No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

Annual Report to Congress 

February 2005 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction 1 

State Standards and Assessments 3 

English Language Proficiency 9 

Title I Schools Identified for Improvement 10 

Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services 13 

Teacher and Paraprofessional Quality 19 

Appendix A – State Assessment Data 

 Alabama A-1 

 Alaska A-7 

 Arizona A-15 

 Arkansas A-19 

 California A-23 

 Colorado A-31 

 Connecticut A-38 

 Delaware A-42 

 District of Columbia A-46 

 Florida A-53 

 Georgia A-61 

 Hawaii A-65 

 Idaho A-69 

 Illinois A-72 

 Indiana A-76 

 Iowa A-80 

 Kansas A-83 

 Kentucky A-86 

 Louisiana A-89 

 Maine A-92 

 Maryland A-95 

 Massachusetts A-99 

 Michigan A-102 

 Minnesota A-106 

 Mississippi A-108 

 Missouri A-115 

 Montana A-118 

 Nebraska A-121 

 Nevada A-124 

i 
 New Hampshire A-129 

 New Jersey A-132 

 New Mexico A-135 

 New York A-143 

 North Carolina A-146 

 North Dakota A-153 

 Ohio A-156 

 Oklahoma A-159 

 Oregon A-163 

 Pennsylvania A-168 

 Puerto Rico A-171 

 Rhode Island A-175 

 South Carolina A-178 

 South Dakota A-185 

 Tennessee A-192 

 Texas A-196 

 Utah A-205 

 Vermont A-212 

 Virginia A-222 

 Washington A-226 

 West Virginia A-229 

 Wisconsin A-236 

 Wyoming A-239 

Appendix B – Title I Schools Identified for Improvement 

 Alabama B-1 

 Alaska B-4 

 Arizona B-8 

 Arkansas B-22 

 California B-39 

 Colorado B-111 

 Connecticut B-116 

 Delaware B-117 

 District of Columbia B-118 

 Florida B-119 

 Georgia B-122 

 Hawaii B-154 

 Idaho B-159 

 Illinois B-162 

 Indiana B-199 

 Iowa B-206 

 Kansas B-207 

 Kentucky B-209 

 Louisiana B-211 

 Maine B-216 

ii 
 Maryland B-217 

 Massachusetts B-224 

 Michigan B-237 

 Minnesota B-259 

 Mississippi B-262 

 Missouri B-263 

 Montana B-265 

 Nebraska B-268 

 Nevada B-269 

 New Hampshire B-271 

 New Jersey B-272 

 New Mexico B-287 

 New York B-293 

 North Carolina B-340 

 North Dakota B-343 

 Ohio B-345 

 Oklahoma B-357 

 Oregon B-360 

 Pennsylvania B-361 

 Puerto Rico B-379 

 Rhode Island B-388 

 South Carolina B-390 

 South Dakota B-396 

 Tennessee B-398 

 Texas B-402 

 Utah B-403 

 Vermont B-404 

 Virginia B-405 

 Washington B-408 

 West Virginia B-412 

 Wisconsin B-413 

 Wyoming B-417 

iii 
Introduction 

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) significantly raises expectations for States, local 

educational agencies, and schools in that all students are expected to meet or exceed State 

standards in reading/language arts and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year. To 

ensure authentic school reform, the Nation must raise the bar of expectations for all its 

students. Every child can learn. Every child must learn. And thanks to NCLB, every child 

will learn. 

No Child Left Behind provides historic levels of resources and flexibility to improve 

results for all children, especially for those who may need extra assistance meeting gradelevel standards. In NCLB, we have a powerful tool to support our efforts to provide all 

children the opportunity to receive the education they deserve and to meet academic 

goals. By devoting new energy to those schools identified for improvement, we have 

refocused the debate and taken the first steps toward changing students' lives for the 

better. The law is meant to spur improvement, encourage reform, and inspire new 

initiatives so that every child, regardless of his or her race, ethnicity, socioeconomic 

status, disability, or level of English language proficiency, has the opportunity to achieve 

and be successful. 

Fortunately, there are schools and reform leaders across our Nation who have shown how 

quickly effective leadership can transform student achievement and how swiftly success 

can sweep through a school. With a dedicated focus on accountability and achievement, 

any school that needs improvement can create a new culture of learning and excellence. 

The good news is that we know much more about what works: scientifically proven 

methods; aligned standards, assessments, and instruction; school and district leadership 

focused on student learning; accountability for results; and highly qualified teachers will 

improve achievement and bring success. Admittedly, our Nation's commitment -- to teach 

every child -- is ambitious. But we have the tools and we have the know-how. Working 

together, we can ensure that all students succeed and that the achievement gap is closed, 

once and for all. 

Under Section 1111(h)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as 

amended by NCLB, the Secretary of Education is required to transmit to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report that provides State-level 

data for each State receiving assistance under Title I of ESEA. In this first Secretary’s 

NCLB report to Congress, the Department is reporting on State reported data for the 

2002-2003 school year. Specifically, in this report the following data are reported: 

• Information on States’ progress in developing and implementing academic 

assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science required under 

section 1111(b)(3). 

• Information on the percentage of students scoring at the proficient or advanced 

levels on assessments administered in the 2002-2003 school year in 

1 
reading/language arts and mathematics for all students, disaggregated by major 

racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with 

disabilities, limited English proficient students, migrant students, and gender. 

• Information on the acquisition of English proficiency by children with limited 

English proficiency, including States’ progress in developing and implementing 

English language proficiency standards and English language proficiency 

assessments. 

• Information on the number and names of each Title I school identified for 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring for the 2003-2004 school year 

under section 1116(b), the reasons for identification, and the measures taken to 

address the achievement problems of such schools. 

• Information on the number of students and Title I schools that participated in 

public school choice and supplemental educational services under section 1116(b) 

during the 2002-2003 school year. 

• Information on the quality of teachers and paraprofessionals and the percentage of 

public elementary and secondary school classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers in the States during the 2002-2003 school year. 

