**Report to Congress on the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act***

**State-Reported Data for School Year 2013–14**

**U.S. Department of Education**

**Office of Elementary and Secondary Education**

2016

****

**U.S. Department of Education**

John B. King, Jr.

*Secretary*

**Office of Elementary and Secondary Education**

Ann Whalen

*Senior Advisor to the Secretary*

*Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of*

*Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education*

September 2016

This report is in the public domain.  Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted.  While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, *Report to Congress on the*Elementary and Secondary Education Act*: State Reported Data for School Year*

*2013–14,* Washington, D.C., 2016.

**This report is available on the Department’s website at****http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/nclbrpts.html****/.**

**Availability of Alternate Formats**

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, or CD Rom should be submitted to Sarah Newman; 202-453-6956 or via email at sarah.newman@ed.gov.

**Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons**

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public.  These language assistance services are available free of charge.  If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.  

Or write to 

U.S. Department of Education

Information Resource Center

LBJ Education Building

400 Maryland Ave. SW

Washington, DC 20202.

1

ii

lvii

Contents

Exhibitsv

Executive Summaryix

A.*ESEA* Report to Congress2

II. Methodology5

A.Data Sources5

B.Data Presentation5

C.Protecting Personally Identifiable Information6

D.Data Limitations and Use6

III. State Standards and Assessment Systems8

A.Background9

B.Results10

IV. Student Performance12

A.Background12

B.Achievement Results–Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts12

C.Achievement Results–Science33

V. English Language Acquisition41

A.Background41

B.Results41

1.All LEP Students43

2.   LEP Students Served by Title III43

VI. Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress and School Identification47

A.Background47

B. Results48

VII. Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services53

A.Background53

B.Results53

VIII. Highly Qualified Teachers56

A.Background56

B.Results56

IX. Summary59

# Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Approval Status Definitions10

Exhibit 2: Approval Status of State Assessment Systems as of December 201211

Exhibit 3: Percentage of Fourth-Grade, Eighth-Grade, and High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts, by State and Grade: 2013-1413

Exhibit 4: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013-1414

Exhibit 5: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1415

Exhibit 6: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–1416

Exhibit 7: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1417

Exhibit 8: Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013-1418

Exhibit 9: Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1419

Exhibit 10: Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013-1420

Exhibit 11: Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1421

Exhibit 12: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013-1422

Exhibit 13: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1423

Exhibit 14: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013-1424

Exhibit 15: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1425

Exhibit 16: Percentage of All Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and School Level: 2013-1427

Exhibit 17: Percentage of Elementary School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013-1428

Exhibit 18: Percentage of Elementary School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1429

Exhibit 19: Percentage of Middle School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013-1430

Exhibit 20: Percentage of Middle School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1431

Exhibit 21: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013-1432

Exhibit 22: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013-1433

Exhibit 23: Number and Percentage of All LEP Students and *Title III*-Served LEP Students, by State: 2013-1435

Exhibit 24: Languages Most Commonly Spoken at Home by LEP Student Populations: 2013-1436

Exhibit 25: Number of All LEP Students Tested for ELP and the Percentage Who Attained Proficiency in English, by State: 2013-14 38

Exhibit 26: Percentage of *Title III*-Served LEP Students Making Progress and Attaining ELP Annual Measurable Achievement Objective Results, by State: 2013-1439

Exhibit 27: Number and Percentage of *Title I* Schools Identified for Improvement (Total of All Five Stages of Improvement), by State: 2010-11 to 2014-1542

Exhibit 28: Number and Percentage of *Title I* Schools Identified for Improvement, by State and Stage of Improvement Status: 2014-1543

Exhibit 29: Number of Priority and Focus Schools, by State: 2013-1444

Exhibit 30: Number and Percentage of All Public Schools and *Title I* Schools Making AYP, by State: 2013-1445

Exhibit 31: Percentage of Eligible Students Who Participated in *Title I* Public School Choice, by State: 2008-09 to 2013-1447

Exhibit 32: Percentage of Eligible Students Receiving Supplemental Educational Services, by State: 2008-09 to 2013-1448

Exhibit 33: Number of States Reporting That More Than 75 Percent and More Than 90 Percent of Core Academic Classes in High-Poverty Schools Were Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, by School Level: 2013-1450

Exhibit 34: Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, by State, School Level, and Poverty Level: 2013-1451

Executive Summary

The *Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965*(*ESEA*), as amended by the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*, requires the Department of Education (Department) to submit annually to Congress a report that provides state-level data as well as national-level data based on the information collected by the Department under *Title I*, Part A of the *ESEA,* as reported by states.     

This annual report on state-reported data for school year 2013–14 includes information on: state standards and assessment systems, student performance, English language acquisition, accountability, public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES), and highly qualified teachers.  In addition to the 2013–14 school year data, the report contains multiyear data and national summary data.  It also includes information about the data collections, data presentation, and data limitations.

*State standards and assessment systems.*  This section discusses the expectations and timelines established in the *ESEA* for states to develop their unique standards and assessment systems.  It includes information about each state’s approval status for its assessment system as of December 2012.[footnoteRef:2] [2:  Peer review of state assessment systems was suspended in 2012; therefore approval statuses are as of December 2012.] 

*Student performance.*  Student performance is measured by assessing students against state achievement standards.  Students are assessed annually in third through eighth grade and at least once in high school in mathematics and reading/language arts.  Students are assessed at least once in grades three–five, six–nine, and 10–12 in science.  The data are disaggregated by various subgroups.  This section of the report presents state-reported data on fourth-grade, eighth-grade, and high school[footnoteRef:3] students in reading/language arts and mathematics, and the grades tested in science.  [3:  States are required to report on only one grade in the high school grade span (grades 10–12).  Since states reported on different grades in this span, the data are labeled as “high school” for reporting purposes.] 

