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

**State-Reported Data for School Year 2011-12**

**U.S. Department of Education**

**Office of Elementary and Secondary Education**

2014

**U.S. Department of Education**

Arne Duncan

*Secretary*

**Office of Elementary and Secondary Education**

Deborah S. Delisle

*Assistant Secretary*

August 2014

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, *Report to Congress on the*Elementary and Secondary Education Act*: State Reported Data for School Year 2011–12,* Washington, D.C. 2014.

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

**Availability of Alternate Formats**

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, or computer diskettes should be submitted to the Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at om_eeos@ed.gov.

**Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons**

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public.  These language assistance services are available free of charge.  If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.  Or write to U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Contents

vExhibits

ixExecutive Summary

1I. Introduction

2A.*ESEA* Report to Congress

5II. Methodology

5A.Data Sources

5B.Data Presentation

6C.Protecting Personally Identifiable Information

6D.Data Limitations and Use

9III. State Standards and Assessment Systems

9A.Background

10B.Findings

13IV. Student Performance

13A.Background

13B.Achievement Results—Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts

27C.Achievement Results—Science

35V. English Language Acquisition

35A.Background

35B.Results

371.   All LEP Students

372.   LEP Students Served by *Title III*

41VI. Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress and Identified Schools

41A.Background

42B. Results

43VII. Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services

43A.Background

43B.Findings

43VIII. Highly Qualified Teachers

43A.Background

43B.Findings

43IX. Summary

# Exhibits

10Exhibit 1:Approval Status Definitions 

Exhibit 2: 

Status of U.S. Department of Education’s Approval of State Assessment Systems as of December 2012

11

Exhibit 3: Percentage of Fourth-Grade, Eighth-Grade, and High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts, by State and Grade: 2011–12

14

Exhibit 4: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12 

15

16Exhibit 5: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12

Exhibit 6: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12 

17

Exhibit 7: Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12

18

Exhibit 8: Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12 

19

20Exhibit 9: Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12

21Exhibit 10: Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12

Exhibit 11: Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12 

22

Exhibit 12: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12 

23

Exhibit 13: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12 

23

Exhibit 14: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2011–12 

25

Exhibit 15: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12    

26

28Exhibit 16: Percentage of All Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and School Level: 2011–12

29Exhibit 17: Percentage of Elementary School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12

30Exhibit 18: Percentage of Elementary School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12

Exhibit 19: Percentage of Middle School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12

31

Exhibit 20: Percentage of Middle School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12 

32

Exhibit 21: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12 

33

34Exhibit 22: Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12

36Exhibit 23: Number and Percentage of All LEP Students and *Title III*-Served LEP Students, by State: 2011–12

Exhibit 24: Languages Most Commonly Spoken at Home by LEP Student Populations: 2011–12

37

39Exhibit 25: Number of All LEP Students Tested for English Language Proficiency and the Percentage Who Attained Proficiency in English, by State: 2011–12

40Exhibit 26: Percentage of *Title III*-Served LEP Students Making Progress and Attaining English Language Proficiency Annual Measurable Achievement Objective Results, by State: 2011–12

Exhibit 27: Number and Percentage of *Title I*Schools Identified for Improvement (Total of All Five Stages of Improvement), by State: 2008–09 to 2012–13

43

Exhibit 28: Number and Percentage of *Title I*Schools Identified for Improvement, by State and Stage of Improvement Status: 2012–13

43

Exhibit 29: Number of Priority and Focus Schools, by State: 2012–13

43

43Exhibit 30: Number and Percentage of All Public Schools and *Title I* Schools Making AYP, by State: 2011–12

43Exhibit 31: Number of Students Nationwide Eligible for School Choice and SES: 2007–08 to 2011–12

43Exhibit 32: Number of Students Nationwide Participating in School Choice and SES: 2007–08 to 2011–12

43Exhibit 33: Percentage of Eligible Students Who Participated in *Title I*Public School Choice, by State: 2007–08 to 2011–12

Exhibit 34: Percentage of Eligible Students Receiving Supplemental Educational Services, by State: 2007​​–08 to 2011–12 

43

Exhibit 35: Number of States Reporting That More Than 75 Percent and More Than 90 Percent of Core Academic Classes in High-Poverty Schools Were Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, by School Level: 2011–12 

43

43Exhibit 36: Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, by State, School Level, and Poverty Level: 2011–12

*This page intentionally left blank.*

**Executive Summary**

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

This annual report on state-reported data for school year 2011–12 includes information on the following topics:  state standards and assessment systems, student performance, English language acquisition, accountability, public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES), and highly qualified teachers.  In addition to the 2011–12 school year data, the report contains multiyear data and national summary data.  It also includes information about the data collections, data presentation, and data limitations.