The Department collected the information presented in this report from States through 

State Consolidated State Application submissions in June 2002, May 2003, and 

September 2003 and through Part I of the NCLB Consolidated State Performance Report 

for the 2002-2003 school year, which States submitted in December 2003. It is important 

to note that the 2002-2003 school year was the first year that States were required to 

collect and report data on the acquisition of English language proficiency by children 

with limited English proficiency, the number of students and Title I schools participating 

in public school choice and supplemental educational services, the qualifications of 

teachers and paraprofessionals, and the percentage of public elementary and secondary 

school classes taught by highly qualified teachers. The Department recognizes that these 

new data sets are complex and new to a number of States. The Department expects all 

States to be able to report more accurate and complete information beginning with the 

2003-2004 school year. The Department has provided explanatory notes throughout this 

report to indicate caveats that must be considered when examining particular data 

elements provided by the States. 

2 
State Standards and Assessments 

Under The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), States are building on the work 

they had already begun in the area of academic standards and are implementing 

challenging academic content and student achievement standards in the core academic 

subjects of reading/language arts, mathematics, and science. The power of rigorous State 

academic standards is undeniable: they provide a clear direction for what all students 

should know and be able to do and establish clear expectations for schools, teachers, 

parents, and students. 

Rigorous academic standards, however, are but one critical element to ensuring that all 

children attain to high levels of academic achievement. To reach our goal of high 

achievement for all children, we must also be able to measure accurately and efficiently 

whether or not students are meeting the standards of learning expected of them, diagnose 

problems, and offer immediate intervention. As President Bush has stated, "In order to 

make sure children are not simply shuffled through the system, we must measure. We 

must determine what needs to be corrected early, before it's too late." 

Although previous federal legislation also required States to assess public school 

children, States were required to test only three times during a student's tenure in the K12 educational system. This left too many intervening years in which children's academic 

difficulties went undiagnosed. The President and the Congress, in passing NCLB, 

recognized that these intervening years without assessments were precious years during 

which far too many children were slipping through the cracks and being left behind. 

Therefore, under NCLB, States are enhancing their existing assessment systems to 

include annual assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics for all public 

school students in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 10 through 12 by 

the 2005-2006 school year. 

The timeline for State implementation of the standards and assessments required by 

NCLB is as follows: 

Academic Content and Student Achievement Standards

o By May 2003, as part of a State's consolidated application, States were required to 

have challenging academic content standards in reading/language arts and 

mathematics to cover each of grades 3-8. Additionally, as required under the 1994 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), States 

must continue to have academic content standards for grades 10-12 in 

reading/language arts and mathematics. 

o By the 2005-2006 school year, States must develop academic content standards in 

science for elementary (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-9), and high school (grades 

10-12).

o By the 2005-2006 school year, States must develop and implement student 

academic achievement standards in reading/language arts and mathematics for 

3 
each of grades 3 through 8. As required under the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, 

States must continue to have academic achievement standards for grades 10-12 in 

reading/language arts and mathematics. 

o By the 2007-2008 school year, States must develop and implement student 

achievement standards in science for each of the grade spans 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. 

Assessments of Academic Standards

o Through the 2004-2005 school year, States must administer annual assessments in 

reading/language arts and mathematics at least once during grades 3 through 5; 

grades 6 through 9; and grades 10 through 12. 

o By the 2005-2006 school year, States must develop and implement yearly, highquality assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics in each of grades 3 

through 8 that are aligned with a State's challenging academic content and 

achievement standards. The requirement for annual assessments in 

reading/language arts and mathematics at least once in the grade span 10-12 

remains and has not changed from the 1994 ESEA reauthorization. 

o By the 2007-2008 school year, States must develop and implement yearly, highquality annual assessments in science that are aligned with a State's challenging 

academic content and achievement standards at least once in each of the grade 

spans 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.

o A State's assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics must be used to 

make annual accountability determinations of how well all students in public 

elementary and secondary schools are learning and mastering the subject material 

reflected in a State's academic content and achievement standards. 

o Student achievement on assessments must be included in State and district report 

cards. 

Immediately following enactment of NCLB, the Department conducted negotiated 

rulemaking on regulations to implement the NCLB standards and assessments 

requirements. The resulting regulations, published July 5, 2002, represented the 

consensus of a wide range of stakeholders--Federal, State, and local administrators, 

principals, teachers, parents, and assessment experts. The Department also issued nonregulatory guidance on the standards and assessments requirements on March 10, 2003, 

and Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance on April 28, 2004. 

The purpose of the Peer Review guidance for standards and assessments is twofold: (1) to 

inform States about what is acceptable evidence in demonstrating that they have met the 

NCLB standards and assessments requirements; and (2) to guide teams of peer reviewers 

who will examine the evidence submitted by States and advise the Department as to 

4 
whether a State has met the requirements. The intent is to help States develop 

comprehensive assessment systems that provide accurate and valid information for 

holding districts and schools accountable for student achievement against State standards. 

To ensure that States are taking the steps necessary to meet the deadline for administering 

annual academic assessments in each of grades 3-8 and at the high school level in 

reading/language arts and mathematics by the 2005-2006 school year and annual 

academic assessments in science by the 2007-2008 school year, the Department had each 

State submit, as part of its May 2003 NCLB Consolidated State Application, detailed 

information and timelines for developing and implementing the standards and 

assessments required under NCLB. Specifically, in the May 2003 Consolidated State 

Application, States were asked to: 

o Provide evidence that the State had adopted challenging content standards in 

reading/language arts and mathematics at each grade level for grades 3 through 8, 

consistent with section 1111(b)(1), or disseminated grade-level expectations for 

reading/language arts and mathematics for grades 3 through 8 to LEAs and 

schools if the State’s academic content standards cover more than one grade level. 

o Provide a detailed timeline for major milestones for adopting challenging 

academic content standards in science that meet the requirements of section 

1111(b)(1). 

o Provide a detailed timeline of major milestones for the development and 

implementation, in consultation with LEAs, of assessments in mathematics, 

reading/language arts, and science that meet the requirements of section 

1111(b)(3) in the required grade levels. 

o Provide a detailed timeline for major milestones for setting, in consultation with 

LEAs, academic achievement standards in mathematics, reading/language arts, 

and science that meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(1). 

Each State’s May 2003 Consolidated State Application is available on the Department’s 

website at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html. As the 

Department monitors States under Title I, the Department is checking to ensure that each 

State is progressing on the timelines it submitted in the May 2003 Consolidated State 

Application. In January 2005, as part of the State’s Consolidated State Performance 

Reports for the 2003-2004 school year, each State provided to the Department a detailed 

status report on its progress implementing the standards and assessments required by 

NCLB. 

