High Standards for All Students: 

A Report from the National Assessment of Title I on 

Progress and Challenges Since the 1994 Reauthorization 

Planning and Evaluation Service 

Office of the Under Secretary 

U.S. Department of Education 

January 2001 
U. S. Department of Education 

Richard W. Riley 

Secretary 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Judith A. Winston 

Under Secretary 

Planning and Evaluation Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Elementary and Secondary Education Division 

Ricky T. Takai 

Director 

January 2001 

This report was developed under the direction of Alan L. Ginsburg, Director of the Planning and 

Evaluation Service (PES); Ricky T. Takai, Director of the Elementary and Secondary Education Division, 

and Elois Scott, Team Leader of the At-Risk Students Team. Stephanie Stullich, of the PES Elementary 

and Secondary Division, served as Project Director for the National Assessment of Title I. PES staff who 

contributed to the writing of this report are: Robin Chait, Daphne Hardcastle, Stacy Kotzin, Michelle 

LaPointe, Meredith Miller, Tracy Rimdzius, Susan Sanchez, Elois Scott, Stephanie Stullich, and Susan 

Thompson-Hoffman. 

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, Planning and Evaluation Service, High Standards for All Students: A Report from the National 

Assessment of Title I on Progress and Challenges Since the 1994 Reauthorization, Washington, DC: 

2001. 

Copies of this report may be ordered in the following ways: 

 Mail. Write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P. O. Box 

1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398.

 Fax. Dial 301-470-1244.

 Telephone (toll-free). Dial 877-433-7827 (877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in 

your area, call 800-872-5327 (800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for 

the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 800-437-0833. 

 Electronic mail. Send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

 Online. Order a copy of the report at: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html. This report may also be 

downloaded from the Department’s Web site at: www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html. 

 Alternate formats. Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department's 

Alternate Format Center at 202-260-9895 or 202-205-8113.
Contents 

Introduction to the Report................................................................................................................................ 1 

I. Policy Context for Title I............................................................................................................................. 2 

Provisions of the Current Title I Law ................................................................................................. 2 

New Initiatives for At-Risk Children.................................................................................................. 4 

II. Profile of Title I Participants and Resources.............................................................................................. 6 

Who Receives Title I Services............................................................................................................ 6 

Who Receives Title I Funds................................................................................................................ 7 

What the Title I Dollar Buys............................................................................................................... 8 

The Targeting of Title I Funds............................................................................................................ 9 

III. Progress in Student Performance in High-Poverty Schools.................................................................... 13 

Student Performance on State Assessments...................................................................................... 15 

Student Performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) ...................... 17 

IV. Implementation of Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Systems............................................. 20 

Development of State Content and Performance Standards ............................................................. 20 

Development of State Assessment Systems...................................................................................... 22

The Role of Title I in Holding Schools Accountable for Performance and Supporting 

Improvement Efforts......................................................................................................................... 24 

The Impact of Standards-Based Reform on Teacher Practices and Student Performance ............... 28 

V. Strategies for Improving Teaching and Learning .................................................................................... 30 

Comprehensive, Research-Based School Reform ............................................................................ 31 

Promising Instructional Practices in Reading and Mathematics....................................................... 35 

Improving the Qualifications of Instructional Staff.......................................................................... 37

Early Childhood Education............................................................................................................... 40 

Extending Learning Time ................................................................................................................. 43 

Partnerships with Parents and Families ............................................................................................ 45 

VI. Special Title I Services ........................................................................................................................... 47 

Title I Services for Students Attending Private Schools................................................................... 47 

Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) .................................................................................... 48 

Programs for Students Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or at Risk of Dropping Out 

(Title I, Part D).................................................................................................................................. 49 

VII. Progress and Challenges........................................................................................................................ 52 
High Standards for All Students 1

Introduction to the Report 

This report provides a comprehensive summary of the most recent data available from the National 

Assessment of Title I on the implementation of the Title I program and the academic performance of 

children in high-poverty schools. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

provides federal assistance to eligible school districts and schools to help children meet challenging 

standards, with particular emphasis on children who are at risk of not meeting such standards. In addition 

to the main Title I program—Part A, the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) program—

Title I also includes other parts that provide services to children: Part B, the Even Start Family Literacy 

Program; Part C, the Migrant Education Program; and Part D Programs for Neglected and Delinquent 

Children and Youth. 

The National Assessment of Title I was mandated by Congress as part of the 1994 reauthorization of 

ESEA to examine the progress of students whom the program was intended to benefit and the 

implementation of key provisions of the program. The final report of the National Assessment, 

Promising Results, Continuing Challenges, was released in 1999.1

 However, because additional findings 

have emerged since that time, this new report was prepared to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date 

summary of key evaluation findings about the Title I program. 

The report is comprised of six sections. The first describes the policy context for Title I—the current 

provisions of the law and the major changes that were made in the 1994 reauthorization of the program, 

and the relationship of Title I to recent federal initiatives that support educational reform and 

improvement. 

The second section provides a description of whom Title I serves, what the Title I dollar buys, and how 

Title I funds are distributed among districts and schools. The third and fourth sections address the 

frequently raised questions of the extent to which student achievement is improving and the extent to 

which Title I is fully implemented. The fifth section provides information on school-level strategies used 

to support student learning, and how these strategies are supported by Title I and other federal programs. 

The sixth section describes the provision of services to students attending private schools, migrant 

students served under Part C, and neglected and delinquent students served under Part D. The final 

section offers conclusions and implications. 

This report is being issued at the same time as a report by the Independent Review Panel that has advised 

the U.S. Department of Education on the National Assessment of Title I since 1994. This panel, which 

was mandated under Sections 1501 and 14701 of ESEA, is composed of nationally-recognized 

researchers and policy experts, representatives of state and local education agencies and private schools, 

school-level staff, and parent representatives. The panel has defined issues for evaluating Title I and the 

federal impact on education reform; reviewed study plans, data analysis, and draft reports; and prepared 

its own recommendations for the future of Title I and the federal role in education. 
High Standards for All Students 2

I. Policy Context for Title I 

Title I originated with the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which 

was enacted as part of the “War on Poverty.” The primary purpose of the program has not changed since 

the time when it first became law—to ensure equal educational opportunity for all children regardless of 

socioeconomic background and to close the achievement gap between poor and affluent children, by 

providing additional resources for schools serving disadvantaged students. This purpose is illustrated by 

the current law's declaration of policy and statement of purpose (below): 

TITLE I—HELPING DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN MEET HIGH STANDARDS 

“SEC. 1001. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. 

“(a)(1) The Congress declares it to be the policy of the United States that a high-quality 

education for all individuals and a fair and equal opportunity to obtain that education are a 

societal good, are a moral imperative, and improve the life of every individual, because the 

quality of our lives ultimately depends on the quality of the lives of others.” 

To support this purpose, the program provides additional resources ($9.5 billion in FY 20012

) for schools 

to improve learning for students at risk of educational failure. This single program represents more than 

one-third (38 percent) of federal funds appropriated to support elementary and secondary education. The 

majority of Title I funds (91 percent) are distributed through the Title I Grants to LEAs (Part A) program. 

Provisions of the Current Title I Law 

 

The ESEA reauthorization in 1994 (which was called the Improving America’s Schools Act, or IASA) 

made significant changes to the prior law, based on research findings reported in the 1993 national 

assessment of the program.3

 Previously the primary method of providing services to children was through 

"pull-out" programs in which students were removed from the regular classroom for remedial instruction. 

The progress of participating students was measured compared to other children who did not receive 

Title I services. Research found that the services that children received were not sufficient to close the 

achievement gap between children in high- and low-poverty schools. In addition, studies found that 

expectations were lower for students in high-poverty schools, and that attending high-poverty schools had 

a negative effect on student achievement, independent of the effect of the student's own family 

background.4

IASA, along with the Goals 2000 Educate America Act, introduced a new federal approach built around a 

framework of standards-driven reform and an emphasis on schoolwide reform. Under the new Title I law, 

states were required to develop challenging content and performance standards for all students that would 

be linked to an aligned assessment and accountability system. Students in schools receiving Title I funds 

would be held to the same standards as students in other schools; there would no longer be a dual 

accountability system. This approach was intended to promote both excellence and equity in education 

and to enable Title I and other federal programs to support state and local reform efforts. To accomplish 

this, the reauthorized Title I adopted a number of key principles outlined in the Title I legislation: 

 Support states in setting high standards for all childrenwith the components of the education system 

aligned so that they are working in concert to help all students reach those standards; 

 Focus on teaching and learning, through upgrading curriculum, accelerating instruction, and 

providing teachers with professional development to teach to high standards; 
High Standards for All Students 3

 Provide flexibility to stimulate school-based and district initiatives, coupled with greater 

accountability for student performance; 

 Build partnerships among schools, families, and communities; and 

 Target resources to where the needs are greatest. 

IASA continues to allow school districts that receive Part A funds to distribute money to schools under 

two basic program models—targeted assistance and schoolwide programs. Targeted assistance schools 

provide instructional and support services to specific students who are at the greatest risk of not meeting 

states’ performance standards. Under the schoolwide model, Title I funds are not targeted to specific 

students but may be used to improve the entire school. However, schools are required to ensure that 

students who need the most help actually benefit from the program. In order to qualify for a schoolwide 

program, 50 percent or more of a school’s student body must come from low-income families; the 1994 

reauthorization lowered this eligibility threshold from the previous level of 75 percent in order to allow 

more schools to use this more flexible approach. 

The expansion of schoolwide programs was one of the most important ways in which the 1994 

reauthorization increased flexibility in the use of Title I funds. In addition, Congress further 

expanded flexibility under the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (Ed-Flex), which allows 

states to waive many Title I requirements if states have a strong accountability system in place. In return 

for the increased flexibility, schools and districts are held accountable for the performance of all children. 

This flexibility with accountability is the heart of the Title I standards-based accountability system. 

The 1994 amendments authorized ESEA through 1999, and the next reauthorization is pending. ESEA 

bills passed by the House and considered by the Senate during the 106th Congress both supported 

continuation of a standards-based system with strong accountability provisions. 
High Standards for All Students 4

New Initiatives for At-Risk Children 

Since the ESEA reauthorization in 1994, several major new initiatives have been funded that support a 

similar student population as Title I. The five major initiatives are the Comprehensive School Reform 

Demonstration Program (CSRD), the Reading Excellence Act (REA), Title I Accountability Grants, 

2lst Century Community Learning Centers, and the Class Size Reduction Act. 

The first two initiatives (CSRD and REA) are intended to support high-quality teaching and improved 

learning through intensive and focused professional development and a focused, research-based 

instructional program. The third (Title I Accountability Grants) provides support for additional 

instructional and professional development activities for low-performing schools. 

• CSRD, which was funded through annual appropriations acts beginning in FY 1998, helps schools 

identify and adopt high-quality, well-defined, and research-based comprehensive school reform 

models that show the promise of preparing children to meet challenging state content and 

performance standards. FY 2001 funding for CSRD includes $210 million appropriated under Title I 

and an additional $50 million from the Fund for the Improvement of Education. 

• REA was authorized in 1999 to provide support for improving children’s reading achievement in 

high-poverty and low-performing schools. This K-3 program is targeted to high-poverty schools and 

schools that have been identified for improvement under the Title I law. REA requires that 

participating schools implement a research-based reading program and provide extensive professional 

development for all teachers in grades K-3. FY 2001 funding is $286 million. 

• Title I Accountability Grants were included in the FY 2000 and FY 2001 appropriations bills in order 

to provide support for turning around low-performing schools. School districts are to use these funds 

to intervene in schools that have been identified as in need of improvement under Title I, while 

offering students in those schools the opportunity to transfer to better schools. The FY 2001 

appropriations statute also requires that all school districts receiving Title I Part A funds must provide 

the opportunity for students in any school identified for improvement to transfer to a higherperforming school in the district that is not identified for improvement. FY 2001 funding is 

$225 million, up from $134 million in FY 2000. 

The 21st Century and Class Size Reduction programs are based on research findings that additional 

learning time and smaller classes have a positive impact on the achievement of disadvantaged students. 

• The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, authorized in 1994 and first funded in 

FY 1998, provides support for after-school programs that are focused on academic enrichment for atrisk children. The assumption is that low-achieving students need more instructional time and 

support in order to catch up. FY 2001 funding is $846 million. 

• The Class Size Reduction Act, funded through annual appropriations beginning in FY 1999, provides 

funds to districts to help schools reduce the number of students in their classrooms for the earlier 

grades. Smaller classes enable teachers to spend more time with individual children, thus reducing 

children's likelihood of failure. FY 2001 funding is $1.623 billion. 

It is important to note that many high-poverty schools receive funds from multiple programs. 

Schools that use Title I funds for schoolwide programs are particularly encouraged to combine their 

federal, state and local funds to improve the entire school. Schools that make a concerted and thoughtful 
High Standards for All Students 5

effort to coordinate the use of funds are likely to increase the impact that these programs will have on 

improving the educational outcomes of low-performing students and low-performing schools. 

These five programs and other new initiatives have received a growing share of federal funding for 

elementary and secondary education. Indeed, since 1994 increases in federal funding have gone 

primarily to new initiatives, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) special education 

program, and other elementary-secondary programs, rather than to Title I Grants to Local Educational 

Agencies (Part A), which has long been the largest federal elementary-secondary education program. 

While total federal funding for elementary-secondary programs administered by the U.S. Department of 

Education increased by 72 percent from FY 1994 to FY 2001, after adjusting for inflation, funding for 

Title I Part A increased by only 21 percent. Federal funding for special education increased by 

113 percent, and funding for other elementary-secondary programs increased by 36 percent. 

Exhibit 1

Funding for Title I and Other Federal

Elementary-Secondary Programs, FY 1994 to FY 2001

(Constant FY 2001 Dollars in Billions)

$7.1 $7.4 $7.3 $7.8 $7.7 $7.9 $8.1 $8.6

$3.5 $3.6 $3.5 $4.3 $5.0 $5.5 $6.2 $7.4

$2.2

$4.2

$5.6

$7.0

$7.1

$7.6

$1.8 $5.4

$5.8 $6.6

$5.0

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

$ in Billions

Other ElementarySecondary Programs 

Major New Initiatives

Special Education

(IDEA) 

Title I Part A

$27.8

$22.2

$19.5 $17.9

$15.8

$23.6

$16.2 $16.4

Notes: "Major New Initiatives" included in this exhibit are CSRD, REA, 21st Century Schools, Class 

Size Reduction, and School Renovation. Funds for Title I Accountability Grants are not included in 

"New Initiatives" because these are reserved from the Title I Part A appropriation. 