*State standards and assessment systems.*  This section discusses the expectations and timelines established in the *ESEA* for states to develop their unique standards and assessment systems.  It includes information about each state’s approval status for its assessment system as of December 2012.

*Student performance.*  Student performance is measured by assessing students against state achievement standards.  Students are assessed annually in third through eighth grade and at least once in high school in mathematics and reading/language arts.  Students are assessed at least once in grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12 in science.  The data are disaggregated by various subgroups.  This section of the report presents state-reported data on fourth-grade, eighth-grade, and high school students for reading/language arts and mathematics, and the grades tested in science. 

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

*Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and schools identified for improvement or as priority and focus schools under the*ESEA*flexibility principles.*  This section discusses reporting requirements for two groups of states.  First, states that are not approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility must continue to establish targets for schools and districts to demonstrate AYP toward the goal of all students reaching the proficient level on state reading and mathematics assessments by 2013–14.  These states identify schools for improvement if they miss AYP targets for two consecutive years or more.  Second, states that are approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility identify “priority schools,” which are the state’s lowest-performing Title I schools and “focus schools,” which are the state’s Title I schools with the greatest achievement gaps.  This section of the report presents state-reported data on (1) numbers of schools making adequate yearly progress (AYP) and numbers of schools in the various improvement stages for non-*ESEA* flexibility states, and (2) the number of priority and focus schools for *ESEA* flexibility states. 

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

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

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

# I. Introduction

The *Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965*(*ESEA*), as amended by the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*, is the major federal law governing elementary and secondary education.  The *ESEA* requirements that were in effect for the 2011–12 school year include the following:

· *Assessments in third through eighth grade and high school*.  States must test all students annually in mathematics and reading/language arts in the third through eighth grades and once in high school.  States also must test all students in science at least once in grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12.  State assessments must be aligned with each state’s own academic content and achievement standards.

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

· *Proficiency by 2013–14*.  States must include all students in school accountability systems and define increasingly challenging annual targets for assessment results that culminate in the expectation of all students doing grade-level work on state assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2013–14.  States that are approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility must adopt college- and career-ready standards, but the expectation of 100 percent proficiency by 2013–14 is no longer relevant.

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

· *Highly qualified teachers*.  States are responsible for ensuring that teachers are highly qualified, making strong efforts to ensure that all students have access to highly qualified teachers, and providing support for recruiting and retaining the best and brightest teachers.

## A. ESEA Report to Congress

# Under ESEA Section 1111(h)(5), the secretary of education is required to transmit to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions a report that provides state-level data for each state receiving assistance under Title I, Part A of the ESEA.  In this report to Congress, the Department is submitting state-reported data for school year 2011–12 in the following areas:

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

# · Student performance.  Data tables in the report summarize the percentage of all students scoring at or above proficient on assessments administered in the 2011–12 school year in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science.  Data are also disaggregated by major racial/ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, LEP students, migrant students, and gender.

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

# · Accountability.  The report includes data on the number of Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under ESEA Section 1116(b) for the 2012–13 school year.  It also contains counts of priority and focus schools for states that are approved to implement ESEA flexibility. 

# · Public school choice and supplemental educational services.  Data tables summarize the percentage of students in Title I schools who participated in public school choice and supplemental educational services under sections 1116(b) and 1116(e) during school years 2007–08 through 2011–12. 

# · Highly qualified teachers.  Information is provided on the percentage of public elementary and secondary school core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in each state during school year 2011–12.  