Finally, under NCLB States have received unprecedented federal resources to assist them 

in implementing the NCLB standards and assessments requirements. Between fiscal 

years 2002 and 2005, States have received over $1.5 billion in federal funds to develop 

and implement the standards and assessments required by NCLB. Federal funds are 

available to States for the development and implementation of State standards and 

5 
assessments under section 6111 of NCLB (Grants for State Assessments and Related 

Activities) and section 6112 (Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments). The primary 

purpose of section 6111 funds is for the development of the new standards and 

assessments required by NCLB. If States have already developed the standards and 

assessments required by section 1111(b) of NCLB, States may use their section 6111 

funds to pay for the administration of assessments or any of the following other activities: 

o Developing challenging academic content and student achievement standards and 

aligned assessments in subjects for which standards and assessments are not 

required by NCLB. 

o Developing or improving assessments of limited English proficiency to comply 

with section 1111(b)(7). 

o Ensuring the validity and reliability of State assessments. 

o Refining State assessments to ensure their continued alignment with State 

academic content standards and to improve the alignment of curricula and 

instructional materials. 

o Developing multiple measures to increase the reliability and validity of State 

assessment systems. 

o Strengthening the capacity of LEAs and schools to provide all students the 

opportunity to increase educational achievement, including professional 

development activities aligned with State student academic achievement standards 

and assessments. 

o Expanding the range of accommodations available to students with limited 

English proficiency and students with disabilities to improve the rates of inclusion 

of these students. 

o Improving the dissemination of information on student achievement and school 

performance to parents and the community, including the development of 

information and reporting systems designed to identify best practices based on 

scientifically based research or to assist in linking records of student achievement, 

length of enrollment, and graduation over time. 

Additionally, Section 6112 provides competitive grants to States or consortia of States to 

improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments. For fiscal 

years 2002 and 2003, $21.5 million were appropriated for these Enhanced Assessment 

grants. The funded projects focus on enhancement of assessments of students with 

disabilities and students with limited English proficiency. Four projects address the 

assessment of English proficiency, two focus on appropriate test design and 

accommodations for LEP students, one project examines appropriate accommodations for 

special education students, one aims to improve the technical quality of alternate 

assessments for students with severe disabilities, and one project will enhance State 

6 
capacity to evaluate and document the alignment between State standards and State 

assessments. 

The grants also enable consortia of States or individual States to: 

• Measure student achievement using multiple measures of student academic 

achievement from multiple sources; 

• Chart student progress over time; or 

• Evaluate student academic achievement through the development of 

comprehensive academic assessment instruments, such as performance- and 

technology-based academic assessment. 

A description of each project, as well as the collaborating states and groups and grant 

amounts, follows. 

LEAD STATE GRANT AMOUNT 

Utah $1,842,893 

Collaborators: Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Wyoming & North Dakota

The project aims to develop a series of assessments of English language proficiency at four levels (K-3; 4-6; 7-9; 

10-12) to enable teachers diagnose the proficiency level of English language learners (ELLs). 

Rhode Island $1,788,356 

Collaborators: Maine, New Hampshire & Vermont

The project will build upon an existing collaboration among Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont 

and will help compare progress across states and combine resources to develop the highest quality assessments. 

States will examine the impact of computer-based testing accommodations on the validity of test scores for 

students with and without special needs, and train teachers to create and use the assessments. 

South Carolina $1,719,821 

Collaborators: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Austin Independent 

School District, The Council of Chief State School Officers, District of 

Columbia Public Schools, Maryland & North Carolina

The project will help gather valid information about ELLs' academic knowledge and skills, and different types 

accommodations that can match students with the proper accommodations. 

Oklahoma $1,442,453 

Collaborators: Alabama, California, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, 

Wyoming, West Virginia & Wisconsin

The project will work to expand and automate a process for judging the alignment of assessments with content 

standards, serve students with disabilities and help link assessments across grades. The alignment process 

system will be available on a CD-ROM that can be readily distributed to states to increase the use of the 

alignment tool in assessment development and verification. 

Nevada $2,266,506 

Collaborators: Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, 

New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas & 

West Virginia

The project will help states implement assessments to measure the annual growth of English language 

development in speaking, listening, reading and writing. The project will produce test forms and an item bank 

from which states can draw to create test forms that reflect local needs and characteristics, and will help states 

predict ELLs' readiness for English language assessment. 

Pennsylvania $1,810,567 

7 
Collaborators: Maryland, Michigan & Tennessee 

This project is designed to help states assess ELLs by analyzing state standards, establishing content benchmarks 

and developing standards-based assessments drawn from scientific research. The resulting assessments are to be 

shared with interested states and districts. 

Colorado $1,746,023 

Collaborators: Iowa, Oregon, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, West Virginia & Wyoming

The project will help improve alternative assessments for students with complex disabilities, and the assessment 

methods will be developed, pilot tested and analyzed during the course of this project. 

Wisconsin $2,338,169 

Collaborators: Alaska, Delaware & Center for Applied Linguistics, Center for Equity and 

Excellence in Education, Second Language Acquisition, University of 

Wisconsin, University of Illinois

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction plans to develop and enhance assessment instruments specially 

designed to measure ELLs' performance and progress in English proficiency and literacy skills based on state 

standards on reading, writing and language arts and alternate assessments to measure their performance in 

other academic content areas. 

Minnesota $2,013,503 

Collaborators: Nevada, North Carolina & Wyoming

This project will develop new tools to measure the progress of ELLs using technology to pilot language 

assessment, develop new methods to organize, collect and score student assessment data and combine data 

from multiple measures to improve the evaluation of student progress over time. Staff development will help 

teachers use assessment results to improve instruction and the methods will be available to other states. 

During the 2002-2003 school year, each State administered academic assessments in 

reading/language arts and mathematics as required by NCLB. The assessment results for 

each State, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are available in Appendix A. 

8 
English Language Proficiency 

When applying for NCLB formula grant funds, States were required to submit detailed 

information regarding their English language proficiency standards, assessments, and 

accountability systems. In response, States provided a status update on standards, 

including definitions for making progress in English, for proficient, and for cohort. 