Exhibit reads: Funding for Title I Part A, expressed in constant FY 2001 dollars, rose 

from $7.1 billion in FY 1994 to $8.6 billion in FY 2001 (a 21 percent increase), while 

total funding for elementary secondary education programs rose from $16.2 billion to 

$27.8 billion (a 72 percent increase). 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service. 
High Standards for All Students 6

II. Profile of Title I Participants and Resources 

Who Receives Title I Services 

Title I reaches more than 12.5 million students enrolled in both public and private schools. 

Minority students participate at rates higher than their proportion of the student population. In 1997-98, 

29 percent of Title I participants were African-American, 29 percent were Hispanic, 3 percent were Asian 

or Pacific Islander, 2 percent were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 35 percent were white nonHispanic, and 1 percent were from other ethnic/racial groups.i

 Title I services are provided to more than 

2 million students with limited English proficiency, 1.2 million students with disabilities, and more than 

100,000 children identified as homeless.5

 

Title I funds may be used for children from preschool age to high school, but districts and schools 

often choose to focus these funds on students in the early grades. Two-thirds (67 percent) of Title I 

participants are in grades 1-6, while 12 percent are in kindergarten or preschool, 15 percent are in grades 

7-9, and 5 percent are in grades 10-12.6

It is important to recognize that the concept of a "Title I participant" is different in targeted assistance 

schools and schoolwide programs. In targeted assistance schools, participants are students who receive 

specific services supported with Title I funds, while in schoolwide programs, all students are counted as 

Title I participants since the funds are used to improve the school as a whole. 

Title I also provides supplemental assistance to children who face specific educational barriers, including 

children who come from families with low literacy, the children of migrant agricultural workers, and 

children who are neglected or delinquent: 

 Even Start (Part B) supports family literacy programs that are intended to break the cycle of poverty 

and illiteracy in low-income families. The children of parents with poor literacy skills are less likely 

to receive early literacy training at home or to be enrolled in a preschool programsituations that 

increase the risk of school failure. Even Start programs served 40,500 children and 30,800 adults in 

1998-99.7

 FY 2001 funding for Even Start is $250 million. 

 The Migrant Education Program (Part C) supports supplemental education and support services for 

children of migrant farmworkers and fishers. Migrant children have families who move frequently to 

pursue agricultural work, and thus must change schools frequentlycircumstances that have a 

detrimental effect on their achievement. The Migrant Education Program served 621,000 migrant 

children in 1997-98.8

 In addition, about 300,000 migrant children also were served under the Title I 

Part A program. FY 2001 funding for the Migrant Education Program is $380 million.

 Part D of Title I authorizes state and local agency programs for students who are neglected, 

delinquent, or at risk of dropping out. Neglected or delinquent students are extremely educationally 

disadvantaged; most are incarcerated in state juvenile and adult correctional facilities and have had 

numerous disruptions in their education. State agency programs served 205,000 neglected and 

delinquent children in 1997-98, while local agency programs served an additional 85,000 students in 

local correctional facilities.9

 FY 2001 funding for state "N or D" programs is $46 million; funding for 

local N or D programs is provided through Part A funds and is estimated at $59 million for FY 2001. 

 

i

 Overall elementary-secondary enrollments by race/ethnicity for the same year were: 17 percent African-American, 

14 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 1 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 

64 percent white non-Hispanic. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2000), 

Digest of Education Statistics: 1999, Washington, DC, Table 45. 
High Standards for All Students 7

Who Receives Title I Funds 

Title I is intended to help address the greater educational challenges facing high-poverty 

communities by targeting extra resources to school districts and schools with the highest 

concentrations of poverty, where academic performance tends to be low and the obstacles to raising 

performance are the greatest. Ninety-six percent of the nation’s highest-poverty schools (those with 

75 percent or more students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) participate in Title I.10 While the 

highest-poverty schools comprise 16 percent of all schools, they account for 46 percent of Title I 

spending. About three-fourths (73 percent) of Title I funds go to schools with 50 percent or more 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.11 However, the program also serves schools with low 

poverty levels (defined in this report as those where fewer than 35 percent of the students are eligible for 

subsidized lunches). 

Exhibit 2 

Proportion of Schools Receiving Title I Funds and 

the Distribution of All Schools, Title I Schools, and Title I Funds, by School Poverty Level, 1997-98 

School Poverty 

Level 

Proportion of Schools 

Receiving Title I Funds

Percentage 

Distribution of 

All Schools 

Percentage 

Distribution of 

Title I Schools 

Percentage 

Distribution of 

Title I Funds 

75-100% Poverty 96% 16% 35% 46% 

50-74% Poverty 80% 17% 31% 27% 

35-49% Poverty 49% 13% 13% 9% 

0-34% Poverty 28% 54% 21% 18% 

All Schools 57% 

Exhibit reads: Nearly all (96 percent) of the highest-poverty schools receive Title I funds, and 

these schools account for 35 percent of all Title I schools and 46 percent of Title I funds. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources 

and Federal Funding: Final Report (2000).

Title I funds are predominantly used at the elementary level. Overall, secondary schools received 

15 percent of Title I funds, about half as much as their share of the nation's low-income students 

(33 percent). Secondary schools are less likely to receive Title I funds (29 percent, compared with 

67 percent of elementary schools), and those secondary schools that do receive Title I funds tended to 

receive smaller allocations than elementary schools ($372 vs. $495 per low-income student, respectively, 

in 1997-98). However, the highest-poverty secondary schools received allocations that were comparable 

in size to those in the highest-poverty elementary schools ($446 vs. $479).12 Moreover, changes made in 

the 1994 reauthorization resulted in a dramatic increase in the proportion of the highest-poverty secondary 

schools that receive Title I funds, from 61 percent in 1993-94 to 93 percent in 1997-98—about the same 

proportion as for the highest-poverty elementary schools (95 percent).13
High Standards for All Students 8

What the Title I Dollar Buys 

Most Title I funds are used for instruction, supporting the hiring of additional teachers and 

instructional aides, providing instructional materials and computers, and supporting other 

instructional services and resources. In the 1997-98 school year, three-fourths (77 percent) of Title I 

funds were spent on instruction, 12 percent were used for instructional support, and another 12 percent 

were used for program administration and indirect costs. Title I spending on instruction amounted to an 

estimated $5.5 billion in 1997-98, including $3.3 billion spent on teachers (47 percent of total Title I 

expenditures) and $1.0 billion on instructional aides (15 percent). 14

Exhibit 3 

Use of Title I Funds for Instruction, Instructional Support, 

and Program Administration, 1997-98 

 

Total Expenditures 

($ in millions) 

Share of 

Total Expenditures 

Instruction 

Teachers 

Teacher Aides 

Instructional Materials 

Technology for Instruction 

Districtwide Instructional Programs 

Services for Private School Students 

$5,473 

$3,342 

$1,043 

$468 

$287 

$256 

$77 

77% 

47% 

15% 

7% 

4% 

4% 

1% 

Instructional Support 

Professional Development 

Parent Involvement 

Guidance Counselors, Psychologists, Social Workers 

Other Instructional Support 

$822 

$212 

$158 

$155 

$297 

12% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

4% 

Program Administration 

District Administration 

School Administration 

$835 

$594 

$241 

12% 

8% 

3% 

Notes: Totals do not add due to rounding. "Districtwide instructional programs" include districtwide preschool, full-day 

kindergarten, extended-time programs, and other targeted services for at-risk students. "Other instructional support" 

includes student health services, library/media specialists, and other instructional support staff. "Program administration" 

includes funds allocated for indirect costs. 

Exhibit reads: Title I spending on instruction amounted to $5.473 billion in the 1997-98 school 

year—77 percent of total Title I funds. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources 

and Federal Funding: Final Report (2000). 

The share of Title I funds used for instruction (77 percent) was greater than the share of total 

school district expenditures used for this purpose (62 percent). Similarly, the share of funds used for 

instructional support under Title I (12 percent) was slightly greater than for total district expenditures 

(9 percent). The share of funds used for administration appears about the same for Title I (12 percent) 

and district expenditures overall (11 percent).15 The remaining district expenditures (18 percent) were 

used for building operation and maintenance, transportation, and food services. Nearly all Title I funds 

are used at the district and school levels; states distributed 99 percent of their Title I funds to school 

districts and retained only 1 percent for administration, leadership, and technical assistance to districts and 

schools.16 
High Standards for All Students 9

Title I funds may help equalize resources for high- and low-poverty schools by providing additional 

support in districts and schools with greater needs, which often receive fewer resources from state and 

local sources. For example, Title I funds purchased an average of 4.5 computers in the highest-poverty 

elementary schools in 1997-98 (33 percent of the new computers), compared with 0.5 computers in lowpoverty elementary schools. High-poverty schools’ use of Title I funds for technology helped to 

compensate for the fact that they received fewer computers from state and local funds (5.3 computers, 

versus 7.1 in low-poverty schools).17

Although Title I accounts for a relatively small percentage of total funding for elementary and secondary 

education (less than 3 percent), the program plays a significant role in supporting local education 

improvement efforts. It provides flexible funding that may be used for supplementary instruction, 

professional development, new computers, after-school programs, and other strategies for raising student 

achievement. For example, Title I funds used for technology amounted to about $287 million in 1997-98, 

more than the combined appropriations for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology 

Innovation Challenge Grants for that year ($257 million). Similarly, Title I funds used for professional 

development amounted to $212 million in 1997-98, nearly as much as the funding for the Eisenhower 

Professional Development Program (elementary-secondary programs) for that year ($244 million).18 

The Targeting of Title I Funds 

Title I funds are much more targeted to the highest-poverty districts than are state and local funds, 

and are also more targeted than are federal education funds overall. Districts in the highest-poverty 

quartile received 50 percent of all Title I funds in FY 1997, more than double their share of state and local 

funds (23 percent) and also greater than their share of federal education funds overall (43 percent). The 

poorest districts' share of Title I funds (50 percent) is about the same as their share of the nation's poor 

children (49 percent), while their share of state and local funds (23 percent) is less than their share of total 

school-age children (25 percent). In contrast, districts in the lowest-poverty quartile received 8 percent of 

Title I funds and 11 percent of all federal funds but 30 percent of state and local funds. 

Exhibit reads: The highest-poverty districts received 50 percent of Title I funds 

and 43 percent of total federal funds but only 23 percent of state and local funds. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of 

Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report (2000). 

Exhibit 4

Distribution of Title I, Federal, and State and Local Revenues,

in Highest- and Lowest-Poverty Districts

50%

8%

43%

11%

23%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Districts in Highest-Poverty Quartile Districts in Lowest-Poverty Quartile

Title I Revenues Total Federal Revenues State & Local Revenues

Highest-poverty quartile of districts contains 25% of the nation’s students and 49% of the poor students.

Lowest-poverty quartile of districts contains 25% of the nation’s students and 7% of the poor students. Share of Total Revenues
High Standards for All Students 10

Although Title I and other federal programs provide more funds in high-poverty districts, these 

districts still have less funding per pupil than do low-poverty districts. The highest-poverty districts 

received four times as much federal funding per pupil ($692) as did the lowest-poverty districts ($172), 

but even so the highest-poverty districts still received 10 percent less in total funding per pupil ($6,248, 

compared with $6,967 in the lowest-poverty districts). 

Despite the fact that Title I targets high-poverty areas more strongly than other funds, historically there 

have been concerns that Title I funds are still spread too thinly, undermining the program’s capacity to 

meet the high expectations set by policymakers. The 1994 reauthorization changed the Title I 

allocation provisions in an effort to improve the targeting of Title I funds on the neediest districts 

and schools, but these changes had little impact on the targeting of Title I funds at the district level. 

The share of Title I funds allocated to the highest-poverty quartile of districts remained virtually 

unchanged, rising slightly from 49 percent in FY 1994 to 50 percent in FY 1997. Most Title I funds 

continue to flow through the Basic Grants formula (84 percent of total funding), which goes to nearly all 

districts. Funding for the more targeted Concentration Grant formula did increase substantially, but this 

formula still has little impact because it accounts for only 16 percent of the funds. A new Targeted Grants 

formula created under the 1994 reauthorization would direct a greater share of the funds to the highestpoverty districts, but this formula has not been funded. In addition, a shift to using updated poverty data 

and making allocations directly to school districts also had very little impact on school district allocations, 

due to the introduction of special hold-harmless provisions.ii 

However, the changes in the law did result in substantial increases in Title I targeting at the school 

level. Almost all (95 percent) of the highest-poverty schools received Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 

79 percent in 1993-94 (Exhibit 5). Funding for low-poverty schools declined from 49 percent to 

36 percent over the same period. At the secondary level, nearly all (93 percent) of the highest-poverty 

secondary schools received Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 61 percent in 1993-94.19 

 

ii Under the 1994 reauthorization, Congress required the U.S. Department of Education to allocate Title I funds 

using updated poverty estimates prepared by the Census Bureau, beginning in FY 1997. The purpose of this new 

requirement was to address longstanding concerns about the fairness and accuracy of allocations that had been based 

on the decennial census, which became increasingly out-of-date as the decade progressed. Congress also required 

that allocations be made directly to school districts beginning in FY 1999 using Census Bureau poverty estimates, a 

change from the previous practice of making federal allocations to the county level, with state suballocations to 

school districts within each county. If allowed to take effect, each of these changes would cause significant shifts in 

the distribution of Title I funds across districts. However, special provisions have been included in each 

appropriations bill from FY 1997 through FY 2001 that have largely prevented the new poverty data and allocations 

process from affecting school district allocations.
High Standards for All Students 11

Exhibit reads: The proportion of the highest-poverty schools that received Title I 

funds rose from 79 percent in 1993-94 to 95 percent in 1997-98, while the 

proportion of low-poverty schools receiving these funds declined. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Targeting 

Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School Districts (1999). 

Improved targeting has increased the number of high-poverty schools served but has not 

necessarily increased the intensity of services. In a sample of 17 large urban districts, the average size 

of school allocations remained unchanged from 1994-95 to 1996-97, indicating that the growth in total 

funding and redirection of some funds away from low-poverty schools have increased the number of 

high-poverty schools served rather than increasing the intensity of services in those schools.20

Moreover, although low-poverty schools were less likely to receive Title I funds, those low-poverty 

schools that did receive funding tended to receive substantially larger per-pupil allocations than 

high-poverty Title I schools. Low-poverty Title I schools received $771 per low-income student, 

compared with only $475 in the highest-poverty Title I schools.21 This occurs because the Title I formula 

allocates funds to nearly all districts, including low-poverty districts that can concentrate their Title I 

resources on the schools that have the highest poverty rates in their district, although these schools would 

not be considered "high-poverty" in other, poorer districts. At the same time, high-poverty districts may 

have many high-poverty schools among which to spread their Title I funds, resulting in smaller 

allocations in these schools. 

