Planning and Evaluation Service

THE SAME HIGH STANDARDS FOR MIGRANT STUDENTS:

HOLDING TITLE I SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE

VOLUME I: TITLE I SCHOOLS SERVING MIGRANT STUDENTS:

RECENT EVIDENCE FROM THE NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL

SURVEY OF SCHOOLS

FINAL REPORT

2002

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC. #2002-15

THE SAME HIGH STANDARDS FOR MIGRANT STUDENTS:

HOLDING TITLE I SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE

Volume I: TITLE I SCHOOLS SERVING MIGRANT STUDENTS:

RECENT EVIDENCE FROM THE

NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF SCHOOLS

FINAL REPORT

SUBMITTED BY:

SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY

SCOTT NAFTEL

MARK BERENDS

JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS

RAND

ARLINGTON, VA.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2002
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Susan Sanchez, under Contract Number EA

97010001. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department

of Education is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Rod R. Paige

Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary

Eugene W. Hickok

Under Secretary

Planning and Evaluation Service

Alan L. Ginsburg

Director

Elementary and Secondary Education Division

Ricky T. Takai

Director

September 2002

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to

reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under

Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service, Elementary and Secondary Education Division, The Same Standards for

Migrant Students: Holding Title I Schools Accountable. Volume I: Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students:

Recent Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, Washington, D.C., 2002.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area,

call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a

teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.ed.gov/about/ordering.jsp.

This report is also available on the Departmentís Web site at:

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/ed_for_disadvantaged.html#migranted

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/OME/pubs.htm

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer

diskette. For more information, please contact the Departmentís Alternate Format Center (202) 260-9895 or (202)

205-8113.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Susan Sanchez, the contracting officerís representative (COR) for

the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS), U.S. Department of Education,

Planning and Evaluation Service (PES) and Babette Gutmann, project director of the NLSS,

Westat, for their interest and support of this project. We thank Francisco Garcia and Alex

Goniprow of the Office of Migrant Education, and Robin Chait, formerly of PES for their

guidance and for sharing their knowledge of schools with migrant students and the

challenges they face, and Beth Franklin of PES for comments on an earlier draft. Several

other individuals within the Department also provided useful comments.

Most of all, we thank the teachers, principals, and staff in the studied schools who

gave of their time to participate in the surveys.

We also thank our editor, Paul Arends, for his careful editing of the report.

v

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments iii

Contents v

List of Figures vii

List of Tables ix

Executive Summary xi

Background xi

Overview of the Study and its Results xi

Key Findings xii

Introduction 1

Data 3

National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS) 3

Common Core of Data (CCD) 4

Sample Size of Title I Schools with Migrant Students in the NLSS 5

Limitations of the Study 5

Profile of Title I Schools 7

Teacher Characteristics 13

Student Outcomes 14

Current Status of Implementation of Standards-Based Reforms in Title I Schools 165

Provision of Title I Services 24

Professional Development in Title I Schools 29

Teacher Perceptions of Studentsí Mathematics Abilities 33

Mathematics Coursework in Secondary Schools 34

Parent Involvement Strategies 35

Availability and Use of Technology 40
vi

Schools Identified as in Need of Improvement 41

Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform Model s 42

References 44

Appendix: Selected Tabulations from the NLSS Principal and Teacher Surveys 45
vii

FIGURES

Figure 2. Selected Characteristics of Teacher Quality in Title I Schools, by School Level

and Migrant Status of School 13

Figure 3. Selected Student Outcomes in Title I Schools, by School Level And Migrant

Status of School 15

Figure 4. Percentage of Principals in Title I Schools Reporting That Standards were ìToo

Rigorousî for Most of Their Students ìTo a Great Extent,î by School Level and

Migrant Status of School 16

Figure 5. Percentage of Teachers in Title I Elementary Schools Reporting that Reading

Standards And Assessments were ìToo Hardî for their Students, by Migrant

Status of School 17

Figure 6. Percentage of Teachers in Title I Secondary Schools Reporting that Reading

Standards and Assessments were ìToo Hardî for their Students, by Migrant Status

of School 17

Figure 7. Percentage of Elementary School Principals in Title I Schools Reporting That

Selected Factors were a Barrier ìTo a Great Extentî to Using Content Standards

with All Students, by Migrant Status of School 19

Figure 8. Participation Rate of Migrant Students in Title I Schools in Reading and

Mathematics Assessments, by School Level and Migrant Status Of School 20

Figure 9. Percentage of Elementary School Principals in Title I Schools Reporting

Receiving Assessment Information Summarized by Subgroups of Students, by

Migrant Status of School 22

Figure 10. Percentage of Elementary Teachers in Title I Schools Reporting Selected Types

Of Professional Development They Would Have Liked to Experience, by Migrant

Status of School 31

Figure 11. Percentage of Teachers in Title I Schools Reporting They Would Have Liked

Professional Development in Instructional Strategies to Teach Migrant Students,

by Migrant Status of School 32
viii

Figure 12. Percentage of Graduating Seniors in Title I High Schools That Have Taken

Selected Courses in Mathematics, by Migrant Status of School 34

Figure 13. Percentage of Elementary Principals in Title I Schools Reporting Selected

Strategies to Encourage Parent Involvement, by Migrant Status of School 39
ix

TABLES

Table 1. Response Rates for the Principal Survey, NLSS, SY1998-99 4

Table 2. Response Rates for the Teacher Survey, NLSS, SY1998-99 4

Table 3. Title I Schools in the NLSS, by Migrant Status And School Level, Unweighted,

SY1998-1999 6

Table 4. Profile of Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School 8
x
xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Migrant students are children of migratory workers who relocate across school

and district boundaries in order to obtain seasonal or temporary employment in

agriculture or fishing. These students are often at high risk of educational failure

because of language barriers, poverty, and educational disruptions that result from

repeated moves and irregular attendance. The Migrant Education Program (MEP)

operates under Title I, Part C, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

(http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/sec1001.html). Its primary purpose is to help

migrant students overcome the challenges of mobility, limited English proficiency, and

other educational consequences of a migratory life. One of the programís goals is to

ensure that migrant students have the same opportunity to meet state content and

student performance standards that all children are expected to meet.

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY AND ITS RESULTS

The Congressionally-mandated National Assessment of Title I examines the

progress of students whom the program is intended to benefit and the implementation

of key provisions of the program. The National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS)

is one of several studies comprising the National Assessment of Title I. Based on

surveys of principals and teachers, the NLSS examines whether schools are using

standards-based reforms, with a particular focus on implementation of the provisions

added in the 1994 reauthorization of the Title I program that are designed to support

such improvements. The NLSS includes an oversample of schools serving significant

proportions of migrant, limited English proficient (LEP) or Native American students,

and schools that have been identified as in need of improvement.

This report presents findings from the first of three years of data collection,

beginning in the school year (SY) 1998-1999 to address two main research questions:

• How do Title I schools with migrant students compare with Title I schools with

no migrant students in terms of their social, demographic, and organizational

characteristics?
xii

• How are standards-based reforms and the provisions of Title I being

implemented in Title I schools with migrant students compared with Title I

schools with no migrant students?

For purposes of the report, schools are classified into Title I schools with no

migrant students (those with no migrant students), Title I schools with low numbers of

migrant students (those with fewer than 15 migrant students), and Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students (those with 15 or more migrant students).

The sample sizes for these schools are 747, 164, and 155 respectively. In what follows,

we sometimes combine schools serving low and medium/high migrant students,

referring to them as ìTitle I schools with migrant students.î

Key Findings

The following are the major findings of the report. These are discussed in more

detail in the body of the report.

School Conditions

Most of the Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students

are both high-poverty schools (defined as schools with 50 percent or more of their

students eligible for free/reduced price lunch) and high-minority schools (defined as

schools serving 50 percent or more minority students). For example, less than half (46

percent) of Title I schools with no migrant students are high-poverty schools, compared

with two-thirds of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and threequarters of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students. About onequarter of Title I schools with no migrant students are high-minority schools compared

with one-third of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and two-thirds of

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students. Indeed, about 61

percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students are both highpoverty and high-minority schools compared with 21 percent of Title I schools with no

migrant students and 28 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant

students.

Compared with principals and teachers in Title I schools with no migrant

students, principals and teachers in Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of

migrant students were more likely to:
xiii

• Operate schoolwide programs, offer before- and after-school programs, report a

greater degree of coordination between federal funds and other funding sources,

and have quantifiable goals for their studentsí progress;

• Have higher percentages of inexperienced teachers and teachers teaching out-offield;

Content Standards and Course Taking

Compared with teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students, teachers

in Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students were more likely

to report that content and performance standards were too rigorous for most of their

students and to cite student mobility, diversity of student populations, and language

barriers (although not lack of parent support) as barriers in using content standards

with all students;

Principals in Title I schools with migrant students reported that only between

two-thirds to three-quarters of their students were prepared to work at the next grade

level but that almost all students were promoted to the next grade level.

The difference between the typical mathematics courses that graduating

seniors in Title I schools with no migrant students and Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students have taken is striking. Over 90 percent of

seniors in Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students have taken

Algebra 1 compared with less than 60 percent in Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students. Sixty percent have taken Algebra 2 while less than 30

percent in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students have done so.

Generally, fewer seniors in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students have taken higher level mathematics courses compared with seniors in other

schools. Many of these differences reflect differences we found between high-poverty

and low-poverty Title I schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

Assessments

Principals in Title I schools with migrant students reported that a large

percentage of migrant students participated in the regular state/district assessments.

For example, in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, 70

percent of elementary migrant students and 90 percent of secondary migrant students

participated in these assessments. In schools with low numbers of migrant students, the

participation rate was about 60 percent.
xiv

Only one-quarter to one-third of the Title I schools with migrant students

received assessment results disaggregated by migrant status.

Professional Development

Sixty-five to seventy percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students who taught migrant students reported receiving no

professional development in instructional strategies to teach migrant students,

although most of these teachers (60 percent of elementary teachers and 84 percent of

secondary teachers) reported that they would have liked professional development in

this area. Teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

were much more likely to desire professional development in this area compared with

teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students. In addition, among

those who had not received professional development in instructional strategies for

teaching low-achieving students and the use of technology, many more teachers in

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported desiring such

professional development.

Parent Involvement

Title I schools with migrant students appeared to be making greater efforts to

involve parents both at school and at home, compared with Title I schools with no

migrant students. These parent involvement strategies included offering parent

training, workshops and social support services for parents, having a parent liaison,

providing translations of school documents into other languages, and providing

examples of work that met high standards. In addition, compared with principals and

teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students, principals and teachers in schools

with migrant students were more likely to report using school-parent compacts and to

report finding them useful in discussing shared responsibilities among the parents and

students.

Teacher Aides

Although all Title I schools used teacher aides, the proportion that funded them

through Title I was higher in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students compared with Title I schools with no migrant students. In addition, Title I

schools with migrant students were more likely to be located in districts offering

career ladders and other educational supports to paraprofessionals.

 
1

INTRODUCTION

The federal role in promoting equity and excellence for students in high-poverty

settings has a history that spans over three decades. A centerpiece of this federal effort

has been Title I, which originated in the 1960s and was deeply rooted in the civil rights

movement and Great Society antipoverty programs (Natriello and McDill, 1999; Timar,

1994). Today, Title I provides more than $8 billion annually to support school

interventions and strategies for improving the learning opportunities of students at risk

of educational failure.

The reauthorization of Title I in 1994 represented a fundamental shift in the

programís vision for helping children in high-poverty schools. Reauthorized as part of

the Improving Americaís Schools Act of 1994, the ìnew Title Iî was grounded in the

proposition that ìall children can master challenging content and complex problemsolving skillsî (http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/sec1001.html). The purpose of

the law was to ìenable 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 childrenî (Sec. 6301

(d)).

The U.S. Department of Education conducted a nationally representative survey

of Title I schoolsóthe National Longitudinal Survey of Schoolsóin order to understand

whether these reforms are being implemented in Title I schools across the nation. The

NLSS oversampled schools serving significant proportions of migrant, limited English

proficiency (LEP), or Native American students, and schools identified as in need of

improvement, in order to understand the effect of Title I provisions on these schools.

In particular, there is considerable interest in trying to understand the

characteristics of and conditions in schools serving migrant children because so little is

known about these schools. Migrant studentsódefined as children of migratory

workers who relocate across school and district boundaries in order to obtain seasonal

or temporary employment in agriculture or fishingóare considered at high risk of

educational failure because of poverty, language barriers, unique health problems, and

the educational disruptions that result from moves and irregular attendance at school

(Prasad et al., 2000; Strang and von Glatz, 1999).

In recognition of the unique needs of migrant students, the Migrant EducationBasic Grant Program was first authorized in 1966 to provide supplemental instruction
2

and other support services for migrant children. The program currently operates under

Title I, Part C, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1994 and

provides formula grants to states to ensure that the unique needs of migrant students

are met. The primary purpose of the Migrant Education Program (MEP) is to help

migrant students overcome the challenges of mobility, limited English proficiency, and

other educational consequences of a migratory life. One of the programís goals is to

ensure that migrant students have the same opportunity to meet state content and

student performance standards that all children are expected to meet. MEP services are

generally administered by State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and provided by schools,

districts, and/or other organizations. Services may be provided during the regular

school year and summer sessions. MEP funding is in addition to any other Title I funds

that the school may receive.

This report uses a wide array of descriptive data from the principal and teacher

surveys administered during the first year of the NLSSóthe 1998-99 school year

(SY)óto address two main research questions:

• How do Title I schools with migrant students compare with Title I schools with

no migrant students in terms of their social, demographic, and organizational

characteristics?

• How are standards-based reforms and the provisions of Title I being

implemented in schools with migrant students compared with Title I schools

with no migrant students?

 Specifically, we focus on:

• Profile of schools with migrant students;

• Current status of implementation of standards-based reforms;

• Provision of Title I services;

• Professional development of teachers and teacher aides;

• Teacher expectations and mathematics coursework in secondary schools;

• Parent involvement;

• Availability and use of technology;

• Schools identified as in need of improvement; and

• Schools that adopted comprehensive school reform models.
3

We summarize the key findings to provide a broad overview of Title I schools with

migrant students five years after the latest reauthorization of Title I in 1994. The

appendix contains estimates, standard errors, and sample sizes on which the report is

based. We also provide comparisons with all Title I schools. Findings for all Title I

schools reported here are taken from our earlier work (Berends and Kirby, et al., in

review).

DATA

National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS)

Principal Survey. The total sample size for the NLSS was 1,507 schools. Table 1 shows

the final sample size, the number of completes, and the final response rate for the

principal survey.1

Teacher Survey. The protocol for the NLSS study required a set of six teachers to be

subsampled within each school to answer teacher questionnaires. The object was to

ensure a national probability sample of teachers (within particular well-defined, but

representative, categories), as well as a national probability sample of Title I teachers

within the same categories. The teacher sample consisted of up to four third grade

teachers, one Title I teacher, other regular grade 2 and grade 4 classroom teachers

subsampled as necessary to ensure six teachers were interviewed from each elementary

school. In middle and high schools, the mathematics and English chairpersons were

sampled, as well as one Title I teacher, where available, and additional mathematics and

English teachers to make a total of six sampled teachers. In all schools, if there were less

than six available teachers, all were sampled. Table 2 shows the response rates from the

teacher survey.

 

1See Naftel and Kirby, et al. (in review) for a more detailed description of the sample design for

the NLSS.
4

 Table 1. Response Rates for the Principal Survey, NLSS, SY1998-99

Total Sample Size 1,507

Ineligible* 21

Eligible Sample Size 1,486

Completes 1,081

Response Rate 72.7%

Table reads: The total sample size for the principal survey in the SY1998-99 NLSS was 1,507.

Source: NLSS, Principal Survey, SY1998-1999

Note: *Fourteen schools were not Title I schools; five did not complete the principal screener

that determined eligibility for the survey, and two were sampled twice.

Table 2. Response Rates for the Teacher Survey, NLSS, SY1998-99

Total Sample Size 7,333

Ineligible* 209

Eligible Sample Size 7,124

Completes 5,422

Response Rate 76.1%

Table reads: The total sample size for the teacher survey in the SY1998-99 NLSS was 7,333

teachers.

Source: NLSS, Principal Survey, SY1998-1999

Note: *These teachers were not teaching mathematics or reading or were in ineligible schools.

Types of Information Collected. The principal and teacher surveys address awareness

and understanding of standards, standards-driven planning, reporting and feedback for

improvement, selection and implementation of comprehensive school reform models,

Title I services, parental involvement, and professional development. For schools

identified as in need of improvement, the survey also includes questions regarding

activities aimed at school improvement and changes in the school as a result of being

identified as in need of improvement.

Common Core of Data (CCD)

In addition, we used the 1997-98 Common Core of Data (CCD) for selected

school characteristics that were not available in the NLSS. The CCD contains data on

approximately 91,000 schools and 16,400 agencies providing free public elementary and

secondary education in the United States and its outlying areas. These data are

provided by state education agencies (SEAs) using a common set of definitions that
5

allow comparison across the states and other areas. Variables on the CCD include

school type (regular, special education, vocational education, and alternative), location

code (seven categories from urban to rural), number of students by grade and ungraded,

number of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch, and number of students by

five racial/ethnic categories. Schools in the NLSS were matched to the CCD data file,

and selected characteristics (e.g., minority composition of the student body) from the

CCD were used in the analysis.

Sample Size of Title I Schools with Migrant Students in the NLSS

Table 3 presents the sample sizes of Title I schools in the NLSS by school level

and migrant status: Title I schools with no migrant students; Title I schools with low

numbers of migrant students (1-14 migrant students); and Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students (15 or more migrant students). The data

are based on a principal reports about the number of migrant students in the school.

The decision to base this categorization on the number rather than the percentage

of migrant students in the school reflected a desire to examine whether and how schools

with certain numbers of migrant students should be providing services to these

students, regardless of whether these students accounted for a high or low percentage of

student enrollment. The decision to use 15 as the cut-off point to distinguish schools

enrolling low and medium/high numbers of migrant students was based on the

distribution of the number of migrant students enrolled in the NLSS schools. Fifteen

was approximately at the middle of the distribution.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The first and most important limitation of the study arises from the fact that the NLSS is

a snapshot in time. Our classification of schools into those with no migrant students,

low and medium/high numbers of migrant students is based on data provided by the

principal in the middle of the school year at one point in time, yet, migrant students, by

definition, are those that are likely to move across school and district boundaries in a

given year. As a result, the classification may be subject to error if, for example, schools

that had no or low numbers of migrant students at the time the survey data were

collected enrolled some or a large number of migrant students sometime later in the

school year. Thus, it must be recognized that the distinctions made here and the

inferences drawn from the data are not as clear-cut as one would like. Nonetheless, we
6

feel that the results of the study are useful in providing a profile of schools serving

migrant students.