*English language acquisition.**Title III* of the *ESEA* is intended to improve the education of limited English proficient (LEP) students.  There are specific requirements and achievement objectives required under *Title III*, all designed to help LEP students attain English language proficiency (ELP) and proficiency in academic subjects.  This section includes information about the English language proficiency of all LEP students and the extent to which students served by *Title**III* are making progress in learning English, attaining proficiency in English, and attaining proficiency in English language arts and mathematics.

*Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and schools identified for improvement[footnoteRef:4] or as priority and focus schools under the*ESEA*flexibility principles. [footnoteRef:5]*  This section discusses reporting requirements for two groups of states.  First, states that were not approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility in the 2013–14 school year must continue to establish targets for schools and districts to demonstrate AYP toward the goal of all students reaching the proficient level on state reading and mathematics assessments by 2013–14.  These states identify schools for improvement if they miss AYP targets for two consecutive years or more.  Second, states that are approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility identify “priority schools,” which are the state’s lowest-performing *Title I* schools and “focus schools,” which are the state’s *Title I* schools with the greatest achievement gaps.  This section of the report presents state-reported data on (1) the number of schools making AYP and numbers of schools in the various improvement stages for non-*ESEA* flexibility states, and (2) the number of priority and focus schools for *ESEA* flexibility states.  [4:  The term “improvement” is used throughout the report as shorthand for “improvement,” “corrective action,” or “restructuring” as defined by ESEA.  The term “identified schools” is used throughout the report as shorthand for “priority” and “focus” schools.]  [5:  For additional information on ESEA flexibility principles, see http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html.] 

*Public school choice and supplemental educational services.*  Under the *ESEA*, school districts must offer specific educational options to parents of students in *Title I* schools that are identified for improvement.  Beginning with the first year of improvement, they must offer parents the option to transfer their child to another school in the district not identified for improvement.  If the school remains in improvement status for an additional year, the district must offer parents of economically disadvantaged students the option for their child to receive supplemental educational services, such as tutoring.  Districts must continue to offer these options to parents of eligible students so long as the students’ school is in one of the various improvement stages.  This section includes information about the number of students eligible for and participating in these two options.  Starting with the 2012–13 school year, many states approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility did not report these data, as the requirements pertaining to public school choice and supplemental educational services have been waived.

*Highly qualified teachers*.  The *ESEA* requires states to ensure that teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified.  In order to be considered highly qualified, a teacher must have a bachelor’s degree, meet state-defined standards for licensure and certification, and demonstrate subject-matter competency.  There are additional requirements for special education teachers.  The Department measures compliance with this requirement by collecting state-reported data on the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers.  The information is disaggregated by elementary and secondary schools, and by high-poverty and low-poverty designations.

Collectively, the data in this report provide a variety of snapshots of state-reported data under the *ESEA*.  It should be noted that all data in this report are reported by states.  The states are responsible for submitting complete and timely data and for verifying the accuracy of the information they report.

iv

iii

**I. Introduction**

The *Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965*(*ESEA*), as amended by the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*, is the major federal law governing elementary and secondary education.  The *ESEA* requirements that were in effect for the 2013–14 school year include the following:

· *Assessments in mathematics, reading/language arts, and science*.  States must test all students annually in mathematics and reading/language arts in the third through eighth grades and at least once in high school.  States also must test all students in science at least once in grades three–five, six–nine, and 10–12.  State assessments must be aligned with each state’s own academic content and achievement standards.  In the 2013–14 school year, 14 states administered a college- and career-ready field test to all or a sample of students in their state.  The Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments. 

· *Disaggregated data and parent notification*.  States, districts, and schools must publicly report data on student achievement for all students and for the following subgroups:  major racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, LEP students, migrant students, and gender.  In addition, states and districts must inform parents in a timely manner about the quality of their child’s school, disseminate clear and understandable school and district report cards, and provide parents and the public with an accurate assessment of the quality of the teaching force.

· *Proficiency by 2013–14*.  States must include all students in school accountability systems and define increasingly challenging annual targets for assessment results that culminate in the expectation of all students doing grade-level work on state assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2013–14.  States that are approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility must adopt college- and career-ready standards and may set new annual targets for assessment results that are ambitious but achievable, but do not need to culminate in 100 percent proficiency by 2013–14.

· *Public school choice and supplemental educational services*.  Beginning with the first year of improvement, districts must provide parents of students attending *Title I* schools identified for improvement the option to move their child to a school in the district that is not identified for improvement.  Beginning with the second year of improvement, districts must provide parents of economically disadvantaged students in these schools the option for their child to receive supplemental educational services.  Starting with the 2012–13 school year, many states approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility did not report these data, as the requirements pertaining to public school choice and supplemental educational services were waived.

· *Highly qualified teachers*.  States are responsible for ensuring that all students have access to highly qualified teachers in public elementary and secondary school core academic subjects.

## A. *ESEA* Report to Congress

# 

# Under *ESEA*Section 1111(h)(5), the secretary of education is required to transmit to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions a report that provides state-level data for each state receiving assistance under *Title I*, Part A of the *ESEA*.  In this report to Congress, the Department is submitting state-reported data for school year 2013–14 in the following areas:

# 

# · *State standards and assessment systems*.  Information is provided on each state’s status as of December 2012 in adopting challenging academic content and student achievement standards as well as in developing and implementing academic assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science as required for each state under Section 1111(b)(3).

# 

# · *Student performance*.  Data tables in the report summarize the percentage of all students scoring at or above proficient on assessments administered in the 2013–14 school year in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science.  Data are also disaggregated by major racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, LEP students, migrant students, and gender.

# 

# · *English language acquisition*.  Information is provided on the acquisition of ELP and academic content proficiency by LEP students.

# 

# · *Accountability*.  The report includes data on the number of *Title I* schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under *ESEA* Section 1116(b) for the 2014–15 school year.  It also contains counts of priority and focus schools for states that are approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility. 