Title I resources are intended to "supplement, not supplant" a comparable base of state and local resources 

that would be provided in each school in the absence of Title I funds.iii Data from the Study of 

Education Resources and Federal Funding portray a mixed picture of resource comparability in 

 

iii The Title I statute requires that districts provide comparable levels of state and local resources to their Title I 

schools as to their non-Title I schools. The comparability requirement applies only within districts, not between 

districts; that is, it does not address any disparities in funding that may exist across districts within a state or across 

states. This report takes a broader view of the comparability issue, examining the comparability of non-Title I 

resources across high- and low-poverty schools nationally.

Exhibit 5

Change in Proportion of Highest-Poverty and Low-Poverty Schools

that Receive Title I Funds, 1993-94 to 1997-98

79%

49%

93%

45%

95%

36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

 Highest-Poverty Schools 

(75-100% Poverty)

 Low-Poverty Schools 

Percent of Schools Receiving Title I Funds

(0-34% Poverty)

1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 
High Standards for All Students 12

high- and low-poverty schools. Before Title I funds were added, spending on school personnel was 

7 percent lower in the highest-poverty elementary schools than in low-poverty schools. The highestpoverty schools had smaller average class sizes than low-poverty schools, but teachers in the highestpoverty schools earned lower salaries, had fewer years of experience, and were less likely to hold an 

advanced degree. On average, teacher salaries were 14 percent lower in the highest-poverty schools than 

in low-poverty schools.22 Other data indicate that teachers in the highest-poverty schools are more likely 

to be new teachers with relatively little teaching experience, and at the secondary level they are less likely 

to have full certification in the field of their teaching assignment.23

Exhibit reads: The highest-poverty schools had smaller average class sizes than 

low-poverty schools; however, teachers in the highest-poverty schools received 

lower average salaries. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education 

Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report (2000). 

Title I funds largely serve to close the funding gap between Title I and non-Title I schools, rather 

than providing a higher level of resources to meet the greater challenges associated with larger 

concentrations of disadvantaged students. Before Title I funds were added, Title I elementary schools 

spent $196 less per pupil on school personnel than did non-Title I schools; the additional $273 per pupil 

added through Title I funds raised the spending in the Title I schools to $77 more than in the non-Title I 

schools. Thus, of the total amount of Title I funds spent on school personnel, 72 percent contributed to 

closing the funding gap between Title I and non-Title I schools, and only 28 percent resulted in a higher 

level of funding in Title I schools. In the highest-poverty elementary schools, however, the funding gap 

was not closed: spending on school staff remained lower than in low-poverty schools, even after Title I 

funds were added.24

Exhibit 6

Comparability of Staffing in the

Highest-Poverty and Low-Poverty Elementary Schools, 1997-98

Highest-Poverty Schools

(Poverty >=75%)

Low-Poverty Schools

(Poverty <35%)

Spending on School Personnel $3,496 $3,840

Average Class Size* 20.6 23.0

Average Teacher Salary $35,821 $40,803

Average Years Teaching

Experience

13.2 years 15.5 years

Percentage of Teachers with

Masters Degree or Higher

37% 49%

* Average class size data include special education teachers and students
High Standards for All Students 13

III. Progress in Student Performance in High-Poverty Schools 

The impact of the Title I program on student achievement cannot be easily disentangled from the 

impact of the state and local reform efforts that the program is designed to support. Title I's 

predecessor, the Chapter 1 program, was built around a framework of supplementary services for targeted 

students that could be evaluated by comparing Chapter 1 participants to a control group of nonparticipants. In contrast, Title I, as reauthorized in 1994, was designed to work systemically and in 

tandem with state and local efforts to improve the overall quality of instruction. Nearly two-thirds of 

Title I funds are now used for schoolwide programs rather than being restricted to services for targeted 

students. The great extent to which there is intermingling of Title I resources with state and local 

resources, combined with the new focus on supporting state and local standards-based reform, make it 

impossible to measure the unique and separate impact of Title I dollars on student achievement, 

particularly in schoolwide programs. 

However, we can examine overall trends in student achievementparticularly for students in the 

highest-poverty schools and for low-performing students, those whom Title I is primarily intended 

to benefitin order to examine the combined impact of state and local reforms, Title I support, and other 

school improvement efforts on student performance. The highest-poverty schools are defined as those 

where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Low-performing 

students are defined as those scoring at the 25th percentile or the 10th percentile of student achievement. 

This report examines trends in student performance using both state assessment data and the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Neither of these measures alone can provide 

a definitive answer to questions about the impact of standards-based reform on student 

achievement. 

Student achievement on state assessments represents the primary criterion that the Title I legislation 

applies to measure school success, but these data cannot be simply aggregated across states to examine 

national trends or used to make comparisons among states. State assessments are intended to provide 

information on student progress toward meeting state content and performance standards. However, 

because each state has developed its own standards and assessments, there is little comparability across 

states in the content and rigor of these standards and assessments. In addition, because state assessments 

were not required to be in place until the 2000-01 school year, most states do not yet have the trend data 

needed to assess student progress. 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress provides a high-quality assessment that is consistent 

across states, making the data useful for examining national trends in student achievement. However, the 

NAEP is not aligned with individual state content and performance standards, so it does not necessarily 

measure what students are expected to learn in their states. 

NAEP was revised in the early 1990s, with the result that there are now two NAEP assessments: the Main 

NAEP and the Trend NAEP. The Main NAEP was created to provide an assessment that is more 

consistent with current content focuses and testing approaches (such as a reduced emphasis on multiple 

choice items and a greater emphasis on open-ended and extended response items); Main NAEP data are 

available beginning in 1990 for mathematics and 1992 for reading. The Trend NAEP continues the 

previous NAEP assessment in order to track long-term trends since the early 1970s; Trend NAEP data 

disaggregated by school poverty level is available from 1988 to the present (because NAEP did not 

collect school poverty information prior to 1988). This report examines short-term trends on the Main 

NAEP as well as longer-term trends on the Trend NAEP. 
High Standards for All Students 14

One of the features of the Main NAEP is that it defines "Basic," "Proficient," and "Advanced" levels of 

achievement. In this regard, the Main NAEP is consistent with the new state assessments which also 

establish various proficiency levels (as required under Title I law). However, specific proficiency levels 

are defined differently across states and are also inconsistent between NAEP and state assessments, 

and there is disagreement over what level of student performance should be considered "basic" or 

"proficient." Indeed, the percentage of students scoring at the "proficient" level on state assessments 

varies widely across states—differences which do not necessarily reflect actual differences in student 

achievement. Comparing the percentage of students achieving at or above the "proficient" level on state 

assessments and NAEP shows that the variation across states is much greater for state assessments than it 

is for NAEP. For example, in Tennessee the percentage of students at or above the proficient level in 

reading in 1998 is about the same on both the state assessment and NAEP (26 percent and 25 percent, 

respectively), while in Texas the percentage is almost three times higher on the state assessment than on 

the NAEP (89 percent vs. 29 percent). 

Exhibit reads: In Colorado, the percentage of fourth-grade students who scored at or above 

the "proficient" level on the state reading assessment in 1997-98 (34 percent) was lower 

than the percent scoring at the proficient level on the Main NAEP reading assessment. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP Reading (1998); Council of Chief State School 

Officers and U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Education 

Indicators with a Focus on Title I: 2000 (draft). 

Exhibit 7

Percentage of 4th-Grade Students

Achieving At or Above the “Proficient” Level in Reading

on NAEP and on State Assessments, 1998

33%

89%

26%

56%

33%

51%

57%

28%

29%

25%

22%

29%

23%

34%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Utah

Texas

Tennessee

New Mexico

Kentucky

Florida

Colorado

NAEP

State Assessment 
High Standards for All Students 15

Student Performance on State Assessments 

Three-year trends reported by nine states show progress in the percentage of students in the 

highest-poverty schools meeting state standards for proficiency in reading and mathematics.

Because states have been changing their assessment systems to comply with the requirements in the 1994 

reauthorization, only nine states can currently provide three-year trend data on students in high-poverty 

schools. In reading, the proportion of elementary school students (primarily fourth-graders) in the 

highest-poverty schools who performed at or above the state's proficient level increased in seven of the 

nine states (Exhibit 8). In mathematics, achievement improved for middle school students (primarily 

eighth-graders) in seven of the nine states as well. In six states, students in the highest-poverty schools 

made progress in both subjects.25

Exhibit 8 

Trends in Student Achievement on State Assessments in Nine States: 

Proportion of Students in the Highest-Poverty Schools Performing At or Above State Proficient Levels

Reading (Grade 3 or 4) ** Mathematics (Grade 6, 7 or 8) **

State 1996-97*

 1998-99* Change 1996-97* 1998-99* Change 

Alabama* 58 72 +14 64 63 -1 

Connecticut 13 20 +7 11 25 +14 

Kansas 39 37 -2 12 22 +10 

Kentucky* 27 24 -3 20 19 -1 

Maryland 10 16 +6 8 10 +2 

Michigan 35 38 +3 29 31 +2 

North 

Carolina 

49 54 +5 46 63 +17 

Ohio* 19 38 +19 12 14 +2 

Texas 68 81 +13 57 79 +22 

TOTAL 7 INCREASED 

2 DECREASED 

 7 INCREASED 

2 DECREASED 

* Three-year trends are reported for the most recent period available—either the 1996-97 through 1998-99 

school years (CT, KS, MD, MI, NC, and TX) or the 1995-96 through 1997-98 school years (AL, KY, and OH). 

** At the elementary level, two states reported achievement data for grade 3 (KS and MS) and the remaining 

states reported data for grade 4; at the middle-school level, one state reported data for grade 6 (OH), two states 

reported data for grade 7 (KS and MI), and the remaining states reported data for grade 8.

Exhibit reads: In Connecticut, the percentage of fourth-grade students in high-poverty schools who scored 

at or above the proficient level on the state reading assessment rose by 7 percentage points over the most 

recent three-year period available, from 13 percent in 1996-97 to 20 percent in 1998-99. 

Source: Council of Chief State School Officers and U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, 

State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I: 2000 (draft).
High Standards for All Students 16

In some of these states the gains appear substantial. In reading, the proportion of students in the 

highest-poverty schools who performed at or above the proficient level increased by 6 to 19 percentage 

points in five of the nine states. In mathematics, four states show the proportion of these students who 

were at or above the proficient level increasing by 10 to 22 percentage points over the two-year period. 

State assessment results also indicate some progress in narrowing the achievement gap between 

high- and low-poverty schools. In reading, the achievement gap for elementary students declined by 

1 to 10 percentage points in six of the nine states (Exhibit 9). In mathematics, the achievement gap for 

middle school students declined by 2 to 11 percentage points in six of the states. Declines in the 

achievement gap between high- and low-poverty schools tended to be smaller than the achievement gains 

for high-poverty schools, because low-poverty schools also tended to show achievement gains. 

Exhibit 9 

Change in the Achievement Gap: 

Difference Between the Highest-Poverty and Low-Poverty Schools in the Proportion of Students 

Who Performed At or Above Proficient Levels on State Assessments in Nine States 

Gap in Reading (Grade 3 or 4) ** Gap in Mathematics (Grade 6, 7 or 8) **

State 1996-97*

 1998-99* Change 1996-97* 1998-99* Change 

Alabama* 26 20 -6 23 24 +1 

Connecticut 52 46 -6 50 41 -9 

Kansas 28 38 +10 37 32 -5 

Kentucky* 13 19 +6 15 22 +7 

Maryland 40 36 -4 55 51 -4 

Michigan 21 30 +9 28 40 +12 

North 

Carolina 

28 27 -1 31 20 -11 

Ohio* 36 26 -10 42 40 -2 

Texas 20 15 -5 24 14 -10 

TOTAL 6 DECREASED 

3 INCREASED 

 6 DECREASED 

3 INCREASED 

* Three-year trends are reported for the most recent period available—either the 1996-97 through 1998-99 

school years (CT, KS, MD, MI, NC, and TX) or the 1995-96 through 1997-98 school years (AL, KY, and OH).

** At the elementary level, two states reported achievement data for grade 3 (KS and MS) and the remaining 

states reported data for grade 4; at the middle-school level, one state reported data for grade 6 (OH), two states 

reported data for grade 7 (KS and MI), and the remaining states reported data for grade 8.

Exhibit reads: In Connecticut, the achievement gap between the highest-poverty schools and low-poverty 

schools—as measured by the percentage of fourth-grade students who scored at or above the proficient 

level on the state reading assessment—narrowed by 6 percentage points over the most recent three-year 

period available, from a 52-point gap in 1996-97 to a 46-point gap in 1998-99. 

Source: Council of Chief State School Officers and U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, 

State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I: 2000 (draft).
High Standards for All Students 17

Student Performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

In contrast to the recent state assessment data, longer-term trends in NAEP scores depict a 

widening achievement gap between high- and low-poverty schools from the late 1980s to 1999. 

In reading, 9-year-olds' average scores on the Trend NAEP declined slightly (by 4 points) in the highestpoverty schools, while those in low-poverty schools increased steadily (a 9-point gain) (Exhibit 10). In 

mathematics, the average score for 9-year-olds increased slightly (by 4 points) in the highest-poverty 

schools, but increased more (13 points) in low-poverty schools (Exhibit 11). Overall, the reading 

achievement gap between the highest-poverty and low-poverty schools increased from a 27-point gap in 

1988 to a 40-point gap in 1999. Similarly, the mathematics achievement gap increased from a 20-point 

gap in 1986 to a 29-point gap in 1999. 

However, Trend NAEP scores for the highest-poverty schools have risen since 1992 in both reading 

and mathematics. Reading scores for 9-year-olds rose by 6 points from 1992 to 1999, after having 

declined by 10 points from 1988 to 1992. In math, scores for 9-year-olds rose by 4 points from 1992 to 

1999. The achievement gap between the highest-poverty and low-poverty schools held steady during this 

period in both subjects. 

