# Archived Information

# Provision of Title I Services:  Recent Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools

## Purpose of the Brief

Since its inception under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, the Title I program has provided high-poverty schools funding for services to assist low-achieving children.  Title I promotes increasing the amount and quality of learning time; data-driven decisionmaking; providing an enriched and accelerated curriculum; and adopting strategies to increase parental involvement.   

This brief examines services provided by Title I schools.  The brief uses data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS)—to address:

· The extent to which changes in Title I legislation have helped promote school improvement activities;

· The provision of instructional services including:

· Extended learning time for students;

· Use of pullout and in-class settings in the provision of instructional supplemental services; and

· Use of teacher aides to provide instructional and other services; and

· The coordination of services for special population students.

## Data

This evaluation brief reports on data obtained through the NLSS, a nationally representative survey of principals and teachers in Title I schools in school year (SY) 1998-1999.  Designed and conducted by Westat, the principal and teacher surveys of the NLSS were first fielded during SY 1998–1999; schools that remained in Title I status were followed for the next two years through SY 2000–2001.  The surveys focus on whether and how schools are implementing the provisions of 1994 amendments to Title I of ESEA.  The total sample size for the NLSS was 1,507 Title I schools; schools with significant numbers of special population students—students with limited English proficiency, migrant students, and Native American students—were oversampled.  The total number of responding schools was 1,081 in SY 1998-1999 and 987 in SY 1999-2000; the total number of responding teachers was 5,422 in SY 1998-1999 and 5,414 in SY 1999-2000.   

It should be kept in mind that the analyses reported here are based on survey data, which rely on respondents’ self-reports.  Self-reports may reflect socially desirable responses.  In addition, the findings generally present sub-group comparisons among variables of interest and are not meant to suggest causality.

## Principals Reported that Changes Under the 1994 Reauthorization Helped Their School

The 1994 reauthorization of Title I represented a shift in the program’s vision for helping children.  The “new Title I” was grounded in the proposition that “all children can master challenging content and complex problem-solving skills”  (Sec. 6301(c)(1)).  The purpose of the law was to “enable schools to provide opportunities for children served to acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and to meet the challenging State performance standards developed for all children” (Sec. 6301(d)).  These changes were emphasized in the 2002 amendments to ESEA as well.  

The centerpiece on which these new expectations rested was a simple two-part strategy:  (a) setting high standards and holding education systems accountable for results, and (b) providing flexibility in the use of resources by schools, especially for high-poverty schools (defined as those having 50 percent or more of their students eligible for free/reduced price lunch) to encourage schoolwide approaches to reform. 

By design, the 1994 reauthorization of Title I aimed to increase the flexibility of schools to identify students for services, minimize pullout programs, and extend learning time in order to promote schoolwide reform.  The new flexibility included expanded opportunities for high-poverty schools to use Title I money for schoolwide programs to integrate services, strategies, and resources to comprehensively reform the entire instructional program.  Schoolwide programs allow high-poverty schools to use Title I money in combination with other federal, state, and local funds, to improve the entire educational program for *all*their students unlike targeted assistance programs, which provide services only to children identified as failing or most at risk of failing to meet a state’s content and student performance standards.  

Over 60 percent of principals in all Title I schools reported that these changes in the Title I legislation helped their schools in these various ways.  The effects of the changes in Title I legislation have been significantly larger in schools with schoolwide programs than in schools with targeted assistance programs (Exhibit 1), perhaps due to the increased flexibility allowed to schools running schoolwide programs.

Principals in schoolwide Title I schools were significantly more likely than principals in targeted assistance schools to report that the changes in the legislation helped their school:

· Have more flexibility in identifying students for services (85 percent compared to 66 percent);

· Minimize pullout programs (75 percent compared to 61 percent); and

· Extend learning time (75 percent compared to 53 percent).

