# U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

# POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

# REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

**Title I Implementation: Update on Recent Evaluation Findings**

**Background**

The Title I program began in 1965 as part of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)* and is intended to help ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state standards.  The *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)*, which went into effect beginning with the 2002–03 school year, strengthened the assessment and accountability provisions of the law, while also creating new provisions related to parental choice and teacher quality.  As part of the *No Child Left Behind Act*, Congress mandated a National Assessment of Title I to evaluate the implementation and impact of the program, and the final report of the National Assessment was released in 2007.  Since then, additional findings from Title I evaluation studies have become available, and this report was prepared to summarize the new findings.  

The report includes new data from the National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB*, which surveyed districts, principals, teachers, and parents, and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under *NCLB*, which interviewed state Title I directors and compiled data from state administrative records.  Both studies collected data in 2004–05 and 2006–07.  The National Assessment of Title I final report summarized findings from the 2004–05 data collection, while this report examines the 2006–07 data and reports on change between the two years.  This new report also includes updated data from consolidated state performance reports, including student achievement on state assessments, school and district identification for improvement, and highly qualified teachers.

**Trends in Student Achievement**

This report examines recent three-year trends on state assessments (2004–05 through 2006–07) in 30 states that had consistent assessments in place over this period and longer-term trends on the main NAEP assessment (1990 to 2007), with a focus on recent trends.  It should be noted that these achievement trend data do not directly address the impact of *NCLB*, because it is difficult to separate the effects of *NCLB* from the effects of other state and local improvement efforts.

**In 30 states that had three-year trend data available from 2004–05 to 2006–07, the percentage of students achieving at or above the state’s proficient level rose for most student groups in a majority of the states.**  For example, state reading assessments administered in the 4th grade (or an adjacent elementary grade) show achievement gains for low-income students in 25 out of 27 states (89 percent).  Across all student groups examined, states showed achievement gains in 84 percent of the cases.  Results for 4th-grade mathematics and 8th-grade reading and mathematics show similar patterns.  

**However, most of the 30 states would not meet the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2013–14 unless the percentage of students achieving at the proficient level increased at a faster rate.**  For example, of the 27 states with consistent elementary reading assessment data for low-income students, two states (7 percent) would meet the 100 percent goal by 2013–14 for this subgroup if they sustained the same rate of growth that they achieved from 2002–03 to 2006–07.  

**Recent trends on the main NAEP assessment showed gains for 4th-grade students in reading, mathematics, and science, overall and for minority students and students in high-poverty schools.**For example, in 4th-grade reading, black and Hispanic students each gained 5 points from 2002 to 2007, while in 4th-grade math, black students gained 19 points from 2000 to 2007 and Hispanic students gained 20 points.  In 4th-grade science, black students gained 7 points from 2000 to 2005 and Hispanic students gained 11 points.  Over the longer term, black and Hispanic students showed larger gains in mathematics and reading; longer-term gains in science were similar to the short-term gains.

**NAEP trends for middle and high school students were mixed.**  Eighth-grade students made significant gains in mathematics but not in reading or science.  At the 12th-grade level, the most recent reading and science assessments, in 2005, showed no change from the preceding assessments (2002 for reading and 2000 for science) and showed significant declines from the first years those assessments were administered (1992 for reading and 1996 for science).  Recent NAEP trend data for 12th-grade mathematics are not available.  

**State assessments and NAEP both provided some indications that achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students may be narrowing.**  For example, on the NAEP 4th-grade reading assessment, the black-white achievement gap declined from 29.3 scale score points in 2002 to 26.6 points in 2007, a reduction of 2.7 points.  

**Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems**

**As of Jan. 8, 2009, 39 state assessment systems had been approved by the Department, through a peer review process, as meeting all *NCLB* testing requirements for reading and mathematics.**  For the remaining states, the evidence submitted indicated that one or more fundamental components were missing or did not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements, and reviews of their state assessment systems are continuing.  During 2005–06, all states administered assessments intended to meet *NCLB* requirements for reading and mathematics.  *NCLB* did not require science assessments to be in place until 2007–08.  As of December 2008, 11 states had approved science assessments.