# 

# · *Public school choice and supplemental educational services*.  Data tables summarize the percentage of students in *Title I* schools who participated in public school choice and supplemental educational services under *ESEA* Sections 1116(b) and 1116(e) during school years 2009–10 through 2013–14.  Starting in the 2012–13 school year, only some states reported these data since the requirements were waived for many states approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility. 

# 

# · *Highly qualified teachers*.  Information is provided on the percentage of public elementary and secondary school core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in each state during school year 2013–14.  

# 

There are a number of other U.S. Department of Education reports and studies that offer additional information on elementary and secondary education, such as:

· The National Assessment of Educational Progress State-level data[footnoteRef:6]  [6:  Available at  http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard] 

· *The Condition of Education*[footnoteRef:7] [7:  Available at  http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ ] 

· *State and Local Implementation of the*No Child Left Behind Act[footnoteRef:8] [8:  Available at  http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html] 

· *The Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress on the Implementation of the*Title III*State Formula Grant Program*[footnoteRef:9] [9:  Available at  http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html] 

· *SY 13–14 Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) National Data Summary*[footnoteRef:10]  [10:  Available at  http://www2.ed.gov/programs/homeless/performance.html   ] 

All websites listed throughout this report were last accessed June 2016.

# 

# **II. Methodology

## A. Data Sources

# The primary source of data for this report is the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR)[footnoteRef:11] for the 2013–14 school year, which is a tool that the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education are required to use to report certain data annually to the Department.[footnoteRef:12]  Data collected through the CSPR are submitted in two parts.  Part I of the CSPR requests information related to the five *ESEA* goals, established in the Consolidated State Application.  It also provides data for the report to Congress on *ESEA* programs, as described in Section 1111(h)(4) of the act.[footnoteRef:13]  Part II of the CSPR collects information about outcomes of specific *ESEA* programs.  It also provides data for the Department’s program offices to assess program performance, monitor program requirements, and meet other reporting requirements.  Unless otherwise indicated, Part I of the CSPR is the source for all data in this report. [11:  The CSPR is at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html.]  [12:  The remainder of the report will use the term “state” to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.]  [13:  Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ESEA02/index.html.] 

# 

ED*Facts* is the current vehicle for populating 70 percent of the CSPR data.  The remainder of the data are manually entered through the CSPR online reporting system.  ED*Facts* is a collaborative effort among the Department, state educational agencies (SEAs), and industry partners to centralize state-reported data into one federally coordinated, K–12 education data repository located in the Department.  It allows the Department to use technology to streamline data collection efforts and reduce the reporting burden on states.  The data collected in ED*Facts* and used for the CSPR are aggregated, individual-level data, representing the number of students or teachers meeting specific criteria (e.g., the number of fourth-grade students participating in the state mathematics assessment, the number of students served under *Title I,* etc.).  High-quality data about all aspects of education continue to be critical in informing the Department’s actions and providing transparency into state education efforts.  More information about ED*Facts* can be found on the Department’s website.[footnoteRef:14] [14:  The EDFacts initiative is at http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html.] 

Data included in this report are also available on ED Data Express,[footnoteRef:15] an interactive Web tool for exploring K–12 data.  ED Data Express was first launched in August 2010, and is a Department initiative to make high-value data sets more accessible and transparent.   [15:  ED Data Express is at  http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/.] 

## B. Data Presentation

Data in this report are displayed in tables by state and in national summary charts.  Some tables include detailed data for a single school year; other tables include multiple years of data to show trends.  Many of the tables have symbols in some cells indicating that the data have been protected (the privacy protection process is described later in this section).  Some tables have dashes (-) in certain cells, which indicate that the data are not available for that state.  A number symbol (#) indicates that the data round to zero.

When applicable, tables include totals.  These totals are created by summing the individual state responses for a given category.  If data are not available for a state, they are not included in the total, and as such the total may not necessarily be an accurate reflection of national trends.  National summary data are intentionally excluded in many tables because aggregating data when there are differences across states in data definitions would not produce a meaningful value. 

## C. Protecting Personally Identifiable Information 

Section 444 of the *General Education Provisions Act*, commonly known as the *Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act* (*FERPA*) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 *Code of Federal Regulations*, Part 99),[footnoteRef:16] requires the Department to protect the privacy of personally identifiable information (PII) from students’ education records.  This includes ensuring that the Department does not release data that alone or in combination with other data elements could reveal the identity of individual students.  The Department applies privacy protection rules to all potentially personally identifiable information in order to meet this requirement.  For all tables containing information about student outcomes, data have been protected using a mixture of blurring and suppression.  Suppression is a privacy protection methodology in which small counts, or values based on small counts, are removed from a data table entirely.  Blurring is a methodology used to reduce the precision of the published data.  Examples of blurring include rounding and reporting percentages and ranges instead of exact counts.  In this report, numbers less than six are suppressed, with complementary suppression applied in cases where there is a total that could be used to undo the suppression.  Results approaching 0 percent or 100 percent for any larger group of students are top and bottom coded (e.g., <10% or >90%).  The magnitude of the top and bottom coding depends on the size of the student group, with a larger band for smaller student counts.  Suppressed cells are marked with an “n<.”  Blurred cells are marked by using a percentage point range instead of publishing the actual value.  Finally, all values that do not require suppression or blurring are rounded to the nearest whole number or the nearest tenth, depending on the size of the student group. [16:  Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act is at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html.] 

## D. Data Limitations and Use

	It is important to note that there are many limitations to using state-reported education data.  Most importantly, there is variation in how states define and measure these data.  States independently develop their own standards and assessment systems, and set their own cut scores[footnoteRef:17] to measure student performance.  Many states have also changed their systems during the period covered by this report.  In the 2013–14 school year, 14 states administered a college- and career-ready field test to all or a sample of students in their state.  The Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.  As a result, it is not possible to compare certain data across states, and frequently not even possible to compare data within the same state across years.  Variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated before comparing data across grade levels.  The state data included in this report are descriptive, and the reader should not make cause-effect inferences based on these data. [17:  “Cut scores” are the scores on a standardized assessment that a student must reach to be assigned to a certain level of proficiency (e.g., basic, proficient, advanced).] 

