U. S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

P lanning and Evaluation Service

Evaluation

Brief

U. S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

P lanning and Evaluation Service

Evaluation

Brief

PROVISION OF TITLE I SERVICES: RECENT EVIDENCE FROM THE 

NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF SCHOOLS

PURPOSE OF THE BRIEF

Since its inception under the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 

1965, the Title I program has provided 

high-poverty schools funding for services to 

assist low-achieving children. Title I

promotes increasing the amount and 

quality of learning time; data-driven 

decisionmaking; providing an enriched and 

accelerated curriculum; and adopting 

strategies to increase parental involvement. 

This brief examines services provided by 

Title I schools. The brief uses data from the

National Longitudinal Survey of Schools 

(NLSS)—to address: 

• The extent to which changes in Title I

legislation have helped promote school 

improvement activities; 

• The provision of instructional services

including: 

o Extended learning time for students; 

o Use of pullout and in-class settings 

in the provision of instructional 

supplemental services; and 

o Use of teacher aides to provide

instructional and other services; 

and 

• The coordination of services for special 

population students. 

DATA

This evaluation brief reports on data

obtained through the NLSS, a nationally 

representative survey of principals and 

teachers in Title I schools in school year 

(SY) 1998-1999. Designed and conducted 

by Westat, the principal and teacher

surveys of the NLSS were first fielded

during SY 1998–1999; schools that

remained in Title I status were followed for 

the next two years through SY 2000–2001.1 

The surveys focus on whether and how 

schools are implementing the provisions of

1994 amendments to Title I of ESEA. The 

total sample size for the NLSS was 1,507 

Title I schools; schools with significant 

numbers of special population students—

students with limited English proficiency, 

migrant students, and Native American 

students—were oversampled. The total

number of responding schools was 1,081 in 

SY 1998-1999 and 987 in SY 1999-2000;

the total number of responding teachers 

was 5,422 in SY 1998-1999 and 5,414 in 

SY 1999-2000. 

 

1In 1998-1999 the NLSS sample was nationally 

representative of all Title I schools. The sample

was not refreshed and consequently is not 

representative of all Title I schools in subsequent 

years. 

1 August 2002 
It should be kept in mind that the analyses

reported here are based on survey data, 

which rely on respondents’ self-reports. 

Self-reports may reflect socially desirable

responses. In addition, the findings 

generally present sub-group comparisons 

among variables of interest and are not 

meant to suggest causality. 

 

PRINCIPALS REPORTED THAT CHANGES 

UNDER THE 1994 REAUTHORIZATION 

HELPED THEIR SCHOOL

The 1994 reauthorization of Title I 

represented a shift in the program’s vision 

for helping children. The “new Title I” was 

grounded in the proposition that “all 

children can master challenging content 

and complex problem-solving skills” (Sec. 

6301(c)(1)). The purpose of the law was to

“enable schools to provide opportunities for

children served to acquire the knowledge 

and skills contained in the challenging 

State content standards and to meet the 

challenging State performance standards 

developed for all children” (Sec. 6301(d)). 

These changes were emphasized in the 

2002 amendments to ESEA as well. 

The centerpiece on which these new

expectations rested was a simple two-part 

strategy: (a) setting high standards and 

holding education systems accountable for 

results, and (b) providing flexibility in the

use of resources by schools, especially for 

high-poverty schools (defined as those 

having 50 percent or more of their students 

eligible for free/reduced price lunch) to 

encourage schoolwide approaches to 

reform. 

By design, the 1994 reauthorization of Title 

I aimed to increase the flexibility of schools 

to identify students for services, minimize

pullout programs, and extend learning time 

in order to promote schoolwide reform. The 

new flexibility included expanded

opportunities for high-poverty schools to 

use Title I money for schoolwide programs 

to integrate services, strategies, and

resources to comprehensively reform the

entire instructional program. Schoolwide

programs allow high-poverty schools to use 

Title I money in combination with other 

federal, state, and local funds, to improve

the entire educational program for all their 

students unlike targeted assistance

programs, which provide services only to 

children identified as failing or most at risk 

of failing to meet a state’s content and 

student performance standards. 

Over 60 percent of principals in all Title I

schools reported that these changes in the

Title I legislation helped their schools in 

these various ways. The effects of the 

changes in Title I legislation have been

significantly2 larger in schools with 

schoolwide programs than in schools with

targeted assistance programs (Exhibit 1), 

perhaps due to the increased flexibility 

allowed to schools running schoolwide

programs.

