     | incipals | implementing           | and   |
| Schools**       | ontra | and      | standards-driven       | 2001  |
|                 | ctor: | teachers | improvements, with a   |       |
| Ongoing         |       | in       | particular focus on    |       |
|                 | We    | repres   | implementation of the  |       |
|                 | stat, | entative | new Title I provisions |       |
|                 | Inc.  | sample   | supporting such        |       |
|                 |       | of Title | improvements. Also     |       |
|                 |       | I        | examines how schools   |       |
|                 |       | schools  | use their outcome data |       |
|                 |       | and      | to change classroom    |       |
|                 |       | sub      | practice and how they  |       |
|                 |       | -samples | measure progress       |       |
|                 |       | of Title | continuously.          |       |
|                 |       | I        |                        |       |
|                 |       | schools  | Collection Dates:      |       |
|                 |       | serving  | 1998, 1999, 2000       |       |
|                 |       | migrant, |                        |       |
|                 |       | LEP, and |                        |       |
|                 |       | Native   |                        |       |
|                 |       | American |                        |       |
|                 |       | students |                        |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       | (na      |                        |       |
|                 |       | tionally |                        |       |
|                 |       | repres   |                        |       |
|                 |       | entative |                        |       |
|                 |       | sample)  |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Reanalysis of | NCES, | NAEP     | Comparison of          | S     |
| National        | PES   | national | performance on NAEP    | pring |
| Assessment of   |       | and      | for students enrolled  | 1999  |
| Educational     | C     | sta      | in high- and           |       |
| Progress (NAEP) | ontra | te-level | low-poverty schools.   |       |
| National and    | ctor: | results  |                        |       |
| State-Level     |       | (for     | Collection Dates:      |       |
| Results**       | E     | parti    | Analysis conducted in  |       |
|                 | ducat | cipating | 1998 for data          |       |
| Ongoing         | ional | states)  | collected from 1986 to |       |
|                 | Te    | in       | the present. Ongoing   |       |
|                 | sting | reading  | analyses of subsequent |       |
|                 | Se    | and math | NAEP assessments.      |       |
|                 | rvice |          |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **State         | PES   | All      | Student performance    | Feb   |
| Education       |       | state    | data and other key     | ruary |
| Indicators with |       | edu      | state indicators       | 1999  |
| a Focus on      |       | cational |                        |       |
| Title I**       |       | a        | Collection Dates:      |       |
|                 |       | gencies, | 1997-98                |       |
| 1999            |       | NCES     |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Student       | PES   | 13 large | Student performance    | S     |
| Achievement and |       | urban    | data                   | ummer |
| Accountability  |       | d        |                        | 1999  |
| Systems in      |       | istricts | Collection Dates: 1998 |       |
| Urban           |       |          |                        |       |
| Districts**     |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
| Ongoing         |       |          |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Analysis of   | O     | All      | State plans and other  | S     |
| State Plans for | ffice | state    | documentation          | ummer |
| Developing      | of    | e        |                        | 1999  |
| Standards and   | Eleme | ducation | Collection Dates:      |       |
| Assessments**   | ntary |          | 1997-98, ongoing       |       |
|                 | and   | agencies |                        |       |
| Ongoing         |       |          |                        |       |
|                 | Seco  |          |                        |       |
|                 | ndary |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 | Educa |          |                        |       |
|                 | tion, |          |                        |       |
|                 | PES   |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 | Co    |          |                        |       |
|                 | ntrac |          |                        |       |
|                 | tors: |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 | Allen |          |                        |       |
|                 | Sc    |          |                        |       |
|                 | henck |          |                        |       |
|                 | (RMC  |          |                        |       |
|                 | Rese  |          |                        |       |
|                 | arch) |          |                        |       |
|                 | and   |          |                        |       |
|                 | Dale  |          |                        |       |
|                 | Ca    |          |                        |       |
|                 | rlson |          |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Study of      | PES   | All      | Uses of federal        | June  |
| Education       |       | state    | resources from six     | 1999; |
| Resources and   | C     | e        | major federal          |       |
| Federal         | ontra | ducation | programs: Titles I,    | Fall  |
| Funding**       | ctor: |          | II, III, IV, and VI of | 1999  |
|                 |       | agencies | ESEA and Goals 2000.   |       |
| **(*Study of    | Ame   | (50);    | Targeting of these     |       |
| Education       | rican | national | funds among school     |       |
| Resources and   | Insti | sample   | districts and, for     |       |
| Federal         | tutes | of       | Title I, among         |       |
| Funding:        | for   | school   | schools. Federal role  |       |
| Preliminary     | Res   | d        | in providing support   |       |
| Report,         | earch | istricts | for professional       |       |
| 1999*)**        |       | (180),   | development,           |       |
|                 |       | schools  | technology, and        |       |
|                 |       | (720),   | standards and          |       |
|                 |       | t        | assessments.           |       |
|                 |       | eachers, |                        |       |
|                 |       | and      | Collection Dates:      |       |
|                 |       | aides    | 1997-98                |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Evaluation of | PES   | Na       | Trends in private      | 1998  |
| Title I         |       | tionally | school students'       |       |
| Services to     | C     | repres   | participation in Title |       |
| Private School  | ontra | entative | I; consultation        |       |
| Students**      | ctor: | sample   | between Title I        |       |
|                 | P     | of Title | administrators,        |       |
| *(Title I       | olicy | I        | private school         |       |
| Services for    | St    | district | representatives and    |       |
| Private School  | udies | adminis  | parents; procedures    |       |
| Students Under  | A     | trators, | used by districts to   |       |
| the             | ssoci | private  | count the number of    |       |
| Reauthorization | ates, | school   | low-income students in |       |
| of ESEA: A      | Inc.  | represe  | private schools;       |       |
| Snapshot of     |       | ntatives | services available;    |       |
| Federal         |       |          | resource allocations;  |       |
| Assistance in   |       |          | student assessment and |       |
| Transition,     |       |          | program evaluation.    |       |
| 1998)*          |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Collection Dates: 1997 |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Third         | PES   | Universe | Program                | 2000, |
| National        |       | of Even  | characteristics:       | 2002  |
| Evaluation of   | C     | Start    | service delivery and   |       |
| the Even Start  | ontra | local    | intensity.             |       |
| Family Literacy | ctor: | projects |                        |       |
| Program**       |       | (project | Participant            |       |
|                 | Abt   | d        | characteristics:       |       |
| Ongoing         | Assoc | irectors | demographic            |       |
|                 | iates | and      | information on         |       |
|                 | Inc.  | staff)   | families, parents, and |       |
|                 |       |          | children.              |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Participation          |       |
|                 |       |          | outcomes:              |       |
|                 |       |          | participation rates,   |       |
|                 |       |          | literacy outcomes for  |       |
|                 |       |          | parents and children.  |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Collection Dates:      |       |
|                 |       |          | Program years 1997-98  |       |
|                 |       |          | through 2000-01        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Even Start    | PES   | Universe | Program                | 1994, |
| Information     |       | of Even  | characteristics:       | 1997, |
| System (Second  | C     | Start    | service delivery, and  | 1998  |
| National        | ontra | local    | intensity.             |       |
| Evaluation of   | ctor: | projects |                        |       |
| the Even Start  |       | (project | Participant            |       |
| Family Literacy | Fu    | d        | characteristics:       |       |
| Program)**      | Assoc | irectors | demographic            |       |
|                 | iates | and      | information on         |       |
|                 | Ltd.  | staff)   | families, parents, and |       |
|                 |       |          | children.              |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Participation          |       |
|                 |       |          | outcomes:              |       |
|                 |       |          | participation rates,   |       |
|                 |       |          | literacy outcomes for  |       |
|                 |       |          | parents and children.  |       |
|                 |       |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Collection dates:      |       |
|                 |       |          | Program years 1993-94  |       |
|                 |       |          | through 1996-97        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Congressi     | PES   | Na       | Characteristics of     | Ja    |
| onally-Mandated |       | tionally | migrant students and   | nuary |
| Study of        | Co    | repres   | schools, planning and  | 1999  |
| Migrant Student | ntrac | entative | needs assessment,      |       |
| Participation   | tor:\ | school   | instructional and      |       |
| in Title I      | We    | pri      | support services       |       |
| Schoolwide      | stat, | ncipals, | provided, migrant      |       |
| Programs**      | Inc.  | school   | parent involvement,    |       |
|                 |       | staff,   | and funding.           |       |
| 1999            |       | from a   |                        |       |
|                 |       | sample   | Collection date: 1997  |       |
|                 |       | of       |                        |       |
|                 |       | sc       |                        |       |
|                 |       | hoolwide |                        |       |
|                 |       | projects |                        |       |
|                 |       | that     |                        |       |
|                 |       | have     |                        |       |
|                 |       | migrant  |                        |       |
|                 |       | students |                        |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+
| **Support for   | PES   | All      | Characteristics of     | March |
| Data Gathering  |       | state    | migrant students and   | 1998, |
| and Analysis    | C     | coor     | schools, participation | Nov   |
| for the Migrant | ontra | dinators | information, services  | ember |
| Education       | ctor: |          | provided, number of    | 1998  |
| Program**       |       |          | schoolwide, summer,    |       |
|                 | We    |          | and extended time      |       |
| Ongoing         | stat, |          | projects.              |       |
|                 | Inc.  |          |                        |       |
|                 |       |          | Collection date:       |       |
|                 |       |          | 1996-97 and 1997-98    |       |
+-----------------+-------+----------+------------------------+-------+