	The CSPR should be looked at as a snapshot of state data as of a particular date.  The reporting system for CSPR is closed in March of each year, after which states can no longer update their CSPR data.  States can update their data for the 2013–14 school year in ED*Facts*, but those changes will not be reflected in the CSPR.  As a result, the CSPR might not always contain the most current information.  

All data in this report are reported by states.  The states are responsible for submitting complete and timely data and for verifying the accuracy of the information they report.

# *.*III. State Standards and Assessment Systems

## A. Background

The *ESEA* requires states to develop challenging student academic standards and assessment systems.  Academic standards include two components: (1) academic content standards and (2) academic achievement standards.  State assessment systems must be aligned with both state-adopted academic content and achievement standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science, so that state standardized assessments measure student performance against state-adopted academic content standards.  The alignment between these two standards and state selected assessments allows states–as well as parents, community members, and other stakeholders–to see the progress that schools and students are making toward performing at grade level in mathematics, reading/language arts, and science.  This enables all stakeholders to hold schools and school districts accountable for student achievement.

States are responsible for developing their own academic content and achievement standards and assessments.  Under the *ESEA,* state academic content standards must

```
· be the same academic standards that the state applies to all public schools and public school students in the state;
```

```

```

```
· specify what all students are expected to know and be able to do;
```

```

```

```
· include at least mathematics, reading/language arts, and science; and
```

```

```

· contain coherent and rigorous content, and encourage the teaching of advanced skills.

Academic achievement standards must define at least two levels of proficiency (such as “proficient” and “advanced”) and at least one level for students who are not yet proficient in the content for their grade.  Separate standards must be set for each grade level and subject assessed.  A state may develop alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and, in 2013-14, modified academic achievement standards for certain other students with disabilities.  Each state must develop at least one alternate assessment.  The decision of whether to base this alternate assessment on grade-level, alternate, or modified achievement standards is left to the state.   Additionally, states must develop English language proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments that are aligned with the attainment of the state’s academic content and achievement standards.

All students must be measured by the assessments, and the results must be reported publicly for all students and disaggregated on the basis of major racial/ethnic subgroups, English language proficiency, disability status, status as economically disadvantaged, migrant status, and gender. 

For more information on standards and assessments established under the *ESEA*, please view the report on accountability under the *ESEA*, posted on the Department’s website.[footnoteRef:18]  [18:  State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Volume IX – Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report is available at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-accountability/nclb-accountability-final.pdf.] 

## B. Results

State standards and assessment systems under *Title I* are peer reviewed and approved by the Department.  As of December 2012, when the Department suspended peer review in light of revising its guidance, a majority of states either had their systems approved or they were pending approval.  Specifically,  

· 37 states (including Puerto Rico) were *fully approved* or *fully approved with recommendations*; 

· no states were identified as *approval expected;*

· 13 states (including the District of Columbia) were identified as *approval**pending*; and 

· two states were identified as *in process.*

Exhibit 1 provides full definitions of each approval status.

Exhibit 1

Approval Status Definitions

*Full Approval:*  A state’s standards and assessment system meets all statutory and regulatory requirements.

*Full Approval With Recommendations:*A state’s standards and assessment system meets all statutory and regulatory requirements, but the Department recommends that the state do additional work to improve the system in specific areas.  

*Approval Expected*:  A**state has submitted evidence to show that its system likely meets all requirements, but certain elements are not yet complete due to the nature of assessment development.

*Approval Pending*:**A state’s system does not meet all the statutory or regulatory requirements, or it is missing necessary components.

*In Process:*The state has submitted evidence of new or revised assessments for which there remain a few outstanding issues.  

These numbers have fluctuated over time as states’ approval statuses have changed based on various factors.  For example, if a state makes a significant change to its standards and assessment system, it must resubmit evidence showing that the system still meets statutory and regulatory requirements.  Many states that previously had received full approval for their reading/language arts and mathematics assessments have had a change in their status designation as their science achievement standards and assessments move through the review and approval process.  Most states have developed new standards and assessments since that time.  The Department re-launched peer review in September 2015 and all states will be expected to submit documents regarding the technical quality of their systems for review by external experts, beginning in spring 2016.  Exhibit 2 displays state-by-state approval statuses as of December 2012.

Exhibit 2

**Approval Status of State Assessment Systems as of December 2012**

NOTES: A state receives Department approval when the assessment system, including for reading/language arts, mathematics, and science, has met all statutory and regulatory requirements of the *ESEA*.  In December 2012, the Department suspended peer review of state assessment systems under *Title I*in order to review and revise the peer-review process.  Almost all states have developed (and are now administering) or are developing new assessment systems aligned with college- and career-ready standards.  The Department released updated guidance in September 2015 and re-launched the peer review process, to begin in 2016.  

The dashes (-) indicate that the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) does not have its own assessments that are subject to peer review.  Under regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, BIE schools use the assessments of the states in which they are located.  

SOURCE: State-provided data.

#  IV. Student Performance

## A. Background

	Student performance on state assessments is reported as the percentage of students tested who are performing at or above the proficient level for that state.  These data are most appropriately used as snapshots of how students performed on the assessments in a particular state and year.  Since states have discretion in how they develop their content and achievement standards, assessment systems are different from state to state, so comparisons across states should not be made.  Some states have more rigorous standards than others, which affects the percentage of students who reach the proficient level.  Because many states have also changed their assessment systems over the years, such as administering a field test and/or changing their state academic standards in the 2013–14 school year, it is often not appropriate to compare results across years.  The state data are descriptive, and thus the reader should not make causal inferences based on these data.