States also provided English language proficiency baseline data for the 2002–2003 school 

year, a list of assessments used to test limited English proficient students’ progress in 

English language proficiency, and annual measurable achievement targets. Department 

staff reviewed State submissions and approved the submissions of 12 States and granted 

conditional approval to the remaining 40 jurisdictions. A subsequent review raised the 

number of those jurisdictions with full approval to 44. The remaining 8 jurisdictions had 

an October 29, 2004, deadline for submitting any missing or additional information 

which the Department is currently reviewing.1

Prior to NCLB, only a few States had English language proficiency standards, and many 

States were using multiple English language proficiency assessments that were not 

aligned with English language proficiency standards. NCLB requires that State English 

language proficiency standards be aligned with State academic content and achievement 

standards. To assist with the development or revision of English language proficiency 

standards and assessments that are integrated into the broader accountability system, 40 

States have joined the consortia funded by the Department’s Enhanced Assessment 

Grants. Some States have completed and adopted integrated English language 

proficiency standards, assessments, and accountability systems, and all 52 States and 

jurisdictions have reported making significant progress. 

Because school districts within the individual States were using multiple assessments of 

English language proficiency, many States were initially unable to aggregate up to the 

State level data from these various assessments to report in a coherent fashion 

information on the progress of limited English proficient (LEP) students in acquiring 

English language proficiency. However, the Department’s Office of English Language 

Acquisition will soon be providing to Congress its first biennial report under section 

3123(b), which will contain updated information on the acquisition of English by LEP 

students. 

 

1

Office of English Language Acquisition program officers’ detailed reviews of State submissions are 

available in official state educational agency grantee files. The accountability sections of State 

Consolidated State Applications are available at 

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html . 

9 
Title I Schools Identified for Improvement 

Accountability is central to the success of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): States 

need to set high standards for improving academic achievement in order to improve the 

quality of education for all students. Under NCLB, each State establishes a definition of 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) to use each year to determine the achievement of each 

public elementary and secondary school district and school. AYP definitions are 

intended to highlight the specific areas where schools need improvement and should 

focus their resources. The statute gives States and local educational agencies significant 

flexibility in how they direct resources and tailor interventions to the needs of individual 

schools identified for improvement. Under NCLB, schools are held accountable for the 

achievement of all students, not just average student performance. Ensuring that schools 

are held accountable for all students meeting State standards represents the core of the 

bipartisan Act's goal of ensuring that no child is left behind. 

To make AYP, a school must demonstrate that it has met the State’s target for proficiency 

in reading/language arts and mathematics for the school as a whole and for each of its 

subgroups of students, ensure that at least 95 percent of all students and each subgroup of 

students participated in the State’s reading/language arts and mathematics assessments, 

and that the school has met the State’s target for an additional academic indicator. At the 

high school level, this additional academic indicator must be the graduation rate. 

In an historic milestone of education reform, in June 2003 the Department announced that 

every State, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia had put into place new 

accountability plans outlining how they would achieve the bold goal of making sure no 

child in America is left behind. Under NCLB’s strong accountability provisions, States 

must describe how they will close the achievement gap and make sure all students, 

achieve academic proficiency. In addition, they must produce annual State and school 

district report cards that inform parents and communities about State, district, and school 

progress. All states submitted draft accountability plans to the U.S. Department of 

Education by January 31, 2003. Following an initial review and technical assistance, if 

needed, the next step was onsite peer reviews of each State's proposed accountability 

plan. Teams of three peer reviewers -- independent, non-Federal education policy, reform 

or statistical experts -- conducted each peer review. Following a review of the team's 

consensus report, the Department provided feedback to the State and worked to resolve 

any outstanding issues. Specific details on each State’s accountability plan can be found 

on the Department’s website at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/

stateplans03/index.html. 

Under their approved State accountability plans, States are to identify for improvement 

any Title I school that does not meet the State's definition of AYP for two or more 

consecutive years. Once identified, States and local educational agencies have significant 

flexibility to direct resources and tailor interventions to the needs of individual schools. 

For example, the statute gives States and districts flexibility in how they can direct Title I 

school improvement funds to schools that need the most improvement. NCLB also 

provides a series of interventions under "school improvement," "corrective action" and 

10 
"restructuring" that allow States, districts, and schools to improve the academic 

achievement of all students. The various school improvement activities associated with 

each stage of school improvement are outlined below: 

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS

 

A Title I school is identified for school improvement after it has not made AYP 

for two consecutive school years. A school moves to the next "step" or "year" 

in this chart if it continues to not make AYP. 

School

Improvement

(Year One)

In general, Title I schools identified for improvement must receive technical 

assistance that enables them to specifically address the academic 

achievement problem that caused the school to be identified for improvement. 

The LEA is required to provide technical assistance as the school develops and 

implements the plan, including specific assistance in analyzing assessment 

data, improving professional development, and improving resource allocation. 

In addition, the following must take place: 

1. All students are offered public school choice. 

2. Each school identified for improvement must develop or revise a 

two-year school improvement plan, in consultation with parents, 

school staff, the local educational agency, and other experts, for 

approval by the LEA. The plan must incorporate research-based 

strategies, a 10 percent set-aside of Title I funds for professional 

development, extended learning time as appropriate (including 

school day or year), strategies to promote effective parental 

involvement, and mentoring for new teachers. 

School 

Improvement,

(Year Two)

1. Make available supplemental educational services to students from 

low-income families. 

In addition, the LEA continues to offer technical assistance to implement the 

new plan and offer public school choice.

Corrective 

Action

(Year Three)

Corrective Action requires an LEA to take actions likely to bring about 

meaningful change at the school. To accomplish this goal, LEAs are required 

to take at least one of the following corrective actions, depending on the 

needs of the individual school: 

1. Replace school staff responsible for the continued failure to make 

AYP; 

2. Implement a new curriculum based on scientifically based research 

(including professional development); 

3. Significantly decrease management authority at the school level; 

4. Extend the school day or school year; 

5. Appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its progress 

toward making AYP in accordance with its school plan; OR 

6. Reorganize the school internally. 

In addition, the LEA continues to offer technical assistance, public school 

choice, and supplemental educational services.

11 
Restructuring

(Year Four)

During the first year of restructuring, the LEA is required to prepare a plan 

and make necessary arrangements to carry out one of the following 

options: 

1. Reopen school as charter school. 

2. Replace principal and staff. 

3. Contract for private management company of demonstrated 

effectiveness. 

4. State takeover. 

5. Any other major restructuring of school governance. 

In addition, the LEA continues to offer public school choice and 

supplemental educational services.