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

· *The Condition of Education*

· *State and Local Implementation of the*No Child Left Behind Act

· *The Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress on the Implementation of the*Title III*State Formula Grant Program*

· *Migrant Education Program Annual Report:  Eligibility, Participation, Services and Achievement*

· *Report to the President and Congress on the Implementation of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program Under the*McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 

All websites listed throughout this report were last accessed in May 2014.

# II. Methodology

## A. Data Sources

# The primary source of data for this report is the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR), which is a tool that 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education are required to use to report certain data annually to the Department.  Data collected through the CSPR are submitted in two parts.  Part I of the CSPR requests information related to the five ESEA goals, established in the Consolidated State Application.  It also provides data for the report to Congress on ESEA programs, as described in Section 1111(h)(4) of the act.  Part II of the CSPR collects information about outcomes of specific ESEA programs.  It also provides data for the Department’s program offices to assess program performance, monitor program requirements, and meet other reporting requirements.  Unless otherwise indicated, Part I of the CSPR is the source for all data in this report.

ED*Facts* is the current vehicle for populating 60 percent of the CSPR data.  The remainder of the data is manually entered through the CSPR online reporting system.  ED*Facts* is a collaborative effort among the Department, state education agencies (SEAs), and industry partners to centralize state-reported data into one federally coordinated, k–12 education data repository located in the Department.  It allows the Department to use technology to streamline data collection efforts and reduce the reporting burden on states.  The data collected in ED*Facts* and used for the CSPR are aggregated individual-level data, representing the number of students or teachers meeting specific criteria (e.g., the number of fourth-grade students participating in the state mathematics assessment, the number of students served under *Title I,* etc.).  High-quality data about all aspects of education continue to be critical in informing the Department’s actions and providing transparency into state education efforts.  More information about ED*Facts* can be found on the Department’s website.

Data included in this report are also available on ED Data Express, an interactive Web tool for exploring k–12 data.  ED Data Express was first launched in August 2010 and is a Department initiative to make high-value data sets more accessible and transparent.  

## B. Data Presentation

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

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

## C. Protecting Personally Identifiable Information 

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

## D. Data Limitations and Use

It is important to note that there are many limitations to using state-reported education data.  Most importantly, there is variation in how states define and measure student achievement data.  States independently develop their own standards and assessment systems, and set their own cut scores to measure student performance.  Many states have also changed their systems during the period covered by this report.  As a result, it is not possible to compare certain data across states, and frequently not even possible to compare data within the same state across years.  Variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade-levels.  The state data included in this report are descriptive, and the reader should not make cause-effect inferences based on these data.

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

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

# III. State Standards and Assessment Systems

## A. Background

The *ESEA* requires states to develop challenging student academic standards and assessment systems.  Academic standards include two components:  academic content standards and academic achievement standards.  Assessment systems must be aligned with both academic content and achievement standards so that tests measure what the state has said its students should know.  The alignment between the standards and assessments allows states—as well as parents, community members, and other stakeholders—to see the progress that schools and students are making toward performing at grade level in mathematics, reading/language arts, and science.  This enables all stakeholders to hold schools and school districts accountable for student achievement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

State assessment systems must be aligned with academic content and achievement standards and must provide information about student attainment of standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science.  All students must be measured by the assessments, and the results must be reported publicly for all students and disaggregated on the basis of major racial/ethnic subgroups, English language proficiency, disability status, status as economically disadvantaged, migrant status, and gender. 

For more information on standards and assessments established under the *ESEA*, please view the report on accountability under the *ESEA*, posted on the Department’s website. 

## B. Findings

State standards and assessment systems under *Title I* are peer reviewed and approved by the Department.  As of December 2012, a majority of states either had their systems approved or approval was pending.  More specifically,  

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

· no states were identified as *approval expected;*

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

· 2 states were identified as *in process.*

Exhibit 1 provides full definitions of each approval status.

These numbers have fluctuated over time as states’ approval statuses have changed based on various factors.  For example, if a state makes a significant change to its standards and assessment systems, it must resubmit evidence showing that the systems still meet statutory and regulatory requirements.  Many states that previously had received full approval for their reading/language arts and mathematics assessments have had a change in their status designation as their science achievement standards and assessments move through the review and approval process.  Exhibit 2 displays state-by-state approval statuses as of December 2012.