	States are required to report student proficiency results in mathematics and reading/language arts by subgroup, in grades three–eight and high school. States are required to report student proficiency results in science by subgroup and by the following grade spans: elementary (grades three–five), middle (grades six–nine), and high school (grades 10-12).

## B. Achievement Results–Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts

School year 2013–14 results in mathematics and reading/language arts for the “all students” group in fourth grade, eighth grade, and high school, and disaggregated results for fourth-grade, eighth-grade, and high school students are included as exhibits 3–15.  

Exhibit 3

**Percentage of Fourth-Grade, Eighth-Grade, and High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts, by State and Grade: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing. 

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.	

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

***Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and, South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state.  

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 4

**Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy. 

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete. 

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

***Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state.

 The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report.:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 5

**Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.****n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.****† indicates that the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and West Virginia do not have migrant programs. 

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete. 

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

*** Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state.The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments. 

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 6Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–14 

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.    

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete. 

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

***Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state. 

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.  

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 7

**Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.  

† indicates that the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and West Virginia do not have migrant programs.  

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.	 

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

***Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state. 

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 8

**Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.  

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.	

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

*** Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state. 

 The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 9

**Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy.

† indicates that the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and West Virginia do not have migrant programs.  

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete. 

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

*** Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state.   

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 10

**Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.	

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

*** Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state. 

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 11**

**Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing. n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy.  † indicates the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and West Virginia do not have migrant programs.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.	

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

*** Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. California administered a field test in grades three–eight; data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.  

**** Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state. 

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 12

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy.  

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete. 

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

***Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. Data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.

**** Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state.  

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 13

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy.  

 † indicates the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and West Virginia do not have migrant programs.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

***Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. Data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.

**** Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state.  The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report.*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 14

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy. 

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete. 

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack. 

***Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. Data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.

**** Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state.  

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 15

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states*.*  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy. 

† indicates the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and West Virginia do not have migrant programs.  

**Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack.  

***Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota administered a college- and career-ready field test to all students, for all grades in each state. Data are not displayed due to lack of comparability with prior years.

**** Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington administered a college- and career-ready field test to a sample of students in each state.  

The proficiency tables in this report do not represent all students in the state as the Department did not require states to report proficiency results from the field test assessments.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

## C. Achievement Results–Science

School year 2013–14 results in science for the “all students” group by school level and for disaggregated groups by school level are included as exhibits 16–22.  

Exhibit 16

**Percentage of All Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science,**

**by State and School Level: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

*States are required to test for science in only one grade in elementary school.  An asterisk indicates a state that submitted fifth-grade student data.  Otherwise, data presented are fourth-grade student data.  

**States are required to test for science in only one grade in middle school.  A double asterisk indicates a state that submitted seventh-grade student data.  Otherwise, data presented are eighth-grade student data.  

***BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.

****Colorado did not submit science high school proficiency data to the Department for SY13–14. The new Colorado assessment was moved to fall 2014, and scores were not available at the time of submission.

***** Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack.  

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report***:**http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 17

**Percentage of Elementary School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy. 

*States are required to test for science in only one grade in elementary school.  An asterisk indicates a state that submitted fifth-grade student data.  Otherwise, data presented are fourth-grade student data.

**BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.

***Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack.  

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 18

**Percentage of Elementary School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science,**

**by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.   n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy. † indicates that the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and West Virginia do not have migrant programs. 

*States are required to test for science in only one grade in elementary school.  An asterisk indicates a state that submitted fifth-grade student data.  Otherwise, data presented are fourth-grade student data.

**BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.

***Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack.  

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 19

**Percentage of Middle School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy.

*States are required to test for science in only one grade in middle school.  An asterisk indicates a state that submitted seventh-grade student data.  Otherwise, data presented are eighth-grade student data.

**BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.

***Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack.  

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 20

**Percentage of Middle School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science,**

**by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing. n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy. † indicates the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and West Virginia do not have migrant programs.

*States are required to test for science in only one grade in middle school.  An asterisk indicates a state that submitted seventh-grade student data.  Otherwise, data presented are eighth-grade student data. 

**BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.

***Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack.  

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 21

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing. n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.  A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred to protect privacy.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.  

**Colorado did not submit science high school proficiency data to the Department for SY 2013–14. The new Colorado assessment was moved to Fall 2014, and scores were not available at the time of submission.

***Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack.  

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 22

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science,**

**by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2013–14**

NOTES: Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states*.*  Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy. ****A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred****to protect privacy.  † indicates the Bureau of Indian Education, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and West Virginia do not have migrant programs.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete. 

**Colorado did not submit science high school proficiency data to the Department for SY 2013–14. The new Colorado assessment was moved to Fall 2014, and scores were not available at the time of submission.

***Kansas did not submit assessment data for the 2013–14 school year due to a cyber-attack.  

SOURCE:  *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

# V. English Language Acquisition

## A. Background

English language acquisition and academic achievement of LEP students are addressed by *ESEA**Title I* Part A and *Title III* Part A.  Under *Titles I* and *III*, each state must ensure that school districts in the state provide for an annual assessment of English language proficiency of all LEP students in grades K–12.  The annual assessment must measure students’ levels of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English.  

*Title III* of the *ESEA* is designed to improve the education of LEP students and immigrant children and youths.  States are required to establish annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for improving the English language proficiency and academic achievement of LEP students.  States must hold districts accountable for meeting AMAOs and implementing language instruction education programs that are scientifically based and effective in increasing students’ English proficiency and academic achievement.  Under *Title III*, states collect, synthesize, and report data to the Department on LEP students’ progress in learning and attaining proficiency in English, and in achievement in mathematics and reading/language arts.   