Table 3. Title I Schools in the NLSS, by Migrant Status And School Level,

Unweighted, SY1998-1999

Migrant Status

School Level Title I schools

with no migrant

students

Title I schools

with low

numbers of

migrant students

Title I schools with

medium/high numbers

of migrant students

Elementary schools 600 130 99

Secondary schools 147 34 56

Total 747 164 155

Table reads: The unweighted sample size for Title I elementary schools with no migrant

students in SY1998-1999 is 600 schools.

Source: NLSS, Principal Survey, SY1998-1999

Note: Data on number of migrant students were missing for 15 of the 1081 schools.

Another potential limitation is that by using the number of migrant students as

the threshold, rather than percentages, larger schools are much more likely to be

classified as schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students. This

classification groups all schools with 15 or more migrant students together, regardless of

whether migrant students account for a high or low percentage of student enrollment.

However, given our sample sizes, it would have been difficult to subdivide the sample

of schools serving medium/high migrant schools any further.

There are some additional caveats that must be kept in mind when reading this

report. First, the analyses reported here are based on survey data, which rely on selfreports.

Second, as is clear from Table 3, sample sizes for secondary schools are quite

small. As a result, the estimates reported here for secondary schools have large standard

errors, making these estimates imprecise. Often, the findings regarding secondary

schools must be viewed as suggestive rather than statistically meaningful. Despite this,

we decided to include the secondary school findings in this report for two reasons:
7

• Secondary schools represent a higher proportion of schools with migrant

students than Title I schools overall and very little is known about them.

• Many of the findings make sense only when disaggregated by school level.

The appendix tables report both estimates and standard errors. However, it is important

to keep this caveat in mind when reading the report.

Third, several of the differences we report here are similar to differences we find

for all Title I schools, between the lowest-poverty (defined as schools with less than 35

percent of their students eligible for free/reduced price lunch) and highest-poverty

schools (defined as schools with 75 percent or more of their students eligible for

free/reduced price lunch. These differences are detailed in Berends and Kirby, et al. (in

review). Indeed, as we show below, a majority of the schools with migrant students are

high-poverty schools. Thus, differences reported here cannot be solely attributed to the

migrant status of the school. Small sample sizes make it difficult to separate out the

degree to which poverty and migrant status contribute independently to the differences

reported here.

PROFILE OF TITLE I SCHOOLS

There are approximately 43,400 Title I schools nationwide. Of these,

approximately 31,300 schools (73 percent) are Title I schools with no migrant students,

7,700 schools (18 percent) are Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students,

serving 1-14 migrant students, and 3,990 (9 percent) are Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students, serving 15 or more migrant students.2 In

the report, we sometimes combine schools serving low, or medium/high migrant

students into one group: Title I schools with migrant students.

 

2This is based on a question in the Principal Screener section of the Principal Survey that asked

about the number of migrant students in the school. However, there is some reason to question

the accuracy of this classification. For example, teachers in NLSS schools were asked whether

they taught any migrant students. About 58 percent of teachers in Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students and 29 percent of teachers in Title I schools with low

numbers of migrant students reported teaching migrant students. Interestingly, however, about

10 percent of teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students reported teaching migrant

students. This suggests that the classification of schools based on principal reports may not be

entirely accurate or may depend on the timing of when questionnaires were answered during the

school year. Alternately, there may be a discrepancy in the way principals and teachers define

ìmigrant students.î
8

Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students serve about 6 migrant

students on average; migrant students account for between less than 1 percent to about

25 percent of student enrollment in these schools, with an average of 1.4 percent. In

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, migrant students

number 83 on average and account for about 13 percent of total enrollment (range is

between 1-64 percent).3

According to the MEP report, California has the greatest number of schools with

migrant students, followed by Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, and Florida (see

http://www.migranted.org//ccdrep.htm). The geographic distribution of schools with

migrant students in the NLSS is similar in that California and Texas together account for

54 percent of schools with migrant students serving medium to high numbers of

migrant students (15 or more migrant students).

A profile of schools categorized by migrant status is shown in Table 4. Listed

below are some of the noteworthy similarities and differences between Title I schools

with migrant students and those without migrant students.

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students are more likely to be

secondary schools and larger in size compared with other schools. For example,

while about four-fifths of Title I schools with no and low numbers of migrant

students are elementary schools, only 55 percent of Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students are elementary schools. When we

combine all schools with migrant students, we find that 28 percent of schools with

migrant students are secondary schools compared with 20 percent of Title I schools

with no migrant students. Moreover, about 38 percent of Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students have student enrollments of over 600

students compared with 20 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students and

23 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students.4

 

3Strang and von Glatz (1999) reported that the average number of migrant students in schoolwide

schools with migrant students was about 60 and that this represented 11 percent of student

enrollment on average.

4This may be due partly to the fact that our definition of Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students uses the ìnumberî of migrant students as the criterion, not

percentage of migrant students. As such, it is easier for larger schools to meet this criterion than

smaller schools. Secondary schools tend to be larger than elementary schools, so this may help

explain part of the difference by school level.
9

Table 4. Profile of Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School

Selected Characteristics

Title I schools

with no

migrant

students

Title I schools

with low

numbers of

migrant

students

Title I schools with

medium/high

numbers of migrant

students

Percent

School Type

 Elementary school 79.8 79.0 54.7

 Secondary school 20.2 21.0 45.3

Enrollment (number of students)

 1-200 19.6 19.3 4.5

 201-400 29.6 26.8 19.0

 401-600 31.2 30.6 38.1

 601-800 11.5 12.6 18.5

 801 and over 8.2 10.6 19.9

Urbanicity

 Urban 23.4 27.2 25.5

 Suburban/large town 31.7 19.1 38.3

 Rural/small town 44.9 53.7 36.2

Percentage of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch

 0-34.9 34.4 17.8 5.7

 35-49.9 19.3 16.6 18.9

 50-74.9 29.0 44.6 44.7

 75-100 17.3 20.9 30.7

Percentage of minority students

 0-24.9 57.2 43.8 10.9

 25-49.9 17.5 23.2 21.8

 50-74.9 10.4 11.5 15.9

 75-100 15.0 21.6 51.4

Percentage of LEP students

 0 60.4 44.5 7.0

 1-24.9 33.0 43.2 42.3

 25-49.9 4.7 10.2 29.6

 50-74.9 1.0 1.0 14.0

 75-100 1.0 1.1 7.1

Number of schools (unweighted) (747) (164) (155)

Number of schools (weighted) (31,338) (7,765) (3,992)

Table reads: 79.8 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students are elementary schools

and 20.2 percent are secondary schools.

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section Principal Screener and Common Core of

Data, 1997-98
10

• Schools serving medium to high numbers of migrant students are disproportionately

located in suburban or large towns (38 percent), compared with 32 percent of Title I

schools with no migrant students and only 19 percent of Title I schools with low

numbers of migrant students. 5 Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students

tend to be largely rural schools.6 At first sight, these data run counter to the results

reported by the MEP office, which found that 43 percent of all schools with migrant

students were located in rural areas, 32 percent in urban areas, and 25 percent in

suburban areas (see http://www.migranted.org//ccdrep.htm). However, when we

combine both the low and medium/high categories, we find similar results: 48

percent of schools with migrant students are in rural areas, 27 percent in urban areas,

and 26 percent in suburban areas.

• Title I schools with migrant students tend to be much poorer than Title I schools

with no migrant students. Figure 1 compares schools classified by migrant status in

terms of poverty and minority composition of their student bodies. Less than half

(46 percent) of Title I schools with no migrant students are high-poverty schools,

(defined as schools with 50 percent or more of their students eligible for

free/reduced price lunch), compared with two-thirds of Title I schools with low

numbers of migrant students and three-quarters of Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students. We also examined the distribution of

all migrant students by school poverty status. We found that 87 percent of migrant

students were enrolled in high-poverty schools, and 42 percent were enrolled in the

highest-poverty schools.

 

5Locale is a 7-digit code on the CCD, defined as: 1. Large CityóA central city of a CMSA or

MSA, with the city having a population greater than or equal to 250,000; 2. Mid-size CityóA

central city of a CMSA or MSA, with the city having a population less than 250,000; 3. Urban

Fringe of a Large CityóAny incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place territory

within a CMSA or MSA of a Large City and defined as urban by the Census Bureau; 4. Urban

Fringe of a Mid-size CityóAny incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place

territory within a CMSA or MSA of a Mid-size City and defined as urban by the Census Bureau;

5. Large TownóAny incorporated place or Census designated place with a population greater

than or equal to 25,000 and located outside a CMSA or MSA; 6. Small TownóAny incorporated

place or Census designated place with population less than 25,000 and greater than or equal to

2,500 and located outside a CMSA or MSA; and 7. RuralóAny incorporated place, Census

designated place, or non-place territory designated as rural by the Census Bureau. The usual

practice is to combine these into three categories: urban=1,2; suburban/large town=3,4,5; and

rural/small town=6,7.

6This distribution may also be partly driven by the fact that urban schools tend to be larger than

many suburban or rural schools. Given that our classification of migrant schools is based on the

number of students, urban schools are more likely to be classified as schools serving

medium/high migrant students than suburban or rural schools.
11

• Schools with migrant students serve disproportionately high numbers of minority

students. About one-quarter of Title I schools with no migrant students can be

classified as high-minority schools (serving 50 percent or more minority students)

compared with one-third of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students

and two-thirds of schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students. Indeed,

about 61 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

are both high-poverty and high-minority schools, compared with 21 percent of Title I

schools with no migrant students and 28 percent of Title I schools with low numbers

of migrant students.

• Many migrant students are limited English proficient (LEP). Over half of the Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students are classified as high LEP

schools as well (defined as schools with 25 percent or more LEP students), compared

with 12 percent of the Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 7

percent of the Title I schools with no migrant students.7

Under the 1994 reauthorization of Title I, schools can adopt schoolwide programs8 if

50 percent or more of their students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. About

44 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students operated schoolwide

programs, as did 72 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students

and 57 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.

There is not a one-to-one correlation between high poverty and adoption of

schoolwide programs. Some lower-poverty schools that would otherwise have been

ineligible for schoolwide programs were apparently granted waivers to enable them

to adopt schoolwide programs. A significant percentage (43 percent) of eligible

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students with poverty rates

between 50 and 74.9 percent have not availed themselves of the schoolwide option

and continue to offer targeted assistance to their Title I students. It might be useful

 

7Strang and von Glatz (1999) reported that the percentage of migrant students in schoolwide Title

I schools with migrant students that are eligible for free/reduced price lunch was very high, 87

percent. More than one-half of the migrant students in these schools were limited English

proficient.

8 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 (rather than just targeted Title I students). Targeted assistance programs use Title I

funds to provide services to students identified as failing or most at risk of failing to meet a

stateís content and student performance standards. While it is important to learn if the quality of

services for migrant students differs under schoolwide and targeted assistance Title I programs,

the NLSS does not provide data that inform this question.
12

to examine these schools further to see whether they face particular challenges in

being able to adopt schoolwide programs or whether these schools felt that targeted

assistance programs were the best way to help their Title I (and migrant) students.

Among the highest-poverty schools, we find that 83-86 percent of schools operate

schoolwide programs, regardless of migrant status of the school.

Figure 1. Distribution of Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School, and

Percentage of Poor and Minority Students

Figure reads: 34.4 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students have between 0-34.9

percent of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch compared with 17.8 percent of Title I

schools with low numbers of migrant students and 5.7 percent of Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students.

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section Principal Screener, Q. PSC3 and Common

Core of Data, 1997-98

• Overall, about 11 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students were identified

by the district as in need of improvement under Title I. The percentages were

somewhat higher for schools with migrant studentsó19 and 16 percent among

Title I schools with low and medium/high numbers of migrant students

respectively, although the differences were not statistically significant.9

 

9Throughout this report, the term ìsignificantî is used in the statistical sense to indicate that the

difference between two estimates is statistically significant at the .05 level.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0-34.9% 35-49.9% 50-74.9% 75-100% 0-24.9% 25-49.9% 50-74.9% 75-100%

Percentage of schools

Schools with no migrant students

Schools with low numbers of migrant students

Schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

Percent Poverty Percent Minority 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0-34.9% 35-49.9% 50-74.9% 75-100% 0-24.9% 25-49.9% 50-74.9% 75-100%

Percentage of schools

Schools with no migrant students

Schools with low numbers of migrant students

Schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

Percent Poverty Percent Minority 
13

Teacher Characteristics

• The educational attainment of teachers is somewhat lower in Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students compared with other Title I schools.

About 45 percent of teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students had a

masterís degree or a degree beyond a bachelorís degree compared with about 43

percent of teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students, and 31

percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students. Disaggregating by school level does not change the picture. Part of this

difference may be explained by the somewhat lower average experience level of

teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

compared with that of other schools. For example, teachers in Title I schools with no

or low numbers of migrant students have 14-16 years of total teaching experience,

and 10-11 years of experience in the current school. Teachers in Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having 12-13 years of teaching

experience, with 9 years in the current school.

• Figure 2 shows selected indicators of teacher quality, gathered from the principal

survey. Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

reported higher percentages of inexperienced teachers than other Title I schools, and

the differences between these schools and Title I schools with no or low numbers of

migrant students with respect to this variable are statistically significant. In

addition, Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

reported higher levels of teachers who are teaching in fields for which they are not

certified (as well as teachers who hold emergency or temporary certification,

although not shown here). Title I secondary schools with low numbers of migrant

students also reported higher levels of teacher inexperience and out-of-field teaching

compared with other secondary schools, although these differences were not

statistically significant. Many of these differences are similar to the differences we

found by poverty status of schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review). For

example, principals in the highest-poverty schools reported that between 15 and 21

Figure 2. Selected Characteristics of Teacher Quality in Title I Schools, by School

Level and Migrant Status of School
14

Figure reads: In Title I elementary schools with no migrant students, 10.6 percent of teachers

have less than 3 years of experience and 1.3 percent of teachers are teaching subjects for which

they are not certified.

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section B, Q. PB14, PB16, PB17

percent of their teachers have less than three yearsí teaching experience compared

with only 8-9 percent of low-poverty schools, and these differences were statistically

significant for both elementary and secondary schools.

Principalsí Attitudes about Student Performance

• Figure 3 shows the percentage of students that principals believed were prepared to

do work at the next grade level by school level and migrant status of the school.

While principals in Title I with no or low numbers of migrant students believed that

82-84 percent of their students were ready for the next grade, principals in Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were not as optimistic

about their students. Principals in schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students reported that about 76 percent of elementary students and 64 percent of

secondary students were prepared to work at the next grade level. In spite of this,

92-95 percent of all students were promoted to the next grade level. The differences

in principal reports about student preparedness between Title I schools with

0

10

20

Schools with no

migrant

students

Schools with

low numbers of

migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of

migrant

students

Schools with no

migrant

students

Schools with

low numbers of

migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of

migrant

students

Percentage of teachers

Less than 3 years experience Teaching subjects for which they are not certified

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools

0

10

20

Schools with no

migrant

students

Schools with

low numbers of

migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of

migrant

students

Schools with no

migrant

students

Schools with

low numbers of

migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of

migrant

students

Percentage of teachers

Less than 3 years experience Teaching subjects for which they are not certified

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools
15

medium/high numbers of migrant students and other schools were statistically

significant at the elementary level.10

Figure 3. Principalsí Attitudes about Student Performance, Title I Schools, by School

Level And Migrant Status of School

Figure reads: Principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students reported that

81.8 percent of students in these schools were prepared to do work at the next grade level but

96.2 percent of students were promoted to the next grade level.

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section B, Q. PB9, PB10

CURRENT STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARDS-BASED REFORMS

IN TITLE I SCHOOLS

• Principals were asked the extent to which content and performance standards were

too rigorous for most of their students. Figure 4 shows the percentage of principals

reporting ìto a great extent,î and it reveals marked differences by the migrant status

of the school. For example, 11 percent of principals in elementary Title I schools

serving medium/high numbers of migrant students reported that such standards

were too rigorous for most of their students compared with only 3 percent of

principals in elementary schools with low numbers of migrant students, and this

 

10We found similar differences in the extent of student preparedness and promotion rates

between the lowest- and highest-poverty schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schools with

no migrant

students

Schools with

low numbers

of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of

migrant

students

Schools with

no migrant

students

Schools with

low numbers

of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of

migrant

students

Percentage of students

Prepared to do work at next grade level Promoted to next grade level

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schools with

no migrant

students

Schools with

low numbers

of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of

migrant

students

Schools with

no migrant

students

Schools with

low numbers

of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of

migrant

students

Percentage of students

Prepared to do work at next grade level Promoted to next grade level

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools
16

difference was statistically significant. The contrast among secondary schools

between Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and Title I

schools with no migrant students was even greater (35 percent versus 5 percent),

although small sample sizes make these estimates less reliable.11

Figure 4. Percentage of Principals in Title I Schools Reporting That Standards were

ìToo Rigorousî for Most of Their Students ìTo a Great Extent,î by School Level and

Migrant Status of School

Figure reads: 6 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students

and 4.7 percent of principals in Title I secondary schools with no migrant students that used

content standards reported that standards were too rigorous for most of their students ìto a

great extent.î

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section Principal Screener and Section A, Q. PA7a

Note: Question asked of principals who reported that their school uses content standards.

• Teachers were asked about the appropriateness of standards and assessments for the

students that they teach. Figure 5 shows the responses of elementary teachers and

Figure 6 shows the responses of secondary teachers. Teachers in Title I schools with

 

11Berends and Kirby, et al., (in review) found that 14 percent of the highest-poverty elementary

school principals reported that such standards were too rigorous for most of their students

compared with less than 2 percent of the lowest-poverty school principals and even larger

differences exist among secondary schools (30 percent versus less than 1 percent).

0

10

20

30

40

Schools with no migrant

students

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high numbers of

migrant students

Percentage reporting "to a great extent"

Elementary Secondary
17

medium/high numbers of migrant students were more likely to rate the reading

standards and assessments as ìtoo hardî than were teachers in other schools, but the

differences are not large.

Figure 5. Percentage of Teachers in Title I Elementary Schools Reporting that

Reading Standards And Assessments were ìToo Hardî for their Students, by Migrant

Status of School

Figure reads: Of teachers in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students, 23.2 percent

reported that content standards in reading were ìtoo hardî for their students; 18.7 percent

reported that performance standards in reading were ìtoo hardî for their students; and 37.1

percent reported that the reading section of the assessment was ìtoo hardî for their students.

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A, Q. TA10

Note: Question asked of reading teachers who reported that their school uses the respective

standards/assessment.