**Exhibit 1**

**Approval Status Definitions**

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

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

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

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

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

**Exhibit 2**

**Approval Status of U.S. Department of Education’s Approval of State Assessment Systems as of December 2012**

NOTES: A state receives Department approval when the assessment system, including for reading/language arts, mathematics, and science, has met all statutory and regulatory requirements of the *ESEA*.  In December 2012, the Department suspended peer review of state assessment systems under *Title I*in order to review and revise the peer review process.  Almost all states are now developing the next generation of assessment systems, aligned with college- and career-ready standards, that will be operational by no later than the 2014–15 school year.  The suspension of peer review also will permit states to focus their resources on preparing for, designing, and implementing these new assessments.  

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

SOURCE: State-provided data.

# IV. Student Performance

## A. Background

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

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

School year 2011–12 results in mathematics and reading/language arts for the “all students” group in fourth grade, eighth grade, and high school, and disaggregated results for fourth-grade, eighth-grade, and high school students are included as exhibits 3–15.  

**Exhibit 3**

**Percentage of Fourth-Grade, Eighth-Grade, and High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts, by State and Grade: 2011–12**

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html.

**Exhibit 4**

**Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states. Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report.:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 5**

**Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size.

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 6Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 7**

**Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size.

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 8**

**Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

Both content and achievement standards vary widely across states, so proficiency rates should not be compared across states. Additionally, variation in content and achievement standards across grades should be evaluated if and before comparing data across grade levels.SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 9**

**Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size.

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 10**

**Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 11**

**Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 12**

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 13**

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report.*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 14**

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State and Racial/Ethnic Groups: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state's reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 15**

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading/Language Arts, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

## C. Achievement Results—Science

School year 2011–12 results in science for the “all students” group by school level and for disaggregated groups by school level are included as exhibits 16–22.  

**Exhibit 16**

**Percentage of All Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and School Level: 2011–12**

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

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

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report***:**http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 17**

**Percentage of Elementary School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12**

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

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state's reporting n-size.  

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 18**

**Percentage of Elementary School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state's reporting n-size.

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 19**

**Percentage of Middle School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12**

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

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state's reporting n-size.

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 20**

**Percentage of Middle School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state's reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 21**

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State and Racial/Ethnic Group: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state's reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 22**

**Percentage of High School Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Science, by State, Gender, and Special Populations: 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state's reporting n-size. A number with a > or < indicates that the value has been blurred because of a small n-size.

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

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

SOURCE:  *SY2011-12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

# V. English Language Acquisition

## A. Background

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

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

The Department collects data on the English language acquisition of all LEP students and of those served under *Title III*.  For all LEP students, data are collected on the number tested on English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessments, and on the number and percentage that scored at the proficient level or above.  For students served under *Title III*, states submit data on the number and percentage of students making progress in learning English (AMAO 1), and the number and percentage attaining English language proficiency (AMAO 2), as measured by state ELP assessments.  Each state establishes its own English language proficiency standards and assessments (or belongs to a consortium of states that carries out this work) and sets its own AMAO targets.  AMAO targets reflect the number or percentage of students projected to attain proficiency and make progress in learning English, as well as AYP for the LEP subgroup under *Title I*, Part A (AMAO 3).  As state ELP standards and assessments, and AMAO targets are specific to each state, cross-state comparisons are unlikely to yield meaningful inferences about LEP student achievement.  

## B. Results

In the 2011–12 school year, state-reported data indicated a national enrollment total of 4.6 million LEP students, which represented approximately 9 percent of the total student population.  Of these students, 4.3 million (94 percent) were reported to have received *Title III* services.  The percentage of LEP students served by *Title III* varied across states (see Exhibit 23).

**Exhibit 23**

**Number and Percentage of All LEP Students and Title III-Served LEP Students, by State: 2011–12**

NOTES: BIE does not receive *Title III* funding, so it is not required to submit *Title III* data. The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available, not applicable, or missing.