Implementation 

of

Restructuring

(Year Five)

Implement alternative governance plan no later than first day of school 

year following year four described above. 

Implementing the State accountability plan that was approved in spring and early summer 

of 2003, each State, based on data from the 2002-2003 school year, identified Title I 

schools for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring for the 2003-2004 school 

year. States provided to the Department a list of their Title I schools identified for 

improvement, the reason for the school being identified (e.g., reading/language arts 

proficiency, math participation rate, graduation rate), and each school’s Title I school 

improvement status for the 2003-2004 school year. States’ lists of these Title I schools 

are provided in Appendix B. 

12 
Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services 

When schools do not meet State targets for improving the achievement of all students, 

parents need to have better options, including the option to send their child to another 

school. NCLB responds to that need by giving parents of children enrolled in schools 

that receive Title I funding and that are identified for school improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring the opportunity to transfer their children to a school that has not 

been so identified. These statutory provisions, along with other elements that focus new 

attention and resources on turning around the schools identified for improvement, are 

critical mechanisms for achieving the vision embodied in NCLB, a high-quality 

education for all children. 

Additionally, low-income parents of students enrolled in Title I schools identified for 

their second year of school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring may also 

have the opportunity to obtain, for their child, “supplemental educational services,” 

which are tutoring and other academic enrichment services provided in addition to the 

regular program of instruction and that are designed to enable children from low-income 

families to reach academic proficiency. The opportunity to obtain supplemental 

educational services is another parental choice component of NCLB. When both options 

are available, parents may have the choice of which option they would prefer for their 

child. 

Students Participating in Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational 

Services during the 2002-2003 School Year 

The charts on the following pages report data submitted by the States regarding the 

number of students who participated in public school choice and supplemental 

educational services, as required under section 1116, during the 2002-2003 school year. 

The schools these students attended had been identified for improvement or corrective 

action based on data from the 2001-2002 school year and based on each State’s definition 

of AYP under the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA). 

NCLB included specific transition provisions governing Title I schools that were 

identified for improvement under IASA. With one exception stated under the law, 

districts were to provide public school choice at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school 

year to all students in Title I schools that had been identified for improvement or 

corrective action (based on AYP under IASA) as of January 7, 2002. The exception was 

that if a Title I school that was in school improvement on January 7 made its second year 

of adequate yearly progress based on its 2002 assessment results, the district was not 

required to provide choice to the students in that school. Additionally, Title I schools that 

had been identified for school improvement for two or more consecutive years as of 

January 7, 2002, were to begin offering supplemental educational services at the 

beginning of the 2002-2003 school year. 

The data reported by States reflect their first efforts to collect information on public 

school choice and supplemental education services under NCLB. All States are working 

13 
to improve their data collections in these areas, and the Department anticipates having 

complete data from all States for the 2003-2004 school year. 

14 
Public School Choice 

2002-2003 School Year 

State 

Number of Students 

Participating in 

Public School 

Choice 

Number of Schools 

from Which 

Students 

Transferred 

Number of Schools 

to Which Students 

Transferred 

Alabama 836 51 128

Alaska 2 1 1

Arizona 83 25 30

Arkansas 171 25 29

California1 31,469 282 Data not available

Colorado 194 16 12

Connecticut 7 8 4

Delaware Data not available Data not available Data not available

District of Columbia 192 15 34

Florida2 0 0 0

Georgia 1874 215 176

Hawaii 21 15 15

Idaho 0 0 0

Illinois3 1097 38 369

Indiana 1301 120 132

Iowa 170 12 Data not available

Kansas 202 18 25

Kentucky 229 15 28

Louisiana 37 16 15

Maine 0 0 0

Maryland 709 105 92

Massachusetts 845 87 161

Michigan 19 9 5

Minnesota Data not available Data not available Data not available

Mississippi 4 2 2

Missouri 91 19 5

Montana 38 3 5

Nebraska 0 0 0

Nevada 127 12 9

New Hampshire 1 1 1

New Jersey 289 Data not available Data not available

New Mexico 529 58 65

New York 1507 222 268

North Carolina 99 2 6

 

1

 These are the best data currently available to the California Department of Education regarding the first year of NCLB 

implementation. California continues to work with its districts and schools to improve the quality of the information they 

provide. 

2

 Florida had no Title I schools identified for improvement or corrective action during the 2002-2003 school year. 3

 These data represent only the Chicago school district. Statewide numbers will be available in future years. 

15 
State 

Number of Students 

Participating in 

Public School 

Choice 

Number of Schools 

from Which 

Students 

Transferred 

Number of Schools 

to Which Students 

Transferred 

North Dakota 11 4 2

Ohio 698 97 126

Oklahoma 549 8 58

Oregon 742 3 8

Pennsylvania 116 34 23

Puerto Rico Data not available Data not available Data not available

Rhode Island 17 3 6

South Carolina 519 27 42

South Dakota 1 1 1

Tennessee 810 56 74

Texas 59 30 Data not available

Utah 204 18 17

Vermont 0 0 0

Virginia 277 28 25

Washington 620 28 35

West Virginia 49 8 6

Wisconsin 111 35 65

Wyoming4 0 0 0

TOTAL 46,926 1,772 2,105

 

4

 Wyoming had no Title I schools identified for improvement or corrective action during the 2002-2003 school year. 

16 
Supplemental Educational Services 

2002-2003 School Year 

State 

Number of Students 

Receiving Supplemental 

Services 

Number of Schools Whose 

Students Received 

Supplemental Services 

Alabama 726 38

Alaska 1295 15

Arizona 122 21

Arkansas 133 5

California1 30,049 295

Colorado 77 4

Connecticut 718 8

Delaware 0 0

District of Columbia 1120 15

Florida2 0 0

Georgia 14,588 384

Hawaii 1406 54

Idaho 0 0

Illinois 773 25

Indiana 1212 39

Iowa 319 6

Kansas Data not available 15

Kentucky 1132 26

Louisiana 0 0

Maine 0 0

Maryland 902 54

Massachusetts 3063 96

Michigan 3376 157

Minnesota3 0 0

Mississippi 188 4

Missouri 66 4

Montana 84 3

Nebraska 0 0

Nevada4 0 0

New Hampshire 23 2

New Jersey 11,097 Data not available

New Mexico 583 19

 

1

 These are the best data currently available to the California Department of Education regarding the first year of NCLB 

implementation. California continues to work with its districts and schools to improve the quality of the information they 

provide. 