Figure 6. Percentage of Teachers in Title I Secondary Schools Reporting that Reading

0

10

20

30

40

50

Schools with no migrant

students

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high numbers of

migrant students

Percentage reporting "too hard"

Content standards Performance standards Reading section of assessment

0

10

20

30

40

50

Schools with no migrant

td t

Schools with low

b fi t

Schools with

di /hi h b f

Percentage reporting "too hard"

Content standards Performance standards Reading section of assessment
18

Standards and Assessments were ìToo Hardî for their Students, by Migrant Status of

School

Figure reads: Of teachers in Title I secondary schools with no migrant students, 15.8 percent

reported that content standards in reading were ìtoo hardî for their students; 15.2 percent

reported that performance standards in reading were ìtoo hardî for their students; and 19.5

percent reported that the reading section of the assessment was ìtoo hardî for their students.

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A, Q. TA10

Note: Question asked of Language Arts/English teachers who reported that their school uses

the respective standards/assessment.

• The only difference that was statistically significant was between Title I elementary

schools with no migrant students and Title I elementary schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students with respect to teacher reports regarding performance

standards (and interestingly enough, between Title I schools with no migrant

students and Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students at the secondary

level, where teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students were

less likely to report that performance standards were ìtoo hardî). It is noteworthy

that there were few differences in teacher reports regarding the appropriateness of

the mathematics standards and assessments.

• Principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (similar

to the highest-poverty school principals) were much more likely to report that they

used alternate content or performance standards for their LEP students. For

example, while 61 percent of the principals in Title I elementary schools with no

migrant students reported using alternate content standards in reading to

accommodate LEP students, almost 80 percent of the elementary principals of

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students did so, and this difference

was statistically significant. Thirty percent of principals in Title I elementary schools

with no migrant students reported that alternate performance standards for LEP

students were used compared with 45 percent of principals in elementary schools

serving medium/high numbers of migrant students.

• Principals were asked about barriers to using content standards with all students in

their schools. Figure 7 shows the responses for elementary school principals. As

expected, student mobility, diversity of student populations, and language barriers
19

rank high for Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students, and

the differences in principal reports between schools with medium/high number of

migrant students and no migrant students were mostly significant. About 13

percent of school principals reported lack of parent support as a barrier, and there

was little difference by migrant status of the school. This is different from what we

found for Title I schools categorized by poverty status. Lack of parent support

ranked highest among the highest-poverty schools, being cited as a barrier by 30

percent of elementary school principals and 35 percent of secondary school

principals (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

Figure 7. Percentage of Elementary School Principals in Title I Schools Reporting

That Selected Factors were a Barrier ìTo a Great Extentî to Using Content Standards

with All Students, by Migrant Status of School

Figure reads: 17.2 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students,

14.1 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with low numbers of migrant students,

and 23.6 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students reported that student mobility was a barrier ìto a great extentî to using

content standards with all students.

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A. Q. PA8

Note: Questions asked of principals who reported that their school uses content standards.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Student mobility Diversity of

student

populations

Language

barriers

Lack of parent

support

Percentage reporting "to a great 

extent"

Schools with no migrant students

Schools with low numbers of migrant students

Schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students
20

• Figure 8 shows the participation of migrant students in the reading and mathematics

assessments (in the grade levels tested). About 70 percent of migrant students in

elementary schools with migrant students participated in the assessments; the

percentage varied in secondary schools, depending on the migrant status of the

school, with Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

reporting a participation rate of around 90 percent. Lack of English proficiency, lack

of instruments in the studentís native language, exclusions because students had

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and not being enrolled (or enrolled long

enough) were the main reasons for non-participation of migrant students.

Figure 8. Participation Rate of Migrant Students in Title I Schools in Reading and

Mathematics Assessments, by School Level and Migrant Status Of School

Figure reads: 71.2 percent of migrant students in Title I elementary schools with low numbers

of migrant students participated in the reading assessment and 69.2 percent participated in the

mathematics assessment.

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A, Q. PA16, PA26

Note: Questions asked of principals who reported that their school uses the respective

assessment.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary

Percentage of students

Reading assessment Math assessment

Schools with Low

Numbers of Migrant Students

Schools with Medium/High

Numbers of Migrant Students

0

20

40

60

80

100

Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary

Percentage of students

Reading assessment Math assessment

Schools with Low

Numbers of Migrant Students

Schools with Medium/High

Numbers of Migrant Students
21

• For students that did not participate in the reading or mathematics assessments,

schools used substitute assessments, reading portfolios, and English proficiency

testing to measure the progress of these students. Elementary schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students were more likely to report using

reading portfolios (68 percent) and English proficiency testing (83 percent) than were

Title I elementary schools with no migrant students (51 percent and 61 percent

respectively). The difference with respect to English proficiency testing was

statistically significant.

• About 63 percent of all Title I elementary school principals and 79 percent of

secondary school principals reported that curriculum and instruction in their schools

were aligned ìto a great extentî with content and performance standards.

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school.12

• About 48 percent of all Title I elementary school principals and about one-third of

secondary school principals reported that content and performance standards had

resulted in major changes in their instructional programs ìto a great extent.î

o There was little difference between Title I schools with and without migrant

students.

• States are required under Sec. 1111(b)(3)(I) of Title I of the ESEA, as amended, to

provide state assessment data that are disaggregated for a variety of student

subgroups in all schools and LEAs, if the data are statistically sound and final

assessments are in place. However, states were not required to have final

assessments in place until SY2000-2001, and many states were using transitional

assessments at this time. Figure 9 shows the percentage of elementary schools that

received assessment results summarized by different subgroups of students. These

data are useful in showing what types of schools were receiving assessment results.

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were somewhat

more likely to receive assessment results disaggregated by race/ethnicity, Title I

participation, and poverty status, compared with other schools, and these differences

were statistically significant. However, only one-quarter to one-third of these

schools received results disaggregated by migrant status.

 

12We found that principals in the highest-poverty Title I schools were less likely to report great

alignment between curriculum and instruction and standards compared with principals in

lowest-poverty Title I schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).
22

• About 90 percent of all Title I schools had an overall written annual or strategic plan

and almost all these schools conducted a needs assessment as part of the plan.

o These plans included Title I in well over 90 percent of schools with migrant

students; in the Title I schools with no migrant students, inclusion of Title I in

school plans was reported by 89 percent of elementary schools and 74 percent

of secondary schools.13 Almost all schools conducted a needs assessment as

part of the plan.

Figure 9. Percentage of Elementary School Principals in Title I Schools Reporting

Receiving Assessment Information Summarized by Subgroups of Students, by

Migrant Status of School

Figure reads: 37.7 percent of principals of elementary Title I school with no migrant students

reported receiving assessment results disaggregated by race/ethnicity; 50.7 percent by gender;

27 percent by Title I participation; 0 percent by migrant status; 16.8 percent by poverty status;

55.4 percent by LEP status; and 36.9 percent by whether students had IEPs or not.

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A, Q. PA36

Notes: Question asked of principals who reported that their school uses a math or reading

assessment.

 

13The difference between Title I schools with no migrant students and Title I secondary schools

with medium/high numbers of migrant students with respect to inclusion of Title I in school

plans was statistically significant.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schools with no migrant

students

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high numbers

of migrant students

Percentage of schools

Race/Ethnicity Gender Title I participation Migrant status

Poverty status LEP status Students with IEPs
23

Question regarding migrant status and LEP status were only asked of principals who

reported that their school contains a certain level of the special population (any migrant

students or 10 percent or more LEP students).

o Not surprisingly, Title I principals of schools serving medium/high numbers

of migrant students were much more likely to report that the Migrant

Education staff played a role in developing the plan than Title I principals of

schools with low numbers of migrant students.14 For example, 33 percent of

elementary and 43 percent of secondary Title I principals in schools with low

numbers of migrant students reported involving the Migrant Education staff

in the plan compared with 66 percent and 84 percent of principals in schools

with medium/high schools numbers of migrant students. These differences

were statistically significant.

o Principals of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

were also much more likely to report involving parents of migrant students

in the annual plan than principals in Title I schools with low numbers of

migrant students. For example, 46 percent of principals in Title I elementary

schools serving low numbers of migrant studetns reported involving parents

of migrant students compared with well over 80 percent of principals in

Title I elementary schools that serve medium/high numbers of migrant

students, and differences were statistically significant at both the elementary

and secondary levels.

o Overall, about 30-45 percent of principals in schools with migrant students

reported involving community members with expertise in migrant

populations in their school planning process.

• Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were much more

likely to have quantifiable goals for how far they expect their students to advance

each year, as well as written comprehensive plans to improve student achievement,

 

14Strang and von Glatz (1999) reported that schoolwide programs that use Migrant Education

Program funds are required to include migrant advocates in their planning.
24

compared with Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students.15 For

example, 92 percent of elementary and 81 percent of secondary principals in Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having

quantifiable goals compared with 80 percent of elementary and 60-66 percent of

secondary school principals in other Title I schools. The difference between Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and Title I schools with no

migrant students was statistically significant at the elementary level. Similarly, 94

percent of elementary Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students reported having written plans to improve student achievement in reading

compared with 83 percent of elementary Title I schools with no migrant students; the

comparable numbers for mathematics were 88 percent and 78 percent. Both these

differences were statistically significant.

• In elementary Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students,

quantifiable goals for student progress were less likely to be set by the school

compared with Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students, where

about half the principals reported that the school set such goals.

PROVISION OF TITLE I SERVICES

• About 57 percent of all Title I elementary and 49 percent of all secondary school

principals reported that Title I funding priorities in their schools have changed in

recent years.

o A greater percentage of secondary school principals in schools with migrant

students (70 percent) reported that priorities in their school for the use of

Title I funds have changed in the last three years compared with their

counterparts in Title I schools with no migrant students (37 percent).

• By design, the 1994 reauthorization of Title I aimed to increase the flexibility of

identifying students for services, minimize pullout programs, extend learning time,

promote schoolwide reform, promote use of federal resources to support school

improvement in high-poverty schools, increase the coordination of Title I funds with

other federal programs, and promote parent involvement, particularly school-parent

compacts. Both at the elementary and secondary levels in the NLSS, the principal-

 

15This was true of the highest-poverty Title I schools as well, where between 80-90 percent of

these schools had quantifiable goals. This was significantly higher than the percentage of lowestpoverty Title I schools with such goals (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).
25

reported effects of changes in Title I legislation were noticeably larger in Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students than in Title I schools with

no or low numbers of migrant students. For example, elementary principals in Title

I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were significantly more

likely to report that changes in Title I legislation had led to greater flexibility in

identifying students for services, the ability to extend learning time, use of schoolparent compacts, use of student performance results for continuous improvement,

and the ability to use federal resources to support overall school improvement

efforts compared with Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students.

Many of these differences are largely attributable to the higher proportion of

schoolwides among Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

than among Title I schools with no migrant students; schoolwides are better able to

exploit more fully the flexibility and integration of funds allowed under the 1994

Title I provisions than schools operating targeted assistance programs.16

• About 65-74 percent of elementary principals in the three types of schools reported

that students were selected to receive Title I services in their school. The vast

majority (90 percent) of all elementary principals reported that performance on

standardized tests (administered in English) and teacher judgement were used to

select students, and over two-thirds of the principals reported using class grades,

English language proficiency tests and parent consultation. Much higher

percentages of principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students (65 percent of elementary and 90 percent of secondary principals) reported

using scores on standardized tests administered in languages other than English to

select students, compared with 44 percent of elementary principals and about 60

percent of secondary principals in Title I schools with no migrant students.

• Principals were asked how migrant students were selected to receive Title I services

if they enrolled in the school after the time when selection for Title I occurred. In

such an event, schools with migrant students reported using a variety of information

sources to select migrant students for Title I servicesóreviewing previous school

 

16For example, we found that 56 percent of elementary schoolwide principals reported that

changes in Title I legislation helped their school apply content standards to all students,

compared with 28 percent of principals in targeted assistance elementary schools (Berends and

Kirby, et al., in review). In some cases, the differences between schoolwide and targeted

assistance schools were larger in secondary schools.
26

records, where available; relying on teachersí judgement; and consulting with

parents. Title I principals in schools serving low numbers of migrant students were

more likely to report relying on grade level compared with Title I principals of

schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students, and this difference was

statistically significant at the elementary level.

• A vast majority of all Title I elementary schools offered supplemental reading

instruction and about two-thirds offered supplemental mathematics instruction.

These were all largely funded by Title I funds.

o Well over 80 percent of secondary schools serving migrant students reported

offering supplemental instruction in both Language Arts/English and

mathematics compared with around half of the Title I secondary schools with

no migrant students, and this difference was statistically significant.

• Overall, 87 percent of elementary and 85 percent of secondary school principals

reported that their school has in-class services, and most reported funding these

through Title I funds.

o There was no significant difference by migrant status of the school.

• About 70 percent of elementary and 56 percent of secondary school principals

reported having pullout services; again, these were largely funded through Title I.

o The incidence of pullout services was somewhat lower in elementary Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, due to the higher

proportion of schoolwide programs among these schools.

• Principals were also asked about the services and programs that extended the

learning time of students. Overall, about 82 percent of Title I schools with no

migrant students offered programs to extend the learning time of students (weekend

programs, before- or after-school programs, or summer programs) compared with 88

percent of schools with migrant students.

• About half of all Title I schools offered before- or after-school programs; and about

two-thirds offered summer or intersession programs.

o The percentage of elementary schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students offering before- or after-school programs was significantly

higher than Title I elementary schools with no migrant students (74 percent

versus 54 percent).
27

o A significantly larger number of secondary schools with migrant students

reported having summer or intersession programs compared with Title I

secondary schools with no migrant students.17

• A higher percentage of Title I principals in schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students reported having a class size reduction initiative compared with

Title I principals of schools with no migrant students, and these differences were

statistically significant. This initiative was only partly funded through Title I funds.

• Improving services to support parent involvement in schools was a critical

component of the 1994 reauthorization. A signficantly higher proportion (about

four-fifths) of principals in Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students reported having parent training services (largely funded through

Title I) compared with about two-thirds of principals in Title I elementary schools

with no migrant students. Similarly, nearly half of secondary principals in schools

with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having training for

parents compared with only 37 percent in Title I schools with no migrant students.

Schools with migrant students were also somewhat more likely to have a parent

liaison.18

• Overall, 91 percent of principals in all Title I schools reported having teacher aides in

their schools, and 63 percent reported using Title I funds for these services.

o However, the proportion who reported funding them with Title I was

significantly higher in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students compared with Title I schools with no migrant students, at both the

elementary and secondary school levels. For example, of schools that

employed teacher aides, 84 percent of Title I elementary schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students used Title I funds to pay for

these teacher aides, compared with 64 percent of Title I elementary schools

with no migrant students.19

 

17Similar differences were found between the lowest and highest Title I poverty schools (Berends

and Kirby, et al., in review).

18In the highest-poverty Title I schools, 80 percent of both elementary and secondary schools

reported having training for parents compared with 71 percent of elementary and 25 percent of

secondary lowest-poverty schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

19We found equally large differences by poverty level of the school in the proportion of schools

that funded teacher aides through Title I funds. For example, the percentage of principals that

reported funding them with Title I funds was highest in the highest-poverty schools at both the
28

• About 20 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 60

percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported

receiving Title I, Part C funds for migrant education programs and 30-55 percent of

schools with migrant students reported coordinating migrant services with Title I,

Part A services ìto a great extent.î20

• Principals were asked about the extent to which their school combined federal funds

with funding from other sources. Overall, about 30 percent of all Title I elementary

school principals and 38 percent of Title I secondary school principals reported that

they combined federal funds with other funding sources ìto a great extent.î

o A higher percentage of principals in Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students (43-45 percent) reported coordinating federal

funds with other sources than principals in Title I schools with no migrant

students (31-32 percent), largely because of the flexibility afforded them as

schoolwide schools, although the difference was not statistically significant.

• When asked about the the challenges they faced in this coordination, Title I

elementary schools with no migrant students were much more likely to cite district

and state control over the use of funds and uncertainty over what was allowed as

challenges, compared with elementary schools with migrant students. For example,

68 percent of principals of Title I elementary schools with no migrant students

reported that district control over use of funds was a challenge compared with only

42 percent of elementary principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students, and this difference was statistically significant. These differences

may be partly attributable to the higher proportion of schoolwides among schools

with migrant students.

• Principals were also asked what they would cut back on if Title I funds were not

available. In the NLSS, over 90 percent of Title I principals reported that they would

 

elementary and secondary school levelsóabout 70 percent compared with a little over 45 percent

in the lowest-poverty schools, and both these differences were statistically significant (Berends

and Kirby, et al., in review).

20Strang and von Glatz (1999) reported that only one-third of the surveyed schoolwide schools

with migrant students indicated they combined MEP funds with other federal funds in

implementing their schoolwide programs. School personnel in some of the case study schools

that did not combine MEP funds in their schoolwide programs cited reasons for not doing so:

MEP funds were spent at the district level and thus were not available to schools; migrant

program staff were concerned about maintaining accountability for MEP funds spent by the

school; and concern on the part of MEP staff that migrant student needs not be overlooked.
29

cut back on teacher aide positions, and 86 percent reported that they would cut back

on teaching positions. About half of the principals reported that they would cut

back professional development opportunities and parent involvement activities. The

percentages reporting cutbacks in these various areas at the elementary level were

higher in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students compared

with Title I schools with no migrant students.

• A significantly higher percentage (63 percent) of elementary principals in Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported that they would

cut back on computers compared with 43 percent of elementary principals in Title I

schools with no migrant students. This is not surprising given that other research

(for example, the Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding) found that federal

funds were a significant source of support for new computers in high-poverty

schools. For example, Title I funds paid for 26 percent of new computers in the

highest-poverty schools compared with 4 percent of new computers in the lowestpoverty schools (Chambers et al., 1999).

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN TITLE I SCHOOLS

• Almost all teachers (94 percent) in Title I schools, regardless of migrant status of the

school, reported that they received professional development in the past 12 months.

Teachers reported participating in a wide range of professional development

activities during the last year. However, as we discuss below, teachers reported that

there were several types of professional development that they did not experience.

In particular, secondary school teachers (particularly those teaching in Title I schools

with medium/high numbers of migrant students) were much more likely to report

non-participation in these activities than elementary school teachers.

• In general, over 80 percent of all teachers in Title I schools reported receiving

professional development in instructional strategies or subject area content, but the

percentage was lower in Title I secondary schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students.

o About 63 percent of teachers in Title I secondary schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students received professional development in content

area compared with 84 percent of teachers in Title I secondary schools with

no migrant students, but the difference was not statistically significant.
30

• A little more than half of all elementary teachers and 40 percent of all secondary

teachers received professional development in strategies to teach low-achieving

students.

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school.

• As expected, teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students were significantly more likely to participate in professional development in

instructional strategies for teaching special population students compared with

teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students. However, even in Title I schools

with medium/high numbers of migrant students, about 65-70 percent of teachers

reported they did not receive professional development in instructional strategies to

teach migrant students.