# Acknowledgments

Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the
National Assessment of Title I was prepared with the ongoing support of
the Independent Review Panel for the National Assessment of Title I and
Federal Programs, led by its chair, Christopher T. Cross, President of
the Council for Basic Education, and vice-chair, Joyce Benjamin,
Associate Commissioner of the Oregon Department of Education.

The report was developed under the direction of Marshall S. Smith, Under
Secretary, Alan L. Ginsburg, Director of the Planning and Evaluation
Service (PES); and Valena W. Plisko, Director of the PES Elementary and
Secondary Education Division, Joanne Bogart, of the PES Elementary and
Secondary Division, served as Project Director for the National
Assessment of Title I.

Staff from PES and others who were instrumental in preparing the Final
Report of the National Assessment of Title I are as follows:

Rolf Blank, Council of Chief State School Officers

Robin Bouckris

Barbara Coates

Kathryn Doherty

Bruce Haslam, Policy Studies Associates

Daphne Hardcastle

Scott Joftus, The McKenzie Group

Jennifer Manise, Council of Chief State School Officers

Ann Milne, American Institutes for Research

Tracy Rimdzius

Mary Rollefson

Beth Sinclair, Westat

Stephanie Stullich

Joanne Wiggins

We would also like to acknowledge the following individuals who
contributed information to the report.

Leslie Anderson, Policy Studies Associates

Denise Borders, The McKenzie Group

Peggy Carr, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES)

Janet Carroll, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education (OESE)

Jay Chambers, American Institutes for Research

Kelly Dedel, National Council on Crime and Delinquency

Arnold Goldstein, U.S. Department of Education, NCES

Babette Gutmann, Westat

Jane Hannaway, The Urban Institute

Camilla Heid, Westat

Gwyneth Hogley, U.S. Department of Education, PES

Hilda Jackson, The Education Trust

Laura Jerry, Educational Testing Service

Joseph Johnson, University of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center

Catherine Jovicich, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Linda LeBlanc, Westat

Joanne Lieberman, American Institutes for Research

John Mazzeo, Educational Testing Service

Shannon McKay, The Urban Institute

Kia McLean, The McKenzie Group

Lois Peak, U.S. Department of Education, PES

Judy C. Pfannenstiel-Research & Training Associates, Inc.

Elizabeth Reisner, Policy Studies Associates

Collette Roney, U.S. Department of Education, PES

Michael Rubenstein, Policy Studies Associates

Mary Ragland, University of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center

Alex Ratnofsky, Westat

Grace Ross, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Allen Schenck, RMC Research

Elois Scott, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Fumiyo Tao, Abt Associates

Mike Tashjian, Research Triangle Institute

Susan Thompson-Hoffman, U.S. Department of Education, PES

Brenda Turnbull, Policy Studies Associates

James Van Campen, American Institutes for Research

Ann Webber, Westat

In addition, we extend our special thanks to representatives from the
state education agencies and local districts, who provided three-year
achievement data. States include Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
North Carolina, and Texas. Local districts include Baltimore City,
Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Jefferson County (Louisville), Kansas
City, KS, Memphis, Miami-Dade, New York City, Philadelphia, San Antonio,
and San Francisco.

We also thank Azalea Saunders (PES), Leila Fiester, Janie Funkhouser,
Joel Hardi, Ben Lagueruela, and Kim Thomas of Policy Studies Associates
and Priscilla Taylor and Rose Wilde for their assistance with the
production of the volume.

Finally, we appreciate the comments provided by the following
individuals:

Virginia Berg, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Thomas Corwin, U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service

Michelle Doyle, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Non-Public
Education

Bruce Gaarder, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Margaret Goertz, University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy
Research in Education

Judith Johnson, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Lonna Jones, U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service

William Kincaid, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Mary Jean LeTendre, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

William Lobosco, Consultant to the U.S. Department of Education

Steve Mancini, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Greg March, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services

Patricia McKee, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Margaret McNeely, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement

(OERI)

Wendy Jo New, Consultant to the U.S. Department of Education

Ann O'Leary, U.S Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary

Oliver Moles, U.S. Department of Education, OERI

Kay Rigling, U.S. Department of Education, Office of the General Counsel

Bayla White, Consultant to the U.S. Department of Education

Miriam Whitney, U.S. Department of Education, Office of the General
Counsel

Jeff Wilde, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

Susan Wilhelm, U.S. Department of Education, OESE

[^1]: The FY 1999 appropriation for Title I (Parts A-E) totaled \$8.357
    billion. U.S. Department of Education, *FY2000 Budget Summary*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education) 15.

[^2]: Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg, *Targeting
    Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School Districts*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^3]: Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James
    Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, *Study of Education Resources
    and Federal Funding: Preliminary Report* (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, 1999).

[^4]: U.S. Department of Education, *The Use of Federal Funds for
    Administrative Costs* (Washington, DC: Author, 1998).

[^5]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *1996-97 Title I Performance Report*.

[^6]: Fumiyo Tao, Beth Gamse, and Hope Tarr, *National Evaluation of the
    Even Start Family Literacy Program: 1994-1997 Final Report*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998) 30.

[^7]: U.S. Department of Education, *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1996-97* (Washington, DC: Author, 1998) 1-48.

[^8]: U.S. Department of Education, *1996-97 Title I Performance
    Report.*

[^9]: Michael Puma, Nancy Karweit, Cristofer Price, Anne Ricciuti,
    William Thompson, and Michael Vaden-Kiernan, *Prospects: Student
    Outcomes Final Report* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1997) 12.

[^10]: Puma et al., *Prospects*, 18.