Principals in schoolwide Title I schools were

significantly more likely than principals in 

targeted assistance schools to report that 

the changes in the legislation helped their 

school: 

• Have more flexibility in identifying 

students for services (85 percent 

compared to 66 percent); 

• Minimize pullout programs (75 percent

compared to 61 percent); and 

• Extend learning time (75 percent 

compared to 53 percent). 

 

 

2Throughout this brief, “significant” is used in a 

statistical sense, to indicate that the difference

between two estimates is significant at a 0.05 

probability level or better. 

2 August 2002 
Exhibit 1. School Activities Promoted “To a Moderate Extent” or “To a Great Extent” by 

Changes in Title I Legislation, SY 1998-1999 

85

64

75 75

53 61 66

75

68

0

20

40

60

80

100

More Flexibility in

Identifying Students for

Services

Minimize Pullout

Programs

Pe

Extend Learning Time

rc

e

ntage re

p

orting "to a

m

oderate

e

xtent" or "to a gr

e

at extent"

Schoolwide schools Targeted assistance schools All Title I schools

Exhibit reads: 85 percent of principals in Title I schoolwide schools reported that changes in Title 

I legislation had helped their school to have more flexibility in identifying students for services “to 

a moderate extent” or “to a great extent” compared with 66 percent of principals in targeted 

assistance schools and 75 percent of principals in all Title I schools. 

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

DISTRICT CONTROL OVER THE USE OF 

FUNDS WAS A CHALLENGE IN 

COORDINATING FEDERAL RESOURCES 

WITH OTHER FUNDS 

When principals were asked about the 

challenges they faced in coordinating 

federal resources with other school funds, 

about two-thirds of the principals in both 

years responded that district control over

the use of funds was a challenge (Exhibit 

2). In SY 1999-2000, 41 percent of

principals reported that they were unclear 

on what funds could be combined, creating 

a challenge in coordinating different 

sources of funding. This was significantly 

lower than the percentage reporting 

uncertainty as a challenge in SY 1998-

1999.

3 August 2002 
Exhibit 2. Challenges in Coordinating Federal Resources with Other Funds, by School 

Year

65 66

41

53

0

20

40

60

80

100

District Control Unsure What is Allowed

P

ercent

age of school

s

SY1998-1999 SY1999-2000

Exhibit reads: In SY 1998-1999, 65 percent of principals in Title I schools reported that district 

control was a challenge in coordinating federal resources with other funds compared with 66 

percent of principals in Title I schools in SY 1999-2000. 

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

THE PERCENTAGE OF TITLE I SCHOOLS 

OFFERING BEFORE- OR AFTER-SCHOOL 

PROGRAMS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY IN 

SY 1999-2000 

The recent National Assessment of Title I

report, High Standards for All Students, 

points out that: “Relying exclusively on

learning during the school day is simply not 

sufficient for all students to reach high 

standards. Extended learning time

programs are a potentially promising 

strategy to provide the needed extra

instructional time and additional learning 

opportunities, particularly for lowerachieving students.”3 The NLSS offers data 

on the extent to which Title I schools are

offering extended-time programs (such as

before- or after-school programs, summer 

or intersession programs, extended school 

year programs, and weekend and year- 

 

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

round programs) and the number of

students being served by these programs.

4 August 2002 

The percentages of Title I schools offering 

extended-time programs and the 

percentages using Title I money to fund 

their programs in SY 1999-2000 are shown 

in Exhibit 3. Sixty-nine percent of Title I

schools offered before- or after-school 

programs in SY 1999-2000. This 

represents a significant increase from SY 

1998-1999 when 53 percent of principals 

reported that their school offered before- or

after-school programs. These findings are

consistent with trends found by the

National Association of Elementary School 

Principals (NAESP). In a recent telephone

survey, NAESP found that two-thirds of

elementary and middle schools offered an

after-school program and that 29 percent

had established the program within the

past three years (Belden, Russonello, & 

Stewart, 2001). 
Exhibit 3. Percentage of Principals in Title I Schools Reporting Their School has 

Extended-Time Programs and Whether Program is Funded by Title I, SY 1999-2000 

6 2

16

30 33

12

39 32

2

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Before/After

School Program

Extended School

Year Program

Weekend Program

Percentage of schools

Program funded by Title I Program not funded by Title I

Summer/Intersession Program Year-Round Program

6 2

16

30 33

12

39 32

2

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Before/After

School Program

Extended School

Year Program

Weekend Program

Percentage of schools

Program funded by Title I Program not funded by Title I

Summer/Intersession Program Year-Round Program

Exhibit reads: 69 percent of principals in Title I schools reported that their school offered a 

before- or after-school program; 30 percent of principals in Title I schools reported that this 

program was funded by Title I; the remaining 39 percent reported that the program was not funded 

by Title I. 