The achievement gap between high- and low-poverty schools is substantial, equal to several grade 

levels. A 10-point difference in NAEP scale scores can be considered roughly equivalent to one grade 

level.iv Therefore, the 40-point gap in average reading scores between 9-year-olds in the highest-poverty 

and low-poverty schools could be considered approximately equal to a difference of four grade levels in 

student performance. Similarly, the 29-point gap in average math scores between 9-year-olds in the 

highest-poverty and low-poverty schools could be considered approximately equal to a difference of three 

grade levels in student performance. 

Among the lowest-achieving students, NAEP reading performance as measured by the Main NAEP 

shows no significant change during the 1990s. Among fourth-graders, students scoring at the 25th 

percentile had the same average score in 1998 as in 1992. The average score for students at the 25th 

percentile increased by 4 points for eighth-graders and declined by 2 points for 12th-graders. Across all 

three grade levels, scores declined between 1992 and 1994 and then rose from 1994 to 1998 (Exhibit 12). 

However, math results for low-achieving students show substantial gains in average scores from 

1990 to 1996. Among fourth-graders, NAEP scores for students at the 25th percentile rose by 10 points, 

from 192 in 1990 to 202 in 1996. Among older students, scores for students at the 25th percentile rose by 

10 points for eighth-graders and by 12 points for 12th-graders (Exhibit 13). 

The reasons for the divergent patterns in student performance as measured by state assessments 

and the two NAEP assessments are unclear. The state and NAEP tests measure different time periods, 

cover a small number of states in the case of the state assessments, and reflect different expectations about 

specific content knowledge and performance levels. Further research is needed to determine the most 

appropriate ways to measure national trends in student performance for an educational system based on 

decentralized and diverse standards governing what students in America are expected to know and be able 

to do. 

 

iv This is a rough metric, based on the observed differences in average NAEP scores between the grade levels 

tested. Average scores for eighth-grade students were about 46 to 48 points higher than the averages for fourthgrade students, based on the most recent Main NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics. Average scores for 

12th-grade students were 28 to 33 points higher than the average for eighth-grade students. Similar patterns can be 

seen on the Trend NAEP by comparing 13-year-olds to 9-year-olds and 17-year-olds to 13-year-olds. 
High Standards for All Students 18

Exhibit reads: The average NAEP reading score for 9-year-old students in the 

highest-poverty schools declined from 190 in 1988 to 186 in 1999. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Assessment of Educational Progress, Trend NAEP Reading, unpublished tabulations, 2000. 

Exhibit reads: The average NAEP math score for 9-year-old students in the 

highest-poverty schools rose from 208 in 1986 to 212 in 1999. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Assessment of Educational Progress, Trend NAEP Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 2000. 

Exhibit 10

Reading Performance on the Trend NAEP,

by School Poverty Level, 1988 to 1999:

Average Scale Scores of 9-Year-Old Public School Students

226

217 221 220 220 224

209 210 210 211 209 209

188 186 184

190 189

180

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999

NAEP Mean Scale Scores

Highest-poverty schools = 76% to 100% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Low-poverty schools = 0% to 25% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Scale scores are 0-500.

Low-Poverty Schools

All Schools

Highest-Poverty Schools

Exhibit 11

Mathematics Performance on the Trend NAEP,

by School Poverty Level, 1986 to 1999:

Average Scale Scores of 9-Year-Old Public School Students

241

228

237 236 239 238

230 231 228 229 230

219

212 217 215 208 213 208

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999

NAEP Mean Scale Scores

Highest-poverty schools = 76% to 100% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Low-poverty schools = 0% to 25% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Scale scores are 0-500.

Low-Poverty Schools

All Schools

Highest-Poverty Schools
High Standards for All Students 19

 

Exhibit reads: The average NAEP reading score of fourth graders performing at the 

lowest 25th percentile was 192 in 1998, the same as in 1992 but higher than in 1994. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP Reading, unpublished tabulations, 2000. 

Exhibit reads: The average NAEP math score of fourth graders performing at the 

lowest 25th percentile was 202 in 1996, a 10-point increase over 1990. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 2000. 

Exhibit 12

Reading Performance on the Main NAEP

for Low-Achieving Students, 1992 to 1998:

Average Scale Scores of Public School Students at the 25th Percentile

268 263 266

239

235 234

192 187 192

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

1992 1994 1998

NAEP Mean Scale Scores

Scale scores are 0-500.

8th-Grade

4th-Grade

12th-Grade

Exhibit 13

Mathematics Performance on the Main NAEP

for Low-Achieving Students, 1990 to 1996:

Average Scale Scores of Public School Students at the 25th Percentile

269 274

281

247 242

237

192 197 202

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

1990 1992 1996

NAEP Mean Scale Scores

Scale scores are 0-500.

8th-Grade

4th-Grade

12th-Grade
High Standards for All Students 20

IV. Implementation of Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Systems 

A central feature of Title I, as revised in the 1994 reauthorization, is its emphasis on promoting high 

expectations for all students, schools, and districts. To support this goal, the Title I law requires states to 

develop or adopt challenging content and performance standards, assessments that are aligned with the 

state standards, and accountability systems to ensure that schools and districts are enabling their students 

to meet the state standards. 

These Title I provisions were intended to support the standards-based reforms already being implemented 

in many states and localities and to extend high educational expectations to students served by Title I. 

states, districts, and schools were called on to break with past practice by replacing minimum standards 

for some children with challenging standards for all. Rather than a separate Title I system of standards 

and assessments, the standards and assessments used for Title I are to be the same as those developed by 

the State and local districts for all children. Indeed, the Title I program's support for establishing systems 

of standards and assessments is intended, in the words of the statute, “to enable schools to provide 

opportunities for children served to acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging state 

content standards and to meet the challenging state performance standards developed for all children.” 

In addition, Title I required that states implement accountability systems for measuring district and school 

performance, identifying those in need of improvement, and assisting and intervening as necessary to turn 

around low-performing schools and districts. 

Development of State Content and Performance Standards 

By the 1997-98 school year, each state was to have adopted challenging content standards in reading and 

math that specify what all children are expected to know and be able to do, and challenging performance 

standards for students’ mastery of the content standards. Performance standards are to include at least 

three levels of attainment—two high performance levels (proficient and advanced), as well as a partiallyproficient level—that can be used to determine how well children are learning the material in the state 

content standards. 

Nearly all states now have content standards in place, but progress has been considerably slower in 

developing performance standards. As of January 2001, 51 states (including the District of Columbia 

and Puerto Ricov) had met the requirement for developing content standards in the core subjects of 

reading and math (Exhibit 14). The remaining state (Iowa) has submitted evidence of its content 

standards, which is currently being reviewed. 

In contrast, only 28 states had approved performance standards by January 2001 (Exhibit 14). 

The remaining states’ performance standards are being reviewed as part of the U.S. Department of 

Education’s review of state assessment systems. The development of performance standards is so closely 

related to the development of final assessments that many states have not met the timeline set forth in the 

statute. 

External peer reviewers recommend approval of a state’s performance standards based on the degree of 

broad-based involvement in their development, whether or not the performance standards are approved at 

the state level, and whether the process used to develop the standards leads to challenging and rigorous 

standards for all students.

 

v Sec. 14101(27) of ESEA defines the term "state" to include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
High Standards for All Students 21

Exhibit reads: By January 2001, 51 states had submitted evidence that content 

standards were in place, while 28 states had performance standards in place. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished analysis of state plans required under 

Sec. 1111; baseline (1994) data obtained from Council of Chief State School Officers, 

Status Report: State Systemic Education Improvements (1995). 

Variability in the rigor of standards is a concern, given the lack of evidence that states have 

benchmarked standards against common criteria. National attention to the development of high 

standards for all children has resulted in independent reviews and comparisons of the rigor and quality of 

content standards. 

 The Council for Basic Education (CBE) examined the “rigor” of state standards for reading and 

mathematics by comparing them with the content covered in the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress, the standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and 

CBE's own "Standards of Excellence in Education." CBE found that state mathematics standards 

tended to be more rigorous than English language arts standards. In English/language arts, CBE 

found that of the 42 states they evaluated, seven states had very rigorous standards, 21 states had 

rigorous standards, and 14 states had standards that were not rigorous. In mathematics, CBE found 

that of the 43 states they evaluated, 16 states had very rigorous standards, 24 states had rigorous 

standards, and three states had standards that were not rigorous.26

 The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has judged the “quality” of state standards annually for 

the past five years, based on whether content standards were clear and specific enough to provide the 

basis for a common core curriculum. In a 1999 report, the AFT concluded that state standards were 

more likely to meet the AFT criteria in mathematics and science than in English and social studies. 

State standards met the AFT criteria at all three grade levels (elementary, middle, and high school) in 

41 states for math, 30 states for science, 21 states for English, and 6 states in social studies. In 

English, AFT found that 13 states failed to provide any guidance on the basic knowledge and skills 

students needed to learn at the elementary level to develop into proficient readers. AFT also noted 

that social studies standards were particularly weak across the states and tended to lack specific 

references to U.S. and/or world history.27

Exhibit 14

States with Content and Performance Standards

in Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts

19

42

50 50 51

0

8

22

25

28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1994 1997 1998 1999 2000

Content Standards Performance Standards

Number of States
High Standards for All Students 22

 The Fordham Foundation reviewed state content standards in 1999 for clarity, adequacy of content, 

mathematical reasoning, and other characteristics. Fordham was the most critical of the three 

independent reviewers, concluding that only five states combined solid standards with strong 

accountability. Fordham found that 30 states had a combination of mediocre to poor (or no) standards 

and weak accountability, while 12 states based high-stakes accountability systems upon mediocre or 

inferior standards.28

The three groups varied in the grades they assigned to standards for individual states, which 

highlights the difficulty in assessing the quality of standards. Some states, such as Arizona, 

California, New Hampshire and Virginia received high marks in both mathematics and English/language 

arts by both CBE and AFT, but most states received different grades across subject areas and reviewers. 

These differences are partly due to the differing criteria used by the three groups and the subjectivity 

inherent in the review process. In addition, grades were given to state content standards at different times 

in their development, and at different levels of detail.29 Grades given by outside groups should be 

carefully considered because states have often intentionally developed broadly worded standards to allow 

significant local discretion in how they are applied.30

Development of State Assessment Systems

By the 2000-01 school year, states were required under Title I to adopt or develop student assessments 

that measure student performance in relation to the state's content and performance standards and to use 

the assessments as the primary means of evaluating the performance of Title I schools and districts. State 

assessments are to measure student proficiency in academic subjects in which the state has adopted 

content and performance standards (at a minimum, reading/language arts and mathematics) and for at 

least three grade levels (within grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12). Assessments must be aligned 

with the state content and performance standards, use multiple measures that assess higher order thinking 

skills, and meet professional standards for technical quality. States are to provide for the participation of 

all students in the grades being assessed, including students with limited English proficiency and students 

with disabilities, with reasonable adaptations and accommodations. Finally, state assessment systems 

must enable results to be disaggregated by gender and racial/ethnic group and for students with limited 

English proficiency, migrant students, students with disabilities vs. students without disabilities, and 

economically disadvantaged students vs. non-economically disadvantaged students. 

The U.S. Department of Education is currently reviewing states' final assessment systems, using a peer 

review process involving experts in standards, assessments, and Title I. The peer review process does not 

directly examine a state’s assessment instruments. Rather, peer reviewers examine evidence compiled 

and submitted by each state that is intended to show that its assessment system meets Title I requirements. 

Peer reviewers provide feedback to help states strengthen their assessment systems, and they advise the 

Department on the degree to which a state assessment system meets the requirements. 

While some systems have been granted full approval, many still require improvement. If certain 

conditions of the law have not been met but a state can demonstrate how it will meet them by their 

2000-01 test administration, the Department may give a state a conditional approval. Some states receive 

a timeline waiver, allowing a state extra time if the Department determines that they have made 

significant progress but they are unable to finalize their systems by the 2000-01 test administration. 

In cases where the state assessment system will not be completed in a timely manner, significant 

requirements have not been met, and there is no clear plan underway for meeting the requirements, a state 

may be required to enter into a compliance agreement with the Department that outlines how the state will 

make the changes necessary to comply with the law. 
High Standards for All Students 23

As of mid-January 2001, the Department had reviewed assessment systems for all of the states and had 

made decisions for 34 states; the remaining decisions are expected to be completed in spring 2001. Of the 

34 states with decisions, 11 states received full approval, six states received conditional approval, 14 

states received a timeline waiver, and three states entered into a compliance agreement (Exhibit 15). 

Exhibit 15 

Status of State Final Assessment Systems

 Number of States States 

Status 

Full Approval 11 states Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming 

Conditional Approval 6 states Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Washington 

Timeline Waiver 14 states Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, 

Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota 

Compliance Agreement 3 states California, West Virginia, Wisconsin 

Under Review 18 states Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, D.C., Florida, Idaho, 

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Utah 

Issues Underlying Timeline Waivers and Compliance Agreements 

Complete Assessment System 

(including reading and math at 

three grade levels, aligned with 

content and performance standards) 

13 states California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nebraska, 

Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin 

Inclusion of Students with Limited 

English Proficiency (LEP) 

13 states California, Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, 

New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, 

South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin 

Inclusion of Students with 

Disabilities 

10 states California, Connecticut, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, 

Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin 

Disaggregated Reporting 16 states California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, 

Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin 

Note: Information is as of January 19, 2001; the status of many states' assessment systems is likely to change shortly as 

Department reviews are currently in progress. 

A number of states have not yet been able to put in place complete assessment systems that meet all 

of the requirements of the Title I law. Some do not have assessments that meet the Title I requirements 

in both reading and math at all three required grade levels; a high school test is the most common test that 

is missing. Some states are using assessments that are not aligned with their content and performance 

standards, while others do not have performance standards in place. Some states are missing one 

component in order to complete their assessment system, while others have substantial work left to do. 

Inclusion of special populations has been a challenge for states in developing their assessment 

systems. Thirteen states have received timeline waivers or compliance agreements because they have not 

yet met the Title I requirements for including LEP students in their assessment and accountability 
High Standards for All Students 24

systems; 10 states had not met the same requirement for students with disabilities. Indeed, few states met 

the inclusion requirements when they initially submitted their assessment systems for review, but some 

states were able to change their inclusion policies or institute better monitoring of local practices in 

response to concerns raised during the peer review process. Sixteen states are not able to disaggregate 

assessment data for all of the required categories of students; states most frequently have difficulty 

disaggregating data for students without disabilities and non-economically disadvantaged students. 