[^11]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current
    Program and New Directions* (Washington, DC: Author, 1993) 78-82.

[^12]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1,* 94-98.

[^13]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1,* 156-62.

[^14]: States reported are among those from which data were made
    available through the U.S. Department of Education's *Title I
    Performance Report* and subsequent reports made through late
    fall/early winter 1998-99. information will be available in the
    spring of 1999.

[^15]: The McKenzie Group, *Student Achievement and Accountability
    Systems in Urban Districts*, draft (Dec. 23, 1998).

[^16]: Allen Schenck and Dale Carlson, *Standards-Based Assessment and
    Accountability in American Education: A Report on the States'
    Progress, as of 1997, in Implementing the Requirements of IASA,*

    *Title I,* draft (Jan. 28, 1999).

[^17]: Rolf Blank, Jennifer Manise, Barbara Braithwaite, and Doreen
    Langesen, *State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I: 1998*
    (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, February
    1999).

[^18]: Schenck and Carlson*.*

[^19]: Schenck and Carlson*.*

[^20]: U.S. Department of Education, *1996-97 Title I Performance
    Report*.

[^21]: U.S. Department of Education, *Local Implementation Study,
    District Results 1: Flexibility and Accountability*, draft (Nov. 23,
    1998).

[^22]: The McKenzie Group.

[^23]: U.S. Department of Education, *Local Implementation Study*.

[^24]: 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 (October 29, 1998).

[^25]: Camilla Heid and Ann Webber, *School-Level Implementation of
    Standards-Based Reform: Findings from the Follow-up Public School
    Survey on Education Reform* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1999).

[^26]: Heid and Webber.

[^27]: Stullich et al, *Targeting Schools*.

[^28]: U.S. Department of Education, *Use of Federal Funds* iii.

[^29]: U.S. Department of Education, *Use of Federal Funds* iii.

[^30]: Chambers et al, *Study of Education Resources*.

[^31]: Chambers et al.

[^32]: The Education Trust, in collaboration with the Council of Chief
    State School Officers, *Dispelling the Myth: High Poverty Schools
    Exceeding Expectations* (Washington, DC: The Education Trust, 1999).

[^33]: U.S. Department of Education, *Longitudinal Evaluation of School
    Change and Performance: Some Preliminary Findings from First Two
    Years*, draft (Dec. 1998).

[^34]: U.S. Department of Education, *Teacher Quality: A Report on the
    Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers*
    (Washington, DC: Author, 1999) B-23.

[^35]: U.S. Department of Education, *Chapter 1 Implementation Study*
    (Washington, DC: Author) 2-3; Heid and Webber, *School-Level
    Implementation*.

[^36]: Heid and Webber.

[^37]: Chambers et al, *Study of Education Resources*.

[^38]: Chambers et al.

[^39]: Chambers et al.

[^40]: Chambers et al*.*

[^41]: See The Education Trust, *Dispelling the Myth*, and 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 (March 25, 1997).

[^42]: Hawley et al.

[^43]: The Education Trust, 6.

[^44]: Heid and Webber.

[^45]: U.S. Department of Education, *Case Studies of Title I and
    Educational Improvement in Secondary Schools: Preliminary Findings*
    (Washington, DC: Author, 1997).

[^46]: Janie Funkhouser, Elizabeth Stief, and Stacy Allen*, Title I
    School-Parent Compacts: Supporting Partnerships to Improve Learning*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

[^47]:

[^48]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current
    Program and New Directions* (Washington, DC: Author, 1993) xi-xii.

[^49]: Michael Puma, Nancy Karweit, Cristofer Price, Anne Ricciuti,
    William Thompson, and Michael Vaden-Kiernan, *Prospects: Student
    Outcomes Final Report* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1997) 12.

[^50]: ^?^ U.S. Department of Education, *Prospects*, 18.

[^51]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1*, 78-82.

[^52]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1*, 94-98.

[^53]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1*, 156-162.

[^54]: U.S. Department of Education, *Mapping Out the National
    Assessment of Title I* (Washington, DC: Author) 1-3.

[^55]: Title I evaluation funding for evaluations associated with the
    National Assessment of Title I (from 1995-1998) totaled \$21
    million. In contrast, Chapter 1 evaluation funding (from 1989-1994)
    for evaluations associated with the National Assessment of Chapter 1
    (including the *Prospects* study) totaled \$42 million.

[^56]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Poverty
    Estimates by Selected Characteristics," published in Current
    Population Reports, Series P-60-10, *Poverty in the United States*
    and *Income, Poverty, and Valuation of Noncash Benefits*
    (Washington, DC: Author, various years); available at
    [www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty97/pv97est1.html](http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty97/pv97est1.html).

[^57]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Poverty
    Status of People, by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 1997"
    (Historical Poverty Tables - People, Table 3) (Washington, DC:
    Author, Feb. 1999); available at
    [www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov3.html]{.underline}.

[^58]: Laura Lippman, *Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and
    Poverty* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
    Center for Education Statistics, 1996) vi.

[^59]: Michael Puma, Nancy Karweit, Cristofer Price, Anne Ricciuti,
    William Thompson, and Michael Vaden-Kiernan, *Prospects: Student
    Outcomes Final Report* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1997) 10.

[^60]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, *Dropout Rates in the United States: 1996* (Washington,
    DC: Author, 1997) vi.

[^61]: Puma et al., *Prospects* 69-71.

[^62]: Puma et al., *Prospects* iii.

[^63]: Puma et al, *Prospects* vi.

[^64]: Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg,
    *Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
    Districts* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999); Jay
    Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van
    Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, *Study of Education Resources and
    Federal Funding: Preliminary Report* (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, 1999).

[^65]: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
    Improvement, Goal 1 Work Group, *Achieving the Nation's Readiness
    Goal: Technical Report* (Washington, DC: Author, 1993).

[^66]: U.S. Department of Education, *FY 2000 Budget Summary* 15.

[^67]: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service.

[^68]: Chambers et al.

[^69]: Stullich et al.

[^70]: Camilla Heid and Ann Webber, *School-Level Implementation of
    Standards-Based Reform: Findings from the Follow-up Public School
    Survey on Education Reform* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1999); U.S. Department of Education, unpublished
    tabulations from the *1996-97 Title I State Performance Report*.

[^71]: U. S. Department of Education, *The Use of Federal Funds for
    Administrative Costs* (Washington, DC: Author, 1998) vii.

[^72]: U.S. Department of Education, *1996-97 Title I Performance
    Report*.

[^73]: U.S. Department of Education, *1996-97 Title I Performance
    Report*.

[^74]: U.S. Department of Education, *1996-97 Title I Performance
    Report.*

[^75]: ^?^ Fumiyo Tao, Beth Gamse, and Hope Tarr, *National Evaluation
    of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: 1994-97* (Washington, DC:
    U.S. Department of Education, 1998) 30.

[^76]: U.S. Department of Education, *1996-97 Title I Performance
    Report*.

[^77]: Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg,
    *Within-District Targeting of Title I Funds* (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, 1999).

[^78]: Sec. 1501(a)(3) authorizes the Secretary to use data gathered
    through a variety of sources, including the National Assessment of
    Educational Progress and state evaluations, to report on students'
    progress for the National Assessment of Title I.

[^79]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current
    Chapter 1 Program and New Directions* (Washington, DC: Author,
    1993).

[^80]: Unpublished tables from the 1998 NAEP Reading Assessment,
    Educational Testing Service.