**The number of Title I schools identified for improvement rose by 11 percent in 2006–07, to 10,781 schools (from 9,694 schools in 2005–06).**  The number and percentage of schools identified for improvement varied considerably across states: nine states had identified only 5 percent or fewer of their Title I schools, while 12 states had identified more than one-third of their Title I schools.

**Almost half of identified Title I schools were in the more advanced stages of identification status.**  Forty-six percent of all identified Title I schools in 2006–07 were in either corrective action or restructuring, up from 33 percent in 2005–06 and 23 percent in 2004–05. The number of Title I schools in corrective action more than doubled from 1,223 in 2005–06 to 2,663 in 2006–07, while the number in restructuring status rose from 1,683 to 2,271.

**Schools most commonly missed AYP for the achievement of the “all students” group or for multiple targets.**Based on data from 43 states, among schools that missed AYP in 2005–06, 35 percent did not meet achievement targets for the “all students” group in reading, mathematics, or both, and another 20 percent missed AYP for the achievement of two or more subgroups.  About one-fourth (24 percent) missed AYP solely due to the achievement of a single subgroup.  The remaining 21 percent missed for other combinations of targets.

**States have improved the timeliness of their notification to schools about school identification status, but some states continue to provide this notification well after the school year has begun.**  Forty-four states notified schools of the preliminary determinations on their school improvement status for 2006–07 (based on 2005–06 testing) before September 2006, and 25 states provided final results by that time, up from 31 states and 15 states, respectively, in fall 2004.  However, two states did not provide preliminary notifications until November or later, and 12 states did not provide final notifications until November or later.

**The most common improvement strategies reported by identified schools involved using achievement data to inform instruction (88 percent) and providing additional instruction to low-achieving students (77 percent).**  Other common strategies included a major focus on aligning curricula and instruction with standards and assessments (81 percent), new instructional approaches or curricula in reading and mathematics (66 percent and 64 percent, respectively), and increasing the intensity, focus, and effectiveness of professional development (63 percent).

**Most elementary teachers reported no change from 2004–05 to 2006–07 in the amount of instructional time that they spent on various subjects, based on a survey administered by the National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB*.**  About one-fifth of these teachers reported increasing the amount of time they spent on reading (22 percent) and mathematics (18 percent); few reported a decrease in time spent on these two subjects (3 to 4 percent).  Twelve percent reported decreasing the amount of instructional time for science and social studies instruction, while 5 to 6 percent reported an increase; 82 to 83 percent reported no change in instructional time for these two subjects.  Ninety percent reported no change in time spent on art and music. In terms of minutes per week, elementary teachers reported average increases in reading and math instructional time of 21 minutes and 10 minutes, respectively, and decreases of 3 minutes per week for science, 5 minutes for social studies and history, and 1 minute for art and music).  

**Most Title I schools in corrective action status in 2006–07 reported experiencing the interventions that *NCLB* defines for schools in this stage of improvement status.**  The most common corrective actions were less frequently reported in 2006–07 than in 2004–05:  Title I schools in corrective action were less likely to report being required to implement new curricula or instructional programs (67 percent in 2006–07 vs. 89 percent in 2004–05) or the appointment of an outside advisor (26 percent vs. 59 percent).  Overall, however, there was not a statistically significant change in the percentage of corrective action schools that reported experiencing at least one of the seven corrective actions listed in the law (88 percent vs. 96 percent).

**Few Title I schools in restructuring status in 2006–07 reported experiencing any of the specific interventions listed in the law for this stage of improvement status, although they did frequently report other types of interventions.**  The most frequently reported restructuring intervention was replacement of all or most of the school staff (12 percent).  Replacement of the principal, which is not specified in the law as a restructuring strategy, was reported by 40 percent of schools in restructuring status, compared with 29 percent of schools in corrective action and 13 percent of schools in Year 1 of school improvement status.