The Role of Title I in Holding Schools Accountable for Performance and Supporting 

Improvement Efforts

Title I, as reauthorized in 1994, is designed to ensure greater school and district accountability for high 

performance of their students. Linking Title I accountability to state standards and assessments that apply 

to all children in a state is a key strategy for promoting high expectations for all children and a culture of 

accountability and improvement. Unlike the earlier Chapter 1 law, accountability under Title I focuses on 

whether schools receiving Title I funds are making adequate progress toward enabling all of their students 

to meet the state standards, rather than focusing solely on the Title I program and the yearly performance 

gains of children receiving specific Title I services. 

Under the Title I accountability provisions, states were called upon to establish a framework for 

rewarding successful schools and districts, identifying schools and districts in need of improvement, 

and taking corrective actions in those schools and districts that continuously fail to make adequate 

progress. The performance of districts and schools under Title I is to be publicly reported and widely 

shared. Ultimately, the most effective accountability strategy relies on those closest to children, that is, 

parents, teachers, and principals, having sufficient information to understand how their children are 

performing in relation to state standards, and assuming the responsibility to intervene on an ongoing basis 

to improve teaching and learning. 

Identifying schools in need of improvement is a key feature of the Title I accountability provisions. 

Each state is required to develop criteria for determining a standard of adequate yearly progress for 

districts and schools participating in Title I based on the state assessment and other measures.vi Title I 

schools and districts that fail to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years are to be 

identified as in need of improvement, and states and districts are expected to provide technical assistance 

to help them improve. Those schools and districts that continue to be low-performing for three years after 

being identified for improvement are subject to corrective actions. The improvement designation can be 

removed for schools that meet adequate yearly progress targets for two of the three years following the 

initial designation. 

Full implementation of the Title I accountability provisions was required by the 2000-01 school year, 

when final assessments were to be in place. In the interim, schools were to be identified for improvement 

based on transitional measures of progress adopted by the state and approved by the U.S. Department of 

Education. As of December 2000, 11 states had submitted their accountability systems for peer review 

under Ed-Flex. The Department expects to begin reviewing accountability systems for the remaining 

states in spring 2001. 

 

vi States are to define adequate yearly progress in a manner that: (a) results in continuous and substantial yearly 

improvement of each Title I school and district sufficient to achieve the goal of all children served under Title I, 

particularly economically disadvantaged and limited-English proficient children, meeting the state’s proficient and 

advanced levels of performance; (b) is sufficiently rigorous to achieve that goal within an appropriate time frame; 

and (c) links progress primarily to performance on the state’s final assessment while permitting progress to be 

established in part through the use of other measures such as dropout, retention, and attendance rates.
High Standards for All Students 25

Evaluating the implementation of these accountability systems is a formidable challenge. The Title I 

accountability requirements are ambitious, and introducing consequences for school performance is a 

high-stakes endeavor. States face numerous political, technical, and resource issues in devising reliable 

ways to measure student and school performance, identifying schools in need of improvement, and 

assisting and intervening to improve low-performing schools. 

Although the intent of Title I was to create single accountability systems that would treat all schools 

in a state equally and hold all students and schools to the same standards for performance, many 

states have dual accountability systems. In many cases, states’ own accountability systems and the 

systems created to meet the requirements of Title I operate separately and are only somewhat overlapping. 

About half (28) of the states operate dual systems of accountability in which either: 1) Title I and nonTitle I schools are held accountable using different sets of indicators and/or performance standards, or 

2) only Title I schools are held accountable by the state or district outside of the performance reporting 

structure. In some cases, a dual accountability system exists because the Title I accountability 

requirements are more rigorous than those the state applies for other schools. Research shows that state 

and local accountability systems tend to be better understood by educators and have more immediate 

consequences for schools and districts. A lack of clarity and specific consequences for Title I schools that 

fail to improve during the transitional period may weaken the potential impact of Title I accountability 

provisions.31

States are required to report annually on the number of schools identified for improvement under 

Title I; however, it is important to recognize that these data (shown in Exhibit 16) do not provide a 

consistent measure of the number of low-performing schools that can be used to make meaningful 

comparisons across states or over time, for two reasons: 

 First, differences in how states define and measure "low-performing schools" lead to substantial 

differences across states in the numbers and percentages of schools identified for improvement. In 

1998-1999, eight states identified 5 percent or fewer of their Title I schools in need of improvement, 

while seven states identified a majority of their Title I schools. However, these differences in 

percentages of schools identified do not necessarily mean that individual states are doing “better” or 

“worse” than others. Because of variations in state policy, schools with comparable levels of student 

performance could easily be identified as in need of improvement in one state, but not in another.vii 

Indeed, the wide variation in state definitions of adequate yearly progress and state accountability 

systems is a direct result of the flexibility that was built into the Title I legislation. 

 In addition, state systems for identifying schools for improvement continue to be in transition, as 

illustrated by substantial changes in the numbers of these identified schools over time. In many 

states, the number of schools that states reported as identified for improvement changed considerably 

over the one-year period from 1997-98 to 1998-99. Eighteen states reported an increase of more than 

10 percent, while 16 states reported a decrease of more than 10 percent. In 16 states, the increase or 

decrease was greater than 50 percent. Reasons for these changes vary, but most can be accounted for 

by changes in the measures states use to identify which schools are low-performing. 

 

vii State policies for identifying schools in need of improvement differ in terms of the specific student outcomes 

measured, the time period for achieving proficiency targets, and the use of absolute versus moving targets. Some 

states measure student performance solely with a test, while others include attendance and other non-cognitive 

measures. Some states expect all students to reach proficiency over an extended time, while others set lower, 

shorter-term goals for their schools. Some states define adequate school progress as meeting an absolute 

performance goal, while others focus on movement towards a specified target.
High Standards for All Students 26

Exhibit 16 

Schools Identified as in Need of Improvement Under Title I, by State, 1996-97 through 1998-99 

# of Schools Identified for Improvement 

Total Number of 

Title I Schools 

% of Title I Schools 

State in Improvement 

1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 

Alabama 248 26 60 812 7% 

Alaska 24 11 8 361 2% 

Arizona 42 107 

Arkansas 101 53 499 783 64% 

California 330 1307 1307 3865 34% 

Colorado 15 13 91 597 15% 

Connecticut 95 102 26 422 6% 

Delaware 29 39 32 101 32% 

D.C. 82 60 100 125 80% 

Florida 29 3 73 977 7% 

Georgia 236 537 603 1020 59% 

Hawaii 37 77 91 138 66% 

Idaho 45 44 14 397 4% 

Illinois 93 62 727 2259 32% 

Indiana 242 257 98 826 12% 

Iowa 28 28 148 878 17% 

Kansas 147 144 154 687 22% 

Kentucky 356 634 615 872 71% 

Louisiana 30 162 162 873 19% 

Maine 127 307 

Maryland 59 31 18 300 6% 

Massachusetts 97 422 

Michigan 641 1048 1523 2011 76% 

Minnesota 98 103 

Mississippi 129 108 100 680 15% 

Missouri 551 551 

Montana 53 63 62 619 10% 

Nebraska 102 80 204 496 41% 

Nevada 64 62 35 98 36% 

New Hampshire 1 2 4 185 2% 

New Jersey 185 

New Mexico 394 182 149 450 33% 

New York 410 410 

North Carolina 74 76 46 1030 4% 

North Dakota 16 16 20 285 7% 

Ohio 680 450 508 2020 25% 

Oklahoma 37 81 31 1146 3% 

Oregon 29 9 

Pennsylvania 215 204 215 1731 12% 

Rhode Island 23 1 34 136 25% 

South Carolina 88 97 75 499 15% 

South Dakota 10 8 0 396 0% 

Tennessee 118 118 17 770 2% 

Texas 40 55 61 4141 1% 

Utah 7 20 20 232 9% 

Vermont 14 10 

Virginia 152 152 150 741 20% 

Washington 176 172 71 853 8% 

West Virginia 60 146 130 456 29% 

Wisconsin 139 211 166 1086 15% 

Wyoming 23 36 31 144 22% 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 160 148 147 173 85% 

Puerto Rico 435 150 200 1406 14% 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, 1996-97 and 1997-98 Title I State Performance Reports and unpublished 

preliminary tabulations of data reported under 1998-99 State Consolidated Performance Reports. 
High Standards for All Students 27

The missing data evident in Exhibit 16 are indicative of problems with the timeliness and accuracy 

of state-reported data on the number of schools identified for improvement and other basic 

program information. States are required to submit annual performance reports describing basic 

program elements such as students served by the program, the number of schoolwide programs vs. 

targeted assistance programs, and the number of schools and districts identified for improvement. These 

data are often submitted well after the due date and are often incomplete. As of mid-January 2001, 

one-fifth of the states had not yet submitted data on the number of schools that were identified for 

improvement in 1998-99, more than 18 months after the end of that school year and over a year after the 

reports were due. In addition, state performance reports frequently contain numerous errors that are 

corrected only after repeated calls to the states, if at all. 

A related concern is that districts and schools often do not have a consistent understanding about 

whether a school has been identified as in need of improvement. A recent survey found that in 

41 percent of schools that districts indicated had been identified for improvement under Title I, the 

principals reported that they had not been identified. Conversely, a number of schools reported that they 

had been identified for improvement although the district had not listed them as having this status. 

Districts and schools also frequently disagreed about the number of years that a school had been identified 

for improvement. Clear communication and accurate reporting are essential ingredients for an effective 

accountability system, and the above data suggest that there is need for considerable improvement in this 

area. 

States and districts often lack the capacity to provide additional support for all of their lowperforming schools. Among schools that indicated that they had been identified as in need of 

improvement in 1999-2000, less than half (40 percent) reported that they had received additional 

professional development or other assistance as a result of being identified—a decline from 47 percent in 

1998-99.32 This decline is perhaps unsurprising, given the large increases in many states in the numbers 

of schools identified; there is likely to be some time lag between identification for improvement and the 

actual provision of support to help schools improve. 

Indeed, the longer a school has been in "school improvement" status, the more likely it is to have received 

additional assistance; 50 percent of schools that had been identified for three years or more reported 

receiving assistance, compared with 30 percent of schools that had been identified for only one year. 33 

However, it is troubling that even after three years, half of the schools identified as in need of 

improvement reported that they had not received any additional support as a result. 

Limited capacity to serve identified schools may influence state policies about thresholds for determining 

whether schools are "in need of improvement." Policymakers may determine that there is no point in 

identifying a large proportion of their schools as low-performing if they only have the capacity to provide 

meaningful assistance to a much smaller number. 

Nevertheless, research findings suggest that state and Title I accountability requirements are 

helping states, districts, and schools to focus on improving school quality and performance. About 

three-quarters of schools identified in need of improvement reported that they implemented additional 

strategies, including more family and community involvement, revising or developing a school plan, 

more professional development, closer supervision of school decisions, and adopting a new, 

comprehensive model program.34 Fifty percent of small poor districts and 47 percent of large poor 

districts reported that Title I is driving reform in their districts as a whole to a great extent, compared with 

14 percent of districts nationally.35 Research on accountability in 14 districts found that a remarkably 

high level of attention was being paid to using data to inform decision-making; although outcome data 

was required for school improvement planning, many districts were going beyond requirements of the law 
High Standards for All Students 28

to use performance data to devise strategies for staff development and curriculum improvement that 

address gaps in performance.36

The Impact of Standards-Based Reform on Teacher Practices and Student Performance 

Because the standards-based reform movement generally and the implementation of related Title I 

provisions are still in the initial stages of implementation, it is too early to draw definitive conclusions 

about the impact of standards, assessments, and accountability systems on school and student 

performance. Although six years have passed since the 1994 reauthorization, Congress recognized that 

considerable time would be needed for states, districts, and schools to complete the challenging task of 

developing and implementing standards and aligned assessment and accountability systems, and the final 

deadline for implementation was not until the current school year (2000-01). Moreover, once the initial 

task of establishing these systems is completed, continued attention needs to be devoted to moving those 

standards to the classroom, so that teachers' instruction is aligned with the standards and provides students 

with the opportunity to master the content knowledge that is embodied in the standards and assessments. 

Despite the transitional nature of current implementation of standards-based reform, a number of research 

efforts have explored the impact of these evolving policies on teacher practices and student performance: 

 In a study of classroom practices in mathematics and science in 11 states, most teachers surveyed 

reported that state frameworks and standards and national standards were strong positive influences 

on their curriculum. Teachers were less positive about the influence of state assessments and a 

significant portion reported a negative influence; however, in schools identified as having high 

involvement in their state's initiative for improving math or science education, teachers responded 

more positively about the influence of state tests. Analysis of teacher reports and state assessment 

items indicated that the tests covered a narrower range of expectations for students than did reported 

instruction, with tests focusing more on memorization, facts, and performing procedures and less on 

solving novel problems and applying skills and concepts. Although instruction covered most of the 

recommended standards, the level of expectations and the depth of coverage varied widely among 

schools and classes.37 

 Another study found that in 21 districts implementing Urban Systemic Initiatives supported by the 

National Science Foundation (NSF), there was a substantial increase in enrollment and completion of 

gatekeeping mathematics and science courses over a five-year period, particularly among minority 

students. For example, the number of students taking Algebra I or above in eighth grade increased by 

76 percent across the sites. In all five districts that were able to report six years of consistent 

assessment data, state assessments showed improved student performance in both mathematics and 

science.38 Similarly, a summary of research on the effects of NSF State Systemic Initiatives found 

that half of the states showed impacts on classroom practice, and that achievement gains were highest 

in states with intensive professional development and focus on curriculum and materials.39

 The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP) found mixed results when 

comparing teacher reports of the visibility of standards and assessments in a sample of 71 highpoverty schools with the performance of their students in reading and mathematics. Teachers who 

said that they were highly familiar with the standards and assessments and that they believed their 

curriculum reflected these policies had students who scored higher on initial tests of reading and math 

in third grade, compared with other students in the sample. However, when looking at student test 

score gains from third grade to fifth grade, there was no significant difference in students' reading 

performance between schools whose teachers reported high visibility of standards and assessments 

and those who reported less visibility of standards and assessments; in mathematics, students had 
High Standards for All Students 29

lesser gains over the two-year period in schools where standards and assessments had the highest 

reported visibility.40

 An analysis of state data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) concluded 

that in the two states that posted the largest average student achievement gains from 1990 to 1997 

(North Carolina and Texas), "the most plausible explanation for the test score gains" were the 

standards-based reform policies being pursued by each state. These policies included "creating an 

aligned system of standards, curriculum, and assessments; holding schools accountable for 

improvement by all students; and critical support from business in developing, implementing, and 

sustaining these changes over time."41

As standards-based reform policies continue to become more fully implemented, future research will need 

to examine more closely the relationship between the quality of standards and assessments, the degree to 

which these policies are reflected in school and classroom practices, and their impact on student 

achievement. 
High Standards for All Students 30

V. Strategies for Improving Teaching and Learning 

There is a growing body of knowledge about the characteristics of effective schools. Indeed, many highpoverty schools are able to bring their students to high levels of achievement, dispelling the myth that the 

challenges of poverty are an insurmountable barrier to high achievement. The Education Trust, for 

example, identified 366 high-poverty schools across the nation that were exceeding expectations and 

enabling their students to learn successfully; common characteristics of these schools are shown below.42 

In another recent study, the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas also found similar 

approaches used in high-performing, high-poverty urban elementary schools.43 

The following section examines various strategies for improving teaching and learning that are a focus of 

current federal policy and support through Title I and related programs. These strategies include: 

comprehensive, research-based school reform; using promising instructional practices in reading and 

mathematics; improving the qualifications of instructional staff; early childhood education; extending 

learning time; and partnerships with parents and families. 