**Exhibit 1.  School Activities Promoted “To a Moderate Extent” or “To a Great Extent” by Changes in Title I Legislation, SY 1998-1999**

**Exhibit reads:  85 percent of principals in Title I schoolwide schools reported that changes in Title I legislation had helped their school to have more flexibility in identifying students for services “to a moderate extent” or “to a great extent” compared with 66 percent of principals in targeted assistance schools and 75 percent of principals in all Title I schools.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998-1999, Section D, Q. PD1

## District Control Over the Use of Funds Was a Challenge in Coordinating Federal Resources with Other Funds 

When principals were asked about the challenges they faced in coordinating federal resources with other school funds, about two-thirds of the principals in both years responded that district control over the use of funds was a challenge (Exhibit 2).  In SY 1999-2000, 41 percent of principals reported that they were unclear on what funds could be combined, creating a challenge in coordinating different sources of funding.  This was significantly lower than the percentage reporting uncertainty as a challenge in SY 1998-1999.

Exhibit 2.  Challenges in Coordinating Federal Resources with Other Funds, by School Year

****

**Exhibit reads:  In SY 1998-1999, 65 percent of principals in Title I schools reported that district control was a challenge in coordinating federal resources with other funds compared with 66 percent of principals in Title I schools in SY 1999-2000.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-1998, SY 1999-2000, Section D, Q. PD26

## The Percentage of Title I Schools Offering Before- or After-School Programs Increased Significantly in SY 1999-2000

The recent National Assessment of Title I report, *High Standards for All Students*, points out that:  “Relying exclusively on learning during the school day is simply not sufficient for all students to reach high standards.  Extended learning time programs are a potentially promising strategy to provide the needed extra instructional time and additional learning opportunities, particularly for lower-achieving students.”  The NLSS offers data on the extent to which Title I schools are offering extended-time programs (such as before- or after-school programs, summer or intersession programs, extended school year programs, and weekend and year-

round programs) and the number of students being served by these programs.

The percentages of Title I schools offering extended-time programs and the percentages using Title I money to fund their programs in SY 1999-2000 are shown in Exhibit 3.  Sixty-nine percent of Title I schools offered before- or after-school programs in SY 1999-2000.  This represents a significant increase from SY 1998-1999 when 53 percent of principals reported that their school offered before- or after-school programs.  These findings are consistent with trends found by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP).  In a recent telephone survey, NAESP found that two-thirds of elementary and middle schools offered an after-school program and that 29 percent had established the program within the past three years (Belden, Russonello, & Stewart, 2001).

**Exhibit 3.  Percentage of Principals in Title I Schools Reporting Their School has Extended-Time Programs and Whether Program is Funded by Title I, SY 1999-2000**

**Exhibit reads:  69 percent of principals in Title I schools reported that their school offered a before- or after-school program; 30 percent of principals in Title I schools reported that this program was funded by Title I; the remaining 39 percent reported that the program was not funded by Title I.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section D, Q. PD10

About two-thirds of schools offered summer or intersession programs while 28 percent had extended school year programs.  Few Title I schools—less than 10 percent—had a year-round or weekend program.  In general, about half the Title I schools with an extended-time program reported using Title I funds to support the program.  

Principals in the highest-poverty schools (defined as schools having more than 75 percent of their students eligible for free/reduced price lunch) were more likely than principals in the lowest-poverty schools (defined as schools having less than 35 percent of their students eligible for free/reduced price lunch) to report offering programs that extend school time and using Title I funds to support the programs. However, the only two significant differences were for weekend programs and year-round programs.

## The Highest-Poverty Schools Offered More Hours of Extended Learning Time than the Lowest-Poverty Schools  

Overall, before- and after-school programs were offered for about eight hours per week, over roughly seven months of the year.  Not surprisingly, summer/intersession and extended school year programs were offered for more hours per week but fewer weeks per year—approximately 17 hours per week over six to seven weeks of the year.  

The average number of hours added to the school year through extended-time programs in SY 1999-2000 is shown in Exhibit 4.

**Exhibit 4.  Average Number of Hours Per Year Added to the School Year by Extended-Time Programs, by School and Poverty Level, SY 1999-2000**

**Exhibit reads:  Before- or after-school programs added an average of 337 hours to the school year in the lowest-poverty elementary schools; 227 hours in the highest-poverty elementary schools; 184 hours in the lowest-poverty secondary schools; and 279 hours in the highest-poverty secondary schools.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section D, Q. PD10A

Note:     Question asked of principals who reported that their school offered the specific program.  