• Between 17 and 33 percent of teachers in Title I schools received professional

development in strengthening parent involvement.

o The percentage was somewhat lower among teachers in Title I secondary

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (18 percent

compared with 27 percent of teachers in Title I secondary schools with no

migrant students).

• Between 74 and 77 percent of teachers received professional development in the use

of technology.

o The percentage was somewhat lower in Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students (69 percent in elementary schools and 63

percent in secondary schools).

• For all Title I schools, we found that for the majority of the professional development

activities considered, if teachers received the professional development, over half

reported that it led them to change their teaching practice (Berends and Kirby, et al.,

in review). Professional development in the use of technology appeared to be the

most effective, with about 65 percent reporting that it led to changes in their teaching

practice, while professional development in parent involvement strategies had the

least impact on teaching practice, as less than 30 percent of teachers reported that it

led them to change their teaching practice.

• Figure 10 shows the types of professional development desired by teachers in

elementary schools who wanted additional professional development in the past

year. Instructional strategies for teaching low-achieving students and use of
31

technology ranked highest among all the types of professional development, being

desired by over 80 percent of all teachers.

o Teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

were more likely to report they desired these particular types of professional

development than teachers in Title I schools with no or low numbers of

migrant students. Differences between percentages of teachers in Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and in Title I

schools with low numbers of migrant students desiring professional

development in instructional strategies for teaching low-achieving students

and use of technology were statistically significant.

Figure 10. Percentage of Elementary Teachers in Title I Schools Reporting Selected

Types Of Professional Development They Would Have Liked to Experience, by

Migrant Status of School

Figure reads: Among teachers who wanted additional professional development, 64.2 percent

of teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students, 60.4 percent of teachers in Title I

schools with low numbers of migrant students, and 79.3 percent of teachers in Title I schools

with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported they would have liked to have

received professional development in strategies for using assessment results.

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section D, Q. TD5

• Among the teachers of migrant students who wanted additional professional

development, about 60 percent of elementary teachers and 84 percent of secondary

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strategies for

using assessment

results

Instructional

strategies for

teaching lowachieving

students

Strategies for

strengthening

parent

involvement

Percentage of teachers

Use of technology

Schools with no migrant students

Schools with low numbers of migrant students

Schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students
32

teachers reported they would have liked professional development in instructional

strategies to teach migrant students in the past year (see Figure 11).21

o This was particularly true of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students. For example, 93 percent of secondary teachers

in these schools who had not received professional development in

instructional strategies to teach migrant students in the past year reported

they would have liked professional development in this area compared with

70 percent of secondary teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of

migrant students. The differences, however, were not statistically significant

at either the elementary or secondary level.

Figure 11. Percentage of Teachers in Title I Schools Reporting They Would Have

Liked Professional Development in Instructional Strategies to Teach Migrant

Students, by Migrant Status of School

 Figure reads: Among teachers of migrant students who wanted additional professional

development, 63.1 percent of teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students

reported they would have liked professional development in instructional strategies to teach

migrant students.

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section D, Q. TD5

 

21 This question was asked only of teachers who reported teaching any migrant students.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of migrant

students

Percentage of teachers

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high

numbers of migrant

students

Percentage of teachers

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools
33

• Nearly all of Title I school principals (97 percent) reported that they had teacher

aides in their school, and 88 percent of the principals (96 percent in Title I schools

with medium/high numbers of migrant students) 22 reported that teacher aides are

included in professional development activities. While a large percentage of the

schools include teacher aides in their professional development activities, few

districts have career ladders for these aides as reported by principals (30 percent).

o However, elementary schools with migrant students were more likely to be

in districts that had career ladders for aides compared with Title I schools

with no migrant students (39 percent versus 26 percent).

o In addition, these schools were more likely to report funding for higher

education classes (37 percent versus 22 percent) or for getting a high school

diploma or GED (11 percent versus 7 percent), and release time for higher

education classes (35 percent versus 30 percent).

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTSí MATHEMATICS ABILITIES23

• Both elementary and secondary teachers of mathematics were asked about how they

would rank their own students relative to students nationally and internationally.

o Among all Title I elementary schools, about two-thirds of the teachers ranked

their students in the top half of the national distribution. There was little

difference by migrant status of the school.

o Among secondary schools, teachers in schools with migrant students ranked

students somewhat lower than teachers in Title I schools with no migrant

students. For example, while a little more than half the teachers in schools

with migrant students ranked their students in the top half of the national

distribution, two-thirds of teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students

did so. Similarly, teachers in secondary schools with migrant students

ranked their students lower relative to international students compared with

teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students. For example, 43 percent

of secondary mathematics teachers in Title I schools with no migrant

 

22The difference between Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and

Title I schools with no migrant students with respect to this question was statistically significant.

23This was not asked of reading/Language Arts/English teachers.
34

students ranked their students in the top 50 percent internationally compared

with only 14 percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students. These differences in teacher rankings were

similar to differences we found among teachers in the highest-poverty and

lowest-poverty schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

MATHEMATICS COURSEWORK IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

• High school mathematics chairs were also asked about the courses taken by seniors

in their schools. The difference between the typical courses that graduating seniors

in Title I schools with no migrant students and Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students have taken in mathematics is quite striking, as Figure

12 shows.24

o Over 90 percent of seniors in the Title I schools with no or low numbers of

migrant students have taken Algebra 1 compared with less than 60 percent in

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.

Figure 12. Percentage of Graduating Seniors in Title I High Schools That Have Taken

Selected Courses in Mathematics, by Migrant Status of School

 

24We found similar differences between the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty Title I schools

(Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).
35

Figure reads: Mathematics chairpersons in Title I high schools with no migrant students

reported that 91.6 percent of graduating seniors have taken Algebra 1; 58.1 percent have taken

Algebra 2; 25.4 percent Trigonometry; 22.3 percent Precalculus; 9.8 percent College Algebra;

and 6.2 percent Non-AP Calculus, prior to graduation.

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section B, Q. TB11

Note: Question asked of high school mathematics chairs.

o Sixty percent have taken Algebra 2 compared with less than 30 percent in

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.

o Generally, fewer seniors in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students have taken higher-level mathematics courses compared

with seniors in other schools with one exception, College Algebra, where the

percentage is higher in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students than Title I schools with no migrant students.

PARENT INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES

• The vast majority of principals in all Title I schools reported sharing school

documents with parents. For instance, over 90 percent of principals in schools

having school plans or school improvement plans reported sharing those plans with

parents, and about 85 percent reported sharing school performance profiles or school

report cards with parents. About 88 percent of elementary and 65 percent of

secondary school principals (higher in schools with migrant students) provided

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schools with no migrant

students

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high numbers

of migrant students

Percentage of graduating seniors

Algebra 1 Algebra 2 Trigonometry

Precalculus College Algebra Non-AP Calculus
36

copies of content and performance standards to parents (Berends and Kirby, et al., in

review).

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school.

• Not surprisingly, principals in schools with migrant students, especially in Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, were much more likely to

translate school documents into languages other than English for parents with

limited English proficiency. For example, among Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students, about 88 percent of elementary and 73 percent of

secondary school principals did so, compared with 24 percent of elementary and 17

percent of secondary school principals in Title I schools with no migrant students.

• Although every school that receives Title I funds is required to develop a schoolparent compact, not all schools have developed and implemented school-parent

compacts. Among elementary schools, 73 percent of school principals in Title I

schools with no or low numbers of migrant students reported using and sharing

school-parent compacts with parents compared with 86 percent of principals in

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students. This may be partly

due to the higher proportion of Title I schoolwides among the Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students: schoolwides are more likely to have

established school-parent compacts than schools with targeted Title I programs.

Among secondary schools, 60 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students had

school-parent compacts compared with 83 percent of Title I schools with low

numbers of migrant students and 75 percent of Title I schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students. Elementary schools with migrant students also were

more likely to ask all parents to participate in school-parent compacts rather than

just parents of Title I students (again, this may be driven by the fact that many of

these schools operate schoolwide programs).

• Approximately 80 percent of all Title I principals using school-parent compacts

reported monitoring the progress of school-parent compacts on an ongoing basis.

Almost all principals relied on verbal feedback from parents and school personnel,

and records of parent involvement (including parents of migrant and LEP students

in schools with these students), while surveys of parents and school personnel were

used less frequently.

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school.
37

• The information from monitoring school-parent compacts was primarily used in

parent-teacher conferences. About half of the principals of elementary schools with

migrant students used this information in teacher evaluations compared with 35

percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students.

• Elementary teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant

students were significantly more likely to report using school-parent compacts than

teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students (66 percent versus 56 percent).

In secondary schools, about 43 percent of teachers reported using school-parent

compacts. The difference in elementary teacher reports may largely be due to the

higher percentage of schoolwides among Title I schools with medium/high numbers

of migrant students. Our earlier work (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review) found

that teachers in all Title I schoolwides were significantly more likely to use compacts

than teachers in schools operating targeted assistance programs.

• About 85 percent of all teachers using school-parent compacts discussed the compact

at parent-teacher conferences.

o About half the teachers in Title I elementary schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students reported that they found the compact useful ìto

a great extentî in discussing shared responsibilities compared with 26

percent of teachers in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students,

and the difference was statistically significant.

o However, teachers in Title I secondary schools with no migrant students

were significantly more likely to report finding the compact useful than were

teachers in secondary schools with migrant students.

• Schools used a variety of strategies to promote parent involvementóusing parents

as volunteers, encouraging them to serve on school committees, training parents to

work with their children at home, involving them in family nights at school, hosting

social events, and providing individual student assessment results. Figure 13 shows

some strategies that were used to a greater degree by elementary schools with

migrant students, including employing parents as classroom aides, providing

workshops or social support services for parents, and providing translations of

school documents.

• Almost all school principals reported that parents were given interim report cards,

asked to sign off on homework, and/or given positive notes or phone calls from

teachers. Only about a quarter of the schools had school-sponsored homework
38

hotlines and 40-50 percent provided information on school web sites. Principals in

schools with migrant students were significantly more likely than principals in

Title I schools with no migrant students to report that parents were given examples

of work that meets high standards. Principals in schools with migrant students were

also more likely to report notifying parents about childrenís ability-group

placements, but the difference was not statistically significant.
39

Figure 13. Percentage of Elementary Principals in Title I Schools Reporting Selected

Strategies to Encourage Parent Involvement, by Migrant Status of School

Figure reads: 69.1 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students

reported their school employed parents as classroom aides; 85.3 percent reported providing

workshops for parents; 25.7 reported providing materials translated into other languages; and

62.8 percent reported providing social support services for parents.

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section F, Q. PF7

• About 70 percent of elementary teachers in schools with migrant students felt they

communicated to a moderate or great extent with parents of migrant students. This

was true of a smaller percentage of secondary teachersóabout 35 percent of teachers

in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 60 percent of teachers in

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.

• When asked about how teachers communicated with parents with limited English

proficiency, less than half of the teachers (45 percent) reported that they

communicated directly in a common language.

o A higher percentage of teachers in elementary schools with medium/high

numbers of migrant students (65 percent) were able to communicate in a

common language compared with teachers in other Title I elementary schools

(43 percent).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schools with no migrant

students

Schools with low

numbers of migrant

students

Schools with

medium/high numbers

of migrant students

Percentage of schools

Employing parents as classroom aides

Providing workshops for parents

Providing materials translated into other languages

Providing social support services
40

• About 64 percent of elementary teachers and 30 percent of secondary teachers

reported requiring parents to sign off on studentsí homework at least once a week or

more frequently.

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school.

• About 30 percent of all teachers in elementary Title I schools reported sending home

reading and mathematics activities for parents to do with students at home.

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school.

• Teachers in general were more likely to report that parent involvement efforts

resulted in improved attendance and promptness, rather than improved rates of

homework completion.

o Again, there was little difference by migrant status of the school.

AVAILABILITY AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY

• Almost 90 percent of schools had a school plan that included a goal for using

technology to improve student instruction, and about three-quarters of schools had a

computer or technology coordinator.

o A higher proportion of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students reported having technology coordinators than Title I

schools with no migrant students, and this difference was statistically

significant.

• Fifty-six percent of classrooms in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students

had computers that were linked to the Internet, compared with 47 percent in Title I

schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.25

• Lack of teacher knowledge about how to integrate technology into the curriculum

was a major barrier in using technology for instructional purposes for over 70

percent of all Title I schools. Other major barriers were lack of software that is

integrated with the schoolís curriculum and insufficient equipment, especially for

schools with migrant students.

 

25The differences by poverty status were much larger than that reported here. For example, over

70 percent of classrooms in the lowest-poverty elementary Title I schools had computers

connected to the Internet compared with less than 40 percent in the highest-poverty Title I

schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).
41

o Principals in secondary schools with migrant students were especially likely

to report barriers to using technology for instructional purposes, and many of

the differences between Title I schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students and Title I schools with no migrant students at the

secondary level were statistically significant.

SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED AS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT26

• Between 10 and 20 percent of schools were identified as in need of improvement by

the districts. Elementary schools serving migrant students were more likely to be

identified as in need of improvement than Title I schools with no migrant students

(17-20 percent versus 11 percent),27 but the difference was not statistically significant.

• Principals of schools with migrant studentsóparticularly in Title I schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant studentsówere somewhat more likely to report

that they did not know what their district considered adequate yearly progress or

substantial progress. For example, 42 percent of elementary principals and 56

percent of secondary principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of

migrant students reported that they did not know their district metrics of

performance compared with 34 percent of elementary principals and 38 percent of

secondary principals in Title I schools with no migrant students.

• Of those who were familiar with district measures of progress, about 37 percent

seemed to feel that these measures were not adequate to judge the schoolís

performance.

o Principals in schools with migrant students were more likely to report that

these measures of progress were inadequate compared with principals of

Title I schools with no migrant students. For example, about half of

principals in elementary schools with migrant students disagreed with the

statement that their districtís measures of progress were adequate to judge

 

26The unweighted sample sizes for migrant schools in this section are very small: 37 Title I

schools with low numbers of migrant students and 35 Title I schools with medium/high numbers

of migrant students. Because of this, this section largely focuses on findings across all schools.

27However, some principals denied that their school had been so identified, especially at the

elementary level. As a result, about 8-9 percent of principals in Title I schools with no migrant

students and 12-15 percent of principals in schools with migrant students answered this set of

questions.
42

the schoolís performance, compared with about a third of the principals in

Title I elementary schools with no migrant students. However, this

difference was not statistically significant.

• A little less than half (47 percent) of schools reported receiving additional technical

assistance or professional development as a result of being identified as in need of

improvement; this assistance was largely provided by the district, state, and school

support team.

• About three-quarters of schools identified as in need of improvement implemented

additional strategies, including more family and community involvement, revising

or developing a school plan, more professional development, closer supervision of

school decisions, and adopting a new, comprehensive model program.

o Among schools with special population students, about half of the schools

with migrant students implemented teaching and learning strategies for

migrant students, and 87 percent of those with LEP students implemented

strategies focused on LEP students.

SCHOOLS ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM MODELS

• About 31 percent of Title I schools overall had adopted comprehensive school reform

models.28

o Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students

were slightly more likely (35 percent) and secondary schools with

medium/high numbers of migrant students were somewhat less likely (24

percent) to report adopting a comprehensive model than other Title I schools.

• The majority of principals reported that their school became involved with a reform

model because the model matched the schoolís needs assessment and research. A

variety of factors influenced model choice. While almost all principals cited factors

such as a comprehensive approach and the research evidence as important in the

 

28The data in this section represent the answers given by each principal on one model in their

school. While 75 percent of schools that adopted models selected only one model, 25 percent

reported having 2-5 models. In order to provide weighted estimates, we needed to identify one

model per school. Ideally, we would have chosen the primary model used in the school, but such

a question was not contained in the 1998-1999 NLSS. As a result, we chose the model that was

farthest along in the implementation process. In cases of a tie, we decided on the basis of strict

adoption; then length of implementation; and, lastly, named models (of which there were 23 in

the survey) were chosen over models that were coded as ìother.î
43

choice of a model, more practical factors such as ease of implementation and

affordability were somewhat less important.

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school.

• The majority of the principals in schools (elementary or secondary) serving migrant

students (well over 80 percent) reported that the model was already partially or

mostly implemented in their school. While this was true of principals in Title I

elementary schools with no migrant students as well, principals of Title I secondary

schools with no migrant students were more likely to report that they were still in

the initial selection or staff training and development phases (41 percent) rather than

the implementation phase.

• Seventy percent of the elementary school principals and 56 percent of the secondary

school principals were very satisfied with the professional development or assistance

received in implementing the model.

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school, although

principals of Title I secondary schools with low numbers of migrant students

were the least likely to be very satisfied with the professional development

received.

• Almost all principals (88 percent of elementary school principals and 80 percent of

secondary school principals) reported that Title I services were integrated into the

model to a moderate or great extent.

o There was little difference by migrant status of the school, although

principals in Title I secondary school with no migrant students were the least

likely to report integration of Title I services.
44

REFERENCES

Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & Sloan, J. S. (in review). The National Longitudinal

Survey of Schools: preliminary findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Chambers, J., Lieberman, J., Parrish, T., Kaleba, D., Van Campen, J., & Stullich, S. (1999).

Study of education resources and federal funding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education.

Naftel, S., Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., & Sloan, J. S. (in review). The National Longitudinal

Survey of Schools: technical appendices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Prasad, B., Heaviside, S., Williams, C., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (2000). Participation of

migrant students in Title I Migrant Education Program (MEP) summer-term projects, 1998.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Siler, A., Stolzberg, S., von Glatz, A., & Strang, W. (1999). Meeting the needs of migrant

students in schoolwide programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Strang, W. & von Glatz, A. (1999). Meeting the needs of migrant students in schoolwide

programs: summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
45

APPENDIX: SELECTED TABULATIONS FROM THE NLSS PRINCIPAL AND

TEACHER SURVEYS

The estimates provided in the main body of the report and in these tables are

based on samples and are subject to sampling variability. The standard errors reported

here were estimated using the jackknife variance estimation procedure that incorporates

the design features of the sample. The standard errors provide an indicator of the

reliability of each estimate. If all possible samples of the same size were surveyed under

identical conditions, an interval calculated by adding and subtracting 1.96 times the

standard error from a particular estimate would include the population value in

approximately 95 percent of the cases. In general, for estimates based on sample sizes of

less than 100, this procedure will underestimate the 95 percent confidence interval. We

suggest using a two standard error interval around the estimate; this will provide a

reasonably accurate confidence interval for sample sizes between 30 and 100. However,

we warn that the standard errors do not take into account other errors or biases due to

item nonresponse, measurement error, or other data errors.
46

Selected Tabulations from the 1998/1999 National Longitudinal Survey of Schools,

With Standard Errors and Sample Sizes

Note: Questions are taken from the 1998/1999 NLSS principal and teacher surveys. Question numbers beginning with the lprincipal survey and those beginning with ìTî are from the teacher survey.