2

 Florida had no Title I schools identified for school improvement year 2 or corrective action during the 2002-2003 school 

year. 

3

 Minnesota had no Title I schools identified for school improvement year 2 or corrective action during the 2002-2003 

school year. 

4

 Nevada had no Title I schools identified for school improvement year 2 or corrective action during the 2002-2003 school 

year.

17 
State 

Number of Students 

Receiving Supplemental 

Services 

Number of Schools Whose 

Students Received 

Supplemental Services 

New York5 31,656 370

North Carolina 129 3

North Dakota Data not available 27

Ohio 1518 100

Oklahoma 378 21

Oregon 198 3

Pennsylvania 2541 203

Puerto Rico 2741 32

Rhode Island 82 1

South Carolina 297 15

South Dakota 7 1

Tennessee 3195 88

Texas 8 3

Utah 65 2

Vermont 7 2

Virginia6 0 0

Washington 0 0

West Virginia 2 1

Wisconsin 750 33

Wyoming7 0 0

TOTAL 116,626 2,194

 

5

 Includes data from New York City school district only. Data on Districts outside of New York City will be available 

beginning with the 2003-2004 school year. In 2002-03, the number of children transferring under the choice option in 

other districts was minimal. 

6

 Virginia had no Title I schools identified for school improvement year 2 or corrective action during the 2002-2003 school 

year. 

7

 Wyoming had no Title I schools identified for school improvement year 2 or corrective action during the 2002-2003 

school year.

18 
Teacher and Paraprofessional Quality 

NCLB places a major emphasis on teacher quality as a factor in improving student 

achievement. To help ensure that all teachers of core academic subjects are highly 

qualified no later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year, Title II, Part A of ESEA - 

the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program - provides nearly $3 billion a year 

to the States. These funds can be used to prepare, train, and recruit highly-qualified 

teachers and principals capable of ensuring that all children will achieve to high academic 

standards. In 2002-2003, approximately 93 percent of all school districts received Title 

II, Part A funds. The new Title II program requires States to develop plans with annual 

measurable objectives that will ensure that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects 

are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. 

Since January 2002, State and local educational agencies, along with State agencies for 

higher education, have been working to implement the Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants program. In designing their teacher training, recruitment, retention, and 

professional development activities, States and local districts must incorporate 

scientifically based strategies that have been shown to increase student academic 

achievement. 

The requirement that teachers be highly qualified applies to all public elementary and 

secondary school teachers employed by a local educational agency who teach a core 

academic subject. “Highly qualified” means that the teacher: 

1. Has obtained full State certification as a teacher or passed the State teacher 

licensing examination and holds a license to teach in the State, and does not 

have certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, 

temporary, or provisional basis; 

2. Holds a minimum of a bachelor’s degree; and 

3. Has demonstrated subject matter competency in each of the academic subjects 

in which the teacher teaches, in a manner determined by the State and in 

compliance with Section 9101(23) of ESEA. 

The statutory definition includes additional elements that apply somewhat differently to 

new and current teachers, and to elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers. The 

complete definition of a “highly qualified” teacher is in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA. 

The term “core academic subjects” means English, reading or language arts, 

mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, 

and geography [Section 9101(11)]. 

In the September 2003 Consolidated State Application and the December 2003 

Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, States were asked to provide baseline data 

from the 2002-2003 school year for the percentage of classes in the core academic 

subjects being taught by “highly qualified” teachers (as the term is defined in Section 

9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate and in high and low-poverty schools. Section 

19 
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “high-poverty” and “low-poverty schools” as schools in the 

top and bottom quartiles of poverty in the State. 

The 2002-2003 school year was the first year that States were required to collect and 

report data on the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly-qualified 

teachers. The information that must be collected for this data requirement is complex—

States must match individual classroom data with individual teacher qualification data 

and then disaggregate those data by school poverty levels. For those States that were 

unable to collect and merge these data sets for the 2002-2003 school year, the 

Department placed conditions on their Title I and Title II October 2003 grant awards 

requiring them to submit detailed data collection plans for the 2003-2004 school year and 

for future years for how the State will collect and report these data. The Department 

expects to be able to report more accurate and complete data for all States beginning with 

the 2003-2004 school year. 

20 
Percent of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers 

2002-2003 School Year

State State Aggregate High-Poverty 

Schools 

Low-Poverty 

 Schools 

Alabama1 35 29 36

Alaska2 Data not available Data not available Data not available

Arizona 95 90 100

Arkansas3 Data not available Data not available Data not available

California4 48 35 53

Colorado5 86 Data not available Data not available

Connecticut 96 95 98

Delaware 85 85 95

District of Columbia 43 37 44

Florida 91 93 92

Georgia 94 95 96

Hawaii6 80 73 84

Idaho 98 99 Data not available

Illinois 98 95 100

Indiana 96 95 97

Iowa 95 95 95

Kansas 80 80 79

Kentucky7 95 97 93

Louisiana8 85 78 90

Maine Data not available Data not available Data not available

Maryland 65 47 76

Massachusetts 94 88 Data not available

Michigan 95 90 99

Minnesota9 Data not available Data not available Data not available

Mississippi 85 81 87

 

1

 During 2002-2003, Alabama employed 37,787 teachers who must document that they are highly qualified because they 

teach core academic subjects as defined by NCLB. Following training sessions provided by the State Department of 

Education (SDE), local educational agencies (LEAs) submitted a checklist their teachers. SDE staff members were able 

to review 14,250 checklists before the 8/15/03 cut-off date for 2002-2003. Thus, the 12,985 highly qualified teachers 

indicated above represent 91.1% of the 14,250 teachers for whom checklists were reviewed and 69.8% of the teachers for 

whom checklists were received. Subsequent updates on highly qualified teachers will include teachers who met the 

criteria during summer 2003 and the review of checklists received after 8/15/03. 

2

 For the 2002-2003 school year, Alaska was unable to report this information at the individual classroom level. 3

 For the 2002-2003 school year, Arkansas was unable to report this information at the individual classroom level. 4

 The data used to generate this information were collected through the annual California Basic Education Data System 

(CBEDS). More specifically, data from the Professional Assignment Information Form (PAIF) were used to determine the 

percentage of credentialed teachers in core academic subject classes in California. That number was reduced to reflect 

the likelihood (based on the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing data) that elementary teachers had passed 

a rigorous State assessment to gain their credentials (about 60%), and that about 25% of secondary core academic 

subject class teachers had earned their supplemental authorizations by completing a major or major equivalent of credits. 5

 Colorado’s data are for the 2003-2004 school year. 