With some exceptions, the highest-poverty schools, both elementary and secondary, were significantly more likely to offer programs for longer periods of time than the lowest-poverty schools.  For example, compared with the lowest-poverty elementary schools, the highest-poverty elementary schools offered significantly more hours of summer/intersession programs (101 hours compared to 71 hours) and extended year programs (148 hours compared to 54 hours).   At the secondary school level, the highest-poverty schools offered significantly more hours through before- and after school programs (279 hours compared to 184 hours) and 

extended-year programs (123 hours compared to 65 hours) than did the lowest-poverty schools.

## Although a Large Number of Title I Schools Offered Extended-Time Instructional Programs, the Programs Themselves Served Small Numbers of Students.  

Exhibit 5 shows the average percentages of students served by the various programs.  Before- or after-school programs served about one-fifth of the students in Title I schools; summer programs served 17 percent of students; and extended school year programs served 15 percent of students.  

**Exhibit 5.  Average Percentage of Students Served by Extended-Time Programs, by Poverty Status of School, SY 1999-2000**

**Exhibit reads:  The average percentage of students served by the before- or after-school program in the lowest-poverty Title I schools was 18 percent; the corresponding percentages in the highest- poverty Title I schools and all Title I schools were 26 and 20 percent, respectively.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section D, Q. PD10A

Note:   Question asked of principals who reported that their school offered the specific program.  

Programs offered by the highest-poverty schools served larger percentages of students in those schools compared with programs offered by the lowest-poverty schools.  For example, before- or after-school programs served, on average, about 18 percent of students in the lowest-poverty Title I schools compared with 26 percent of students in the highest-poverty Title I schools.  The difference in the percentages of students served by summer programs is even greater: 15 percentage points.

## Schools Were More Likely to Offer Supplemental Instruction in Reading than in Mathematics 

In SY 1999-2000, principals in Title I schools were more likely to report that their school offered supplemental instruction in reading (89 percent) than in mathematics (69 percent).  Both supplemental instructional services were largely funded by Title I funds.  The highest-poverty schools were more likely to offer these supplemental services than the lowest-poverty schools.  For example, 95 percent of the highest-poverty elementary schools offered supplemental instructional services in reading compared with 83 percent of the lowest-poverty elementary schools; 80 percent of the highest-poverty secondary schools offered supplemental instructional services in mathematics compared with 64 percent of the lowest-poverty secondary schools.  

## Supplemental Services in Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Schools Were Provided in Both In-Class and Pullout Settings

One of the goals of the reauthorized Title I was to minimize pullout programs and to ensure that Title I students received the same instructional opportunities as other students.  

Well over 90 percent of elementary schools reported having in-class supplemental instructional services, as did 86 percent of secondary schools, all largely funded by Title I, regardless of whether the school was a schoolwide or a targeted assistance school.  

Both elementary and secondary schoolwide schools reported lower incidence of pullout services than did targeted assistance schools (Exhibit 6).  Sixty-eight percent of elementary and 55 percent of secondary schoolwides reported having pullout services for their students compared with 81 and 60 percent of elementary and secondary targeted assistance schools respectively.   

About 73 percent of teachers in schoolwide elementary schools reported that their students received supplemental instructional services compared with 90 percent of teachers in targeted assistance schools (Exhibit 7).  This difference was significant.  As Exhibit 7 also shows, supplemental instructional services were much more likely to be provided in a pullout setting than in an in-class setting in schoolwide and targeted assistance schools.  Overall, 83 percent of teachers in all Title I elementary schools reported supplemental services were provided in a pullout setting, 52 percent in an in-class setting, and 37 percent (not shown) in both settings. 

While the exhibit does not show data on secondary school teachers, the results were similar.  For example, 69 percent of teachers in Title I secondary schools reported that supplemental services were provided in pullout settings compared with 39 percent who reported that services were provided in class.  There was little difference by whether the school was a schoolwide or a targeted assistance school.