The Department collects data on the English language acquisition of all LEP students and of those served under *Title III*.  For all LEP students, data are collected on the number tested on ELP assessments, and on the number and percentage that scored at the proficient level or above.  For students served under *Title III*, states submit data on the number and percentage of students making progress in learning English (AMAO 1), and the number and percentage attaining English language proficiency (AMAO 2), as measured by state ELP assessments.  Each state establishes its own ELP standards and assessments (or belongs to a consortium of states that carries out this work) and sets its own AMAO targets.  AMAO targets reflect the number or percentage of students projected to attain proficiency and make progress in learning English, as well as AYP for the LEP subgroup under *Title I* Part A (AMAO 3).[footnoteRef:19]  As state ELP standards and assessments, and AMAO targets are specific to each state, cross-state comparisons are unlikely to yield meaningful inferences about LEP student achievement.   [19:  Under ESEA flexibility, many states have received a waiver of the requirement to calculate AYP and to designate schools and local education agencies (LEAs) in improvement, corrective action, and restructuring when they fail to meet AYP.  Despite these changes, the component parts of AYP remain in effect, i.e., annual measureable objectives (AMOs) in reading/language arts and mathematics for grades three to eight and high school, the 95 percent participation rate on state assessments, and the other academic indicator (in high school graduation rate, in all other schools another indicator determined in the state’s accountability plan).  Similarly, under ESEA flexibility, state education agencies (SEAs) and LEAs must continue to calculate AMAOs for the LEP student group.] 

## B. Results

	In the 2013–14 school year, state-reported data indicated a national enrollment total of 4.9 million LEP students, which represented approximately 10 percent of the total student population.  Of these students, 4.5 million (92 percent) were reported to have received *Title III* services.  The percentage of LEP students served by *Title III* varied across states (see Exhibit 23).

Exhibit 23

**Number and Percentage of all LEP Students and *Title III*-Served LEP Students, by State: 2013–14**

NOTES: The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing. † indicates the Bureau of Indian Education does not receive *Title III* funding, so it is not required to submit *Title III* data.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.*ge ELP 

**Rounding to the nearest whole percent caused these values to appear as 100 percent.  Other values appearing as 100 percent truly are 100 percent.

***Puerto Rico reports on students who are limited Spanish proficient instead of students who are limited English proficient.

SOURCES: Common Core of Data: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/index.asp, and *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*:  http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

### 1. All LEP Students

Exhibit 24 shows the languages most commonly spoken at home by LEP students.  Spanish is by far the most common of these, with over 3.6 million more speakers than the next most commonly spoken language (Chinese), and it is spoken at home by 77 percent of all LEP students.  After Spanish, the languages most commonly spoken at home vary by state.  Exhibit 24 represents the total number and percentage of speakers for the top 10 languages, nationally aggregated for all LEP students.  Together, these 10 languages represent 89 percent of the home languages spoken by LEP students.

Exhibit 24

**Languages Most Commonly Spoken at Home by LEP Student Populations: 2013–14**

NOTE: Student counts are rounded to the nearest thousand.

SOURCE: ED*Facts*

Exhibit 25 displays data on the number of LEP students tested for English language proficiency and the percentage of all LEP students who attained ELP on the ELP assessments in the 2013–14 school year.  Similar to other topics described in this report, there is wide variation across states in the percentage of students who attained English language proficiency.  Some of these differences could be attributed to differences in programs and definitions of proficiency in English across states.

### 2.   LEP Students Served by Title III 

States submit data to the Department on the percentage of students making progress in learning English and the percentage attaining English language proficiency.  States collect these data from their local education agencies and then use the data to make AMAO determinations.  

States have flexibility in how they determine their calculations for “making progress” and “attaining proficiency,” and in setting their AMAO targets, which contributes to the wide range in data reported by states.  For example, some states have set AMAO targets for cohorts based on the amount of time a student has been enrolled in a language instruction educational program, and some states may have set a higher cut score than others for a child to be considered ”proficient” in English.  

AMAO 1 and 2 results for the 2013–14 school year are included in Exhibit 26.  Additional information on *Title III*-served students will be published in the next *Title III* biennial report to Congress, produced by the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, and will be available on the Department’s website.[footnoteRef:20] [20:  Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program is available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html.] 

Exhibit 25

**Number of All LEP Students Tested for ELP and the Percentage Who Attained Proficiency in English, by State: 2013–14**

NOTES: ELP standards, assessments, and AMAOs vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete. 

 *ge ELP **Puerto Rico reports on students who are limited Spanish proficient.

*ge ELP SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 26

**Percentage of *Title III*-Served LEP Students Making Progress and Attaining ELP Annual Measurable Achievement Objective Results, by State: 2013–14**

NOTES: † indicates the Bureau of Indian Education does not receive *Title III* funding, so it is not required to submit *Title III* data.

ELP standards, assessments, and AMAOs vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states. 

*New York data was suppressed due to data quality concerns.

**Puerto Rico reports on students who are limited Spanish proficient.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

# VI. Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress and School Identification

## A. Background

Under the *ESEA*, states are required to build and implement accountability systems to ensure that their students and schools are on track to meet defined targets.  States are required to establish a definition of AYP to use each year in determining whether each public elementary and secondary school district and school is on course to reach a goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014.  Through *ESEA* flexibility, states were given the opportunity to request a waiver of the AYP requirements.  As a result, some states continue to calculate and report AYP statuses and some do not.  States that still have AYP requirements in place report to the Department on the number of schools that met AYP for two groups of schools: all public schools and *Title I* schools (see Exhibit 30).

To make AYP, a school must demonstrate  (1) that it has met the state’s targets (annual measurable objectives, or AMOs) for proficiency in mathematics and reading/language arts for the school as a whole and for each of its subgroups of students; (2) that at least 95 percent of all students and of each subgroup of students participated in the state’s mathematics and reading/language arts assessments; and (3) that it met the state’s target for an additional academic indicator (at the high school level, this additional academic indicator must be graduation rate).  *Title I* schools that do not meet the state's definition of AYP for two consecutive years or more are identified for one of five improvement stages.  Once identified, states and districts must direct resources and tailor interventions to the needs of individual schools.  The statute requires a series of interventions for *Title I* schools in “school improvement year 1” and “school improvement year 2” (following the second and third consecutive years of not making AYP); “corrective action” (after the fourth year that a school did not make AYP); and “restructuring –planning” and “restructuring – implementation” (after the fifth and sixth years that a school did not make AYP).  