6

 “High-poverty schools” were defined by Hawaii as those receiving Title I funds in school year 2002-03. 7

 Data reflect Kentucky’s best estimate for the 2002-2003 school year. 8

 This report represents the best data available at this time. It does not include special education teachers due to 

difficulties with data collection in that area. Louisiana is working to develop a mechanism to collect the required data for 

special education teachers.

9

 For the 2002-2003 school year, Minnesota was unable to collect this information at the individual classroom level. 

21 
State State Aggregate High-Poverty 

Schools 

Low-Poverty 

 Schools 

Missouri 95 90 97

Montana Data not available Data not available 97

Nebraska10 90 82 93

Nevada 50 50 62

New Hampshire 86 84 88

New Jersey Data not available Data not available Data not available

New Mexico 77 71 76.5

New York Data not available Data not available Data not available

North Carolina 83 78 86

North Dakota 91 94 91

Ohio11 82 78 97

Oklahoma12 98 97 98

Oregon 82 72 86

Pennsylvania 95 93 99

Puerto Rico Data not available Data not available Data not available

Rhode Island13 Data not available Data not available Data not available

South Carolina14 Data not available Data not available Data not available

South Dakota 89 79 91

Tennessee 34 35 33

Texas15 76 69 81

Utah16 Data not available Data not available Data not available

Vermont 92 93 92

Virginia 83 77 87

Washington 83 88 79

West Virginia 94 96 98

 

10 The data include only the classes at the secondary level (grades 9-12). Nebraska’s data collection system for teacher 

qualifications is being revised to allow for the collection of data to determine the highly qualified status of all teachers. 

Revisions to the system and to the data collections for the 2003-2004 reporting are being made that will include teachers 

at all levels. 

11 Ohio’s data do not include those people who may be highly qualified through the use of a Master’s degree in the 

content area, a major with 30 or more semester hours in the content area or those who qualify using the rubric, items not 

collected in the 2002-2003 school year. All options will be included in future school years. 

12 Oklahoma’s data are for the 2003-2004 school year. 13 In the fall of 2002, Rhode Island implemented a new computer application called RICERT. The purpose of RICERT is 

to replace an antiquated mainframe system that tracked teachers’ State certification. A revision is being made to the 

RICERT that will allow the State to identify teachers meeting the criteria of a “highly qualified” teachers in any given 

assignment area reported. Once so identified, the teacher will be counted in the equation that will determine the 

percentage of classes being taught by “highly qualified” teachers. 

14 For the 2002-2003 school year, South Carolina was unable to collect this information at the individual classroom level. 15 These percentages underestimate the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers because data related to 

college coursework and other professional development and experience were not available for 2002-2003. Texas relied 

solely on certification records, which are maintained at the State level, for the purpose of determining baseline data from 

2002-2003: Number of teacher FTEs with State certification in core subject areas divided by total number of teacher 

FTEs in core subject areas. It should be noted that local educational agencies will be using additional information when 

implementing parental notification requirements. Further, the methodology for determining the baseline and projections is 

subject to annual review and modification to incorporate improvements in data collection systems. 16 Utah submitted the percentage of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) teachers under NCLB subject areas rather than the 

percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers. The information submitted was available from Utah’s database 

of licensed educators; the information needed for the latter percentage is not yet available from the State’s student 

database.

22 
State State Aggregate High-Poverty 

Schools 

Low-Poverty 

 Schools 

Wisconsin17 Data not available Data not available Data not available

Wyoming 95 99 98

 

17 For the 2002-2003 school year, Wisconsin was unable to collect this information at the individual classroom level. 

23 
Professional Development 

NCLB recognizes the critical importance of teachers having access to high-quality 

professional development to improve the academic performance of all students. The term 

“high-quality professional development” means professional development that meets the 

criteria contained in the definition of professional development in section 9101(34) of 

ESEA. Professional development includes, but is not limited to, activities that: 

o Improve and increase teachers’ knowledge of academic subjects and enable 

teachers to become highly qualified; 

o Are an integral part of broad schoolwide and districtwide educational 

improvement plans; 

o Give teachers and principals the knowledge and skills to help students meet 

challenging State academic standards; 

o Improve classroom management skills; 

o Are sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused and are not one-day or short-term 

workshops; 

o Advance teacher understanding of effective instruction strategies that are based on 

scientifically based research; and 

o Are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, parents, and 

administrators. 

In the September 2003 Consolidated State Applications, States reported the percentage of 

public elementary and secondary school teachers who received high-quality professional 

development during the 2002-2003 school year. The 2002-2003 school year was the first 

year that States were required to collect and report data on high-quality professional 

development. For those States that were unable to collect and merge these data for the 

2002-2003 school year, the Department placed conditions on their Title II October 2003 

grant awards requiring them to submit detailed data collection plans for the 2003-2004 

school year and for future years for how the State will collect and report these data. The 

Department expects to be able to report more accurate and complete data on professional 

development for all States beginning with the 2003-2004 school year. 

24 
Percent of Teachers Receiving High-Quality Professional Development 

2002-2003 School Year 

State % of Teachers Receiving High Quality 

Professional Development 

Alabama 83

Alaska 100

Arizona 83

Arkansas 100

California1 25

Colorado 60

Connecticut 100

Delaware 75

District of Columbia 60

Florida 90

Georgia 69

Hawaii 17

Idaho 94

Illinois2 Data not available

Indiana 99

Iowa 77

Kansas 50

Kentucky3 Data not available

Louisiana4 53

Maine5 Data not available

Maryland 33

Massachusetts6 Data not available

Michigan7 Data Not Available

Minnesota8 Data Not Available

Mississippi9 Data not available

Missouri 61

Montana10 Data Not Available

Nebraska 41

Nevada 36

New Hampshire 75

 

1

 This number reflects California’s best estimate for the 2002-2003 school year. The State has refined its data collection to 

report more accurate data in the future. 

2

 Illinois was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 

3

 Kentucky was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 

4

 At the present time, Louisiana local education agencies (LEAs) are only reporting an unduplicated count of teachers that 

receive high-quality professional development that is supported using Title II funds. Beginning in 2003-2004, LEAs will 

report an unduplicated count of teachers receiving high-quality professional development through all of the State formula 

programs under NCLB. 