## Some Students Were Missing Academic Instruction While Receiving Supplemental Services

Fifty-three percent of teachers who reported their students were pulled out of class to receive supplemental services reported that students missed their teachers’ core academic instruction.  Students who were pulled out of regular instruction were more likely to miss instruction in social studies or science rather than reading or mathematics.  For example, while 35 percent of teachers reported that students missed social studies or science, 22 percent reported that students missed reading and 16 percent reported that students missed mathematics.

## Teacher Aides Were Widely Used to Assist with Instruction 

As noted by the recent National Assessment of Title I report, *High Standards for All Students*, the widespread use of paraprofessionals, and their involvement in direct instruction, is a cause for concern if they do not have the educational background necessary to teach students.  Another recent study reported that only one-quarter of paraprofessionals have an undergraduate degree, and that this percentage is even lower in the highest-poverty schools.

**Exhibit 6.  Principal Reports of Whether Their School has Pullout Services and Whether These Services are Funded by Title I, by School Level and Title I Type, SY 1999-2000**

**Exhibit reads:  68 percent of principals in schoolwide Title I elementary schools reported having services that served children in a pullout setting; 50 percent of principals in schoolwide Title I elementary schools reported using Title I funds for these services; the remaining 18 percent of principals reported that the program was not funded by Title I.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section D, Q. PD10

**Exhibit 7.  Reports of Classroom Teachers of How Supplemental Services are Provided in Elementary Schools, by Title I Type, SY 1999-2000**

**Exhibit reads:  In schoolwide Title I elementary schools, 72.5 percent of teachers reported that their students received supplemental services in mathematics or reading**.

Source:  NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section C, Q. TC3, TC4, TC7

Notes: aAsked of classroom teachers who reported having students who receive supplemental services.

Overall, in SY 1999-2000, 92 percent of the principals reported having teacher aides in their schools.  Principals who reported having teacher aides in their schools were asked the extent to which aides engaged in specific activities.  Most aides appear to be assisting with instruction rather than working on clerical tasks.   

About half the principals reported that teacher aides worked with students in groups “to a great extent” and 36 percent reported that aides worked one-on-one with students.  Less than 10 percent reported that aides worked with the whole class, with parents, or performed clerical tasks.  

There were no significant differences in the use of teacher aides by poverty status or Title I program type, with one exception—8.6 percent of principals in schoolwides reported that teacher aides worked with the whole class compared with 2.6 percent of principals in targeted assistance schools.   

Exhibit 8 shows the use of teacher aides to provide supplemental or special instructional services in elementary schools,  either alone or under the direction of a teacher.  Among schools that offered supplemental instructional services, 80 percent of Title I elementary schools used teacher aides to provide these services in reading and 70 percent to provide instructional services in mathematics.   Among schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency, 52 percent of the schools that offered services designed to teach English to these students and 66 percent of the schools that taught in the student’s native language used teacher aides to provide these services.   

Sixty-five percent of principals in schools with teacher aides reported using Title I funds to fund teacher aides.  On average, the highest-poverty schools employed more Title I aides than the lowest-poverty schools.  For example, the highest-poverty elementary schools had an average of four teacher aides funded through Title I compared with two aides in the lowest-poverty elementary schools.  This difference was significant.

## Schools Made Efforts to Coordinate Other Services for Special Populations with Title I Services

In SY 1999-2000, principals in schools with 10 percent or more of students with limited English proficiency or at least one migrant student were asked about the extent to which their school coordinated services to these students with other supplemental or Title I services.  Coordination of services can include a number of things such as the sharing of resources or personnel and engaging in joint professional development or joint planning for students.  

Overall, 40 percent of principals reported coordinating services for migrant students with other supplemental/Title I services “to a great extent,” and 54 percent of principals reported coordinating services for students with limited English proficiency with other services “to a great extent.”

Principals of schoolwide elementary schools were significantly more likely to report coordination of services than were principals in targeted assistance elementary schools.  For example, about 60 percent of principals in elementary Title I schoolwide schools reported coordinating other services with those for migrant students compared with less than 20 percent of principals in targeted assistance elementary schools.  

Principals in schools with high proportions (25 percent or more) of students with limited English proficiency were significantly more likely to report coordinating services than were principals in schools with medium proportions (10 percent – 24.9 percent) of students with limited English proficiency.