**School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services**

**Student participation in both Title I choice options continues to rise.**Participation in the school choice option increased to 120,000 in 2006–07, up from 65,000 in 2005–06 and 48,000 in 2004–05, while participation in supplemental educational services rose to 530,000 in 2006–07, up from 498,000 in  2005–06 and 446,000 in 2004–05.  The percentage of eligible students who participated in 2006–07 was 15 percent for supplemental educational services and 2 percent for school choice.

**District expenditures on Title I choice options doubled from 2003–04 to 2005–06.**  Total spending on supplemental educational services was estimated at $375 million for 2005–06, up from $192 million in 2003–04, based on district survey responses.  Spending on transportation for Title I school choice participants was estimated at $56 million for 2005–06, compared with $24 million in 2003–04.  The percentage increase in spending on these two Title I choice options was roughly comparable to the percentage increase in participation over the same period.

**The timeliness of parental notification about the school choice option improved from 2004–05 to 2006–07, but still was often too late to enable parents to choose a new school before the start of the 2006–07 school year.**  Based on a nationally representative survey of districts, 43 percent of affected districts notified parents about the school choice option before the beginning of the 2006–07 school year, an increase from 29 percent in 2004–05.  However, 42 percent notified parents after the school year had already started, and in these districts this notification occurred, on average, *five* weeks after the start of the school year.

**Although most districts required to offer school choice and supplemental educational services reported that they notified parents about these options, a survey of eligible parents in eight urban school districts found that many parents were unaware of these choice options.**In the eight districts, only 20 percent of parents eligible to use the Title I school choice option and 59 percent of those eligible to enroll their child in supplemental educational services said they had been notified about these options in 2006–07.

**Across a sample of seven districts, student participants in supplemental educational services experienced gains in achievement in both reading and mathematics that were greater than the gains for non-participating students.**  On average, the effect sizes measured were 0.08 of a standard deviation unit in both reading and math for students that participated in supplemental services during one school year and 0.15 to 0.17 for students that received supplemental services during two or more years.  Looking at the districts individually, positive effects were found in five of the seven districts.

**For Title I school choice, the same study did not find a statistically significant relationship between participation and student achievement.**However, sample sizes for the school choice analysis were substantially smaller, due to the relatively small number of participants.  

**States have made progress in developing systems for evaluating the performance of supplemental educational service providers.**  As of fall 2006, 33 states had started an evaluation of supplemental educational service providers and another 10 states anticipated starting evaluations later in the 2006–07 school year.  Thirty-three states planned to evaluate provider effectiveness by examining student achievement on state assessments for participating students, up from 17 states in fall 2004, and 12 of these states planned to use a matched control group, up from one state in fall 2004.  

**Teacher Quality and Professional Development**

**The large majority of teachers across the country have been designated as highly qualified under *NCLB*.** According to state-reported data for 50 states, 92 percent of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers in 2005–06.  Special education teachers were more likely to report that they were considered not highly qualified under *NCLB* than were general education teachers. States varied considerably in their criteria for teachers to demonstrate content knowledge in the subjects they teach.  

**Among teachers who said they were highly qualified under *NCLB*, those in high-poverty schools had less experience and were less likely to have a degree in the subject that they teach, compared with their peers in low-poverty schools.**  For example, in 2006–07, highly qualified secondary mathematics teachers in high-poverty schools were less likely to have a degree in mathematics (32 percent) compared with their counterparts in low-poverty schools (50 percent).

**Although most teachers reported that they participated in some professional development that focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading or mathematics, relatively few participated for an extended period of time.**  For example, 79 percent of elementary teachers participated in at least one hour of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching mathematics during the 2005–06 school year and summer, but only 44 percent participated for six or more hours and only 11 percent participated for more than 24 hours.  Teachers were less likely to report that they participated in professional development focused on in-depth study of reading and mathematics than they were in training in instructional strategies.

Copies of this report are available at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.  Copies of other reports based on the NLS-NCLB and SSI-NCLB studies are also available at this website.

PAGE  

4