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

**Maine had an error in its data warehouse.  Its “all LEP” count excludes publicly funded students attending private special-purpose schools. Calculating a percentage served by *Title III* does not return a meaningful result.

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

SOURCE: Common Core of Data and *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

### 1. All LEP Students

Exhibit 24 shows the languages most commonly spoken at home by LEP students.  Spanish is by far the most common of these, with almost 3.6 million more speakers than the next most commonly spoken language (Chinese), and it is spoken at home by 78 percent of all LEP students.  After Spanish, the languages most commonly spoken at home vary by state.  Exhibit 24 represents the total number and percentage of speakers for the top 10 languages, nationally aggregated for all LEP students.  Together, these 10 languages represent 90 percent of the home languages spoken by LEP students.

**Exhibit 24**

**Languages Most Commonly Spoken at Home by LEP Student Populations: 2011–12**

NOTE: Student counts are rounded to the nearest thousand.

SOURCE: ED*Facts*

Exhibit 25 displays data on the number of LEP students tested for English language proficiency and the percentage of all LEP students who attained ELP on the ELP assessments in the 2011–12 school year.  Similar to other topics described in this report, there is wide variation across states in the percentage of students who attained English language proficiency.  Some of these differences could be attributed to differences in programs and definitions of proficiency in English across states.

### 2.   LEP Students Served by Title III 

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

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

AMAO 1 and 2 results for the 2011–12 school year are included in Exhibit 26.  Additional information on Title III-served students will be published in the next Title III biennial report to Congress, produced by the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students and  will be available on the Department’s website.

**Exhibit 25**

**Number of All LEP Students Tested for English Language Proficiency and the Percentage Who Attained Proficiency in English, by State: 2011–12**

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

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

**Indiana reported numbers of students assessed that exceeded the number of students enrolled.  This occurred because its testing count included fluent English proficient students that needed to obtain a certain test score in order to enter a two year monitoring period, under Indiana state policy.  

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 26**

**Percentage of Title III-Served LEP Students Making Progress and Attaining English Language Proficiency Annual Measurable Achievement Objective Results, by State: 2011–12**

NOTES: BIE does not receive Title III funding, so it is not required to submit Title III data.

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

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

# VI. Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress and Schools Identification

## A. Background

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

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

States that are approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility are no longer required to identify and report schools as “in improvement.”  Instead, they identify “priority” and “focus” schools,  as defined in the document titled *ESEA Flexibility* on the Department’s website:

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

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

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

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

· A “focus school” is a Title I school in the state that, based on the most recent data available, is contributing to the achievement gap in the state.  The total number of focus schools in a state must equal at least 10 percent of the Title I schools in the state.  A focus school is—

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

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

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

It is important to note that, under the *ESEA*, state accountability systems have differed.  States have designed unique approaches to meeting accountability requirements that fit their own academic programs and standards.  All Department-approved accountability plans outlining the details of each state’s policies are available on the Department’s website.  State context matters in making accountability decisions and identifying schools.  Each state must consider the diversity of student populations, the number of schools, size of schools, and other factors in order to design an accountability system that is both valid (accurately identifying schools not reaching their academic goals for all students) and reliable (with accountability judgments based on sound data).  

Numbers and percentages of identified schools in each state are presented in exhibits 27 through 29.  State CSPR reports provide projected numbers for the following school year in CSPR reporting (e.g., the 2011–12 CSPR provides information about the number of schools for 2012**–**13, based on 2011–12 testing results data).  The data reported by states vary in their completeness and accuracy; therefore, state and national totals might not necessarily represent the true numbers.

## B. Results

The exhibits below show the number of schools identified for improvement, or the number of priority and focus schools depending on whether the state was approved to implement *ESEA* flexibility during the relevant school year.  Exhibits 27 and 28 display the total number of schools in improvement, which includes all states prior to 2012-13, and excludes states that were implementing *ESEA* flexibility in 2012-13.  Exhibit 30 shows the count of schools by priority and focus status for the 2012-13 school year.