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

About two-thirds of schools offered summer

or intersession programs while 28 percent

had extended school year programs. Few 

Title I schools—less than 10 percent—had a 

year-round or weekend program. In 

general, about half the Title I schools with 

an extended-time program reported using

Title I funds to support the program. 

Principals in the highest-poverty schools 

(defined as schools having more than 75 

percent of their students eligible for

free/reduced price lunch) were more likely 

than principals in the lowest-poverty 

schools (defined as schools having less than 

35 percent of their students eligible for

free/reduced price lunch) to report offering 

programs that extend school time and

using Title I funds to support the programs. 

However, the only two significant 

differences were for weekend programs and

year-round programs.

THE HIGHEST-POVERTY SCHOOLS 

OFFERED MORE HOURS OF EXTENDED 

LEARNING TIME THAN THE LOWESTPOVERTY SCHOOLS 

Overall, before- and after-school programs 

were offered for about eight hours per week, 

over roughly seven months of the year. Not 

surprisingly, summer/intersession and 

extended school year programs were offered

for more hours per week but fewer weeks 

per year—approximately 17 hours per week 

over six to seven weeks of the year. 

The average number of hours added to the 

school year through extended-time 

programs in SY 1999-2000 is shown in 

Exhibit 4.

5 August 2002 
Exhibit 4. Average Number of Hours Per Year Added to the School Year by ExtendedTime Programs, by School and Poverty Level, SY 1999-2000 

54

101

205

71

337

227

148

65

184

135 123

279

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Before/After School

Program

Summer/Intersession

Program

Extended School Year

Program

Average number of hours

Lowest-poverty (0-34.9%) elementary schools Highest-poverty (75-100%) elementary schools

Lowest-poverty (0-34.9%) secondary schools Highest-poverty (75-100%) secondary schools

Exhibit reads: Before- or after-school programs added an average of 337 hours to the school year 

in the lowest-poverty elementary schools; 227 hours in the highest-poverty elementary schools; 

184 hours in the lowest-poverty secondary schools; and 279 hours in the highest-poverty 

secondary schools. 

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

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

With some exceptions,4 the highest-poverty

schools, both elementary and secondary, 

were significantly more likely to offer 

programs for longer periods of time than 

the lowest-poverty schools. For example,

compared with the lowest-poverty

elementary schools, the highest-poverty

elementary schools offered significantly 

more hours of summer/intersession 

programs (101 hours compared to 71 

hours) and extended year programs (148 

hours compared to 54 hours). At the

secondary school level, the highest-poverty 

schools offered significantly more hours 

through before- and after school programs 

(279 hours compared to 184 hours) and 

 

4While differences in before- or after-school 

programs in elementary schools and summer 

programs in secondary schools were large, they

were not significantly different by poverty level 

due to large standard errors. 

extended-year programs (123 hours 

compared to 65 hours) than did the lowestpoverty schools. 

ALTHOUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF TITLE I 

SCHOOLS OFFERED EXTENDED-TIME 

INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS, THE 

PROGRAMS THEMSELVES SERVED SMALL 

NUMBERS OF STUDENTS. 

Exhibit 5 shows the average percentages of

students served by the various programs. 

Before- or after-school programs served 

about one-fifth of the students in Title I

schools; summer programs served 17 

percent of students; and extended school

year programs served 15 percent of

students. 

6 August 2002 
Exhibit 5. Average Percentage of Students Served by Extended-Time Programs, by 

Poverty Status of School, SY 1999-2000 

11

15

8

18

26 26

21

17

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

Before/After School

Program

Summer/Intersession

Program

Extended School Year

Program

Average percent

age of

students 

served by program

Lowest-poverty (0-34.9%) schools Highest-poverty (75-100%) schools

All Title I schools

Exhibit reads: The average percentage of students served by the before- or after-school program in 

the lowest-poverty Title I schools was 18 percent; the corresponding percentages in the highestpoverty Title I schools and all Title I schools were 26 and 20 percent, respectively. 