[^81]: NAEP measures for low-income status using percent of students
    receiving free and reduced price lunch go back to 1986 in math and
    1988 in reading. For earlier trend data back to 1970, see I.V.S.
    Mullis et. al., *Trends in Academic Progress* (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, 1991). Earlier measures of the gap in
    performance by poverty were made by comparisons of children living
    in advantaged and disadvantaged urban communities. Mullis found some
    closing of the gap in performance between students in advantaged and
    disadvantaged urban communities through the late 1980s.

[^82]: For overall NAEP results in reading, see *NAEP 1994 Reading
    Report Card from the National Assessment of Educational Progress*
    (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, March
    1996) and *NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card* (Washington, DC: National
    Center for Education Statistics, 1998).

[^83]: **NAEP *Basic* Level:** 4^th^-grade students are able to
    demonstrate an understanding of what they read. When reading text
    appropriate for 4^th^-graders, they are able to make relatively
    obvious connections between the text and their own experience and
    extend the ideas in the text by making simple references.

[^84]: **NAEP *Proficient* Level:** 4^th^-grade students are able to
    demonstrate an overall understanding of the text, providing
    inferential as well as literal information. When reading text
    appropriate to the 4^th^ grade, they are able to extend the ideas in
    the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making
    connections to their own experiences. The connection between the
    text and what the student infers should be clear.

[^85]: For overall NAEP results in math, see Clyde Reese, Karen Miller,
    John Mazzeo, and John Dossey, *NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for
    the Nation and the States* (Washington, DC: National Center for
    Education Statistics, February 1997).

[^86]: **NAEP *Basic* Level:** 4^th^-grade students are able to estimate
    and use basic facts to perform simple computations with whole
    numbers, show some understanding of fractions and decimals, and
    solve simple real world problems in all NAEP content areas. Students
    at this level are able to use---though not always accurately---four
    function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. Their written
    responses are often minimal and presented without supporting
    information.

[^87]: **NAEP *Proficient* Level:** 4^th^-grade students are able to use
    whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results
    are reasonable. They have a conceptual understanding of fractions
    and decimals; be able to solve real world problems in all NAEP
    content areas; and use four function calculators, rulers, and
    geometric shapes appropriately. Students performing at the
    proficient level employ problem-solving strategies such as
    identifying and using appropriate information. Their written
    responses are organized and presented both with supporting
    information and explanations of how they were achieved.

[^88]: See Appendix. Not all states participated in the 1996 NAEP state
    math main assessment. In addition, in the case of Delaware, the
    sample size was insufficient to make a reliable estimate for student
    achievement in high-poverty schools in the state.

[^89]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, estimates of
    school-age children and poor children in 1996.

[^90]: Data on school- and student-level participation in Title I and
    achievement results were collected through the 1996‑97 and 1997-98
    Title I Performance Reports. If available states were requested to
    report the percentage of students in high- and low-poverty schools
    meeting the states' established levels of proficiency. Results were
    also requested for disaggregated student groups required once final
    assessments are in place. These findings are reported in more detail
    in Rolf Blank, Jennifer Manise, Barbara Braithwaite, and Doreen
    Langesen, *State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I, 1998*
    (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, Feb. 1999).

[^91]: Data were collected through the 1996-97 Title I Performance
    Report, and the Council of Chief State School Officers. One- and
    two-year trends, in addition to results reported here, are reported
    in Blank et al.

[^92]: Blank et al.

[^93]: The McKenzie Group, *Student Achievement and Accountability
    Systems in Urban Districts* (draft report, Feb. 1999).

[^94]: The McKenzie Group. Exhibits 2.16 through 2.21 are all based on
    data from this study.

[^95]: The School District of Philadelphia reported having no schools in
    the low-poverty category (less than 35 percent eligible for free/
    reduced-price lunch).

[^96]: San Antonio reported having no schools with fewer than 50 percent
    of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch.

[^97]: ^\*^ Content standards broadly define what a student should know
    and be able to do in a given subject area. Performance standards go
    on to define how well a student should perform in those subject
    areas to be considered proficient, advanced, or partially
    proficient.

[^98]: Jennifer O'Day and Marshall Smith, "Systemic Reform and
    Educational Opportunity," in Susan Fuhrman (ed.) *Designing Coherent
    Education Policy* (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1993) 250-312.

[^99]: O'Day and Smith, 289-90.

[^100]: Norman Webb, *Determining Alignment of Expectations and
    Assessments in Mathematics and Science Education*, brief (Madison,
    WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of
    Wisconsin, Jan. 1997)

[^101]: 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* (Washington, DC: Author, Aug.
    1995).

[^102]: U.S. Department of Education, review of standards and assessment
    development process (ongoing).

[^103]: State plans submitted to the U.S. Department of Education were
    reviewed; this review encompassed the process for developing
    assessments, documentation submitted by states for removal of
    conditions identified in the plan reviews, and evidence submitted by
    states regarding the development of content and performance
    standards.

[^104]: Allen Schenck and Dale Carlson, *Standards-Based Assessment and
    Accountability in American Education: A Report on the States'
    Progress, as of 1997, in Implementing the Requirements of IASA,
    Title I,* draft (Jan. 28, 1999).

[^105]: Schenck and Carlson.

[^106]: Rolf Blank, Jennifer Manise, Barbara Braithwaite and Doreen
    Langesen, *State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I: 1998*
    (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, Feb. 1999).

[^107]: Review of state plans and waiver requests.

[^108]: Schenck and Carlson.

[^109]: This exhibit is provided to illustrate the variations in
    expectations established by states in 1996 for achievement in
    8^th^-grade mathematics. Some states, including South Carolina and
    Louisiana, have since developed new assessments and performance
    levels.

[^110]: American Federation of Teachers, *Making Standards Matter*
    (Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers, 1998).

[^111]: Scott Joftus and Ilene Berman, *Great Expectations: Defining and
    Assessing Rigor in State Standards for Mathematics and English
    Language Arts* (Council for Basic Education, January 1998).

[^112]: Chester E. Finn, Jr., Michael J. Petrilli, and Gregg Vanourek,
    "The State of State Standards," *Fordham Report*, Vol. 2, No. 5
    (Washington DC: Fordham Foundation, July 1998) 23-26.

[^113]: 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).

[^114]: Massell, Kirst, and Hoppe, *Persistence and Change: Standards
    Based Reform in 9 States* (Council for Policy Research in Education,
    March 1997).

[^115]: "Aiming Higher," *Achieve*, annual report (Oct. 1998).

[^116]: Schenck and Carlson.

[^117]: Camilla Heid and Ann Webber, *School-Level Implementation of
    Standards-Based Reform: Findings from the Follow-up Public School
    Survey on Education Reform* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1999).

[^118]: Heid and Webber.

[^119]: *"*Quality Counts 1999: Rewarding Results, Punishing Failure",
    *Education Week*, Vol. 18, No. 17 (Jan. 11, 1999).

[^120]: David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan, *Exploring Rapid Achievement
    Gains in North Carolina and Texas* (Washington, DC: National
    Education Goals Panel, 1998).

[^121]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1*
    (Washington, DC: Author, 1993).

[^122]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1*.

[^123]: Jane Hannaway and Kristi Kimball, *Reports on Reform from the
    Field: District and State Survey Results: Final Report* (Washington,
    DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1997) III-64-65.

[^124]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *Follow-Up Survey of State Implementation*.

[^125]: Rolf K. Blank, Jennifer Manise, Barbara C. Braithwaite, and
    Doreen Langesen, *State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title
    I* (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, 1998).

[^126]: Allen Schenck and Dale Carlson, *Standards-Based Assessment and
    Accountability in American Education: A Report on the States'
    Progress, as of 1997, in Implementing the Requirements of IASA,
    Title I*, draft (Jan. 28, 1999).