**Exhibit 8.  Reports of Principals Regarding the Use of Teacher Aides, Title I Elementary Schools, SY 1999-2000**

**Exhibit reads:  94.3 percent of principals in the lowest-poverty Title I elementary schools reported that their school had teacher aides.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section D, Q. PD10, PD13, PD13A, PD13B, PD13C

Notes: aAsked of principals who reported that their school had teacher aides.

 bAsked of principals who reported that their school had teacher aides and that their school

              offered supplemental services in reading.

 cAsked of principals who reported that their school had teacher aides and that their school

             offered supplemental services in mathematics.

 dAsked of principals in schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English

    proficiency who reported that their school had teacher aides and that their school offered  

 services specially designed to teach English to students with limited English proficiency.

 eAsked of principals in schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English 

 proficiency who reported that their school had teacher aides and that their school offered 

 services in the student’s native language

 fSmall sample size.

## Summary 

· Principals in both schoolwide and targeted assistance schools reported that changes under the 1994 reauthorization of Title I helped their school.

· Compared with principals in targeted assistance schools, principals in schoolwide schools were significantly more likely to report that:

· Changes in Title I legislation had increased their flexibility in identifying students for services, minimizing pullout programs, and extending learning time;

· They faced fewer challenges in terms of district control of funds in coordinating federal resources with other funds; and

· Services for migrant students or students with limited English proficiency (in elementary schools offering such services) were coordinated “to a great extent” with other supplemental services.  

· About 70 percent of all Title I schools offered some type of extended-time instructional programs (before- or after-school, summer or intersession programs, extended school year programs):  

· The percentage of Title I schools offering before- or after-school programs increased from SY 1998-1999 to SY 1999-2000;

· With some exceptions, the highest-poverty schools were significantly more likely than the lowest-poverty schools to offer programs for longer periods of time, particularly those that extended the school year; and

· Extended-time programs served between 15-20 percent of students, although programs offered by the highest-poverty schools served larger percentages of students in those schools compared with programs offered by the lowest-poverty schools. 

· Most of the schools offered supplemental reading instruction, and close to 70 percent offered supplemental mathematics instruction, all largely funded by Title I funds.

· Supplemental instructional services occurred in both pullout and in-class settings in both schoolwide and targeted assistance schools.

· Half of teachers who reported that their students were pulled out of class to receive supplemental services reported that those students missed core academic instruction.

· Almost all schools had teacher aides in their schools:  

· Most of these aides assisted with instruction; and

· Sixty-five percent of schools used Title I resources to fund these positions.

## References

Belden, Russonello, & Stewart. (2001).  *Principals and after school programs:  A survey of PreK – 8 principals*.  Washington, DC:  Author.

Chambers, J., Lieberman, J., Parrish, T., Kaleba, D., Van Campen, J., & Stullich, S.  (1999).  *Study of education resources and federal funding:  Preliminary report*.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

U. S. Department of Education.  (2001).  *High standards for all students:  A report from the national assessment of Title I on progress and challenges since the 1994 reauthorization.* Washington, DC:  Author. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

This report was prepared by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Murray, Scott Naftel, and Mark Berends of RAND, 1200 South Hayes St., Arlington, VA 22202-5050 and edited by Paul Arends.  The project monitor for the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools is Susan Sanchez, Planning and Evaluation Service, U. S. Department of Education.  The project director is Babette Gutmann, Westat, Rockville, Md. 

�In 1998-1999 the NLSS sample was nationally representative of all Title I schools.  The sample was not refreshed and consequently is not representative of all Title I schools in subsequent years.

�Throughout this brief, “significant” is used in a statistical sense, to indicate that the difference between two estimates is significant at a 0.05 probability level or better. 

�U.S. Department of Education, 2001:3.

�While differences in before- or after-school programs in elementary schools and summer programs in secondary schools were large, they were not significantly different by poverty level due to large standard errors.

�Core academic instructional classes include mathematics, reading, science, and social studies.

�U. S. Department of Education, 2001:37-38. 

�Chambers et al., 1999.

�The NLSS did not collect data on the level of teacher supervision over teacher aides’ instruction or the education level of aides.

PAGE  

1

        August 2002