Exhibit 17 

Key Attributes of Effective, High-Poverty, Title I Schools

High-performing, high-poverty Title I schools: 

 Use standards extensively to design curriculum and instruction, assess student 

work, and evaluate teachers; 

 Lengthen instructional time in reading and mathematics as a strategy for 

increasing the number of students meeting the standards; 

 Use the available flexibility in the law to spend more on professional 

development that can improve instructional practice; 

 Have comprehensive systems to monitor students’ mastery of standards and 

provide extra support to students’ who need it; 

 Tightly focus parental involvement efforts on helping students meet standards by 

helping parents understand the standards; and 

 Tend to be located in districts and/or states that have accountability systems with 

built-in consequences for school staff. 

Source: The Education Trust, in collaboration with the Council of Chief State School Officers,

Dispelling the Myth: High-Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations (1999). 
High Standards for All Students 31

Comprehensive, Research-Based School Reform 

In the 1980s, researchers and practitioners developed education improvement strategies that were 

intended to change entire schools as opposed to discrete instructional practices. The federal government, 

foundations, and non-profit and for-profit institutions such as New American Schools (NAS) and Edison 

Schools sponsored a plethora of innovative models of comprehensive school reform (CSR). Many of 

these models were developed specifically for high-poverty schools. 

Throughout the 1990s, thousands of schools across the nation have adopted various CSR models. 

However, implementation of the models has been uneven. A study of the initial implementation of New 

American Schools' CSR models in four different jurisdictions indicated that only half of the schools were 

implementing the basic elements of the schoolwide program after the first two years.44 An analysis of 

data from 2,500 teachers in 130 schools implementing NAS models showed that the variation in 

instruction and student achievement was much greater between classrooms than between schools with 

different CSR models.45 Studies of the Coalition of Essential Schools also showed that implementation 

may take hold in a few classrooms but not spread throughout the school. The variation in implementation 

can be explained, in part, by the many factors that influence the reform process. These include: teacher 

support for the CSR model, the match between the school and the model, school leadership, and 

professional development. Because it is difficult to find consistent implementation of CSR models, it can 

be difficult to assess the effectiveness of a model in turning around a low-performing school.46

The varying degrees to which CSR models have been implemented partly explains the fact that there is 

insufficient rigorous research evidence about the effectiveness of these designs in improving student 

achievement. A report by the American Institutes of Research found that “even though many of the 

approaches have been in schools for years, only three out of 24 provide strong evidence of positive effects 

on student achievement.” Six additional programs had research evidence characterized as “promising” 

(Exhibit 18).47 This finding does not necessarily mean that the other approaches are ineffective, but rather 

that there is little rigorous evaluation of these programs. As a result, schools often make decisions and 

spend tens of thousands of dollars without having much concrete information on how particular strategies 

will address the improvements they need. 
High Standards for All Students 32

Exhibit 18 

Schoolwide Reform Models at a Glance 

Evidence of 

Positive Effects 

on Student 

Achievementa

Year 

Introduced 

in Schools

Number 

of Schools

Support 

Developer 

Provides 

Schools

First-Year 

Costs

First-Year 

Costs with 

Current Staff 

Reassigned

Accelerated Schools (K-8) P 1986 1,000 P $27,000 $14,000

America’s Choice (K-12) ? 1998 300 S $190,000 $90,000

ATLAS Communities (PreK-12) ? 1992 63 P $98,000 $90,000

Audrey Cohen College (K-12) ? 1970 16 P $161,000 $86,000

Basic Schools Network (K-12) ? 1992 150 P $12,000 NC

Coalition of Essential Schools (K-12) M/W 1984 1,000 M NA NA

Community for Learning (K-12) P 1990 92 S $157,000 $82,000

Co-NECT (K-12) ? 1992 75 S $588,000 NC

Core Knowledge (K-8) P 1990 750 P $56,000 NC

Different Ways of Knowing (K-7) P 1989 412 S $84,000 NC

Direct Instruction (K-6) S Late ‘60s 150 P $244,000 $194,000

Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound 

(K-12)

P 1992 65 S $81,000 NC

The Foxfire Fund (K-12) ? 1966 NA M $65,000 NC

High Schools that Work (9-12) S 1987 860 S $48,000 NC

High/Scope (K-3) M 1967 27 S $130,000b NC

League of Professional Schools (K-12) M 1989 158 P $13,000 NC

Modern Red Schoolhouse (K-12) ? 1993 50 S $215,000 NC

Onward to Excellence (K-12) M 1981 1,000 S $72,000 $60,000

Paideia (K-12) M/W 1982 80 P $146,000 $96,000

Roots and Wings (PreK-6) M 1993 200 S $270,000 $70,000

School Development Program (K-12) P 1968 700 P $45,000 $32,000

Success for All (PreK-6) S 1987 1,130 S $270,000 $70,000

Talent Development High School (9-12) M 1994 10 S $57,000 $27,000

Urban Learning Centers (PreK-12) ? 1993 13 P $169,000 $159,000

S=Strong P=Promising M=Marginal M/W=Mixed/Weak ?=No Research NA=Not Available NC=No Change 

a

 Although many types of student outcomes are important, evidence of positive effects on student achievement is a key 

consideration in selecting schoolwide reforms. However, some schools may wish to consider a new approach that has not yet 

developed strong evidence of effectiveness, but provides the strongest match with school goals. 

b

 The estimate for High/Scope assumes a school of 25 K-3 teachers. 

Source: Herman et al., An Educator’s Guide to Schoolwide Reform (1999). 
High Standards for All Students 33

The 1994 reauthorization allowed Title I to become more flexible so that it could support systemic, 

schoolwide reform, rather than operating as a stand-alone supplemental program. In particular, the law 

expanded the use of schoolwide programs by lowering the minimum poverty level at which a Title I 

school is eligible to use this approach, from 75 percent poverty down to 50 percent. Schoolwide 

programs, which allow schools to integrate Title I and other resources to support comprehensive school 

improvement efforts, increased from 10 percent of all Title I schools in 1994-95 to 45 percent in 1997-98. 

Schoolwide programs now account for a majority of Title I funds allocated to schools (60 percent).48 

Since 1998, annual appropriations acts have funded the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration 

program to help low-performing schools adopt whole-school strategies to improve student achievement. 

The CSRD legislation asks schools to coherently address nine key components of school reform that build 

on what is known from research on effective schools (Exhibit 19). All participating schools must use 

program funds to adopt or develop research-based comprehensive school reform strategies that employ 

these nine components. The legislation encourages schools to examine successful comprehensive school 

reform models that could be adapted to their communities. While the legislation included the names of 

17 specific models, schools also are allowed to select other models or to develop their own schoolwide 

reform programs that include the nine components listed in the law. 

Exhibit 19 

Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program: 

Nine Components of School Reform 

 Research-based methods. Innovative strategies and proven methods for student learning, 

teaching, and school management that are based on reliable research and effective practices, and 

that have been replicated successfully in schools with diverse characteristics. 

 Comprehensive design. Schoolwide reform plans that include instruction, assessment, 

classroom management, professional development, parental involvement, and school 

management in a comprehensive approach to addressing the specific needs of the school and 

enabling all students to meet challenging state content and performance standards. 

 Performance goals. Measurable goals for student performance and benchmarks for meeting 

those goals. 

 Staff development. High-quality and continuous teacher and staff professional development and 

training. 

 Buy-in. Support from school faculty, administrators, and staff. 

 Partnerships with families and communities. Meaningful involvement of parents and the local 

community in planning and implementing school improvement activities. 

 External support. High-quality external support and assistance from a comprehensive school 

reform entity (which may be a university) with experience in school-wide reform and 

improvement. 

 Evaluation plan. Plan to evaluate the implementation of school reforms and the student results 

achieved. 

 Combining resources. Identification of other available resources (federal, state, local, or 

private) that can help the school support and sustain the school reform effort. 

Source: Public Law 105-78, the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act for the U.S. Department of Education. 
High Standards for All Students 34

Early implementation data on the CSRD program show that schools with the greatest need are being 

helped. States are targeting CSRD funds to diverse, high-poverty schools and to schools with a history of 

low performance. At the school level, data suggest that CSRD grantees are using funds in ways that 

support the priorities of ESEA and Title I, and are associated with effective schools: 49 

 Most CSRD grants have been made to high-poverty schools with diverse student populations. 

In 1998-1999, 86 percent of CSRD schools had poverty rates of 50 percent or higher, compared with 

53 percent of Title I schools; the average poverty rate in CSRD schools is 70 percent. More than half 

of CSRD schools reported minority enrollments of more than 75 percent, compared with 20 percent 

of Title I schools. Across the nation, CSRD grants have been provided to 1,880 schools since 1998. 

 States are targeting CSRD funds toward low-performing schools. Forty-two percent of CSRD school 

principals indicated that their schools had been identified for improvement under Title I, compared 

with 10 percent of principals in Title I schools overall. The length of time in school improvement 

status tended to be longer for CSRD schools than for Title I schools. 

 Most CSRD schools also receive Title I funds. In 1998-99, 92 percent of CSRD schools were Title I 

schools, and 78 percent of CSRD schools were Title I schoolwide programs. 

CSRD schools are implementing nearly 300 different model programs, but most schools have chosen 

from a much smaller number of nationally known models. More than 72 percent of grantees are 

implementing one of just 30 models. About half (46 percent) of grantees are implementing one of the 

17 models included in the legislation. Thirty-six percent of schools are using a model rated as strong or 

promising.50
High Standards for All Students 35

Promising Instructional Practices in Reading and Mathematics 

To help all students meet challenging academic standards, it is critical that teachers use the most effective, 

research-based instructional practices in reading and mathematics. Effective instruction will move 

students toward the national goals of reading well and independently by the third grade, and mastering 

challenging mathematics by the eighth grade. 

Recent syntheses of reading research supported by the National Research Council and the National 

Institute on Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) suggest the need for a balanced approach 

that exposes children to the sound structure of words and builds conceptual knowledge and 

comprehension. In mathematics instruction, expert opinion calls for orienting curriculum and instruction 

toward students’ conceptual understanding and mathematical reasoning. Exhibits 20 and 21 present some 

more specific tenets of effective instruction in reading and mathematics. 

Within these frameworks for instruction, there are many ways to teach content, particularly given the 

different levels of student and teacher proficiency. Recent research on effective schoolwide programs and 

schools found more differences than similarities in the instructional approaches used across the schools, 

and found that instructional strategies were not the essential factors in schools’ effectiveness.51 However, 

there are probably some qualities that are characteristic of most high-quality instruction. According to 

recent data, all children benefit from exposure to challenging content that develops their thinking and 

problem-solving skills. Comprehensive, research-based approaches to improve curriculum and 

instruction are likely to employ strategies that develop these skills. 

Exhibit 20 

Reading Instruction

Years of research on reading instruction have led to a consensus about the skills and abilities children 

must demonstrate to be successful readers and therefore the skills that high-quality reading instruction 

must foster in young children. Children need excellent instruction from qualified and effective teachers 

who deliberately plan their instruction and target their instructional materials and methods to meet the 

diverse needs of children. These teachers: 

 Give children access to a variety of reading and writing materials. 

 Present explicit instruction for reading and writing, both in the context of authentic and isolated 

practice. 

 Create multiple opportunities for sustained reading practice in a variety of formats. 

 Carefully choose instructional-level text from a variety of materials. 

 Adjust the grouping and explicitness of instruction to meet the needs of individual students. 

An effective reading curriculum in the early grades includes explicit instruction in the following topics: 

how to recognize letters and understand the letter-sound correspondence and its use in reading and 

spelling, understanding the smallest sound components of spoken words, developing vocabulary, and 

reading for meaning. 

Source: National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998); National Institute of 

Child Health and Human Development, Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (2000). 
High Standards for All Students 36

Exhibit 21 

Mathematics Instruction

Recent research has identified a set of principles and practices that are critical to effective mathematics 

instruction. 52 Teachers need to increase their knowledge about mathematics and pedagogy, learn from 

their students and colleagues, and hold high expectations for all students. The mathematics curriculum 

should be coherent and well-articulated across the grades. It needs to introduce ideas in such a way that 

they build on one another and students can learn increasingly more sophisticated mathematical ideas as 

they progress through school. More specifically, effective instruction means: 

 Focusing on problem solving. Students need conceptual understanding to deal with novel problems 

and settings and to become autonomous learners. Instruction should encourage multiple solutions to 

problems. 

 Defining basic skills to involve more than computation. 

 Emphasizing reasoning and thinking skills, concept development, communicating mathematically, 

and applying mathematics. Students must learn mathematics with understanding, building new 

knowledge from experience and prior knowledge. 

 Presenting content in a logical progression with an increasing emphasis on higher-order thinking 

skills, such as problem-solving and mathematical reasoning, and mathematical communication. 

 Integrating topics of numeration, patterns and relations, geometry, measurement, probability and 

statistics, algebra, and algorithmic thinking. Instruction should broaden the range of the mathematical 

content studied, an aspect of teaching in which low-income children are often short-changed. 

 Taking advantage of calculators and computers to extend students’ mathematical reach. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st

Century, Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science 

Teachers for the 21st Century (2000); National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and Standards for 

School Mathematics (2000); and Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, “Project Application for the 

Comprehensive School Mathematics Programs,” submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, National Diffusion 

Network (1992). 