**Exhibit 27**

**Number and Percentage of Title I Schools Identified for Improvement (Total of All Five Stages of Improvement), by State: 2008–09 to 2012–13**

NOTES:

The dashes (-) indicate that data are not available. Totals across states are not included for 2012-13 since many states no longer report these improvement statuses and the comparison to prior years would no longer be meaningful.  BIE were expected to submit these data but did not. 

† indicates that the data are not applicable since the state is implementing *ESEA*flexibility.  These states report priority and focus statuses instead.

SOURCE:  *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 28**

**Number and Percentage of *Title I*Schools Identified for Improvement by State and Stage of Improvement Status: 2012–13**

NOTES:

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

# indicates that the data round to zero.****

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 29**

**Number of Priority and Focus Schools by State: 2012–13**

NOTES:

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 30**

**Number and Percentage of All Public Schools and Title I Schools Making AYP, by State: 2011–12**

NOTES:

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report:***http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

# VII. Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services

## A. Background

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

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

## B. Findings

Nationally, the number of students eligible for both public school choice and SES increased between 2007–08 and 2011–12 (see Exhibit 31).  The number of eligible students participating in public school choice increased each year between 2007–08 and 2009–10, and then decreased between 2009–10 and 2011–12 (see Exhibit 32).  State-by-state percentages of eligible students who participated are included in Exhibit 33.  The number of students eligible for SES increased each year between 2007–08 and 2011–12 (see Exhibit 31); the number receiving SES increased from 2007–08 to 2011–12, with the exception of a drop in 2010-11(see Exhibit 32).  The state-by-state percentages of all eligible students who received services are included in Exhibit 34. 

**Exhibit 31**

**Number of Students Nationwide Eligible for School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services (SES): 2007–08 to 2011–12**

NOTE: The SY2011-12 total excludes Pennsylvania. The state submitted inaccurate data.

SOURCE***:****SY 2011**–**12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 32**

**Number of Students Nationwide Participating in School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services (SES): 2007–08 to 2011–12**

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 33**

**Percentage of Eligible Students Who Participated in Title I Public School Choice, by State: 2007–08 to 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state’s reporting n-size.

The # sign indicates that the data round to zero.

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report***:**http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

**Exhibit 34**

**Percentage of Eligible Students Receiving Supplemental Educational Services, by State: 2007​​–08 to 2011–12**

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

n< indicates that data have been suppressed based on the state's reporting n-size.

*Pennsylvania submitted inaccurate data and is excluded from the table.

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report:*http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

# VIII. Highly Qualified Teachers

## A. Background

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

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

· holds at least a bachelor’s degree; and

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

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

Consistent with state reporting requirements in *ESEA* Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii), the Consolidated State Application (September 2003) and the CSPR (December 2003) asked states to provide baseline data for school year 2002–03 on the number and percentage of core academic classes being taught by highly qualified teachers in the aggregate and in high- and low-poverty schools.  Core academic classes include English, reading/language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.  The statute required states to ensure that 100 percent of the teachers of core academic subjects employed by their school districts would be highly qualified by school year 2005–06.  The Department required states that were unable to reach that deadline to submit clear plans for reaching the goal of 100 percent in subsequent school years. “Highly qualified teacher” requirements may vary by grade level as well as by state. 

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

## B. Findings

The Department collects data on the number of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers.  Data are broken out by elementary and secondary school classes and by high- and low-poverty schools.  Reported data indicate that the national percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers was almost 97 percent in 2011–12.  The national percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high-poverty schools was slightly lower than in low-poverty schools at both the elementary and secondary levels.  Overall, elementary schools had a higher percentage of classes taught by highly qualified teachers than secondary schools.

With a few exceptions, a high percentage of core academic classes are taught by highly qualified teachers across all states, for all schools and for high-poverty schools.  However, only Iowa, New Jersey, and North Dakota met the 100 percent target in any category (see Exhibit 36).  All states reported that more than 75 percent of core academic classes were taught by highly qualified teachers (see Exhibit 35).  Most also reported that more than 90 percent of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers.  However, this was less common in high-poverty secondary schools, where 41 states reported that more than 90 percent of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers (compared to 50 states for high-poverty elementary schools).  