States that are approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility are no longer required to identify and report schools as “in improvement.”  Instead, they identify “priority” and “focus” schools, as defined in the following excerpt from ESEA*Flexibility*,**available on the Department’s website[footnoteRef:21]: [21:  ESEA Flexibility is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html.] 

· A “priority school” is a school that, based on the most recent data available, has been identified by the state as among the lowest-performing schools.  The total number of priority schools in a state must be at least 5 percent of the *Title I* schools in the state.  A priority school is

· a school among the lowest 5 percent of *Title I* schools in the state based on the achievement of the “all students” group in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, and that has demonstrated a lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group; 

· a *Title I*-participating or *Title I*-eligible high school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years; or 

· a Tier I or Tier II school under the school improvement grant (SIG) program that is using SIG funds to implement a school intervention model. 

· A “focus school” is a *Title I* school in the state that, based on the most recent data available, is contributing to the achievement gap in the state[footnoteRef:22].  The total number of focus schools in a state must equal at least 10 percent of the *Title I* schools in the state.  A focus school is [22:  These determinations must be based on the achievement and lack of progress over a number of years of one or more subgroups of students identified under ESEA Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, or, at the high school level, graduation rates for one or more subgroups.  ] 

· a school that has the largest within-school gaps between the highest-achieving subgroup or subgroups and the lowest-achieving subgroup or subgroups or, at the high school level, has the largest within-school gaps in graduation rates; or

· a school that has a subgroup or subgroups with low achievement or, at the high school level, low graduation rates.

· An SEA must identify as a focus school a *Title I* high school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years that is not identified as a priority school. 

It is important to note that under the *ESEA*, states may design unique approaches to meeting accountability requirements that fit their own academic programs and standards.  All Department-approved accountability plans outlining the details of each state’s policies are available on the Department’s website.[footnoteRef:23]  State context matters in making accountability decisions and identifying schools.  Each state must consider the diversity of student populations, the number and size of schools, and other factors in order to design an accountability system that is both valid (accurately identifying schools not reaching their academic goals for all students) and reliable (with accountability judgments based on sound data).   [23:  Approved state accountability plans are available at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html.  Approved ESEA Flexibility Accountability Addenda can be found on state pages at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html.] 

Numbers and percentages of identified schools in each state are presented in exhibits 27 through 29.  State CSPR reports provide projected numbers for the following school year in CSPR reporting (e.g., the 2013–14 CSPR provides information about the number of schools for 2014**–**15, based on 2013–14 testing results data).  The data reported by states vary in their completeness and accuracy; therefore, state and national totals might not necessarily represent actual counts.

## B. Results

The exhibits below show the number of schools identified for improvement, or the number of priority and focus schools depending on whether the state was approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility during the relevant school year.  Exhibits 27 and 28 display the total number of schools in improvement, which includes all states prior to 201213, and excludes states that were implementing *ESEA* flexibility in 2012–13 and 201314.  Exhibit 29 shows the count of schools by priority and focus status for the 201314 school year.

Exhibit 27

**Number and Percentage of *Title I* Schools Identified for Improvement (Total of All Five Stages of Improvement), by State: 2010–11 to 2014–15**

NOTES: The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available.  Totals across states are not included for 2013–14 or 2014–15 since many states no longer report these improvement statuses and the comparison to prior years would no longer be meaningful.  

*BIE data on the 201415 school year (which are part of the 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report) were missing or incomplete. 

† indicates that the data are not applicable since the state is implementing *ESEA*flexibility.  These states report priority and focus statuses instead.  California, Iowa, Montana, Vermont, and Washington reported school improvement statuses but not a total number of all *Title I* schools for 2014–15.

SOURCE:  *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 28

**Number and Percentage of *Title I*Schools Identified for Improvement, by State and Stage of Improvement Status: 2014–15**

NOTES:

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing. † indicates that the data are not applicable since the state is implementing *ESEA*flexibility.  These states report priority and focus statuses.

*BIE data on the 2014–15 school year were missing or incomplete. 

California, Iowa, Montana, Vermont, and Washington report school improvement statuses but did not report a total number of all Title I schools for 2014-15.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 29

**Number of Priority and Focus Schools, by State: 2014–15**

NOTES:

† indicates that the data are not applicable because these states are not approved to implement *ESEA* Flexibility and therefore continue to report schools in need of improvement.

*Alabama did not report schools identified as priority or focus as of the submission deadline.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 30

**Number and Percentage of All Public Schools and *Title I* Schools Making AYP, by State: 2013–14**

NOTES:

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  Many states no longer calculate and report AYP under their approved *ESEA* flexibility requests.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report:***http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

# VII. Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services

## A. Background

When a *Title I* school is identified for improvement, the district must offer parents of students attending the school the opportunity to send their child to another public school in the district that has not been identified for improvement.  Public school choice must be made available the first year a school becomes identified for improvement.  All students enrolled in an identified school are eligible for this option.  Districts are required to inform parents each year if their child is eligible to transfer to another school and must give parents more than one transfer option if more than one school is available that meets the requirements for transfer schools.  Additionally, districts must pay transportation costs for transferring students and must give priority to the lowest-achieving students from low-income families if there are not enough funds available to pay transportation costs for all transferring students.