[^127]: National Association of State Boards of Education, *Public
    Accountability for Student Success: Standards for Education
    Accountability Systems* (Alexandria, VA: Author, 1998) 29-31.

[^128]: The Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, *Title I in Midstream:
    the Fight to Improve Schools for Poor Kids* (Washington, DC: Author,
    1998) 17.

[^129]: Schenck and Carlson.

[^130]: Schenck and Carlson, part IV.

[^131]: Schenck and Carlson, part IV.

[^132]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *1996-97 Title I State Performance Report*.

[^133]: Camilla Heid and Ann Webber, *School-Level Implementation of
    Standards-Based Reform: Findings from the Follow-up Public School
    Survey on Education Reform* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1999).

[^134]: Heid and Webber.

[^135]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *Local Implementation Study, District Results 1: Flexibility and
    Accountability*.

[^136]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-Up State Survey*.

[^137]: Heid and Webber, *School-Level Implementation*.

[^138]: U.S. Department of Education, *Local Implementation Study.*

[^139]: See U.S. Department of Education, *Local Implementation Study*;
    Policy Studies Associates, *Accountability and Flexibility at the
    School District Level: Findings from 12 Sites*, draft (November
    1998) 5-6.

[^140]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-Up State Survey*.

[^141]: Jennifer O'Day and Bethany Gross, *One System or Two?: Title I
    Accountability in the Context of High Stakes for Schools in Local
    Districts and States*, draft (1999).

[^142]: McKenzie Group, *Student Achievement and Accountability Systems
    in Urban Districts*, draft (Feb. 1999).

[^143]: U.S. Department of Education, *Local Implementation Study.*

[^144]: "Quality Counts 1999".

[^145]: O'Day and Gross.

[^146]: O'Day and Gross.

[^147]: 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 (Oct. 29, 1998) 11.

[^148]: Policy Studies Associates.

[^149]: McKenzie Group.

[^150]: Shelly H. Billig, Suzanne Perry, and Nancy Pokorny, *School
    Support Teams: Building State Capacity for Improving Schools*
    (Denver, CO: RMC Research Corporation, 1998) 2-3.

[^151]: Billig, Perry, and Pokorny, 4-5.

[^152]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-Up State Survey*.

[^153]: U.S. Department of Education, *Local Implementation Study*.

[^154]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reports on Reform from the
    Field*, Table 3-6.

[^155]: Billig, Perry, and Pokorny.

[^156]: O'Day and Gross.

[^157]: Heid and Webber, *School-Level Implementation*.

[^158]: "Quality Counts 1999," 87.

[^159]: Southern Regional Education Board, *Getting Results: A Fresh
    Look at School Accountability* (Atlanta, GA: Author, 1998) 16.

[^160]: "Quality Counts 1999," 87.

[^161]: "Quality Counts 1999" 27-36.

[^162]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow Up State Survey*.

[^163]: "Quality Counts 1999," 93.

[^164]: Susan Fuhrman, *CPRE Policy Brief:* *The New Accountability*
    (Philadelphia, PA: Council for Policy Research in Education, Jan.
    1999).

[^165]: "Quality Counts 1999," 83.

[^166]: American Federation of Teachers, *Raising Student Achievement: A
    Resource Guide for Redesigning Low-Performing Schools* (Washington
    DC: Author, 1997).

[^167]: "Quality Counts 1999."

[^168]: "Quality Counts 1999---What To Do When all Else Fails" 37-40.

[^169]: National Center for Education Statistics, *National Adult
    Literacy Survey* (Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education,
    1992).

[^170]: "Reality Check," *Public Agenda* (1998).

[^171]: American Federation of Teachers, *Making Standards Matter 1998*
    (Washington DC: Author, 1998).

[^172]: Jonna Sullivan-Casey, *A Review of the Samuel W. Mason
    Elementary School Project* (ERRN Action Research Institute, May
    1997).

[^173]: "Quality Counts 1999."

[^174]: ^?^ U.S. Department of Education, *The Use of Federal Funds for
    Administrative Costs* (Washington, DC: Author, 1998) iii.

[^175]: U.S. Department of Education, *Use of Federal Funds*, iii.

[^176]: Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba,
    James Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, *Study of Education
    Resources and Federal Funding: Preliminary Report* (Washington, DC:
    U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^177]: Chambers et al.

[^178]: Chambers et al.

[^179]: 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: Educational Research Service, 1999).

[^180]: Average Title I funding in high-poverty schools is based on
    Chambers et al., *Study of Education Resources*; also see Exhibit
    5.3 in this chapter.

[^181]: Allan Odden, "How to Rethink School Budgets to Support School
    Transformation," *Getting Better by Design*,

    Vol. 3 (Arlington, VA: New American Schools, 1997).

[^182]: U.S. General Accounting Office, *State and Federal Efforts to
    Target Poor Students* (Washington, DC: Author, 1998) 4.

[^183]: See Chambers et al.; Judith Anderson, *The Distribution of
    Chapter 1 Services: Which School Districts and Schools Serve
    Students in Chapter 1?* Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
    American Educational Research Association, San Francisco (1992).

[^184]: Chambers et al.

[^185]: Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg,
    *Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
    Districts* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^186]: Chambers et al.

[^187]: Chambers et al.

[^188]: Stullich et al.

[^189]: Stullich et al.

[^190]: Stullich et al.

[^191]: Stullich et al.

[^192]: Stullich et al.

[^193]: Chambers et al. Figures are based on data collected in the
    1997-98 school year. Average school allocations have been adjusted
    to reflect increased appropriations from FY 1997 to FY 1999 and the
    addition of funds that are used for districtwide programs and
    services related to instruction and instructional support.

[^194]: Stullich et al.

[^195]: Chambers et al.

[^196]: Stullich et al.

[^197]: Stullich et al.

[^198]: Chambers et al. These data are based on simulations of each
    formula without any hold-harmless provisions, in order to examine
    the full impact of each formula. Targeted and Incentive Grants were
    simulated at a funding level equal to that of Concentration Grants
    in FY 1999.

[^199]: National Research Council, *Small Area Estimates of Children in
    Poverty: Evaluation of Revised 1993 County Estimates for Title I
    Allocations* (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998) 3.

[^200]: Factors that have caused the effects of the census updates to
    phase in gradually include: (1) the FY 1997 allocations continued to
    rely partly on the decennial data; (2) Congress appropriated
    additional funds in FY 1997 for supplemental allocations to states
    that lost funding due to the new poverty data; (3) a statutory
    hold-harmless provision limits any reductions in Basic Grant funds
    to no more than 5 to 15 percent of the prior year allocation
    (depending on the poverty rate of the county or district); and (4)
    appropriations bills included special 100 percent hold-harmless
    provisions for both Basic and Concentration Grants in FY 1998 and FY
    1999.

[^201]: See, for example, M. Dzialo, S. Shank, and D. Smith, "Atlantic
    and Pacific Coasts' Labor Markets Hit Hard in Early 1990\'s,"
    *Monthly Labor Review* (Feb. 1993).

[^202]: U.S. Department of Education, *Title I Part A Policy Guidance*
    (Washington, DC: Author, 1996) 19.

[^203]: The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program,
    successor to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
    program.

[^204]: National Research Council, *Small Area Estimates of Children in
    Poverty*, 3.

[^205]: Mary Ann Millsap, Marc Moss, and Beth Gamse, *The Chapter 1
    Implementation Study Final Report: Chapter 1 in Public Schools*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1993) 3-6.