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

What is the highest degree youhave earned?

TF5a Bachelorís degree? 33.3 2.1 2872 27.0 4.0 587 45.2 2.7 505 29.9 3.2 644 43.6 10.5 138 

TF5b Bachelorís degree plus hours? 19.7 1.2 2872 25.8 4.4 587 18.7 2.4 505 24.8 4.3 644 15.3 4.0 138 

TF5c Masterís degree? 28.1 1.6 2872 25.7 4.3 587 23.6 3.1 505 24.4 3.6 644 18.6 8.6 138 TF5d Masterís degree plus hours? 15.3 1.5 2872 16.7 2.7 587 6.5 1.6 505 19.2 4.0 644 22.0 5.1 138 

TF5e Specialist degree? 1.5 0.3 2872 2.1 0.6 587 0.8 0.4 505 0.3 0.2 644 0.4 0.3 138 TF5f Doctoral degree? 0.2 0.1 2872 0.3 0.2 587 0.2 0.2 505 0.5 0.2 644 0.0 0.0 138 

TF3 How many years have you been

teaching?

15.7 0.3 2863 15.8 0.8 577 14.0 0.8 502 14.3 0.8 642 15.3 1.6 138 

TF4 How many years have you been

teaching in this school?

10.1 0.4 2862 9.5 0.7 577 8.5 0.6 502 9.6 0.8 642 10.7 1.3 138 

PB14 What percent of your entire

teaching staff has less than 3 yearsof teaching experience?

10.6 1.1 591 9.9 1.9 128 16.5 2.1 99 10.5 1.2 139 15.1 3.2 33 

PB16 What percent of your teachers are

teaching in subjects in which theyare not certified?

1.3 0.6 596 0.5 0.2 129 4.5 3.0 98 3.6 1.8 140 6.5 4.9 33 

PB17 What percent of your teachers hold

emergency or temporarycertification in their main field ofassignment?

1.3 0.3 594 1.8 0.4 127 5.9 2.8 99 3.0 0.9 137 2.5 1.1 33 
47

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Student Outcomes

PB9 At the end of the 1997-98 school

year, what percent of all of yourstudents would you say wereprepared to do work at the nextgrade level?

81.8 1.2 570 81.3 1.3 124 75.7 2.3 95 84.3 1.0 132 82.3 4.2 33 

PB10 At the end of the 1997-98 school

year, what percent of all of yourstudents were promoted to the nextgrade level?

96.2 0.4 581 95.8 0.9 122 93.7 1.6 98 93.8 1.4 133 92.3 1.6 31 

Current Status of Implementationof Standards-Based Reform inTitle I SchoolsPlease tell me the extent to whichyour content standards andperformance standardsÖGreatExtent

PA7a Are too rigorous for most of your

students?

6.0 1.8 599 2.5 1.0 130 11.4 4.0 99 4.7 1.7 146 18.5 11.2 34 

Questions asked of teachers whoreported that their school uses therespective standards/assessment.For the students you teach, howappropriateÖ Too Hard

TA10a Are content standards for reading?

Would you say too easy, aboutright, or too hard?

23.2 1.7 2757 21.4 3.9 571 26.2 3.3 494 15.8 3.4 377 7.6 4.3 82 

TA10b Are performance standards for

reading?

18.6 1.7 2464 17.6 3.4 521 26.6 3.3 435 15.2 2.6 333 5.1 2.8 70 

TA10c Is the reading section of the reading

assessment?

37.0 2.2 2298 36.5 4.2 480 43.2 4.5 363 19.5 3.8 298 28.1 13.1 70 
48

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Questions asked of principals whoreported that their school usescontent/performance standards andthat LEP students comprise at least 10percent of the school population.

PA5 Does your school use alternate

content standards in reading thataccommodate LEP studentsí needto acquire English language skills?

60.7 5.6 111 56.5 10.4 36 79.5 5.7 68 82.8 7.5 36 84.1 16.2 9 

PA6 Do you use different performance

standards for LEP students?

29.5 7.2 101 24.5 11.2 28 44.8 7.4 60 31.9 12.7 32 40.1 15.2 4 

Please tell me to what extent thefollowing are barriers in usingcontent standards with all studentsin your school. How aboutÖ GreatExtent

PA8a Student mobility? 17.2 2.6 599 14.1 3.2 130 23.6 5.7 99 8.2 1.9 146 12.4 6.9 34 

PA8b Diversity of student populations? 7.4 1.4 599 10.8 5.4 130 21.5 5.3 99 7.4 3.8 146 9.2 6.0 34 

PA8c Language barriers? 7.0 1.4 599 5.2 2.1 130 31.4 6.6 99 3.7 1.2 146 10.1 6.3 34 

PA8d Inadequacy of training for

teachers?

3.7 0.8 599 4.6 2.0 130 10.8 4.0 99 3.0 1.3 146 4.3 4.7 34 

PA8e Unwillingness of teachers? 1.9 1.0 599 0.3 0.3 130 3.7 2.0 99 6.1 3.9 146 0.0 0.0 34 

PA8f Difficulty aligning practices with

content standards?

1.6 0.4 599 2.7 1.4 130 1.6 1.1 99 10.7 6.6 146 0.4 0.4 34 

PA8g Lack of aligned curriculum

appropriate for diversepopulations?

5.6 1.8 599 3.9 2.3 130 7.0 3.1 99 1.1 0.6 146 1.4 1.4 34 

PA8h Lack of parent support? 13.1 2.1 599 13.7 3.0 130 11.9 3.2 99 9.7 2.2 146 11.6 7.7 34 

PA8i Insufficient or outdated

technology?

6.1 1.3 599 8.2 2.1 130 2.8 1.1 99 4.8 2.0 146 2.3 1.9 34 
49

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Questions asked of principal whoreported that their school uses therespective assessment and that theirschool has some migrant students.

PA16 During the 1997-98 school year,

what percent of migrant students inthe grade levels tested participatedin the reading section of thereading assessment?

69.2 7.4 66 71.2 5.5 47 58.7 19.6 20 

PA26 During the 1997-98 school year,

what percent of migrant students inthe grade levels tested participatedin the math section of the mathassessment?

68.0 6.8 65 69.2 6.1 46 63.4 10.8 21 

Questions asked of principals whoreported that their school uses therespective assessment and had migrantstudents who did not participate.Were any of the following reasonsfor non-participation of migrantstudents in the reading section ofthe reading assessment?

PA17a Lack of English proficiency? 100 0.0 1 88.5 5.2 31 73.5 29.1 4 

PA17b Students not enrolled in your

school, district, state or in a specialprogram long enough to be tested?

27.9 19.3 4 100 0.0 14 100 0.0 2 

PA17c IEP specified exclusion? 19.6 18.1 17 48.0 11.2 40 8.0 8.4 8 

PA17d Students not enrolled at time of

testing:?

82.8 18.0 8 95.6 4.6 22 59.8 31.2 4 

PA17e Absence on day of assessment? 75.0 16.1 12 75.6 17.0 25 55.2 22.8 7 

PA17f Lack of instruments in studentsí

native language?

100 0.0 1 63.7 16.7 10 100 0.0 1 
50

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PA17g Lack of assessment

accommodations?

100 0.0 1 

Were any of the following reasonsfor non-participation of migrantstudents in the math section of themath assessment?

PA27a Lack of English proficiency? 100 0.0 2 77.9 14.3 26 100 0.0 1 

PA27b Students not enrolled in your

school, district, state or in a specialprogram long enough to be tested?

65.9 35.5 6 100 0.0 16 0.0 0.0 1 

PA27c IEP specified exclusion? 39.6 19.0 19 68.8 10.9 29 15.4 12.9 3 

PA27d Students not enrolled at time of

testing?

85.1 12.7 11 97.1 3.0 21 84.6 12.9 3 

PA27e Absence on day of assessment? 58.7 19.2 13 87.9 7.1 21 100 0.0 2 

PA27f Lack of instruments in studentsí

native language?

100 0.0 1 93.6 6.8 9 

PA27g Lack of assessment

accommodations?

37.2 23.6 3 

Questions asked of principals inschools where less than 100 percent ofstudents participated in the reading ormath assessment. Question PA33casked only in schools where at least 10percent of students are LEP.For students that did notparticipate in reading assessmentor math assessment, how did youmeasure their progress? Did youuseÖ.

PA33a A substitute assessment? 75.5 4.4 369 81.9 4.6 83 74.9 6.5 64 56.1 11.7 91 92.1 4.9 26 

PA33b Portfolios? 51.0 5.3 369 56.2 8.2 83 67.5 8.8 64 26.1 8.3 91 60.6 9.3 26 

PA33c English proficiency testing? 61.1 8.2 65 70.3 10.9 23 82.9 5.9 47 42.5 14.4 23 100 0.0 4 
51

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Please tell me the extent to whichyour content standards andperformance standardsÖGreatExtent

PA7a Are too rigorous for most of your

students?

6.0 1.8 599 2.5 1.0 130 11.4 4.0 99 4.7 1.7 146 18.5 11.2 34 

PA7b Are aligned with curriculum and

instruction?

64.2 4.9 599 58.6 10.2 130 64.3 6.9 99 78.4 6.6 146 87.7 6.8 34 

PA7c Have resulted in major changes in

your instructional program?

47.8 4.6 599 47.4 8.3 130 51.6 6.7 99 38.6 11.6 146 29.4 14.0 34 

PA7d Are well understood by teachers? 56.7 4.7 599 66.3 7.6 130 53.9 7.1 99 50.6 10.9 146 41.7 12.1 34 

PA7e Are implemented by teachers? 61.7 4.2 599 43.6 9.1 130 56.3 8.1 99 39.2 10.2 146 61.4 16.7 34 

PA7f Have produced a more challenging

instructional program for everystudent?

54.1 4.3 599 54.4 8.9 130 51.9 7.0 99 43.3 8.1 146 55.1 18.9 34 

Questions asked of teachers whoreported that their school uses therespective standards/assessment.To what extent, not at all, a smallextent, a moderate extent, or a greatextent, does your classroominstruction in reading/languagearts/English reflect theÖ GreatExtent

TA6a Content standards? 81.6 2.2 2757 75.7 4.7 571 81.9 2.7 494 77.4 5.4 377 92.0 3.5 82 

TA6b Performance standards? 72.7 2.3 2464 65.9 4.4 521 70.6 3.6 435 66.7 4.3 333 92.0 2.8 70 

TA6C Reading assessment? 64.6 2.8 2298 48.0 5.9 480 65.3 4.5 363 57.9 5.7 298 75.1 6.1 70 
52

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Questions asked of principals whoreported that their school uses a mathor reading assessment.Questions regarding migrant statusand LEP status were asked only ofprincipals who reported that theirschool contains some migrant studentsor 10 percent LEP students.Did you receive the readingassessment or math assessmentresults summarized by any of thefollowing categories of students?How aboutÖ

PA36a Race or ethnicity? 37.7 4.7 524 53.7 9.6 112 58.6 8.2 79 36.8 10.5 118 56.7 18.8 30 

PA36b Gender? 50.7 4.4 524 61.6 10.0 112 66.8 8.0 79 51.2 10.7 118 42.6 18.6 30 

PA36c Title I participation? 27.0 3.5 524 23.8 5.6 112 42.4 7.4 79 22.7 6.8 118 41.8 18.3 30 

PA36d Migrant status? 24.0 6.3 112 33.5 8.2 79 25.0 13.1 30 

PA36e Poverty status? 16.8 2.7 524 18.8 4.3 112 33.6 7.6 79 15.9 5.9 118 41.9 22.9 30 

PA36f LEP status? 55.4 6.6 91 58.7 11.0 28 53.1 8.8 54 74.4 10.2 29 100 0.0 6 

PA36g Students with IEPs? 36.9 4.6 524 48.1 9.4 112 46.5 7.2 79 54.4 10.1 117 82.1 9.2 30 

PB3 Does your school have an overall

written annual or strategic plan?

90.8 1.7 600 82.0 11.6 130 96.2 1.7 99 87.7 4.5 147 94.2 5.1 34 

Questions asked of principals whoreport having a written school plan.Which statement describes yourschool plan?

PB2a You have a written strategic plan

that includes Title I

89.2 3.5 567 88.7 5.6 124 97.2 2.5 94 74.1 7.2 134 95.7 4.9 31 

PB2b You have a written strategic plan

that does not include Title I; or

3.8 1.3 567 6.8 4.6 124 0.0 0.0 94 13.8 7.5 134 4.3 4.9 31 

PB2c You have a written plan for Title I

only.

6.9 3.2 567 1.5 1.5 124 0.4 0.3 94 0.5 0.4 134 0.0 0.0 31 

PB2A As part of your school plan, do you

conduct a needs assessment?

98.2 0.6 567 93.8 2.5 124 97.0 2.5 94 90.8 6.7 134 100 0.0 31 
53

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Questions concerning migrant, LEP,or Native American students askedonly of principals in schools with atleast 1 migrant student or 10 percentLEP or Native American students.I am going to read a list of people.Please tell me if they played a rolein developing your annual orstrategic school plan? How about

PB4a Yourself? 100 0.0 567 97.0 3.1 124 99.6 0.4 94 94.0 4.3 134 100 0.0 31 

PB4b The school leadership team? 93.3 4.3 567 99.4 0.6 124 99.7 0.3 94 98.5 1.0 134 86.1 10.1 31 PB4c Your teachers? 100 0.0 567 100 0.0 124 100 0.0 94 99.5 0.5 134 100 0.0 31 PB4d Other school staff? 93.0 1.6 567 75.7 7.4 124 96.6 1.6 94 93.7 1.9 134 100 0.0 31 PB4e Your students? 36.9 4.5 567 47.6 8.3 124 43.0 5.9 94 74.5 6.6 134 89.9 6.5 31 PB4f The Title I district staff? 84.5 2.3 567 90.1 2.8 124 86.9 4.6 94 84.4 4.7 134 79.8 12.5 31 PB4g The Title 9 staff? 78.0 7.9 62 71.3 59.8 19 54.5 10.8 15 68.4 12.8 34 12.2 9.9 5 

PB4h The Migrant Education staff? 33.4 6.3 124 66.3 6.8 94 43.7 11.8 31 

PB4i The Bilingual or ESL staff? 94.0 2.7 107 96.5 2.9 32 95.3 3.5 66 61.6 15.1 34 100 0.0 8 

PB4j The parents of your students? 91.8 4.2 567 90.6 3.8 124 98.7 0.9 94 97.0 1.3 134 98.0 1.7 31 

PB4k The parents of your Native

American students?

97.9 1.6 61 87.8 11.9 18 97.2 2.3 14 98.2 1.9 33 100 0.0 4 

PB4l The parents of your migrant

students?

46.3 7.4 117 83.3 5.4 92 38.8 12.9 29 

PB4m The parents of your LEP students? 86.5 4.4 103 86.2 7.2 30 97.4 1.7 65 94.1 4.3 34 100 0.0 8 

PB4n Business or community

representatives?

67.3 4.8 567 74.9 6.7 124 73.0 6.3 94 75.3 5.3 134 91.7 4.6 31 

PB4o Community members with

expertise in working with NativeAmericans?

82.1 6.6 38 88.7 24.7 11 90.9 6.2 11 97.7 2.3 22 87.8 13.4 3 

PB4p Community members with

expertise in working with migrantpopulations?

33.5 6.7 91 45.2 6.9 63 30.2 16.5 23 
54

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PB4q Community members with

expertise in working withpopulations with limited Englishproficiency?

59.3 7.2 65 49.0 11.4 25 66.8 9.6 41 72.5 12.5 21 21.6 6.5 6 

Do you have a writtencomprehensive plan to improvestudent achievement for allstudents inÖ

PB5a Reading? 82.7 3.0 600 70.8 11.1 130 94.0 2.9 99 69.5 9.7 147 78.2 12.0 34 

PB5b Math? 78.3 3.3 600 64.7 9.6 130 88.6 3.4 99 63.4 10.0 147 78.2 12.0 34 PB6 Do you have quantifiable goals for

how far your student will advanceeach year?

80.2 3.6 600 80.2 6.4 130 92.4 2.6 99 60.5 7.8 147 65.9 16.1 34 

Question asked of principals whoreported that their school hasquantifiable goals for students.Who sets those goals? Is it yourÖ

PB7a State 11.7 2.5 487 6.5 2.9 112 13.7 5.9 90 2.3 1.5 107 17.2 16.5 27 

PB7b District 18.0 4.9 487 10.5 3.4 112 27.0 6.1 90 19.7 8.8 107 29.8 23.5 27 

PB7c School 48.5 5.3 487 49.3 9.6 112 29.9 6.4 90 53.0 11.0 107 30.1 8.0 27 

PB7d Combination of State, District,

and/or School?

21.5 2.9 487 32.2 7.7 112 27.9 5.5 90 24.6 4.5 107 22.3 16.0 27 

Provision of Title I Services

PD9 In the last 3 years, have the

priorities for the use of Title I fundschanged at your school?

58.2 4.4 600 52.7 9.5 130 55.6 7.3 99 37.1 9.3 147 70.3 13.9 34 

To what extent have the changes inTitle I legislation helped yourschool toÖGreat Extent

PD1a Apply {content standards} to all

students?

44.2 4.8 599 32.3 7.5 130 57.5 5.9 99 20.3 4.2 146 45.9 11.8 34 

PD1b Have more flexibility in identifying

students for services

50.8 5.1 600 40.1 7.4 130 61.7 5.5 99 31.2 9.9 147 69.9 14.2 34 
55

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PD1c Extend learning time? 35.6 4.6 600 29.9 6.3 130 47.1 6.5 99 20.5 7.2 147 52.0 19.5 34 PD1d Minimize pull-out programs? 49.2 4.3 600 42.6 7.5 130 50.3 6.5 99 27.2 7.3 147 47.1 11.0 34 

PD1e Use a parent involvement policy? 36.8 4.4 600 38.1 8.7 130 39.8 7.0 99 21.4 6.9 147 39.1 12.5 34 PD1f Use school-parent compacts? 42.1 4.6 600 48.3 9.6 130 62.8 7.1 99 19.2 7.0 147 40.9 12.1 34 PD1g Assess student performance against

high standards?

39.4 4.4 600 32.9 8.2 130 51.9 6.0 99 18.6 6.8 147 42.9 11.8 34 

PD1h Use student performance results for

school accountability andcontinuous improvement?

47.4 4.6 600 47.9 9.2 130 69.6 4.8 99 27.2 7.4 147 44.5 11.5 34 

PD1i Coordinate Title I with other

federal education programs?

34.2 3.9 600 33.2 8.2 130 46.0 5.4 99 19.5 4.3 147 43.7 11.7 34 

PD1j Plan for schoolwide needs

assessment and comprehensivereform?