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

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

Programs offered by the highest-poverty 

schools served larger percentages of 

students in those schools compared with 

programs offered by the lowest-poverty

schools. For example, before- or afterschool programs served, on average, about

18 percent of students in the lowest-poverty

Title I schools compared with 26 percent of 

students in the highest-poverty Title I

schools. The difference in the percentages

of students served by summer programs is 

even greater: 15 percentage points.

SCHOOLS WERE MORE LIKELY TO OFFER 

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION IN READING 

THAN IN MATHEMATICS 

In SY 1999-2000, principals in Title I 

schools were more likely to report that their 

school offered supplemental instruction in 

reading (89 percent) than in mathematics 

(69 percent). Both supplemental 

instructional services were largely funded

by Title I funds. The highest-poverty

schools were more likely to offer these

supplemental services than the lowestpoverty schools. For example, 95 percent of

the highest-poverty elementary schools

offered supplemental instructional services

in reading compared with 83 percent of the

lowest-poverty elementary schools; 80 

percent of the highest-poverty secondary

schools offered supplemental instructional 

services in mathematics compared with 64 

percent of the lowest-poverty secondary

schools. 

SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES IN SCHOOLWIDE 

AND TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS 

WERE PROVIDED IN BOTH IN-CLASS AND 

PULLOUT SETTINGS

One of the goals of the reauthorized Title I 

was to minimize pullout programs and to 

ensure that Title I students received the 

7 August 2002 
same instructional opportunities as other 

students. 

Well over 90 percent of elementary schools

reported having in-class supplemental 

instructional services, as did 86 percent of

secondary schools, all largely funded by 

Title I, regardless of whether the school was 

a schoolwide or a targeted assistance

school. 

Both elementary and secondary schoolwide

schools reported lower incidence of pullout 

services than did targeted assistance

schools (Exhibit 6). Sixty-eight percent of

elementary and 55 percent of secondary

schoolwides reported having pullout 

services for their students compared with

81 and 60 percent of elementary and 

secondary targeted assistance schools 

respectively. 

About 73 percent of teachers in schoolwide 

elementary schools reported that their

students received supplemental

instructional services compared with 90 

percent of teachers in targeted assistance

schools (Exhibit 7). This difference was 

significant. As Exhibit 7 also shows, 

supplemental instructional services were

much more likely to be provided in a 

pullout setting than in an in-class setting in 

schoolwide and targeted assistance schools. 

Overall, 83 percent of teachers in all Title I

elementary schools reported supplemental

services were provided in a pullout setting, 

52 percent in an in-class setting, and 37 

percent (not shown) in both settings. 

While the exhibit does not show data on

secondary school teachers, the results were

similar. For example, 69 percent of

teachers in Title I secondary schools 

reported that supplemental services were

provided in pullout settings compared with 

39 percent who reported that services were

provided in class. There was little 

difference by whether the school was a

schoolwide or a targeted assistance school. 

SOME STUDENTS WERE MISSING 

ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION WHILE 

RECEIVING SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES

Fifty-three percent of teachers who reported

their students were pulled out of class to

receive supplemental services reported that

students missed their teachers’ core

academic instruction.5 Students who were

pulled out of regular instruction were more

likely to miss instruction in social studies 

or science rather than reading or 

mathematics. For example, while 35 

percent of teachers reported that students 

missed social studies or science, 22 percent 

reported that students missed reading and

16 percent reported that students missed 

mathematics.

TEACHER AIDES WERE WIDELY USED TO 

ASSIST WITH INSTRUCTION 

As noted by the recent National Assessment 

of Title I report, High Standards for All 

Students, the widespread use of

paraprofessionals, and their involvement in 

direct instruction, is a cause for concern if 

they do not have the educational 

background necessary to teach students.6 

Another recent study reported that only 

one-quarter of paraprofessionals have an 

undergraduate degree, and that this 

percentage is even lower in the highestpoverty schools.7

 

5Core academic instructional classes include

mathematics, reading, science, and social 

studies. 6U. S. Department of Education, 2001:37-38. 7Chambers et al., 1999. 