**Exhibit 35**

**Number of States Reporting That More Than 75 Percent and More Than 90 Percent of Core Academic Classes in High-Poverty Schools Were Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, by School Level: 2011–12**

**Exhibit 36**

**Percentage of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers, by State, School Level, and Poverty Level: 2011–12**

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

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

SOURCE: *SY 2011–12 Consolidated State Performance Report*: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html

#  IX. Summary

Although most of the data included in this report cannot be compared across states, the report provides an overview of data about aspects of schooling in states as a whole and individual states: Standards and assessment systems, academic achievement of students by subject and subgroup, English language acquisition of LEP students, accountability, public school choice and supplemental educational services, and highly qualified teachers.  It also shows**the variability in performance that exists across states as a result of factors that could, but do not necessarily, include how they measure and design their academic programs, states’ starting points in 2002, which programs they chose to implement, and how they implemented those programs.  There are also varying degrees of participation in programs offered under the *ESEA*, such as public school choice and supplemental educational services options, and priority and focus school interventions for states that are implementing *ESEA* flexibility.  In some states, data may show trends, but frequently the data (on all topics) fluctuate across years.

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

 by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov

� States are required to report on only one grade in the high school grade span (grades 10–12).  Since states reported on different grades in this span, the data are labeled as “high school” for reporting purposes.

� The term “improvement” is used throughout the report as shorthand for “improvement,” “corrective action,” or “restructuring” as defined by ESEA. The term “identified schools” is used throughout the report as shorthand for “priority” and “focus” schools.

� Available at  � HYPERLINK "http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/" �http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/� 

� Available at  � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html� 

� Available at  � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html� 

� Available at  � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/programs/mep/resources.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/programs/mep/resources.html� 

� Available at  � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/programs/homeless/performance.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/programs/homeless/performance.html�   

� The CSPR is at� HYPERLINK "%20http:/www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html" �� http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html�

� The remainder of the report will use the term “state” to refer to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

� Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is at � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ESEA02/index.html�

� The EDFacts initiative is at � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html�

� ED Data Express is online at  � HYPERLINK "http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/" �http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/�

� Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act is at  � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html�

� “Cut scores” are the scores on a standardized assessment that a student must reach to be assigned to a certain level of proficiency (e.g., basic, proficient, advanced).

� State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Volume IX – Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report is available at � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-accountability/nclb-accountability-final.pdf" �http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-accountability/nclb-accountability-final.pdf�.

� Under ESEA flexibility, many states have received a waiver of the requirement to calculate AYP and to designate schools and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in improvement, corrective action and restructuring when they fail to meet AYP. Despite these changes, the component parts of AYP remain in effect, i.e., annual measureable objectives (AMOs) in reading/language arts and mathematics for grades three to eight and high school, the 95 percent participation rate on these assessments, and the other academic indicator (in high school graduation rate, in all other schools another indicator determined in the state’s accountability plan).. Similarly, under ESEA flexibility, State Education Agencies (SEAs) and LEAs must continue to calculate AMAOs for the LEP student group.

� Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program is available at � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html�.

� ESEA Flexibility is available at: � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html" ��http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html�

� These determinations must be based on the achievement and lack of progress over a number of years of one or more subgroups of students identified under ESEA Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, or, at the high school level, graduation rates for one or more subgroups.  

� Approved state accountability plans are available at � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html" �http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html�. Approved ESEA Flexibility Addenda can be found on each state’s page at� HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.htm" �� http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.htm�l

� HQT data were collected for the first time for the 2002-03 school year, but because several states reported that they did not have the mechanisms to accurately report these data for the 2002-03 school year, those data are excluded from the Title IIA program analysis of HQT. The 2003-04 data serve as the baseline for the Title IIA office’s assessment of trends.

� These data are shown to two decimal points so that it is possible to see exactly how close each state is to meeting the 100-percent goal.   Additional analysis and summary information can be found on the Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program website at � HYPERLINK "http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/resources.html" ��http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/resources.html�. 

� 53 states comprises the 50 states, BIE, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico.

� 46 states comprises all states except for California, D.C., Hawaii, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, Utah and West Virginia.

x

ix