39.4 4.4 600 46.8 8.3 130 51.3 6.0 99 20.2 3.7 147 51.8 10.4 34 

PD1k Use your federal resources to

support overall schoolimprovement goals?

50.9 4.7 600 42.9 8.2 130 74.7 5.5 99 35.8 10.2 147 62.5 16.9 34 

PD3A Are students selected to receive

Title I services at your school?

73.8 3.8 600 70.3 9.2 130 64.7 6.4 99 77.8 5.3 147 49.0 19.9 34 

Questions asked of principals whoreported that students are selected toreceive Title I services. QuestionsPD3b and PD3e asked of principalswith at least 10 percent LEP students.What types of information do youuse for selecting students for TitleI? Do you useÖ.

PD3a Scores on standardized assessments

{administered in English}?

89.8 3.7 392 93.6 2.7 78 94.9 2.5 64 94.6 2.8 98 97.0 3.2 15 

PD3b Scores on standardized assessments

administered in languages otherthan English?

44.2 7.5 66 43.3 15.5 22 65.4 10.1 42 58.5 12.2 22 65.7 68.2 2 

PD3c Class grades? 72.2 5.5 392 78.5 7.2 78 71.0 7.6 64 80.6 11.5 98 99.0 1.1 15 

PD3f Poverty level? 37.3 5.9 392 42.3 11.6 78 38.9 8.7 64 20.6 6.7 98 55.3 16.7 15 

PD3g Grade level? 69.6 4.5 392 78.7 6.7 78 57.0 9.2 64 40.3 8.6 98 33.5 15.5 15 
56

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PD3h Parent consultation? 76.2 3.9 392 63.0 13.1 78 70.9 7.6 64 80.8 8.7 98 92.2 4.7 15 

Questions asked of principals whoreported that students are selected toreceive Title I services and that have atleast 1 migrant student in school.How are migrant students selectedfor Title I services if they enroll inyour school after the time whenselection for Title I occurs? Doyou.Ö

PD5a Administer the same standardized

assessment at a later time?

34.1 10.5 68 46.7 8.7 60 80.9 11.0 14 

PD5b Administer a different assessment? 49.9 12.9 68 45.5 8.5 60 4.3 3.4 14 

PD5c Review records from previous

schools, when they are available?

95.8 2.5 78 95.6 2.7 64 95.0 3.9 15 

PD5d Rely on teacherís judgment? 91.1 3.7 78 82.2 5.2 64 87.0 10.0 15 PD5e Review poverty level? 32.2 8.8 78 42.0 8.6 64 50.3 16.8 15 

PD5f Review grade level? 82.9 6.0 78 61.3 8.3 64 77.5 11.5 15 

PD5g Rely on parent consultation? 81.2 6.1 78 70.8 7.2 64 80.4 10.8 15 

Questions about funding asked onlywhere principal reports having therespective program or service.Does your school haveÖ.

PD10a A year-round program? 9.4 2.4 600 12.1 4.2 130 21.6 5.5 99 30.7 11.9 147 43.0 12.3 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 68.9 8.6 73 54.5 14.5 23 64.8 13.2 21 93.6 3.4 32 33.2 26.5 10 

PD10b A weekend program? 4.6 1.7 600 7.1 2.8 130 5.3 2.5 99 9.7 3.7 147 1.6 0.7 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 52.8 25.9 34 86.2 11.8 10 69.0 20.9 5 22.9 10.6 24 100 0.0 2 

PD10c An extended school year program? 27.4 3.9 600 23.2 5.5 130 37.2 6.5 99 35.2 11.9 147 50.5 10.6 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 58.3 5.6 194 69.7 10.4 49 79.7 7.5 38 60.6 19.6 50 74.2 19.3 11 

PD10d A before- or after-school program? 53.7 5.3 600 47.9 7.6 130 73.8 6.6 99 47.0 7.7 147 53.9 10.8 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 38.6 4.4 411 44.1 7.9 87 56.2 8.3 78 75.8 7.0 85 67.0 19.3 23 

PD10e A summer or intersession

program?

67.7 4.2 600 73.9 6.1 130 64.1 6.3 99 55.3 9.8 147 71.1 14.1 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 50.2 5.4 378 28.6 7.8 81 67.8 8.4 65 49.0 14.8 83 28.3 19.9 21 
57

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Question asked of elementary schoolprincipals.

PD10f Transition activities for children in

preschool programs?

42.4 4.9 600 58.0 8.1 130 45.8 6.9 99 

Title I Funds Used for Program 43.7 7.4 245 22.9 7.4 66 35.1 12.0 46 

PD10g School-to-work activities? 19.0 2.7 600 48.5 8.2 130 23.9 5.5 99 34.4 5.7 147 67.2 8.1 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 10.6 2.5 155 6.2 3.8 39 23.2 9.3 21 43.7 24.2 68 5.1 3.6 17 

PD10h Counseling or pupil services? 83.7 3.4 600 84.7 4.1 130 77.3 4.7 99 72.8 7.5 147 92.5 5.6 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 17.8 2.9 496 21.6 7.0 105 48.9 7.5 76 44.1 14.4 111 43.3 12.8 30 

PD10i Mentoring or tutoring? 69.3 5.1 600 83.7 6.1 130 84.1 3.9 99 77.2 8.0 147 87.2 7.4 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 42.3 5.2 465 36.2 8.1 108 62.1 7.1 84 62.5 11.8 118 50.9 11.8 26 

Question asked of high schoolprincipals.

PD10j College and career awareness and

prep activities?

76.0 11.8 52 98.1 2.0 9 

Title I Funds Used for Program 5.3 2.9 40 38.9 40.4 7 

PD10k Services for out-of-school youth? 14.2 2.0 600 9.9 4.7 130 15.1 4.2 99 24.0 10.9 147 28.2 14.6 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 24.4 7.8 108 13.0 8.9 21 17.2 8.5 17 42.0 38.6 31 41.4 20.0 8 

PD10l Services that target children in a

pull-out setting?

71.5 3.7 600 72.6 6.7 130 63.0 5.6 99 55.4 6.9 147 65.1 15.9 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 79.5 5.2 385 92.7 5.1 84 83.5 6.6 60 76.0 10.9 54 94.7 5.0 17 

PD10m Services that target children in an

in-class setting?

88.1 3.1 600 82.9 5.6 130 87.3 4.5 99 81.6 5.1 147 87.8 9.1 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 88.4 5.2 531 96.1 1.7 115 87.7 5.4 89 82.5 8.1 112 95.4 5.1 30 

PD10n Supplemental instructional services

in {reading/language arts/Englishclass}?

95.1 1.1 600 80.0 6.1 130 88.7 4.0 99 48.3 10.1 147 89.5 6.5 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 84.5 5.2 551 98.0 1.1 110 88.4 3.8 88 91.8 4.2 100 98.3 1.5 25 

PD10o Supplemental instructional services

in math?

65.4 5.1 600 57.2 7.9 130 65.8 6.6 99 51.7 11.7 147 87.0 7.3 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 83.1 4.8 415 96.0 2.0 82 88.3 4.1 66 86.8 7.4 91 99.7 0.4 23 
58

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Questions PD10p and PD10q asked ofprincipals who reported having 10percent or more LEP students in theirschools.

PD10p Services that are specially designed

in English, such as ESL?

87.8 3.0 111 85.4 6.7 36 86.7 5.0 68 76.9 10.7 36 82.3 18.0 9 

Title I Funds Used for Program 32.6 5.9 94 58.0 9.9 30 70.3 8.9 59 35.9 12.6 26 78.5 22.9 7 

PD10q Services in the student's native

language, such as bilingualeducation?

51.4 6.9 111 71.4 9.1 36 62.7 8.5 68 36.7 11.5 36 82.3 18.0 9 

Title I Funds Used for Program 22.2 6.6 69 61.0 11.4 26 76.2 6.8 51 51.4 20.2 19 78.5 22.9 7 

PD10r Resource teachers? 81.6 4.2 600 70.1 10.5 130 76.8 5.4 99 66.5 6.0 147 79.6 11.3 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 50.5 4.5 511 48.6 9.3 104 52.6 8.0 77 47.9 14.2 104 17.3 10.1 24 

PD10s A class size reduction initiative? 41.4 4.8 600 39.4 7.7 130 52.5 7.5 99 25.4 7.2 147 58.1 18.0 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 26.4 4.3 275 30.3 9.0 73 38.7 8.9 55 54.0 9.7 64 70.3 27.4 12 

PD10t A family literacy program? 29.9 3.4 600 37.6 8.4 130 40.5 6.6 99 17.9 9.4 147 23.5 15.8 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 54.3 5.9 236 78.5 7.2 62 65.9 9.5 44 76.9 23.9 29 14.9 38.0 6 

PD10u Professional development for

school staff?

97.4 0.6 600 94.3 2.5 130 90.8 3.5 99 84.6 5.0 147 85.7 10.4 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 62.8 4.6 570 53.9 9.9 119 71.0 6.7 92 50.6 11.3 125 31.3 16.5 29 

PD10v Training for parents? 66.1 4.9 600 65.0 9.2 130 83.5 4.2 99 36.6 9.6 147 50.3 11.1 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 72.5 4.1 472 75.2 7.5 109 81.0 7.0 83 72.2 10.7 87 62.2 32.4 23 

PD10w A parent liaison? 54.8 5.2 600 43.0 8.8 130 65.7 6.7 99 53.8 9.3 147 68.7 9.7 34 

Title I Funds Used for Program 48.2 5.1 370 64.2 7.8 83 61.8 8.5 68 28.7 7.2 84 64.6 22.8 25 

PD10x Teacher aides? 91.7 2.3 587 96.0 1.7 129 86.7 4.0 98 83.8 5.2 132 81.3 11.3 32 

Title I Funds Used for Program 64.4 5.1 538 76.5 7.3 118 84.3 4.3 87 65.7 10.1 110 77.4 15.6 28 

Question asked of principals reportingthat school offers supplementalinstruction in reading and that teacheraides are employed through Title I.

PD13 Are any of your Title I instructional

services in reading provided byteacher aides?

85.0 3.5 302 67.7 9.3 65 75.2 9.9 51 77.6 14.9 51 90.6 9.1 16 
59

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Question asked of principals reportingthat school offers supplementalinstruction in math and that teacheraides are employed through Title I.

PD13A Are any of your Title I instructional

services in math provided byteacher aides?

76.3 4.7 226 66.9 12.1 50 59.7 10.6 35 78.1 13.3 43 89.2 10.3 17 

Question asked of principals reportingthat school offers instructional servicesspecially designed in English and thatteacher aides are employed throughTitle I.

PD13B Are any of your Title I instructional

services that are specially designedin English provided by teacheraides?

77.1 14.5 24 43.7 23.1 14 71.8 9.2 23 0.9 0.9 8 31.4 5.1 5 

Questions asked of principals reportingthat school employs teacher aidesthrough Title I.To what extent do teacher aides dothe following activities? DotheyÖGreat Extent

PD17a Work one-on-one with students? 31.6 4.5 351 51.8 9.0 79 35.0 7.4 57 65.9 9.7 69 59.0 9.9 21 

PD17b Work with students in groups? 52.7 6.0 351 51.9 7.7 79 56.0 8.8 57 47.8 9.7 69 24.3 19.4 21 PD17c Do clerical tasks? 4.4 2.6 351 0.4 0.4 79 2.5 2.7 57 22.5 19.2 69 0.0 0.0 21 

PD17d Work with parents? 5.5 1.7 351 8.6 4.6 79 10.9 6.9 57 32.8 19.4 69 5.3 5.0 21 

Question asked of principals whoreported having at least 1 migrantstudent in school.

PD21 Does your school receive Title I,

Part C funds for migrant educationprograms?

18.2 5.4 130 55.8 7.8 99 23.2 12.7 34 
60

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Question asked of principals in schoolsreceiving Title I, Part C funds.

PD22 To what extent do you coordinate

these migrant services with yourTitle I, Part A services? Would yousayÖ.Great Extent

55.1 14.1 30 40.0 8.4 52 30.0 12.8 9 

PD26A To what extent does your school

combine your federal funds withfunding from other sources? GreatExtent

31.0 4.3 600 24.1 5.3 130 44.5 6.6 99 31.8 10.7 147 54.9 10.7 34 

What challenges do you face incoordinating federal resources withyour other funds? Do you findthatÖ

PD26a You are unsure what is allowed? 58.8 4.0 600 31.5 8.2 130 36.8 6.8 99 54.7 11.0 147 63.2 16.5 34 PD26b The district controls the use of

funds?

67.7 3.6 600 47.7 9.6 130 42.4 5.5 99 72.1 5.9 147 75.8 12.9 34 

PD26c The state controls the use of funds? 56.4 4.1 600 36.9 7.5 130 34.1 5.8 99 43.6 11.4 147 47.7 10.6 34 

PD26d There is resistance by school staff? 12.6 4.2 600 8.7 3.3 130 7.3 2.5 99 3.7 1.2 147 13.2 10.0 34 

Questions concerning teacher andteacher aide positions asked ofprincipals who fund such positionsthrough Title I.If Title I funds were not availableto your school, would you cut backÖ

PD27a Teaching positions? 87.5 2.5 487 75.4 5.7 99 90.6 3.6 71 85.5 5.7 97 79.1 15.0 25 

PD27b Teacher aide positions? 86.4 7.3 351 93.5 3.9 79 97.1 1.7 57 97.9 1.3 69 98.6 1.7 21 

PD27c Other staff positions? 38.0 4.3 600 33.5 7.7 130 58.4 6.1 99 34.0 10.3 147 42.6 12.4 34 PD27d Professional development

opportunities?

59.9 4.6 600 51.2 9.0 130 70.3 5.8 99 38.0 10.2 147 59.4 17.9 34 

PD27e Computers? 42.8 4.4 600 38.8 6.9 130 62.7 6.9 99 41.8 6.0 147 56.5 18.7 34 PD27f Parent involvement activities? 50.2 4.6 600 47.0 9.4 130 61.9 6.8 99 33.7 5.7 147 57.3 18.5 34 
61

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Professional Development in TitleI SchoolsSince the end of the 1997-98 schoolyear, to what extent were thefollowing factors important indetermining which teacherprofessional development activitiesare supported by school or districtresources? How about...GreatExtent

PG4a Special state-level initiatives? 42.2 4.9 600 46.2 8.0 130 42.5 6.4 99 42.6 10.0 147 54.7 11.5 34 

PG4b District-level initiatives or district

improvement plan?

68.1 4.6 600 56.9 9.0 130 66.5 6.7 99 66.5 8.8 147 79.5 11.9 34 

PG4c School plan? 64.1 4.8 600 64.5 9.4 130 80.2 5.3 99 36.8 8.0 147 77.3 12.6 34 

PG4d Implementation of content

standards?

51.7 5.1 599 70.0 7.8 130 62.6 6.9 99 44.8 7.5 146 58.1 22.4 34 

PG4e Teacher preferences? 36.4 5.1 600 39.5 10.2 130 23.4 5.6 99 13.3 3.7 147 52.7 19.5 34 

TD1 Have you received any professional

development in the past 12months?

94.3 1.3 1414 94.0 1.9 311 95.4 3.0 255 95.4 1.9 292 100 0.0 41 

Questions asked of teachers who reporthaving received some professionaldevelopment in the past 12 months.Questions concerning migrant, LEP,or Native American students askedonly of teachers who teach at least onestudent from the respective groups.
62

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

I am going to read a list ofprofessional developmentactivities. If you have received thistype of professional developmentin the last 12 months, please tell mewhether it was a one time activity,part of an ongoing activity this yearonly, or part of an ongoing activitythat continues for more than oneyear. Did you participate in aprofessional development activitythat focused onÖContent in your subject area?

TD1Aa None? 17.4 2.3 1349 22.5 6.1 294 19.0 4.8 250 16.3 4.4 280 26.3 22.9 41 

TD1Aa One time activity? 26.4 2.6 1349 24.7 7.4 294 17.7 3.4 250 25.5 3.2 280 25.9 23.4 41 

TD1Aa Ongoing activity this year? 22.0 3.0 1349 20.6 3.0 294 21.2 4.3 250 18.8 4.3 280 4.8 2.3 41 

TD1Aa Ongoing multiyear activity? 33.9 2.4 1349 31.9 5.5 294 42.1 4.5 250 39.4 6.6 280 42.9 48.2 41 

TD3a Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

58.9 3.6 1136 55.3 6.1 256 53.1 5.1 211 42.4 5.6 231 67.0 14.7 35 

Instructional strategies?

TD1Ab None? 12.5 1.6 1349 16.6 5.0 294 19.1 3.8 250 20.8 4.0 280 0.4 0.7 41 TD1Ab One time activity? 34.6 2.5 1349 40.4 3.8 294 25.2 4.6 250 28.9 3.5 280 58.4 6.3 41 

TD1Ab Ongoing activity this year? 22.6 2.8 1349 24.7 4.4 294 24.2 4.5 250 20.4 5.3 280 21.1 3.2 41 

TD1Ab Ongoing multiyear activity? 29.9 2.3 1349 18.2 4.4 294 31.5 4.6 250 30.0 3.7 280 20.1 4.8 41 

TD3b Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

52.9 3.6 1171 62.5 6.1 255 52.0 6.2 205 44.7 7.0 235 26.7 4.5 40 

Approaches to assessment?

TD1Ac None? 43.8 2.7 1349 30.0 5.9 294 36.6 4.5 250 48.5 3.8 280 46.5 32.0 41 

TD1Ac One time activity? 20.3 2.1 1349 28.0 6.1 294 24.8 4.5 250 20.7 5.2 280 39.4 15.6 41 

TD1Ac Ongoing activity this year? 15.2 1.6 1349 12.3 2.9 294 18.5 3.9 250 11.1 2.5 280 7.2 9.4 41 

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools 
63

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

TD1Ac Ongoing multiyear activity? 20.6 2.0 1349 29.3 6.9 294 19.8 4.3 250 19.7 3.8 280 6.9 9.0 41 TD3c Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

59.3 2.8 824 65.8 8.5 191 53.5 5.8 149 47.2 7.0 166 58.6 29.3 27 

Strategies for using assessmentresults?

TD1Ad None? 56.4 2.6 1349 43.6 7.2 294 38.2 5.4 250 68.4 4.7 280 46.1 27.5 41 

TD1Ad One time activity? 15.7 1.8 1349 21.5 6.9 294 21.8 6.6 250 14.8 3.3 280 24.0 12.5 41 

TD1Ad Ongoing activity this year? 8.3 1.3 1349 14.7 2.6 294 14.7 2.7 250 6.8 1.8 280 3.9 5.5 41 

TD1Ad Ongoing multiyear activity? 19.6 1.8 1349 20.2 6.8 294 24.0 4.5 250 10.0 2.3 280 26.0 35.4 41 

TD3d Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

56.3 3.3 676 64.7 8.4 158 61.1 5.0 132 48.7 6.2 125 83.7 6.7 24 

Strategies to enable you to teach tocontent standards?