8 August 2002 
Exhibit 6. Principal Reports of Whether Their School has Pullout Services and Whether 

These Services are Funded by Title I, by School Level and Title I Type, SY 1999-2000 

50 72 44

32 55

16

28 11

9

18

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schoolwide Targeted

Assistance

Schoolwide Targeted

Assistance

All Title I

Schools

P

ercent

age of school

s

Program funded by Title I Program not funded by Title I

Title I Type

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools

50 72 44

32 55

16

28 11

9

18

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schoolwide Targeted

Assistance

Schoolwide Targeted

Assistance

All Title I

Schools

P

ercent

age of school

s

Program funded by Title I Program not funded by Title I

Title I Type

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools

Exhibit reads: 68 percent of principals in schoolwide Title I elementary schools reported having 

services that served children in a pullout setting; 50 percent of principals in schoolwide Title I 

elementary schools reported using Title I funds for these services; the remaining 18 percent of 

principals reported that the program was not funded by Title I. 

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

Exhibit 7. Reports of Classroom Teachers of How Supplemental Services are Provided in 

Elementary Schools, by Title I Type, SY 1999-2000 

Title I Elementary Schools

Schoolwide Targeted

Assistance

All Title I

Elementary

Schools 

Percentage responding “yes” 

Do your (Title I) students receive any 

supplemental services in 

mathematics or reading? 

72.5 89.8 80.0

Are the supplemental services

provided in your class?a

50.7 53.4 52.0

Are the supplemental services

provided in a pullout setting?a

79.7 85.7 82.6

Exhibit reads: In schoolwide Title I elementary schools, 72.5 percent of teachers reported that 

their students received supplemental services in mathematics or reading. 

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

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

9 August 2002 
Overall, in SY 1999-2000, 92 percent of the 

principals reported having teacher aides in 

their schools. Principals who reported

having teacher aides in their schools were

asked the extent to which aides engaged in 

specific activities. Most aides appear to be

assisting with instruction rather than 

working on clerical tasks. 8 

About half the principals reported that 

teacher aides worked with students in 

groups “to a great extent” and 36 percent

reported that aides worked one-on-one with 

students. Less than 10 percent reported 

that aides worked with the whole class, 

with parents, or performed clerical tasks. 

There were no significant differences in the 

use of teacher aides by poverty status or

Title I program type, with one exception—

8.6 percent of principals in schoolwides 

reported that teacher aides worked with the

whole class compared with 2.6 percent of 

principals in targeted assistance schools. 

Exhibit 8 shows the use of teacher aides to

provide supplemental or special

instructional services in elementary 

schools, either alone or under the direction

of a teacher. Among schools that offered 

supplemental instructional services, 80 

percent of Title I elementary schools used 

teacher aides to provide these services in

reading and 70 percent to provide 

instructional services in mathematics. 

Among schools with more than 10 percent 

of students with limited English proficiency, 

52 percent of the schools that offered 

services designed to teach English to these

students and 66 percent of the schools that 

taught in the student’s native language

used teacher aides to provide these 

services. 

Sixty-five percent of principals in schools 

with teacher aides reported using Title I

funds to fund teacher aides. On average,

the highest-poverty schools employed more

Title I aides than the lowest-poverty 

schools. For example, the highest-poverty

elementary schools had an average of four

teacher aides funded through Title I

compared with two aides in the lowestpoverty elementary schools. This difference 

was significant. 

 

8The NLSS did not collect data on the level of 

teacher supervision over teacher aides’ 

instruction or the education level of aides. 

SCHOOLS MADE EFFORTS TO 

COORDINATE OTHER SERVICES FOR 

SPECIAL POPULATIONS WITH TITLE I 

SERVICES

In SY 1999-2000, principals in schools with

10 percent or more of students with limited

English proficiency or at least one migrant 

student were asked about the extent to

which their school coordinated services to

these students with other supplemental or

Title I services. Coordination of services 

can include a number of things such as the

sharing of resources or personnel and 

engaging in joint professional development 

or joint planning for students. 

Overall, 40 percent of principals reported 

coordinating services for migrant students 

with other supplemental/Title I services “to 

a great extent,” and 54 percent of principals 

reported coordinating services for students 

with limited English proficiency with other 

services “to a great extent.”

Principals of schoolwide elementary schools 

were significantly more likely to report 

coordination of services than were

principals in targeted assistance elementary

schools. For example, about 60 percent of

principals in elementary Title I schoolwide 

schools reported coordinating other services 

with those for migrant students compared

with less than 20 percent of principals in 

targeted assistance elementary schools. 