While there is little research on the quality of instruction in typical high-poverty schools, a recent study of 

71 high-poverty schools (the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance) examined 

instruction in reading and math in third through fifth grades, and the relationship between instructional 

practices and student achievement: 53

 In reading, there is evidence that continuing to spend too much time on basic decoding skills past the 

early grades is detrimental to students, and that comprehension and higher-level thinking skills should 

be the focus of reading instruction. Students whose fifth-grade teachers spent a great deal of time 

instructing the class at a basic level—using worksheets, reading aloud, and using other relatively 

routine skill practice—gained slightly less on average than those whose teachers spent an average 

amount of time instructing the class at a basic level. 

 In mathematics, the use of more student-initiated activities and more complicated assignments had a 

positive relationship to student gains. Such activities include the use of manipulatives to demonstrate 
High Standards for All Students 37

a concept, discussing multiple approaches to solving a problem, working on problems in small groups 

to find a joint solution, and having student-led group discussions. Students whose fifth-grade 

teachers reported high levels of exploration in mathematics instruction had larger gains in math scores 

than other students in the sample. 

 Also, a high level of exploration in third-grade mathematics instruction was associated with higher 

third-grade scores in the highest-poverty schools. In contrast, where fifth-grade teachers reported 

high levels of more routine activities (presentation and practice activities such as lecturing, leading 

whole group discussions, demonstrating an exercise at a blackboard, practicing and drilling on 

computational skills), students in the highest-poverty schools gained less. 

Improving the Qualifications of Instructional Staff 

Parents, policymakers, and educators agree that every child needs a competent and well-qualified teacher 

in the classroom. Research shows that the quality of teaching is the most important in-school factor in 

improving student achievement.54 Students perform better with more highly skilled teachers: teachers’ 

performance on statewide exams, and particularly their mastery of language skills, has a positive and 

statistically significant effect on students’ reading and mathematics test scores. The effect of a teacher’s 

proficiency on student achievement is greatest in the primary grades and declines after the seventh 

grade.55 In addition, teacher quality appears to have a greater effect on students who are at-risk than on 

other students.56

Although the need for high-quality teachers is particularly great in high-poverty schools, research 

suggests that a disproportionate number of teachers in these schools are inexperienced and lack 

proper certification. Principals in the highest-poverty schools reported that 15 percent of elementary 

school teachers and 21 percent of secondary school teachers had less than three years’ teaching 

experience, compared with only 8 percent of elementary and 9 percent of secondary teachers in lowpoverty schools. In addition, in high-poverty schools, 12 percent of secondary teachers held temporary or 

emergency certification and 18 percent were teaching out-of-field, compared with only 1 percent of 

secondary teachers in low-poverty schools who had either temporary or emergency certification or were 

teaching out-of-field.57 

Another concern related to the quality of instructional staff is the widespread use of Title I funds 

for paraprofessionals as part of schools’ instructional programs. Paraprofessionals account for half 

of the instructional staff hired through Title I funds, and high-poverty schools rely more heavily on aides 

than do low-poverty schools. In the highest-poverty schools, 84 percent of principals reported using 

aides, compared with 54 percent in low-poverty schools.58 On average, the highest-poverty elementary 

schools employed 10.5 teacher aides in a typical-size school of 500 students, including 2.3 aides funded 

by Title I, while low-poverty schools employed 7.6 aides overall and 1.6 aides funded by Title I.59 

Although few Title I teacher aides have the educational background necessary to teach students, almost 

all (98 percent) reported that they were teaching or helping to teach students. Overall, providing 

instruction accounted for 60 percent of Title I aides’ time, and 41 percent of aides reported that half or 

more of this time was spent working with students on their own, without a teacher present (Exhibit 22).60 
High Standards for All Students 38

Exhibit reads: Forty-one percent of Title I teacher aides reported that half or 

more of the time they spent teaching or helping to teach students was on their 

own, without a teacher present. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service (2000), Study 

of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report. 

Schools may choose to rely on paraprofessionals in part because they cost much less than a certified 

teacher; the average annual salary for a full-time equivalent teacher aide was $12,600 in 1997-98, 

compared with $36,400 for a teacher. However, research has found little or no student achievement gains 

associated with including paraprofessionals in the classroom. In a rigorous, randomized-design study in 

Tennessee, students in K-2 classes with full-time aides did no better than students in classes without 

aides. 

Paraprofessionals can play a helpful role in the classroom if used in ways that are appropriate to their 

training and experience. In particular, paraprofessionals are in a unique position to serve as translators 

and interpreters for limited English proficient students and their families; in major urban and rural areas, 

60 to 70 percent of paraprofessionals are from racial- and language-minority groups.61 Typically drawn 

from the local community, paraprofessionals are also well-positioned to work with parents. Currently, 

however, a relatively small number of Title I paraprofessionals are “parent liaisons” (3 percent), and 

teacher aides who also work with parents report spending very little time in this role.62

Ongoing professional training and development for teachers and other school staff is important for 

achieving high standards of learning for all students. There is wide consensus on the key features of 

high-quality professional development, reflecting what has been learned from the best available research 

and practices in the field. One recent study identified six key features of professional development that 

were linked to increases in teachers’ self-reported knowledge, skills, and changes in teaching practice 

(Exhibit 23). 

Exhibit 22

Amount of the Time that Title I Aides Spent Teaching or Helping to

Teach Students that Was on Their Own, Without a Teacher Present

24% 34%

35%

38%

41% 46%

28%

17%

37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All Schools Highest-Poverty

Schools (>=75%)

Low-Poverty

Schools (<35%)

Half or More of the

Time

Some of the Time

None of the Time
High Standards for All Students 39

Exhibit 23 

Key Features of High-Quality Professional Development

 Strong content focus. Professional development should focus on improving and deepening 

teachers’ content knowledge in a subject area.

 Long duration. Professional development should include a high number of contact hours and 

should span a long period of time. 

 Collective participation of groups of teachers. Professional development should include 

groups of teachers from the same school, department, or grade level. 

 Active learning opportunities. Professional development should include opportunities for 

teachers to become actively engaged in analyzing teaching and learning. 

 "Reform-type" activities. Professional development should focus on "reform-type" 

activities, such as study groups, mentoring, or internships, as opposed to the traditional 

workshop. 

 Coherence with other activities. Professional development activities should be aligned with 

standards and assessments. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Designing Effective Professional 

Development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program (1999). 

Despite a strong knowledge base on best practices, there is great variability in the nature and 

quality of professional development, and many teachers are not receiving the highest quality 

professional development possible. Among teachers who participated in professional development 

activities during the 1997-98 school year: 

 Only 51 percent reported participating in activities that emphasized content knowledge. 

 Only 20 percent spent at least six months in these activities. 

 Only 20 percent participated with other teachers in their grade level or department. 

 Only 5 percent participated in activities that promoted active learning; thus, most teachers lacked an 

opportunity to become actively engaged in analyzing teaching and learning. 

 Only 22 percent participated in “reform-type” activities, whereas most attended traditional workshops 

and conferences. 

 Only 31 percent reported that activities built upon prior professional development experiences, with a 

somewhat higher percentage (53 percent) reporting that professional development was followed up 

with later activities.63 

In addition, teachers in high-poverty schools were less likely to have opportunities for professional 

growth—defined as staff collegiality, support for innovation, influence in policymaking, and supportive 

in-service experiences—than their colleagues in low-poverty schools.64 In Title I schools, a significantly 

higher percentage of secondary school teachers in the highest-poverty schools reported that they would 

have liked additional professional development, compared with teachers in low-poverty secondary 

schools (69 percent, compared with 50 percent).65 

However, there is evidence that when high-quality professional development does occur, it can have a 

positive impact on teaching practices. Longitudinal research shows that when professional development 

is of high-quality and is focused on specific, higher-order teaching strategies—such as the use of 

technology, instructional methods, and assessment strategies for higher-order learning—professional 

development increases teachers’ use of those strategies in the classroom.66 
High Standards for All Students 40

Evidence from Title I schools also supports the finding that professional development can improve 

teaching. For example, about half of teachers in Title I schools reported that professional development 

led them to change their teaching practices. Professional development appeared to be especially effective 

in increasing teachers’ use of technology, with almost 65 percent of teachers reporting this positive 

change.67 In both reading and mathematics, when teachers received high-quality professional 

development, students made greater test score gains. This occurred when teachers received professional 

development that focused on instructional content; supported local reform efforts; supported state or 

district standards, assessments, or curriculum frameworks; helped teachers adapt their teaching to 

standards or assessments; and gave them confidence in using new teaching approaches.68 

The U.S. Department of Education supports professional development activities through several 

programs, including the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Title I, the Reading Excellence 

Act, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, and the Class Size Reduction program, among others. The 

Eisenhower Program, which is the Department’s largest investment solely in professional development, 

provided $485 million in funding in FY 2001. Title I districts and schools reported using 3 percent of 

their Title I funds for professional development, amounting to $212 million in 1997-98.69 

Early Childhood Education 

Early childhood education for all preschool children is critical to building a solid foundation for learning 

in elementary school and beyond. Research on child development reveals that children who have highquality early learning experiences, including a language and literacy-rich environment, are more likely to 

be successful learners when they are older and are less likely to have difficulty learning to read.70 

Research on child care, preschool, and early intervention programs has shown that early care and 

education programs can improve children’s school readiness, achievement scores, and social 

development.71 

Several long-term studies of high-quality early childhood education programs have demonstrated 

significant impacts on educational outcomes throughout a child’s life. A 1995 review of 36 studies of 

model demonstration projects and large-scale public programs found that early childhood programs can 

produce long-term effects on academic achievement, grade retention, placement in special education, and 

social adjustment.72 Another long-term study found that a high-quality child care and education program 

that served children from infancy through age 5 continues to demonstrate positive effects at age 21, 

compared with a control group that did not receive early intervention.73 

The quality and intensity of early childhood care and education are critical. The Cost, Quality, and 

Outcomes study found that “children in lower quality classrooms scored lower on measures of cognitive 

and social development, even after taking into account differences in background factors known to be 

related to children’s development.”74 Children who attended child care with higher quality classroom 

practices had better language and math skills from the preschool years into elementary school.75 

Moreover, the study found that child care quality may be particularly important for children at 

risk of school failure.76 At-risk children are more likely to start kindergarten with weak cognitive and 

literacy skills than other children, and therefore stand to benefit more from high-quality early childhood 

education programs.77 A recent study of kindergartners confirmed the importance of early education for 

later performance in school. It demonstrated that children begin kindergarten with different levels of 

knowledge and skills based on their background, and while the more disadvantaged children catch up on 

basic skills in reading and mathematics during the kindergarten year, the gap widens on measures of more 

sophisticated reading and mathematics knowledge and skills.78
High Standards for All Students 41

The National Research Council’s report, Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers, synthesized 

findings from a wide range of research on early childhood education in order to determine the 

components of high-quality early childhood education programs; these components are summarized in 

Exhibit 24. 

Most children in the United States are not in settings of sufficient quality to improve learning. 

The Eager to Learn report warned that the growing understanding of the importance of early education 

“stands in stark contrast to the disparate system of care and education” available to the nation’s preschool 

children. The report stated that many children from low-income families are in child care programs “of 

such low quality that learning and development... may even be jeopardized.”79 

Exhibit 24 

Features of High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs

 Cognitive, social-emotional, and motor development are complementary, mutually supportive areas of 

growth all requiring active attention in the preschool years. Social skills and physical dexterity 

influence cognitive development, just as cognition plays a role in children’s social understanding and 

motor competence. Therefore all are related to early learning and later academic achievement and are 

necessary domains of early childhood pedagogy. 

 Responsive interpersonal relationships with teachers nurture young children’s dispositions to learn and 

their emerging abilities. Social competence and school achievement are influenced by the quality of 

early teacher-child relationships, and by teachers’ attentiveness to how the child approaches learning. 

 Class size and adult-child ratios are correlated with greater program effects. Low adult-child ratios 

are associated with more extensive teacher-child interaction, more individual attention, and less 

restrictive and controlling teacher behavior. Smaller group size has been associated with more childinitiated behavior, and more opportunities for teachers to work on developing children’s language 

skills, mediating children’s social interactions, and encouraging and supporting exploration and 

problem-solving. 

 While no single curriculum or pedagogical approach can be identified as best, children who attend 

well-planned, high-quality early childhood programs in which curriculum goals are clear and are 

linked across subject areas tend to learn more and are better prepared to successfully master the 

complex demands of schooling. 

 Teachers' professional development is related to the quality of early childhood programs, and program 

quality predicts developmental outcomes for children. Formal training in early childhood education 

has been linked consistently to positive caregiver behaviors. The strongest relationship is found 

between the length of a teacher's training in the field and the appropriateness of his or her classroom 

behavior. 

 Programs found to be highly effective in the United States and abroad actively engage teachers and 

provide high-quality supervision. Teachers are trained and encouraged to reflect on their practice and 

on the responsiveness of their children to classroom activities, and to revise and plan their teaching 

accordingly.

Source: National Research Council, Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers (2000).
High Standards for All Students 42

In addition, poor children are less likely to participate in preschool programs than higher income 

children. Participation rates for children from poor families increased from 44 percent in 1991 to 

52 percent in 1999, but remain well below the 62 percent participation rate for non-poor children.80 

Yet, the highest-poverty schools are more likely than low-poverty schools to offer preschool programs 

(61 percent vs. 14 percent), and they also served a greater percentage of their estimated preschool 

population (24 percent vs. 3 percent).81 Taken together, these two data sources suggest that poor children 

are more likely to participate in public school preschool programs, while children from higher-income 

families are more likely to participate in private or non-school preschool programs. Homeless children 

may have the greatest difficulty in gaining access to early childhood education; state coordinators in more 

than two dozen states indicated that it was difficult for homeless children to access Head Start and other 

publicly-funded preschool programs or Even Start or other family literacy programs.82

Federal agencies spent a total of about $9 billion to provide education and care to children under 

age five in fiscal year 1999.83 These programs include programs categorized as education and child care, 

and do not necessarily contain a cognitive or pre-literacy skills component. Most of these programs are 

administered by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. The programs that serve the greatest number of children under age five include the Child Care 

and Development Fund (1,260,000), Head Start (780,000), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA) Grants to States (575,000), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (350,000), Title I Part A 

(300,000), IDEA Preschool Grants (316,000), IDEA Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities (187,000), 

Title I Migrant Education (69,000), and Even Start (27,000).84 It is worth noting that although Title I’s 

major focus is not on preschool programs, it serves a significant number of preschool-age children, even 

more than the Even Start program, for which early childhood education is one of the major components. 