TD1Ae None? 40.5 3.8 1330 34.5 7.5 289 36.9 4.0 248 35.2 5.4 275 42.0 30.0 41 

TD1Ae One time activity? 19.8 1.9 1330 16.0 3.8 289 19.1 3.3 248 23.2 4.4 275 23.9 15.3 41 TD1Ae Ongoing activity this year? 15.6 2.8 1330 20.8 4.2 289 17.8 3.6 248 9.8 3.9 275 3.4 4.6 41 TD1Ae Ongoing multiyear activity? 23.4 2.5 1330 28.6 6.6 289 25.6 3.9 248 31.8 4.5 275 30.6 41.3 41 TD3e Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

59.7 4.3 823 62.5 10.4 185 48.4 5.6 154 47.0 6.3 169 82.8 7.6 29 

Instructional strategies for teachinglow achieving students?

TD1Af None? 47.5 2.8 1349 49.1 4.1 294 40.8 5.7 250 61.7 5.1 280 55.6 16.7 41 

TD1Af One time activity? 21.4 2.7 1349 25.3 3.6 294 20.5 4.7 250 18.4 4.0 280 23.0 13.5 41 

TD1Af Ongoing activity this year? 10.1 2.7 1349 11.4 2.5 294 13.6 3.4 250 5.4 2.0 280 1.4 2.0 41 

TD1Af Ongoing multiyear activity? 21.0 1.8 1349 14.3 4.3 294 24.3 3.7 250 14.5 4.8 280 19.9 4.7 41 

TD3f Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

52.7 4.2 698 48.5 8.2 166 47.2 7.6 138 51.6 7.8 130 49.1 9.6 24 

Instructional strategies for teachingLEP students?

TD1Ag None? 73.3 3.1 430 52.7 7.5 113 41.9 6.6 177 63.1 6.9 126 85.0 21.4 15 
64

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

TD1Ag One time activity? 9.2 1.6 430 24.3 8.5 113 15.2 4.0 177 17.9 6.2 126 9.0 13.0 15 TD1Ag Ongoing activity this year? 6.1 1.7 430 11.4 2.9 113 17.5 4.1 177 10.4 4.3 126 0.0 0.0 15 

TD1Ag Ongoing multiyear activity? 11.4 2.5 430 11.6 4.8 113 25.4 5.9 177 8.6 2.8 126 6.1 10.2 15 

TD3g Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

40.9 7.4 140 77.4 11.4 38 46.0 7.2 99 55.0 8.5 47 27.1 24.8 3 

Instructional strategies for teachingmigrant students?

TD1Ah None? 87.9 5.2 101 72.5 11.6 64 69.7 4.1 159 79.9 8.8 42 65.5 31.4 7 

TD1Ah One time activity? 6.4 3.5 101 2.1 0.9 64 6.7 3.4 159 18.4 8.8 42 19.0 24.0 7 TD1Ah Ongoing activity this year? 1.2 0.9 101 23.5 12.5 64 12.4 3.8 159 1.7 1.4 42 15.4 16.6 7 

TD1Ah Ongoing multiyear activity? 4.5 2.6 101 1.8 2.2 64 11.2 3.0 159 0.0 0.0 42 0.0 0.0 7 

TD3h Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

32.6 18.5 21 93.4 3.6 10 55.3 9.0 39 53.4 37.4 8 100 0.0 2 

Instructional strategies for teachingNative American students?

TD1Ai None? 81.4 3.6 289 58.0 15.0 89 81.5 5.6 65 89.1 3.8 124 96.0 38.5 15 

TD1Ai One time activity? 8.0 2.7 289 1.6 2.8 89 10.1 5.5 65 6.6 2.9 124 2.2 21.9 15 

TD1Ai Ongoing activity this year? 2.2 1.0 289 34.4 17.3 89 0.0 0.0 65 0.6 0.4 124 0.9 8.6 15 

TD1Ai Ongoing multiyear activity? 8.3 2.0 289 5.8 2.9 89 8.4 3.7 65 3.6 1.7 124 0.8 8.1 15 

TD3i Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

55.9 9.0 66 94.4 6.8 18 28.1 19.9 10 49.7 17.4 32 77.6 12.3 3 

Strategies to increase or strengthenparent involvement?

TD1Aj None? 67.5 3.3 1349 65.5 5.8 294 67.5 3.7 250 73.1 4.3 280 82.5 5.8 41 

TD1Aj One time activity? 15.0 3.0 1349 19.6 4.7 294 13.3 2.5 250 16.4 3.0 280 13.9 9.3 41 

TD1Aj Ongoing activity this year? 5.0 1.4 1349 5.2 2.3 294 5.2 1.6 250 5.8 2.2 280 0.2 0.3 41 

TD1Aj Ongoing multiyear activity? 12.4 1.5 1349 9.4 2.8 294 14.1 4.0 250 4.8 1.6 280 3.4 4.6 41 

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools 
65

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

TD3j Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

29.7 4.2 490 18.9 5.8 108 28.1 5.8 82 39.1 9.5 113 3.3 7.0 12 

Strategies for managing discipline?

TD1Ak None? 64.8 3.3 1349 66.2 5.9 294 62.8 5.7 250 65.3 4.7 280 49.2 27.3 41 

TD1Ak One time activity? 18.3 2.7 1349 19.9 4.0 294 17.1 3.1 250 24.5 4.6 280 21.4 8.2 41 

TD1Ak Ongoing activity this year? 5.8 0.9 1349 5.4 2.6 294 10.0 2.9 250 3.3 1.6 280 0.0 0.0 41 

TD1Ak Ongoing multiyear activity? 11.0 1.9 1349 8.6 3.0 294 10.1 3.0 250 6.9 2.3 280 29.4 19.4 41 

TD3k Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

51.2 5.1 553 58.1 11.3 102 45.9 7.5 92 35.9 7.2 109 58.1 14.6 18 

Leadership development?

TD1Al None? 76.9 2.3 1349 84.1 4.2 294 74.6 4.2 250 72.2 5.0 280 68.6 17.1 41 

TD1Al One time activity? 6.0 0.9 1349 4.7 1.9 294 7.1 1.8 250 11.6 3.8 280 15.2 10.5 41 

TD1Al Ongoing activity this year? 6.6 1.3 1349 5.5 2.6 294 7.1 1.9 250 5.3 2.4 280 2.0 2.9 41 

TD1Al Ongoing multiyear activity? 10.3 2.0 1349 5.7 1.6 294 11.1 2.4 250 10.9 3.2 280 14.2 8.9 41 

TD3l Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

48.7 4.0 321 31.9 9.9 62 47.5 6.3 66 57.7 11.0 82 50.2 10.2 15 

Adapting teaching to meet readingassessment or math assessmentrequirements?

TD1Am None? 43.6 3.2 1119 31.1 4.3 244 35.1 6.8 192 44.2 8.1 234 45.6 33.6 37 

TD1Am One time activity? 19.6 3.0 1119 20.6 5.3 244 23.4 6.2 192 19.2 3.4 234 14.9 11.0 37 

TD1Am Ongoing activity this year? 10.0 1.7 1119 14.0 2.4 244 10.6 2.6 192 7.4 2.2 234 28.2 31.1 37 

TD1Am Ongoing multiyear activity? 26.3 3.6 1119 34.0 6.2 244 27.1 3.9 192 29.2 6.3 234 11.2 14.7 37 

TD3m Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

57.2 5.4 638 61.8 10.6 160 55.9 5.4 108 61.6 8.3 126 62.9 22.3 27 

Use of technology?

TD1An None? 25.1 2.8 1349 24.2 4.3 294 31.0 5.4 250 20.6 5.2 280 4.5 6.1 41 

TD1An One time activity? 24.6 2.8 1349 31.7 6.5 294 22.4 4.4 250 27.5 5.2 280 18.7 13.7 41 

TD1An Ongoing activity this year? 17.5 3.0 1349 16.2 4.5 294 17.6 2.8 250 11.8 3.7 280 42.0 19.0 41 
66

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

TD1An Ongoing multiyear activity? 32.6 2.5 1349 27.7 5.7 294 27.6 4.4 250 40.2 5.0 280 34.9 10.5 41 TD3n Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

63.9 4.2 982 76.4 5.2 214 56.0 4.9 171 60.0 5.9 214 80.9 6.1 33 

Use of an externally developedschool reform model?

TD1Ao None? 82.8 2.0 1349 84.9 3.9 294 78.6 4.1 250 83.5 4.5 280 89.8 13.5 41 

TD1Ao One time activity? 4.7 0.8 1349 2.0 1.1 294 3.7 1.1 250 5.9 2.3 280 6.1 8.6 41 

TD1Ao Ongoing activity this year? 3.0 0.6 1349 2.9 1.2 294 4.6 1.8 250 2.5 1.0 280 2.8 3.9 41 

TD1Ao Ongoing multiyear activity? 9.2 1.6 1349 9.3 3.1 294 12.5 3.2 250 7.4 3.7 280 1.3 1.8 41 

TD3o Did that professional development

activity cause you to change yourteaching practice?

47.7 6.3 266 64.2 9.8 57 61.6 7.8 55 44.0 18.4 55 26.4 12.6 15 

Questions asked of teachers who wouldlike additional professionaldevelopment and did not receive anyprofessional development in specificareas.What types of professionaldevelopment would you have likedto have participated in? HowaboutÖ

TD5a Content in your subject area? 69.9 6.8 161 87.4 7.2 37 64.6 21.5 19 77.6 10.9 35 98.2 33.2 3 

TD5b Instructional strategies? 83.2 4.6 149 59.6 13.6 36 74.3 19.7 26 66.1 12.5 41 100 0.0 1 

TD5c Approaches to assessment? 63.9 8.1 310 64.8 9.4 65 73.8 10.1 52 78.5 7.9 71 69.6 37.3 8 

TD5d Strategies for using assessment

results?

64.2 8.3 369 60.4 10.5 78 79.3 7.9 62 66.3 7.6 90 96.3 23.9 8 

TD5e Strategies to enable you to teach to

content standards?

70.5 4.3 286 70.0 9.6 66 65.7 9.0 42 66.4 7.3 67 10.0 24.9 8 

TD5f Instructional strategies for teaching

low achieving students?

86.8 2.8 373 65.0 11.8 74 90.7 4.2 62 76.9 6.7 90 100 0.0 11 

TD5g Instructional strategies for teaching

LEP students?

57.9 6.2 146 54.8 11.1 45 78.3 7.7 45 73.3 11.4 42 44.8 36.9 7 

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools 
67

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

TD5h Instructional strategies for teaching

migrant students?

44.7 11.1 51 63.1 13.4 30 72.6 9.3 66 77.2 9.6 19 69.7 19.7 4 

TD5i Instructional strategies for teaching

Native American students?

54.7 11.9 109 35.5 20.6 41 34.9 12.4 25 66.1 13.4 51 72.4 42.1 7 

TD5j Strategies to increase or strengthen

parent involvement?

61.7 5.6 454 57.7 10.8 94 75.5 7.6 86 60.5 7.0 97 14.5 8.8 16 

TD5k Strategies for managing discipline? 61.8 5.5 436 57.8 10.6 101 66.7 7.4 80 51.7 9.5 95 8.1 6.2 15 

TD5l Leadership development? 42.6 4.6 509 52.6 6.5 111 59.3 8.4 86 29.5 8.0 107 33.1 24.5 18 

TD5m Adapting teaching to meet reading

assessment or math assessmentrequirements?

61.7 6.7 268 39.0 12.5 52 59.8 9.0 37 51.3 16.5 66 6.5 93.7 4 

TD5n Use of technology? 83.2 6.0 261 70.3 9.8 57 95.1 3.0 49 85.5 6.7 58 70.3 16.4 5 

TD5o Use of an externally developed

school reform model?

36.6 5.3 519 44.0 6.6 108 46.1 9.2 89 30.7 7.4 116 89.5 4.1 14 

PD15 Do you have any teacher aides at

your school?

98.0 1.1 600 99.5 0.5 130 99.6 0.4 99 89.5 5.9 147 99.2 0.7 34 

Questions asked of principals inschools with teacher aides.

PG3 Are teacher aides included in your

professional developmentactivities?

89.6 3.0 587 73.7 11.2 129 94.7 2.2 98 89.3 5.2 132 99.2 0.9 32 

Does your district supporteducational improvement forteacher aides throughÖ

PD20a Career ladder for teacher aides? 25.3 2.9 587 41.6 9.6 129 40.2 6.0 98 28.3 10.6 132 31.8 15.3 32 

PD20b Release time for class work or

studying for a high school diplomaor GED?

11.9 2.1 587 37.2 10.0 129 21.2 3.9 98 34.6 12.2 132 12.6 7.1 32 

PD20c Funding for high school diploma or

GED classes?

7.6 1.6 587 10.7 4.4 129 11.8 5.3 98 4.1 1.2 132 14.0 10.4 32 

PD20d Release time for class work or

studying for higher educationcourses?

25.4 3.9 587 26.7 7.6 129 34.5 5.5 98 48.1 8.7 132 65.4 15.7 32 

PD20e Funding for higher education

classes?

22.8 3.1 587 22.9 5.9 129 46.8 6.4 98 18.4 4.5 132 31.5 7.5 32 
68

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Teacher Perceptions of Students'Mathematics AbilitiesQuestions asked of elementary andsecondary math teachers.How well do you think yourstudents perform in your mathclass relative to their peersÖ.Nationally? Would you say in thebottom 25% and 50%, between 50%and the top 25%, or in the top 25%?

TB15aa Bottom 25%? 4.1 0.8 2542 1.3 0.6 522 4.1 1.1 454 10.0 2.4 266 7.3 4.4 56 

TB15ab 25-50%? 25.4 1.8 2542 24.7 3.3 522 28.0 3.9 454 23.1 4.0 266 28.0 8.4 56 

TB15ac 50-75%? 52.4 2.5 2542 57.7 3.4 522 51.8 5.2 454 49.0 6.0 266 44.7 14.4 56 

TB15ad Top 25%? 15.0 1.4 2542 11.6 2.4 522 14.6 2.9 454 17.0 4.3 266 7.0 2.8 56 

Internationally?

TB15ba Bottom 25%? 11.5 1.9 2542 8.7 2.6 522 11.6 2.0 454 14.2 2.8 266 21.0 8.1 56 

TB15bb 25-50%? 27.5 1.9 2542 27.8 3.7 522 35.5 4.5 454 27.9 5.4 266 27.6 15.8 56 

TB15bc 50-75%? 32.4 2.3 2542 35.3 3.2 522 29.2 3.5 454 30.2 6.0 266 25.4 8.9 56 

TB15bd Top 25%? 6.4 1.3 2542 3.2 1.3 522 5.4 1.7 454 12.5 4.9 266 1.6 1.3 56 

Mathematics Coursework inSecondary SchoolsQuestions asked of high school mathchairs.What percent of graduating seniorsin your school have takenÖ

TB11a Algebra 1? 91.6 3.0 37 93.1 4.3 5 

TB11b Algebra 2? 58.1 6.6 37 62.3 14.7 5 

TB11c Trigonometry? 25.4 3.2 37 48.6 18.7 5 TB11d A full semester of statistics? 0.5 0.3 37 17.5 14.5 5 

TB11e Precalculus? 22.3 3.7 36 33.1 9.0 5 

TB11f College algebra? 9.8 6.0 36 32.3 20.8 5 TB11g Non-AP Calculus? 6.2 3.6 36 18.0 11.8 5 TB11h AP Calculus? 4.2 2.1 37 1.3 1.1 5 
69

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Parent Involvement StrategiesDoes your school provide thefollowing to parents of students atyour school? How aboutÖ

PF1a The school plan or school

improvement plan?

95.8 1.4 282 88.0 8.1 58 89.7 7.9 45 78.5 11.1 69 95.9 3.5 23 

PF1b A school-parent compact? 73.5 5.2 297 72.3 9.9 62 85.9 5.0 48 59.9 15.8 77 83.1 8.7 24 PF1c A school performance profile or

school report card?

84.2 5.5 297 87.3 6.1 62 92.3 3.5 48 80.1 10.4 77 95.2 3.5 24 

PF1d A district, state, or national

comparison of your school?

84.5 5.1 297 91.2 3.7 62 71.7 7.7 48 86.1 4.3 77 80.7 10.3 24 

PF1e Content standards or performance

standards?

86.7 5.2 296 92.7 3.2 62 87.2 5.7 48 51.1 13.7 76 89.9 7.5 24 

PF6 Are any of your school documents

translated into languages otherthan English?

23.5 3.5 297 57.0 9.4 62 88.1 5.1 48 16.9 4.8 77 37.1 15.5 24 

Questions asked of principals whoreport using school-parent compacts.In your school, which parents areasked to participate in the schoolparent compact? Are the parents of

PF2a All of your students, or 76.5 4.8 225 81.6 6.1 51 85.2 9.7 40 49.8 11.5 52 69.6 16.2 16 

PF2b Solely your Title I students? 22.4 4.6 225 18.4 6.1 51 9.3 8.8 40 33.2 16.4 52 22.3 15.0 16 

PF3 Do you monitor whether or not the

school and the parents have mettheir part of the compact?

80.3 5.3 225 78.2 10.1 51 78.7 6.6 40 83.4 8.0 52 81.2 11.8 16 

Questions concerning migrant, LEP,or Native American students askedonly of principals in schools with atleast 1 migrant student or 10 percentLEP or Native American students.
70

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Do you monitor the progress of theschool-parent compacts through

PF3Aa A parent survey? 50.4 8.3 180 75.8 9.3 43 41.3 12.7 28 45.0 11.6 40 60.2 18.4 13 

PF3Ab A school personnel survey? 50.0 8.2 180 58.8 10.1 43 47.7 12.3 28 61.1 20.8 40 60.2 18.4 13 

PF3Ac Verbal feedback from parents? 98.8 0.6 180 96.9 2.4 43 90.1 7.9 28 100 0.0 40 99.0 1.2 13 

PF3Ad Verbal feedback from school

personnel?

96.2 2.7 180 96.3 2.5 43 99.1 1.0 28 100 0.0 40 99.0 1.2 13 

PF3Ae Records of parent involvement? 88.5 4.9 180 76.9 13.5 43 74.8 9.9 28 97.5 1.5 40 72.2 16.9 13 

PF3Af Records of Title I parent

involvement?

87.1 3.6 168 94.3 3.3 37 93.7 3.8 22 93.9 4.1 37 83.9 14.0 11 

PF3Ag Records of involvement of parents

of migrant students?

49.4 10.1 37 86.9 8.1 22 90.4 7.1 11 

PF3Ah Records of involvement of parents

of LEP students?

77.7 10.4 36 98.1 2.0 12 95.7 3.9 13 95.6 5.3 11 70.4 12.6 4 

PF3Ai Record of involvement of parents

of Native American students?