[^206]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1: The
    Current Chapter 1 Program and New Directions, Final Report of the
    National Assessment of the Chapter 1 Program* (Washington, DC:
    Author, 1993) 85.

[^207]: Brenda Turnbull, Megan Welsh, Camilla Heid, William Davis, and
    Alex Ratnofsky, *Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and
    Performance in Title I Schools: Interim Report to Congress*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^208]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Tables 48 and 49.
    This analysis is based on a sample of 185 to 197 responding teachers
    in higher-reform districts and 97 to 98 teachers in lower-reform
    districts.

[^209]: See U.S. Department of Education, *Status of Education Reform in
    Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Principals' Perspectives*
    (Washington, DC: Author, 1998) 58; Camilla Heid and Ann Webber,
    *School-Level Implementation of Standards-Based Reform: Findings
    from the Follow-up Public School Survey on Education Reform*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^210]: Heid and Webber, *Follow-Up School Survey*.

[^211]: The Education Trust, in collaboration with the Council of Chief
    State School Officers, *Dispelling the Myth: High Poverty Schools
    Exceeding Expectations* (Washington, DC: The Education Trust, 1999).

[^212]: Heid and Webber, *Follow-Up School Survey*.

[^213]: Heid and Webber, *Follow-Up School Survey*.

[^214]: National Center for Education Statistics, *Status of Education
    Reform in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Teachers'
    Perspectives* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998)
    Table B-2.

[^215]: U.S. Department of Education, *Teacher Quality: A Report on the
    Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers*
    (Washington, DC: Author, 1999) B-59.

[^216]: U. S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance.*

[^217]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Tables 46 and 47.

[^218]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Tables 19 and 39.

[^219]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Tables 53 and 57.

[^220]: U.S. Department of Education, *Teacher Quality*, B-24, B-27.

[^221]: U.S. Department of Education, *Teacher Quality*, B-26.

[^222]: 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 Asssociation (March 25, 1997); Education Trust,
    *Dispelling the Myth*; and the Charles A. Dana Center, University of
    Texas at Austin, *Successful Texas Schoolwide Programs: Research
    Study Results* (Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Oct.
    1996).

[^223]: Michael Knapp, Nancy Adelman, Camille Marder, Heather McCollum,
    Margaret Needels, Patrick Shields, Brenda Turnbull, and Andrew
    Zucker, *Academic Challenge for the Children of Poverty: Findings
    and Conclusions* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
    1993) 32.

[^224]: Knapp et al, *Academic Challenge*, 81.

[^225]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Table 12. Reading
    comprehension and vocabulary skills were measured by the Reading
    closed-ended subtest of the Stanford-9.

[^226]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Table 11.

[^227]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Table 41.

[^228]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Table 26.

[^229]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Tables 34, 35, and
    36.

[^230]: Turnbull et al., *Longitudinal Evaluation*, Table 27.

[^231]: Millsap et al., *Chapter 1 Implementation Study*, 2-3; Heid and
    Webber, *School-Level Implementation*.

[^232]: Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba,
    James Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, *Study of Education
    Resources and Federal Funding: Preliminary Report* (Washington, DC:
    U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^233]: Heid and Webber, *School-Level Implementation*.

[^234]: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, *What
    Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future* (New York: Author,
    1996).

[^235]: Ronald F. Ferguson, "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence
    on How and Why Money Matters," *Harvard Journal on Legislation*,
    28.2 (Summer 1991) 465-498; Ronald F. Ferguson and Helen Ladd, "How
    and Why Money Matters: An Analysis of Alabama Schools," Helen F.
    Ladd (ed.) *Holding Schools Accountable: Performance Based Reform in
    Education* (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1996).

[^236]: William L. Sanders and J.C. Rivers, *Cumulative and Residual
    Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement*,
    research report (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added
    Research and Assessment Center, 1996).

[^237]: U.S. Department of Education, *Reinventing Chapter 1*, 94.

[^238]: Heid and Webber, *School-Level Implementation*.

[^239]: Chambers et al., *Study of Education Resources.*

[^240]: Heid and Webber.

[^241]: Heid and Webber.

[^242]: U.S. Department of Education, *Roles for Education
    Paraprofessionals* 20.

[^243]: Chambers et al.

[^244]: Chambers et al.

[^245]: Chambers et al.

[^246]: Chambers et al.

[^247]: Heid and Webber.

[^248]: Heid and Webber.

[^249]: Chambers et al.

[^250]: Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg,
    *Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
    Districts* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^251]: Chambers et al.

[^252]: Millsap et al., *Chapter 1 Implementation Study* 2-14.

[^253]: Amy Siler, Simeon Stolzberg, Adrienne von Glatz, and William
    Strang, *Meeting the Needs of Migrant Students in Schoolwide
    Programs, Summary Report* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1999) 38.

[^254]: Heid and Webber.

[^255]: Charles A. Dana Center, *Successful Texas Schoolwide Programs*.

[^256]: Heid and Webber.

[^257]: Chambers et al.

[^258]: In a study of 24 school districts with reputations for pursuing
    innovative reforms to improve teaching and learning, Goertz and
    Duffy found that most of these districts "retain control over the
    allocation of most personnel and non-personnel resources to schools.
    Schools have limited control over the size and composition of their
    staff. In most of the study sites, schools' budgetary authority is
    generally limited to the expenditure of Title I, state compensatory
    education, instructional and professional development funds and
    occasional grant monies." Margaret Goertz and Mark Duffy, "Resource
    Allocation in Reforming Schools and School Districts," Margaret
    Goertz and Allan Odden (eds.), *School-Based Financing* (Corwin
    Press, 1999).

[^259]: Chambers et al.

[^260]: U. S. Department of Education, *Extending Learning Time for
    Disadvantaged Students: An Idea book, Volume I, Summary of Promising
    Practices* (Washington, DC: Author, 1995) i.

[^261]: Hawley et al.

[^262]: The Education Trust, 6.

[^263]: Heid and Webber.

[^264]: Millsap et al., *Chapter 1 Implementation Study*; Heid and
    Webber.

[^265]: Chambers et al.

[^266]: Heid and Webber.

[^267]: Chambers et al.

[^268]: Chambers et al.

[^269]: Chambers et al.

[^270]: Chambers et al.

[^271]: Stullich et al., *Targeting Schools.*

[^272]: U.S. Department of Education, preliminary findings from *Case
    Studies of Title I and Educational Improvement in Secondary
    Schools*.

[^273]: Heid and Webber.

[^274]: Heid and Webber.

[^275]: Heid and Webber.

[^276]: U.S. Department of Education, *Status of Education Reform:
    Principals' Perspectives*, 58; Heid and Webber.

[^277]: Heid and Webber.

[^278]: U.S. Department of Education, *Case Studies of Title I*.

[^279]: 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) 3.

[^280]: Jerome V. D'Agostino, Kenneth K.Wong, Larry V. Hedges, and
    Geoffrey D. Borman, *The Effectiveness of Title I Parent Programs: A
    Multilevel Analysis of Prospects Data.* Paper presented at the
    annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
    Diego, April 1998.

[^281]: Joyce L. Epstein, "School/Family/Community Partnerships: Caring
    for the Children We Share," *Phi Delta Kappan*, May, 1995.

[^282]: U.S. Department of Education, *Strong Families, Strong Schools:
    Building Community Partnerships for Learning.* (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, 1994).