Supplemental educational services (SES) give low-income parents options to obtain supplemental help for their children.  Typically, this is after-school tutoring.  Only students from low-income families are eligible for this option, and the district is not required to provide transportation services.  This extra help must be offered once a *Title I* school has entered the second year of improvement status and must be offered in each of the subsequent stages of school improvement status.  If there are not enough funds available to serve all students whose parents request SES, districts must give priority for SES to the lowest-achieving students from low-income families.  States are responsible for approving SES providers and monitoring provider performance.  If there is enough demand, districts must spend an amount equaling at least 20 percent of their *Title I* Part A allocation on both SES and *Title I* public school choice.  Starting with the 2012–13 school year, many states that were approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility did not report these data, as the requirements pertaining to SES and *Title I* public school choice were waived.  

## B. Results

Exhibits 31 and 32 display the percentages of eligible students who participated in public school choice and SES, respectively, by state, which includes all states prior to 2012–13 and excludes states that implemented*ESEA* flexibility and no longer implemented the public school choice or SES provisions in 2013–14. 

Exhibit 31

**Percentage of Eligible Students Who Participated in *Title I* Public School Choice, by State: 2009–10 to 2013–14**

NOTES: The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  Many states no longer report public school choice under their approved *ESEA* flexibility requests.

n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.

The # sign indicates that the data round to zero.

*BIE data on the 201314 school year were missing or incomplete.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report***:**http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

Exhibit 32

**Percentage of Eligible Students Receiving Supplemental Educational Services, by State: 2009–10 to 2013–14**

NOTES: The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  Many states no longer report students receiving supplemental education services under their approved *ESEA* flexibility requests.

n< indicates that data have been suppressed to protect privacy.

*BIE data on the 201314 school year were missing or incomplete.

**Pennsylvania submitted inaccurate data for the 201112 school year and is excluded from the table for that year.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

# VIII. Highly Qualified Teachers

## A. Background

The *ESEA* emphasizes teacher quality as one of many important factors that will aid in improving student achievement and in further eliminating achievement gaps.  According to *ESEA* section 9101(23), a “highly qualified teacher” (HQT) is a teacher who

· has obtained full state certification as a teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the state teacher licensing examination, holds a license to teach in the state, and has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis;

· holds at least a bachelor’s degree; and

· has demonstrated subject matter competency in each of the academic subjects taught, in a manner determined by the state. 

“Highly qualified teacher” is defined in more detail in 34 *CFR* § 200.56.  The *Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004*reinforced these provisions by adopting related requirements for special education teachers. 

Consistent with state reporting requirements in *ESEA* section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii), since 2003[footnoteRef:24] the Department has collected data on the number and percentage of core academic classes being taught by highly qualified teachers in the aggregate and in high- and low-poverty schools.  Core academic classes include English, reading/language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.  The statute requires states to ensure that 100 percent of the teachers of core academic subjects employed by their school districts are highly qualified; states that have not met this target must submit clear plans for reaching the goal of 100 percent in subsequent school years.  HQT requirements may vary by grade level as well as by state.  [24:  Highly qualified teacher data were collected for the first time for the 200203 school year, but because several states reported that they did not have the mechanisms to accurately report these data for the 200203 school year, those data are excluded from the Title II Part A program analysis of HQT.  The 200304 data serve as the baseline for the Title II Part A office’s assessment of trends.] 

HQT data are reported both by school level and poverty level of those schools. “High-poverty” and “low-poverty” schools, under Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii), are schools in the top and bottom quartiles of poverty in the state, respectively.  States are responsible for assigning schools to quartiles by ranking schools (separately for elementary and secondary schools) on the state’s percentage poverty measure and dividing the schools into four equal groups.

## B. Results

The Department collects data on the number of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers.  Data are disaggregated by elementary and secondary school classes and by high- and low-poverty schools.  Reported data indicate that the national percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers was 96.25 percent in 2013–14.  The national percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high-poverty schools was slightly lower than in low-poverty schools at both the elementary and secondary levels.  Overall, elementary schools had a higher percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers than secondary schools.

With a few exceptions, a high percentage of core academic classes are taught by highly qualified teachers across all states, for all schools and for high-poverty schools.  However, only Iowa, Montana, and North Dakota met the 100 percent target in any category (see Exhibit 34).[footnoteRef:25]  All states that reported data reported that more than 75 percent of core academic classes were taught by highly qualified teachers (see Exhibit 33).  Most states reported that more than 90 percent of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers.  However, this was less common in high-poverty secondary schools, where 37 states reported that more than 90 percent of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers (compared to 47 states for high-poverty elementary schools).   [25:  These data are shown to two decimal points so that it is possible to see exactly how close each state is to meeting the 100-percent goal.   Additional analysis and summary information can be found on the Title II Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program website at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/resources.html. ] 

Exhibit 33

**Number of States Reporting That More Than 75 Percent and More Than 90 Percent of Core Academic Classes in High-Poverty Schools Were Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers,**

**by School Level: 2013–14**

Exhibit 34

**Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, by State, School Level, and Poverty Level: 2013–14**

NOTES: The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.  

North Carolina did not submit data on classes taught by highly qualified teachers.

Teacher certification and licensure requirements vary across states, so caution should be used when comparing these data.

*BIE data on the 2013–14 school year were missing or incomplete.

SOURCE: *SY 2013–14 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

#  IX. Summary

	Although most of the data included in this report cannot be compared across states, the report provides an overview of data on the following aspects of schooling in states both individually and as a whole: standards and assessment systems; academic achievement of students by subject and subgroup; English language acquisition of LEP students; accountability, public school choice and supplemental educational services; and highly qualified teachers.  It also shows**the variability in performance that exists across states as a result of factors, such as how they measure and design their academic programs, states’ starting points in 2008, which programs they chose to implement, and how they implemented those programs.  There are also varying degrees of participation in programs offered under the *ESEA*, such as public school choice and supplemental educational services options, and priority and focus school interventions for states that are implementing *ESEA* flexibility.  In some states, data may show trends, but frequently the data (on all topics) fluctuate across years.

The U.S. Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

 by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov

1

# image1.jpeg