66.1 20.8 18 100 0.0 2 100 0.0 3 100 0.0 9 70.2 20.8 4 

PF3Aj Phone logs? 32.1 6.1 180 52.1 11.5 43 33.7 7.6 28 33.6 9.3 40 37.7 21.4 13 

PF3B Do you evaluate the progress of

meeting specified goals in theschool-parent compacts on anongoing basis?

84.1 4.5 180 86.2 6.3 43 70.2 10.2 28 97.2 2.4 40 94.4 4.4 13 

Do you use the information frommonitoring school-parent compactsin

PF4a Parent-teacher conferences? 89.8 4.2 180 91.8 4.0 43 85.9 9.0 27 68.6 19.9 40 71.2 16.9 13 

PF4b Teacher evaluation? 35.4 6.7 180 51.5 11.5 43 51.0 13.3 27 59.3 21.1 40 6.8 4.9 13 TE5 Do you use a school-parent

compact?

56.0 3.4 1458 57.6 6.7 276 66.0 8.2 250 47.9 5.0 352 32.6 9.8 97 

Question asked of teachers who reportusing school-parent compacts.
71

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

TE8 To what extent do you find the

compact useful in discussing theshared responsibilities among theparent, the student, and yourself?-Great Extent

25.6 2.6 712 27.1 5.0 143 50.4 7.9 152 39.6 4.0 147 21.7 9.1 37 

Question asked of teachers who do notreport using school-parent compacts.

TE9 To what extent do you think a

school-parent compact would bebeneficial?-Great Extent

27.5 4.2 636 20.0 4.7 108 29.8 6.1 87 19.5 4.8 185 37.7 3.5 51 

Do you promote parentinvolvement by

PF7a Using parents as volunteers in the

class or school?

98.2 0.8 297 98.9 1.1 62 100 0.0 48 64.6 9.6 77 89.4 8.0 24 

PF7b Recruiting or employing parents as

classroom aides?

69.1 6.3 297 76.8 8.7 62 83.2 5.9 48 44.6 12.4 77 75.1 9.9 24 

PF7c Having parents serve on school or

district committees?

98.7 0.7 297 98.9 1.1 62 96.9 3.2 48 94.8 2.8 77 96.2 3.2 24 

PF7d Providing workshops or training

for parents?

85.3 5.2 297 92.9 3.5 62 95.9 3.3 48 76.7 11.0 77 96.2 3.2 24 

PF7e Training parents to work with their

children at home?

91.8 2.0 297 95.8 2.4 62 90.9 6.4 48 61.8 15.8 77 89.4 8.0 24 

PF7f Providing social support services? 62.8 7.0 297 69.5 10.1 62 71.6 9.4 48 62.2 9.2 77 45.6 15.7 24 PF7g Providing family night activity,

such as family math?

87.4 3.2 297 77.2 8.3 62 88.5 4.8 48 28.4 6.9 77 46.8 15.6 24 

PF7h Providing materials translated into

other languages?

25.7 4.4 297 48.8 9.7 62 79.0 9.0 48 15.2 4.4 77 38.9 15.5 24 

PF7i Providing information in culturally

or linguistically appropriateformats?

51.3 6.1 297 67.2 10.0 62 79.5 9.3 48 29.8 7.7 77 43.3 14.7 24 

PF7j Inviting them to assemblies or

fairs?

98.5 0.7 297 98.0 1.5 62 100 0.0 48 94.2 2.8 77 96.2 3.2 24 

PF7k Hosting social events? 90.5 3.0 297 90.0 4.0 62 93.9 2.6 48 91.1 3.3 77 86.1 8.0 24 
72

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PF7l Providing individual student

assessment results to the parents ofyour students?

96.1 2.4 297 98.9 1.1 62 100 0.0 48 93.4 3.0 77 96.2 3.2 24 

PF7m Including an interpretation of those

assessment results to parents?

99.2 0.4 288 100 0.0 61 91.6 7.5 48 98.7 1.0 69 100 0.0 22 

Which of the following forms ofcommunication between parentsand staff occur at your school?AreÖ

PF8a Parents given written interim

reports or report cards on studentperformance or attendance?

98.7 0.7 297 98.9 1.1 62 100 0.0 48 95.6 2.6 77 96.2 3.2 24 

PF8b Parents requested to sign off on

homework?

91.5 2.2 297 97.7 1.6 62 93.6 2.6 48 81.3 5.3 77 92.1 4.5 24 

PF8c Parents given access to a schoolsponsored homework hotline? 27.3 5.0 297 27.6 9.8 62 27.0 10.9 48 37.3 11.3 77 6.3 3.7 24 

PF8d Parents given positive phone calls

or notes from teachers?

98.5 0.7 297 98.9 1.1 62 97.6 1.6 48 95.4 2.7 77 96.2 3.2 24 

PF8e Parents given examples of work

that meet high standards?

82.5 4.8 297 95.1 2.0 62 95.8 2.6 48 72.4 15.2 77 95.0 3.6 24 

PF8f Parents notified about children

ability-group placements?

69.0 6.1 297 77.2 7.6 62 77.7 8.5 48 58.2 12.9 77 50.4 14.8 24 

PF8g Special efforts to involve Title I

parents made?

83.9 5.1 297 96.5 2.4 62 79.9 7.8 48 91.2 4.1 77 66.1 14.8 24 

PF8h Special efforts to involve parents of

migrant students made?

70.9 8.0 62 88.6 5.3 48 63.0 14.8 24 

PF8i Special efforts to involve parents of

LEP students made?

92.6 4.8 56 95.8 4.2 20 91.3 5.8 30 79.3 14.1 22 82.5 17.9 7 

PF8j Special efforts to involve parents of

Native American students made?

95.4 3.6 32 100 0.0 6 100 0.0 9 90.5 6.9 20 96.5 3.2 5 

PF8k Parents given access to the school

web site with information specificto them?

43.2 6.1 297 49.8 11.3 62 52.6 8.5 48 46.6 16.1 77 20.2 8.9 24 
73

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Question asked of teachers who teach atleast 1 migrant student.

TE3 To what extent do you feel you

communicate with parents ofmigrant students? Would you sayÖGreat Extent

16.2 5.0 114 18.5 6.9 67 27.5 5.0 148 9.3 6.2 45 8.8 8.7 30 

Questions asked of teachers who teachat least 1 LEP student.How do you communicate withparents that have limited Englishproficiency? Do youcommunicateÖ.

TE4a Directly in a common language? 43.3 5.2 410 43.7 6.9 114 65.4 5.7 168 51.7 7.4 140 34.2 12.3 38 

TE4b Through another person, such as a

home-school liaison or translator?

88.5 2.5 410 84.0 4.7 114 70.6 8.9 168 81.7 5.5 140 92.4 3.8 38 

How often do youÖ.Almost Daily

TE10a Require parents to sign off on

students homework? Would yousay almost never, once or twice amonth, once or twice a week, oralmost daily?

29.6 2.2 1458 25.8 5.5 276 32.2 8.7 250 24.0 6.6 352 19.9 10.6 97 

TE10b Send home reading activities

parents can do with students thatreinforce what students arelearning in the classroom?

30.9 2.4 1423 29.9 4.7 271 26.2 4.6 246 11.7 2.8 206 4.9 3.1 59 

TE10c Send home math activities parents

can do with students that reinforcewhat students are learning in theclassroom?

30.3 2.5 1274 32.9 5.1 243 28.6 4.6 225 13.2 6.7 146 0.1 0.1 38 

As a result of your schools parentalinvolvement efforts, to what extenthave you noticed a change in yourclassroom? To what extentareÖ.Great Extent

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools 
74

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

TE11a Students completing their

homework? Would you say not atall, to a small extent, to a moderateextent, or to a great extent?

47.1 2.4 1458 50.5 6.0 276 52.4 6.3 250 32.1 3.2 352 26.1 10.6 97 

TE11b Students attending school

regularly?

77.1 2.8 1458 68.6 6.0 276 75.9 4.5 250 60.4 5.7 352 58.7 7.9 97 

TE11c Students arriving at school on time? 70.2 3.0 1458 65.3 7.1 276 75.5 4.9 250 64.4 5.6 352 62.0 9.8 97 PH1 Does your school plan include a

goal for using technology toimprove student instruction?

95.3 2.3 285 86.4 5.8 66 88.5 4.8 49 71.3 13.3 65 100 0.0 8 

PH2 Does your school have a computer

or technology coordinator?

77.9 5.2 303 81.8 7.5 68 87.7 5.2 51 53.0 13.5 70 67.2 34.4 10 

Availability and Use ofTechnology

PH9 What percent of your classrooms

have at least one computerpermanently located in them that isconnected to the Internet?

55.8 6.6 294 52.5 6.4 65 47.1 9.5 47 49.8 15.0 60 20.7 10.7 9 

Questions concerning migrant, LEP,or Native American students askedonly of principals in schools with atleast 1 migrant student or 10 percentLEP or Native American students.What are the major barriers inusing technology for instructionalpurposes at your school? HowaboutÖ

PH16a No telephone lines or insufficient

telephone lines?

43.3 6.5 301 27.7 8.2 68 48.5 9.6 51 36.2 12.4 70 12.4 13.1 10 

PH16b Insufficient equipment? 49.8 6.0 301 71.2 9.5 68 58.7 9.4 51 38.5 12.4 70 91.1 9.5 10 PH16c Lack of technical support or

advice?

49.9 6.8 301 60.7 12.4 68 40.7 7.7 51 24.7 10.9 70 2.4 3.4 10 

PH16d Lack of or inadequately trained

staff?

51.6 7.0 301 43.1 13.5 68 52.4 8.9 51 31.1 11.6 70 67.7 34.1 10 
75

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PH16e Lack of teacher knowledge

regarding ways to integratetechnology into the curriculum?

78.6 4.4 301 52.6 15.2 68 71.0 7.2 51 59.5 12.7 70 67.7 34.1 10 

PH16f Lack of software that is integrated

with the schoolís curriculum?

48.1 6.7 301 70.1 9.6 68 51.6 8.4 51 54.0 13.8 70 94.6 6.3 10 

PH16g Lack of software appropriate for

migrant students?

35.4 12.3 68 52.5 8.6 51 90.3 10.5 10 

PH16h Lack of software appropriate for

LEP students?

74.8 8.0 55 39.4 13.2 16 56.6 10.7 38 69.9 15.0 14 80.7 83.0 2 

PH16i Lack of software appropriate for

Native American students?

39.8 11.3 32 66.0 70.1 14 43.9 16.3 7 29.2 15.9 17 100 0.0 1 

Schools Identified As In Need OfImprovementDistrict reports school has beenidentified as in need ofimprovement under Title I.

10.5 10.5 600 20.3 6.0 130 16.7 4.5 99 13.0 3.8 147 11.7 6.5 34 

Question asked of principals in schoolsidentified by the district as in need ofimprovement under Ttile I.

PSC27 Your district has indicated that

your school has been identified asin need of improvement under TitleI. Is this correct?

8.8 1.4 600 12.5 3.7 130 11.6 3.2 99 7.8 2.0 147 11.7 6.5 34 

Questions concerning schoolsidentified as in need of improvementasked of principals reporting theirschool has been identified as in need ofimprovement.

PE3 Do you know what your district

considers adequate yearly progressor substantial progress?

66.2 7.2 108 65.3 18.3 24 58.3 11.5 18 62.1 11.1 31 44.9 19.1 13 

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools 
76

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PE7 Do you feel that the measures used

to determine adequate yearlyprogress or substantial progresswere adequate to judge yourschools performance?

66.3 7.7 79 52.6 15.0 19 50.6 17.7 9 70.3 15.8 18 51.5 25.0 8 

PE8 As a result of your school's

identification as in need ofimprovement, did any outsideentities provide you withadditional technical assistance orprofessional development?

52.5 7.0 108 45.0 15.5 24 55.6 12.3 18 18.1 8.6 31 70.4 15.8 13 

PE9 As a result of your school's

identification as in need ofimprovement, have youimplemented any additionalstrategies to address it?

82.8 6.1 108 57.8 17.4 24 78.4 12.6 18 83.1 8.1 31 51.8 19.4 13 

Questions asked of principals whoreported implementing additionalstrategies.Questions concerning migrant, LEP,or Native American students askedonly of principals in schools with atleast 1 migrant student or 10 percentLEP or Native American students.Do these strategies includeÖ

PE9Aa More professional development

than other schools?

72.5 5.9 94 61.3 13.8 19 65.9 11.1 13 73.3 12.6 25 65.6 18.2 9 

PE9Ab District staff spending more time in

this school than other schools?

50.7 7.4 94 23.1 9.8 19 8.8 9.3 13 33.3 14.5 25 43.3 22.8 9 

PE9Ac Closer supervision of school

decisions?

47.2 6.8 94 61.8 15.5 19 36.1 12.9 13 78.9 14.9 25 50.7 21.3 9 

PE9Ad Assistance brought in from outside

the district?

35.1 7.2 94 47.9 15.4 19 53.2 13.9 13 61.1 12.6 25 66.7 17.2 9 

PE9Ae Strong encouragement to adopt a

new, comprehensive modelprogram?

53.5 7.1 94 78.6 11.0 19 55.6 15.7 13 51.3 11.7 25 47.9 21.8 9 
77

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PE9Af Revising or developing a new

school plan?

79.5 7.5 94 98.7 1.3 19 90.2 8.5 13 97.5 2.4 25 86.7 11.6 9 

PE9Ag Teaching or learning strategies

focused on migrant students?

43.2 13.3 19 63.8 14.4 13 63.9 18.7 9 

PE9Ah Teaching or learning strategies

focused on LEP students?

85.2 12.0 16 100 0.0 6 79.9 11.1 12 92.3 9.4 8 49.0 23.1 3 

PE9Ai Teaching or learning strategies

focused on Native Americanstudents?

51.2 43.8 4 100 0.0 1 40.6 4.7 4 100 0.0 6 100 0.0 1 

PE9Aj More family and community

involvement?

90.4 3.6 94 100 0.0 19 90.2 8.5 13 96.8 3.0 25 74.0 16.2 9 

Schools Adopting ComprehensiveSchool Reform ModelsPrincipal reports that school hasadopted a comprehensive schoolreform model.

31.5 3.6 600 27.2 5.6 130 34.7 4.7 99 34.3 10.4 147 38.8 12.9 34 

Questions asked of principals inschools that have adopted a model.What were the reasons your schoolbecame involved in model?

PC6a Was it a result of your school being

identified as in need ofimprovement under Title I?

45.1 10.4 46 37.1 19.5 12 47.3 14.4 11 17.8 11.9 15 55.9 35.3 5 

PC6b Was it at the direction of the

district?

23.6 3.5 218 31.3 8.9 57 23.5 8.1 42 37.9 24.4 50 69.4 26.3 14 

PC6c Was there a fit with your schoolís

needs assessment and research?

88.5 9.2 218 94.7 3.8 57 95.1 3.5 42 83.4 10.6 50 93.0 6.9 14 

PC6d Was it at the direction of the

community?

11.9 2.2 218 20.5 8.9 57 28.8 8.2 42 33.3 25.6 50 66.9 27.3 14 

Were the following factorsimportant in selecting model? HowaboutÖ.

PC10a The research evidence? 89.2 9.3 218 94.2 4.3 57 93.0 4.2 42 75.4 18.7 50 100 0.0 14 
78

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

PC10b Improved student performance in a

school with populations similar toyour school?

92.0 2.1 218 92.2 4.4 57 94.6 3.9 42 54.0 21.2 50 85.1 16.1 14 

PC10c Affordability? 81.0 5.1 218 72.9 8.1 57 81.5 6.8 42 66.5 16.7 50 97.7 2.5 14 

PC10d A professional development

component?

95.4 1.4 218 90.7 5.3 57 87.7 7.0 42 69.7 18.9 50 87.1 15.1 14 

PC10e Ease of implementation? 68.6 9.8 218 78.4 5.7 57 78.0 7.2 42 46.9 22.5 50 73.2 24.0 14 PC10f Compatibility with other activities

you were trying to implement inthe school?

90.5 5.3 218 86.1 5.1 57 92.9 4.8 42 92.0 5.8 50 87.7 13.8 14 

PC10g A curriculum component? 91.0 2.4 218 88.3 4.8 57 90.7 4.6 42 70.9 19.1 50 86.3 15.5 14 PC10h Its focus on a content area of need? 88.5 3.6 218 86.4 6.6 57 94.2 3.7 42 70.0 15.8 50 81.4 18.0 14 

PC10i A comprehensive approach in

addressing the schools needs?

96.9 1.0 218 92.4 3.7 57 96.9 3.1 42 93.8 5.4 50 100 0.0 14 

Where is your school in the processof implementing the model?Would you sayÖ.

PC4Aa Initial selection and planning? 5.6 2.7 218 3.6 2.5 57 7.4 4.0 42 15.2 10.4 50 2.9 3.1 14 

PC4Ab Initial staff training and

development is underway?

7.9 3.7 218 5.4 3.4 57 8.1 3.9 42 27.2 19.1 50 16.2 16.1 14 

PC4Ac The model is partially

implemented?

21.3 3.9 218 18.0 10.1 57 13.1 6.0 42 13.5 7.5 50 17.9 16.9 14 

PC4Ad The model is implemented in most

or all aspects?

64.5 5.6 218 73.0 10.9 57 71.5 8.1 42 43.1 23.4 50 63.0 30.7 14 

In implementing model in yourschool, did you or do you plan to

PC4a Strictly adopt the model without

making any adaptations?

28.3 6.8 218 36.8 7.9 57 30.3 7.2 42 17.4 11.0 50 16.2 16.1 14 

PC4b Make small adaptations? 49.1 8.9 218 41.2 10.7 57 51.0 8.5 42 36.4 19.7 50 81.4 17.7 14 PC4c Adopt just parts of the model? 16.3 4.9 218 19.7 8.1 57 15.6 7.3 42 46.3 22.7 50 2.5 3.1 14 
79

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

Medium/high

migrant

(15 or more)

Non-migrant

(0 migrant

students)

Low migrant

(1-14)

M

(1

Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n Est. St.

Err.

n E

Question asked of principals whoreported their school had receivedprofessional development or otherassistance.

PC13 To what extent are you satisfied

with the professional developmentor assistance? Would yousayÖGreat Extent

68.8 5.7 194 72.1 11.1 54 69.1 7.5 38 56.8 21.5 47 37.3 18.7 10 

PC14 To what extent are you finding it

difficult to implement model?Great Extent

2.8 1.3 218 7.2 3.9 57 4.5 4.0 42 18.8 18.4 50 0.0 0.0 14 

PC15 To what extent are Title I services

integrated into model? Great extent

77.9 5.2 218 79.7 11.1 57 84.3 6.1 41 56.7 21.1 50 81.7 17.1 14