[^283]: Adriana de Kanter, Alan Ginsburg, and Ann Milne, *Parent
    Involvement Strategies: A New Emphasis on Traditional Parent Roles*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education*,*1987); A. Henderson
    and N. Berla (eds.), *A New Generation of Evidence: The Family is
    Critical to Student Achievement* (Washington, DC: National Committee
    for Citizens in Education,1994); David Stevenson and David Baker,
    "The Family-School Relation and the Child's School Performance,"
    *Child Development* (1987).

[^284]: Sandra L. Hofferth, *Healthy Environments, Healthy Children:
    Children in Families*, A Report on the 1997 Panel Study of Income
    Dynamics, Child Development Supplement (1998).

[^285]: National Center for Family Literacy, private communication
    (1999).

[^286]: D. Seaman, B. Popp, and S. Darling, *Follow-up Study of the
    Impact of the Kenan Trust Model for Family Literacy* (Louisville,
    KY: National Center for Family Literacy, 1991).

[^287]: William Philliber, Robert Spillman, and Rebecca King,
    "Consequences of Family Literacy for Adults and Children: Some
    Preliminary Findings," *Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy*,
    39 (1996) 558-565.

[^288]: U.S. Department of Education, Partnership for Family Involvement
    in Education, and GTE Foundation, *The Study of Opportunities for
    and Barriers to Family Involvement in Education* (Washington, DC:
    Author, 1998).

[^289]: Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., *The Metropolitan Life Survey
    of the American Teacher 1998.*

[^290]: S. Dauber and J. Epstein, "Parent Attitudes and Practices of
    Involvement in Inner-City Elementary and Middle Schools," in A. T.
    Henderson and N. Berla (eds.), *A New Generation of Evidence: The
    Family is Critical to Student Achievement* (Washington, DC: Center
    for Law and Education, 1993).

[^291]: Oliver Moles, "Collaboration Between Schools and Disadvantaged
    Parents: Obstacles and Openings," in N. Chavkin (ed.), *Families and
    Schools in a Pluralistic Society* (Albany, NY: State University of
    New York Press, 1993).

[^292]: *Reality Check, Fully Annotated Survey Results*, Public Agenda
    (1998).

[^293]: D'Agostino et al.

[^294]: Partnership for Family Involvement in Education.

[^295]: Partnership for Family Involvement in Education.

[^296]: Partnership for Family Involvement in Education.

[^297]: Camilla Heid and Ann Webber, *School-Level Implementation of
    Standards-Based Reform: Findings from the Follow-up Public School
    Survey on Education Reform* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1999).

[^298]: Janie Funkhouser, Elizabeth Stief, and Stacy Allen, *Title I
    School-Parent Compacts: Supporting Partnerships to Improve Learning*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

[^299]: D'Agostino et al.

[^300]: K. Yap and D. Enoki, "In Search of the Elusive Magic Bullet:
    Parental Involvement and Student Outcomes." *The School Community
    Journal*, Fall/Winter 1995*.*

[^301]: Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey and Howard Sandler, "Why Do Parents
    Become Involved in Their Children's Education?" *Review of
    Educational Research*, Spring 1997.

[^302]: U.S. Department of Education, *Overcoming Barriers to Family
    Involvement in Title I Schools* (Washington, DC: Author, 1997).

[^303]: Brenda Turnbull, Megan Welsh, Camilla Heid, William Davis, and
    Alex Ratnofsky, *Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and
    Performance in Title I Schools: Interim Report to Congress*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999), Tables 26 and
    46.

[^304]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*.

[^305]: Partnership for Family Involvement in Education, GTE Foundation,
    and U.S. Department of Education. *Family Involvement in Education:
    A National Portrait* (1998).

[^306]: Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba,
    James Van Campen, and Stephanie Stullich, *Study of Education
    Resources and Federal Funding: Preliminary Report* (Washington, DC:
    U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^307]: Chambers et al., *Study of Education Resources*.

[^308]: "Quality Counts 1999: Rewarding Results, Punishing Failure",
    Education Week, Vol. 18, No. 17 (Jan. 11, 1999)

[^309]: A-Plus Communications, *Reporting Results* (Arlington, VA:
    Author, 1999).

[^310]: U.S. Department of Education. *Parent Involvement in Children's
    Education: Efforts by Public Elementary Schools* (Washington, DC:
    Author, 1998).

[^311]: Heid and Webber, *School-Level Implementation*.

[^312]: U.S. Department of Education, *Overcoming Barriers to Family
    Involvement*.

[^313]: The Department estimates that at least 95 percent of eligible
    private school students who receive Title I services are enrolled in
    religious schools. Of this number, the vast majority are enrolled in
    Catholic schools.

[^314]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *1996-97 Title I Performance Report;* Beth Sinclair and Babette
    Gutmann, *State Chapter 1 Participation and Achievement Information,
    1993-94: Summary Report* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1996).

[^315]: Michael C. Rubenstein, Keith S. Gayler, and M. Bruce Haslam,
    *Title I Services for Private School Students under the
    Reauthorization of ESEA: A Snapshot of Federal Assistance in
    Transition.* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998),
    7-8.

[^316]: Rubenstein et al., 18-20.

[^317]: Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg,
    *Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School
    Districts* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

[^318]: Rubenstein et al., 8-11.

[^319]: Rubenstein et al., 12.

[^320]: Rubenstein et al., 27.

[^321]: Rubenstein et al., 27-31.

[^322]: Rubenstein et al., Exhibit 22.

[^323]: Rubenstein et al., 34.

[^324]: Rubenstein et al., 36.

[^325]: Rubenstein et al., 36-38.

[^326]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from a
    survey of 9 large urban districts regarding the impact of the
    *Agostini* decision on the location of Title I services to private
    school children.

[^327]: Catherine Snow, *Intergenerational Transfer of Literacy*
    (Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
    1996).

[^328]: U.S. Department of Education, *Achieving the Nation's Readiness
    Goal: Technical Report* (Washington, DC: OERI Goal 1 Work Group,
    1993).

[^329]: Judith Alamprese, *Understanding Adult Literacy in the Context
    of Family Literacy* (Chapel Hill: National Center for Early
    Development and Learning, University of North Carolina at Chapel
    Hill, 1998).

[^330]: P.L. 100-297.

[^331]: P.L. 104-134.

[^332]: Section 1001(d).

[^333]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *1996-97 Title I State Performance Report*.

[^334]: For more information on the Head Start Performance Standards,
    see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Program
    Performance Standards for the Operation of Head Start Programs by
    Grantee and Delegate Agencies" (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Health and Human Services, October 1997), 231-232.

[^335]: Robert St. Pierre, Beth Gamse, Judith Alamprese, Tracy Rimdzius,
    and Fumiyo Tao, *Even Start: Evidence from the Past and a Look to
    the Future* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998) 4.

[^336]: St. Pierre et al., 49.

[^337]: Fumiyo Tao, Beth Gamse, and Hope Tarr, *National Evaluation of
    the Even Start Family Literacy Program: 1994-1997 Final Report*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998) 30.

[^338]: St. Pierre et al., 26-28.

[^339]: St.Pierre et al., 27.

[^340]: Fumiyo Tao, Janet Swartz, Robert St.Pierre, and Hope Tarr,
    *National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: 1995
    Interim Report* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
    January 1997), 184-185.

[^341]: St. Pierre et al., 27.

[^342]: St. Pierre et al., 23.

[^343]: A small standardized gain is generally in the range of 0.20
    standard deviation units; a medium or moderate gain is about 0.50,
    and a large standardized gain is in the range of 0.80 (from J.
    Cohen, *Statistical Power Analysis for the Social Science*, 2^nd^
    ed. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988)).

[^344]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program*.