5

 Maine was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 

6

 Massachusetts was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 

7

 Michigan was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 

8

 Minnesota was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 

9

 Mississippi was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year.

10 Montana was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 

25 
State % of Teachers Receiving High Quality 

Professional Development 

New Jersey 98

New Mexico 95

New York11 Data not available

North Carolina 69

North Dakota 12

Ohio 73

Oklahoma12 Data Not Available

Oregon 79

Pennsylvania 86

Puerto Rico 20

Rhode Island 65

South Carolina13 Data not available

South Dakota 22

Tennessee 49

Texas 90

Utah 18

Vermont 100

Virginia 85

Washington 46

West Virginia14 Data not available

Wisconsin 100

Wyoming 79

 

11 New York was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 12 Oklahoma was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 13 South Carolina was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year. 14 West Virginia was unable to collect these data for the 2002-2003 school year.

26 
Paraprofessionals 

Title I of ESEA is designed to help disadvantaged children reach high academic 

standards. Properly trained paraprofessionals can play important roles in improving 

student achievement in Title I schools where they can reinforce a teacher’s effort in the 

classroom. Unfortunately, studies indicate that paraprofessionals are used in many Title I 

schools for teaching and assisting in teaching when their educational backgrounds do not 

qualify them for such responsibilities. Title I of ESEA requires that paraprofessionals 

meet higher standards of qualification and ensures that students who need the most help 

receive instructional support only from qualified paraprofessionals. 

For the purposes of Title I, Part A, a paraprofessional is an employee of an LEA who 

provides instructional support in a program supported with Title I, Part A funds. 

Paraprofessionals who provide instructional support includes those who (1) provide oneon-one tutoring if such tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not 

otherwise receive instruction from a teacher; (2) assist with classroom management, such 

as by organizing instructional materials; (3) provide instructional assistance in a 

computer laboratory; (4) conduct parental involvement activities; (5) provide 

instructional support in a library or media center; (6) act as a translator; or (7) provide 

instructional support services under the direct supervision of a highly qualified teacher. 

Although paraprofessionals provide instructional support, they should not be providing 

planned direct instruction, or introducing to students new skills, concepts, or academic 

content. Individuals who work in food services, cafeteria or playground supervision, 

personal care services, non-instructional computer assistance, and similar positions are 

not considered paraprofessionals under Title I, Part A. 

To be qualified under NCLB, 

(1) All Title I paraprofessionals must have a secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent. 

(2) Additionally, except as noted below, paraprofessionals hired after January 8, 

2002, and working in a program supported with Title I, Part A funds must have— 

• Completed two years of study at an institution of higher education; or 

• Obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree; or 

• Met a rigorous standard of quality and be able to demonstrate, through a 

formal State or local academic assessment, knowledge of and the ability 

to assist in instructing, reading, writing, and mathematics (or, as 

appropriate, reading readiness, writing readiness, and mathematics 

readiness). 

(3) Paraprofessionals hired on or before January 8, 2002, and working in a 

program supported with Title I, Part A funds must meet these requirements by 

January 8, 2006. 

27 
Paraprofessionals who only serve as translators or who only conduct parental 

involvement activities must have a secondary school diploma or its equivalent but do not 

have to meet the additional requirements. 

In the September 2003 Consolidated State Applications, States were asked to provide 

baseline data for the percentage of their Title I paraprofessionals who met NCLB 

qualification requirements during the 2002-2003 school year. The 2002-2003 school year 

was the first year that States were required to collect and report data on qualified Title I 

paraprofessionals. For those States that were unable to collect these data for the 2002-

2003 school year, the Department placed conditions on their Title I October 2003 grant 

awards requiring them to submit detailed data collection plans for the 2003-2004 school 

year and for future years for how the State will collect and report these data. The 

Department expects to be able to report more accurate and complete data on Title I 

paraprofessionals for all States beginning with the 2003-2004 school year. 

28 
Percent of Qualified Title I Paraprofessionals 

2002-2003 School Year 

State Percent of Qualified Title I 

Paraprofessionals 

Alabama 38

Alaska 27

Arizona 38

Arkansas1 Data Not Available

California 20

Colorado 22

Connecticut 30

Delaware2 52

District of Columbia 5

Florida 39

Georgia 67

Hawaii 11

Idaho 87

Illinois3 Data Not Available

Indiana 43

Iowa 99

Kansas 60

Kentucky 60

Louisiana4 0

Maine Data Not Available

Maryland 21

Massachusetts 46

Michigan Data Not Available

Minnesota Data Not Available

Mississippi 65

Missouri 26

Montana Data Not Available

Nebraska 42

Nevada 56

New Hampshire 54

New Jersey 42

New Mexico 24

 

1

Arkansas did not collect these data prior to the 2003-2004 school year. The State’s data management system has been 

revised to collect these data. 

2

 These data are estimates. 

3

 Illinois did not collect these data prior to the 2003-2004 school year. The State’s data management system has been 

revised to collect these data. 

4

 For the 2002-2003 school year, Louisiana did not have a State definition of highly qualified paraprofessional as 

delineated in section 1119(c) and (d) and did not collect information regarding the qualifications of paraprofessionals at 

the state level. The State is reporting the 2002-2003 baseline for this indicator as 0%. Louisiana has collected 2003-2004 

school year data from the districts and is in the process of verifying these data through its monitoring processes. The 

State will, therefore, be able to report on this indicator for the Consolidated Performance Report for 2003-2004. 

29 
State Percent of Qualified Title I 

Paraprofessionals 

New York Data Not Available

North Carolina 35

North Dakota Data Not Available

Ohio5 5

Oklahoma Data Not Available

Oregon 44

Pennsylvania 19

Puerto Rico 44

Rhode Island 40

South Carolina 17

South Dakota 54

Tennessee 41

Texas 50

Utah 46

Vermont 31

Virginia 24

Washington 39

West Virginia 53

Wisconsin 35

Wyoming 54

 

 

 

 

5

 The numbers represented in this calculation do not include those paraprofessionals who have taken a Statewide or local 

assessment. 

30 
Appendix A 

State Assessment Data from the 2002-2003 School Year
Appendix B 

State Lists of Title I Schools Identified for Improvement 

during the 2003-2004 School Year
2