Principals in schools with high proportions 

(25 percent or more) of students with 

limited English proficiency were

significantly more likely to report 

coordinating services than were principals 

in schools with medium proportions (10 

percent – 24.9 percent) of students with

limited English proficiency.

10 August 2002 
Exhibit 8. Reports of Principals Regarding the Use of Teacher Aides, Title I Elementary 

Schools, SY 1999-2000 

Title I Elementary Schools

Lowestpoverty 

(0-34.9%) 

Highestpoverty 

(75-100%) 

All Title I

Elementary

Schools 

Percentage responding “yes” 

Does your school have teacher aides? 94.3 93.8 93.5 

Are Title I funds used to fund them?a 54.5 73.6 59.3

Are any of your other supplemental/Title I services in

reading provided by teacher aides?b

86.0 78.2 80.0

Are any of your other supplemental/Title I services in

mathematics provided by teacher aides?c

68.1 61.9 69.5

Are any of your instructional services specially 

designed to teach English to students with limited

English proficiency provided by teacher aides?d

 --f 52.1 52.1

Are any of your instructional services in the student’s 

native language provided by teacher aides?e

 --f 54.8 65.6

Exhibit reads: 94.3 percent of principals in the lowest-poverty Title I elementary schools reported 

that their school had teacher aides. 

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

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

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

 offered supplemental services in reading. 

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

 offered supplemental services in mathematics. dAsked of principals in schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English 

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

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

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

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

 services in the student’s native language

 fSmall sample size. 

 

SUMMARY

• 

• 

Principals in both schoolwide and 

targeted assistance schools reported

that changes under the 1994 

reauthorization of Title I helped their 

school. 

Compared with principals in targeted 

assistance schools, principals in 

schoolwide schools were significantly 

more likely to report that: 

o Changes in Title I legislation had 

increased their flexibility in 

identifying students for services, 

minimizing pullout programs, and 

extending learning time; 

o They faced fewer challenges in 

terms of district control of funds in 

coordinating federal resources with 

other funds; and 

11 August 2002 
o Services for migrant students or

students with limited English 

proficiency (in elementary schools 

offering such services) were

coordinated “to a great extent” with 

other supplemental services. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

About 70 percent of all Title I schools 

offered some type of extended-time

instructional programs (before- or afterschool, summer or intersession 

programs, extended school year

programs): 

o The percentage of Title I schools

offering before- or after-school

programs increased from SY 1998-

1999 to SY 1999-2000;

o With some exceptions, the highestpoverty schools were significantly 

more likely than the lowest-poverty

schools to offer programs for longer

periods of time, particularly those 

that extended the school year; and

o Extended-time programs served 

between 15-20 percent of students,

although programs offered by the 

highest-poverty schools served

larger percentages of students in

those schools compared with 

programs offered by the lowestpoverty schools. 

Most of the schools offered 

supplemental reading instruction, and 

close to 70 percent offered supplemental 

mathematics instruction, all largely 

funded by Title I funds. 

Supplemental instructional services

occurred in both pullout and in-class 

settings in both schoolwide and targeted

assistance schools. 

Half of teachers who reported that their 

students were pulled out of class to 

receive supplemental services reported 

that those students missed core

academic instruction. 

Almost all schools had teacher aides in 

their schools: 

o Most of these aides assisted with 

instruction; and 

o Sixty-five percent of schools used 

Title I resources to fund these

positions. 

 

12 August 2002 
REFERENCES

Belden, Russonello, & Stewart. (2001). Principals and after school programs: A survey of PreK – 

8 principals. Washington, DC: Author. 

Chambers, J., Lieberman, J., Parrish, T., Kaleba, D., Van Campen, J., & Stullich, S. (1999). 

Study of education resources and federal funding: Preliminary report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education. 

U. S. Department of Education. (2001). High standards for all students: A report from the 

national assessment of Title I on progress and challenges since the 1994 reauthorization. 

Washington, DC: Author. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

This report was prepared by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Murray, 

Scott Naftel, and Mark Berends of RAND, 1200 South Hayes St., Arlington, VA 22202-5050 

and edited by Paul Arends. The project monitor for the National Longitudinal Survey of

Schools is Susan Sanchez, Planning and Evaluation Service, U. S. Department of Education. 

The project director is Babette Gutmann, Westat, Rockville, Md. 

 

13 August 2002