[^345]: Fumiyo Tao, Sherry Khan, Beth Gamse, Robert St.Pierre, and Hope
    Tarr, *National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy
    Program: 1996 Interim Report* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1998) 126.

[^346]: U.S. Department of Education, *National Evaluation of the Even
    Start Family Literacy Program*.

[^347]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 154.

[^348]: U.S. Department of Education, *National Evaluation of the Even
    Start Family Literacy Program*.

[^349]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 157-158.

[^350]: U.S. Department of Education, *National Evaluation of the Even
    Start Family Literacy Program*.

[^351]: U.S. Department of Education, *National Evaluation of the Even
    Start Family Literacy Program*.

[^352]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 148-149.

[^353]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 37. Because of ambiguity in the national
    evaluation (ESIS) data collection form's use of the terms "family"
    and "household," the family income reported may underestimate the
    household income for some Even Start families.

[^354]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 38-40.

[^355]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 41.

[^356]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 47-48.

[^357]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 32.

[^358]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 45.

[^359]: St. Pierre et al., 15.

[^360]: U.S. Department of Education, *National Evaluation of the Even
    Start Family Literacy Program*.

[^361]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 82-83.

[^362]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 106-107, 110.

[^363]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 120.

[^364]: U.S. Department of Education, *National Evaluation of the Even
    Start Family Literacy Program*.

[^365]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 115.

[^366]: Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 112-113.

[^367]: U.S. General Accounting Office, *Elementary School Children:
    Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming Their Education*
    (Washington, DC: Author, 1994) 6.

[^368]: U.S. General Accounting Office 6.

[^369]: U.S. General Accounting Office 5.

[^370]: Allison Henderson, Julie Daft, and Pauline Fong, *State Title I
    Migrant Participation Information: 1996-97* (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, 1998) 1-4.

[^371]: William Strang and Adrienne von Glatz*, Meeting the Needs of
    Migrant Students in Schoolwide Programs: Summary* (Washington, DC:
    U.S. Department of Education, 1999) 7.

[^372]: Henderson et al., *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1996-97* 1-3.

[^373]: Henderson et al., *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1996-97* 1-2, 1-3.

[^374]: Henderson et al., *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1996-97* 1-3.

[^375]: Rolf Blank, Jennifer Manise, Barbara Braithwaite, and Doreen
    Langesen, *State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I: 1998*
    (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, 1999)
    118-119.

[^376]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *Follow-up Survey of State Implementation*.

[^377]: Strang and von Glatz 16.

[^378]: Strang and von Glatz 16.

[^379]: Strang and von Glatz 16.

[^380]: Amy Siler, Simeon Stolzberg, Adrienne von Glatz, and William
    Strang, *Meeting the Needs of Migrant Students in Schoolwide
    Programs: Technical Report of the Congressionally Mandated Study of
    Migrant Student Participation in Schoolwide Programs* (Washington,
    DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999) 38.

[^381]: Siler et al. 52.

[^382]: Siler et al. 42-43.

[^383]: Allison Henderson, Julie Daft, and Pauline Fong, *State Title I
    Migrant Participation Information: 1995-1996* (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, 1998) 2-3.

[^384]: U.S. Department of Education, *State Title I Migrant
    Participation Information: 1996-97* 1-48.

[^385]: Alexander Goniprow, Nicholas Fitzgerald, and Gary Hargett,
    *Internal Report to the U.S. Office of Migrant Education: Findings
    Based on Preliminary Data Collection Activities of the Migrant
    Education Program Trading Partner Study* (Washington, DC: George
    Washington University, Center for Equity & Excellence in Education,
    Feb. 1999) 2.

[^386]: Office of Migrant Education, *Linking Learning, Migrant
    Education Technology Projects* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1998).

[^387]: Goniprow et al. 6.

[^388]: Goniprow et al. 6-7.

[^389]: Henderson et al., *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1996-97* 1-3.

[^390]: Henderson et al., *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1996-97* 1-20.

[^391]: Henderson et al., *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1995-96* 2-2.

[^392]: Henderson et al., *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1996-97* 1-49.

[^393]: Henderson et al., *State Title I Migrant Participation
    Information: 1996-97* 1-20.

[^394]: From Memorandum to State Directors of Migrant Education on
    Consortium Incentive Grant Awards, 1995-1999 (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, Aug. 3, 1998).

[^395]: Memorandum on Consortium Incentive Grant Awards, 1995 to 1999.

[^396]: Improving America's Schools Act 1994, P.L. 103-382 Section 1304
    (b)(3).

[^397]: Leslie Anderson and Brenda Turnbull, unpublished tabulations
    from *Living in Interesting Times: Early State Implementation of New
    Federal Education Laws*.

[^398]: Howard N. Snyder, "Juvenile Arrests 1996," *OJJDP Juvenile
    Justice Bulletin* (1998) 2.

[^399]: Linda A. LeBlanc, Judy C. Pfannenstiel, and Michael D. Tashjian,
    *Unlocking Learning: Chapter 1 in Correctional Facilities, Final
    Report: National Study of the Chapter 1 Neglected or Delinquent
    Program* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1991) ix.

[^400]: LeBlanc et al. 2-11.

[^401]: LeBlanc et al. ix.

[^402]: LeBlanc et al. Ch 4.

[^403]: LeBlanc et al. 3-6.

[^404]: LeBlanc et al. 4-7.

[^405]: LeBlanc et al. 4-8.

[^406]: LeBlanc et al. 4-12.

[^407]: LeBlanc et al. 3-5.

[^408]: LeBlanc et al. 3-12.

[^409]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *1996-97 Title I Performance Report*.

[^410]: U.S. Department of Education, *1996-97 Title I Performance
    Report*.

[^411]: Leslie Anderson and Brenda Turnbull, *Living in Interesting
    Times: Early State Implementation of New Federal Education Laws*
    (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

[^412]: Anderson and Turnbull, *Living in Interesting Times*.

[^413]: Anderson and Turnbull, *Living in Interesting Times*.

[^414]: Kelly Dedel, *Feasibility Study to Improve the Quality and
    Availability of Educational Data on Incarcerated Youth* (Washington,
    DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

[^415]: Anderson and Turnbull 20.

[^416]: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the
    *Follow-up Survey of State Implementation.*

[^417]: Anderson and Turnbull 30; U.S. Department of Education,
    *Follow-up State Survey.*

[^418]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-up State Survey*.

[^419]: Anderson and Turnbull, *Living in Interesting Times* 2.

[^420]: Anderson and Turnbull; U.S. Department of Education *Follow-Up
    State Survey*.

[^421]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-Up State Survey*.

[^422]: Anderson and Turnbull, *Living in Interesting Times* 2.

[^423]: Anderson and Turnbull, *Living in Interesting Times* 3.

[^424]: Anderson and Turnbull, *Living in Interesting Times* 65.

[^425]: U.S. Department of Education, *Title I State Performance
    Report.*

[^426]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-up State Survey*.

[^427]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-up State Survey*.

[^428]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-up State Survey*.

[^429]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-up State Survey*.

[^430]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-up State Survey*.

[^431]: Dedel, *Feasibility Study*.

[^432]: Kelly Dedel, unpublished preliminary findings of *Synthesis of
    Title I, Part D Evaluations* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
    Education, 1999).

[^433]: Dedel, *Synthesis of Part D Evaluations*.

[^434]: Dedel, *Synthesis of Part D Evaluations* 6.

[^435]: Dedel, *Synthesis of Part D Evaluations* 2.

[^436]: Dedel, *Synthesis of Part D Evaluations* 2.

[^437]: U.S. Department of Education, *Follow-up State Survey*.