The Even Start Family Literacy Program (Title I, Part B) supports a comprehensive family literacy 

model to serve low-income families with children from birth through age seven. The Even Start 

program provides support to states and local grantees (partnerships of both a local educational agency and 

a nonprofit community-based organization) for family literacy programs intended to break the cycle of 

poverty and illiteracy in low-income families. The program is designed to support high-quality, intensive 

instructional programs of adult education, parenting education, and early childhood education, including 

interactive literacy activities between parents and their children. Even Start is based on the notion that all 

of these instructional components, including early childhood education, are necessary to make changes in 

a family. 

The national evaluation of Even Start has documented that Even Start projects successfully target services 

toward families who are most in need. At least 85 percent of families participating in 1998-99 had 

incomes at or below the federal poverty level, and 85 percent of 1998-99 new enrollees had not earned a 

high school diploma or GED at Even Start entry.85 

Evidence on Even Start's impact on literacy outcomes for children and adults is mixed. On 

measures of literacy used in the first and second national evaluations of Even Start, participating families 

consistently made gains each year. However, results from a small-scale experimental study in five 

projects during the first national evaluation (the in-depth study) did not always indicate that these gains 

were due to Even Start participation alone.86

 In terms of adult literacy, Even Start adults achieved statistically significant gains on the 

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) and Test of Adult Basic Education 

(TABE) reading and math tests. However, in the in-depth study, adults in a control group achieved 

similar gains on the CASAS, suggesting that the gains for Even Start adults may not be due only to 

Even Start participation. 
High Standards for All Students 43

 In the past decade, Even Start helped many adults attain a GED. Depending on the year, between 

8 percent and 15 percent of all of the adults who entered Even Start without a GED or diploma 

attained one. In the in-depth study, significantly more adults in Even Start than in the control group 

attained a GED (22 percent vs. 6 percent). 

 Both the first and second national evaluations showed that Even Start children learned school 

readiness skills such as colors, shapes, and sizes (as measured by statistically significant gains on the 

PreSchool Inventory (PSI)) significantly faster than would be expected on the basis of normal 

development. After one year of participation, Even Start children in the in-depth study scored 

significantly higher on the PSI than children in a randomly assigned control group. However, control 

group children caught up in the next year, when they entered preschool or kindergarten. A similar 

pattern was found on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, a test of receptive language. 

 In the second national evaluation, Even Start families gained a substantial amount on the Home 

Screening Questionnaire (HSQ), a measure of the quality of cognitive stimulation and emotional 

support provided to children by the family. This appears to be larger than would be expected without 

Even Start, because data from the national evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development 

Program show that low-income families in the control group did not make any gains on the HSQ. 

Working with needy families, as Even Start does, poses challenges to providing intensive services 

and engaging families over an extended period of time. Although Even Start projects have increased 

the amount of instruction they have offered in all core service areas over time, less than half met the 

U.S. Department of Education’s performance indicator for the early childhood education component 

(47 percent), parenting education component (46 percent), or adult education component (which ranged 

from 22 percent for English as a Second Language to 43 percent for Adult Secondary Education 

services).87 Data for the cohort of families who enrolled in the program in 1997-98 showed that 

71 percent left the program after having participated for 12 or fewer months.88 Research has shown that 

service intensity and duration can contribute to better outcomes, and Even Start projects may achieve 

greater effects if they can find ways to retain families in the program for a longer period of time. 

Extending Learning Time

The increasing emphasis on challenging standards for all students has led to growing recognition of the 

need for additional time for instruction and support. Relying exclusively on learning during the school 

day is simply not sufficient for all students to reach high standards. Extended learning time programs are 

a potentially promising strategy to provide the needed extra instructional time and additional learning 

opportunities, particularly for lower-achieving students. 

In fact, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of all Title I schools offer extended-time instructional or 

tutorial programs during the school year. However, these programs serve a small proportion of all 

students. Extended-time programs offered during the school year (through before-school, after-school, 

or weekend programs) serve 8 percent of the students in Title I schools and 14 percent of the students in 

the highest-poverty schools. Similarly, summer school programs are offered in 61 percent of all Title I 

schools; these programs serve 15 percent of the students in Title I schools and 12 percent of the students 

in the highest-poverty schools.89 
High Standards for All Students 44

Exhibit reads: Nearly two-thirds of all Title I schools (65 percent) offered 

before-school, after-school, or weekend instructional programs, but these 

programs served only 8 percent of all students. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of 

Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report (2000).

High-quality extended-learning programs include standards-based educational enrichment and 

academic assistance of sufficient duration and intensity. Successful programs connect the added time 

to regular school experiences so that teachers can build on the skills that students are gaining in their 

regular classes and supplement what they are learning during the school day. Using teachers and 

paraprofessionals from the regular school day as program staff can facilitate this linkage. Additional 

elements of successful programs include low student/staff ratios to enable small group or individual 

instruction, parental involvement, and incentives for student enrollment and continued attendance. 

The push for more extended learning programs has prompted an increase in research on the relationship 

between such programs and improved in-school outcomes. The findings, although promising, are not 

definitive. Some outcomes are positive while others are unchanged or negative. The inconsistent nature 

of the findings is not surprising, considering various design and analysis complications. Studies that rely 

on pre-post designs may reflect student maturation or the effects of other, non-program events rather than 

the effects of the extended learning program. Studies comparing program participants and nonparticipants are subject to selection bias concerns.90 

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program was authorized under the 1994 reauthorization 

of ESEA to encourage schools and community organizations to work together to expand opportunities for 

after-school, weekend, or summer programs for children, youth, and families. Academic enrichment for 

at-risk youth is the primary focus of these programs, but they also include recreational, health, social, and 

cultural services to meet the needs of the surrounding community. The 21st Century program is one of 

the U.S. Department of Education's fastest-growing programs, rising from an initial appropriation of 

Exhibit 25

Extended-Time Instructional Programs During the School Year:

Availability and Participation, 1997-98

65%

74%

36%

8%

14%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Title I Schools Highest-Poverty Schools

(>=75% Poverty)

 Low-Poverty Schools 

(<35% Poverty)

 Percentage of schools offering extended time programs

 Percentage of students served in extended time programs 
High Standards for All Students 45

$40 million in FY 1998 to $846 million in FY 2001. The program currently provides support for 903 

communities and 3,600 schools across the country through competitive grants. These 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers will serve about 615,000 children and youth and 215,000 adults during the 

2000-01 school year. 

Partnerships with Parents and Families 

Thirty years of research have established a clear link between parent or family involvement and student 

achievement.91 Recent research also has shown that parenting style, participation in learning activities, 

and parents’ expectations for the child have a stronger influence on student achievement than 

uncontrollable family-related factors such as socioeconomic status. 92 Further, not only have we learned 

that parental support, participation, and expectations around their child’s learning are linked to increased 

student achievement, research has shown that schools' policies, programs, and interventions can have a 

positive influence on increasing these parent behaviors.93 

However, students in high-poverty schools, who could benefit significantly from family 

involvement, are less likely to have involved parents. A Harris poll of teachers found that 62 percent 

of inner-city teachers felt that parental support for their schools was either fair or poor, while in suburban 

schools, 80 percent of teachers felt that parental support was either excellent or good.94 In another survey, 

principals in the highest-poverty schools were more likely to report low parent involvement in regularly 

scheduled parent-teacher conferences (73 percent, compared with 33 percent in low-poverty schools) and 

in parent volunteering (45 percent vs. 20 percent).95 Students whose parents have less education are less 

likely to spend time at home on learning-related activities that reinforce their schoolwork. Children aged 

6-8 whose parents have less than a high school diploma spend one-third the amount of time reading and 

50 percent more time watching television, compared with children from college-educated families. 

Among older children aged 9-12, children whose parents have less education are less likely to study and 

spend less time studying.96

The 1994 reauthorization revised Title I parent involvement provisions from a previous focus on 

governance to a greater emphasis on the role of family involvement in children's learning. The current 

law supports parent involvement through three key mechanisms: (1) requiring districts and schools to 

have a parent policy that integrates parent involvement with other programs, and includes parent 

involvement strategies in the school improvement plan; (2) communicating shared responsibilities 

between schools and parents through the use of school-parent compacts; and (3) building the capacity of 

schools and districts to reach out more effectively to parents and families and building parents' capacity 

for supporting their children's educational growth through parenting education, literacy training, and other 

approaches. 

Schools report using a variety of strategies for reaching out to parents. Most Title I schools reported 

providing parents with a variety of school documents, including the school plan or school improvement 

plan (93 percent), school report cards or performance profiles (85 percent), and information on content or 

performance standards (83 percent). Schools with significant numbers of limited English proficient 

students usually reported translating school documents into languages other than English (87 percent of 

elementary schools with 25 percent or more LEP students), although this was somewhat less common at 

the secondary level (66 percent). When asked about parent involvement strategies, principals were 

somewhat more likely to report having parents serve on committees (98 percent) and as volunteers in the 

classroom (94 percent) and less likely to train parents to work with their children at home (88 percent) or 

to provide family night activities such as family math nights (75 percent).97
High Standards for All Students 46

The use of school-parent compacts increased from 20 percent of Title I schools in 1994 to 73 percent 

in 1999, but schools need to use compacts effectively. Principals are more likely than teachers to report 

that school-parent compacts are useful. Eighty-six percent of principals reported that their schools use 

compacts for parent-teacher conferences. However, a smaller percentage of teachers in those schools 

reported actually using the school-parent compact (53 percent). Among those teachers, 46 percent said 

they found the compacts "useful" and 30 percent said the compacts were useful "to a great extent" in 

discussing the shared responsibilities among the parent, the student, and themselves.98 

Empirical studies suggest that compacts can have a positive impact on parent involvement and 

student achievement, particularly if the compacts are well-implemented. A recent study found a 

significant relationship between school use of parent compacts and other outreach strategies with parent 

involvement in their child’s learning at home, which in turn was related to an increase in the child’s 

reading achievement. Analysis of data from the Prospects study, a rigorous longitudinal study of more 

than 25,000 students in the early elementary grades, showed that students in schools with family-school 

compacts had higher levels of achievement on independently administered tests than students in schools 

without compacts.99 Case studies suggest that particularly dramatic results may occur when compacts are 

used to drive concerted efforts to involve parents and families. For example, teachers and administrators 

at Samuel Mason Elementary School in Boston credit their compact-driven family involvement activities 

as providing a catalyst for increases in reading scores from the lowest third to the upper third of all 

Boston schools, and an improvement in the retention rate between grades 1 and 2 from 33 percent to close 

to zero. More broadly, the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance found that lowachieving students in high-poverty schools made greater gains between third and fifth grade if their thirdgrade teachers were especially active in contacting their parents. 

In general, however, teachers are more likely to interact with parents to address a student problem, 

rather than to engage parents on a continuous basis. For example, elementary teachers in the highestpoverty Title I schools were more likely to report initiating phone calls to parents when a child is having 

problems (98 percent) than working with parents to set learning goals for students at the beginning of the 

year (66 percent).100

Teachers generally do not receive effective professional development on strategies for improving 

parent involvement. About 45 percent of teachers in Title I schools reported receiving professional 

development on parent involvement, and of these teachers, less than 30 percent said that it led them to 

change their practice. 101
High Standards for All Students 47

VI. Special Title I Services 

Title I Services for Students Attending Private Schools 

Federal law requires that students in private schools be afforded an opportunity to participate in Title I 

equal to students in public schools, and the services provided to them also must be equitable. Services for 

private school students accounted for about 1 percent of Title I funds in 1997-98.102

Court rulings have had a substantial impact on the participation of private school students in 

Title I. In June 1997, a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Agostini v. Felton case added considerable 

flexibility to districts’ options for providing Title I services to eligible students enrolled in private 

schools. In the previous Aguilar v. Felton decision in 1985, the court had restricted service locations for 

students in religiously-affiliated schools, resulting in a sharp decline in the number of private school 

students participating in Title I. In Agostini, the court reversed that ruling, deciding that the 

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit providing Title I services in space located 

in religious schools. As a result, parents of private school students, as well as the private schools 

themselves, were more willing to have their students participate in the Title I program because children 

no longer had to travel to neutral space and services could be provided in a less disruptive manner. 

Private school student participation increased by 15 percent after the 1997 Agostini decision, from 

167,600 students in 1996-97 to 193,100 in 1997-98 (Exhibit 26). Looking at the longer-term trend, 

private school student participation after the 1997 Agostini decision returned to about the same level as 

prior to the Aguilar decision.103 

Exhibit reads: The number of private school students participating in Title I 

rose to 193,100 in 1997-98, returning to a level not seen since 1983-84. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, 1997-98 Title I Performance Report (2000). 

Exhibit 26

Number of Private School Students Receiving Title I Services,

1982-83 to 1997-98

193,100

167,600 173,000 177,200

190,700

127,900

137,700

163,300

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

19

82-

83

19

85-

86

19

88-

89

19

91-

92

19

94-

95

19

97-

1982-83 1985-86 1988-89 1991-92 1994-95 1997-98 98
High Standards for All Students 48

The 1994 reauthorization changed the provisions for allocating Title I funds for services for both public 

school and private school students, linking funding to the number of low-income students residing in 

school attendance areas instead of the number of low-achieving students. Initially, the number of private 

school participants declined after this change, from 177,200 in 1993-94 to 167,600 in 1996-97. However, 

in the following year, participation rose substantially (after the Agostini decision). Overall, the number of 

private school participants has risen by 9 percent since the 1994 reauthorization, from 177,200 in 1993-94 

to 193,100 in 1997-98.104 

Almost all districts that serve eligible private school students provide them with supplementary academic 

instruction. A preliminary review of the experiences of nine large urban districts indicated that most were 

taking advantage of the opportunity to provide instructional services on the premises of religiously 

affiliated schools. However, Title I administrators in these districts also reported that they continue to 

provide at least some of the instructional services in neutral sites on or near the school grounds, with 

several of the districts relying more heavily on these facilities than others.105

Most Title I administrators and private school representatives agree that they have established positive 

working relationships, but differ about who is actually involved in consultation and about the topics that 

are discussed. For example, Title I administrators in at least 80 percent of districts say that they consulted 

with either a private school principal or representative of a private school organization on most issues, but 

substantially fewer private school representatives report such consultation.106 

Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) 

The Migrant Education Program (MEP) provides formula grants to states for supplemental education and 

support services for the children of migrant agricultural workers and fishers. MEP’s mission is to 

strengthen and support efforts of state education agencies, local school districts, schools, and community 

organizations to continuously improve the quality of education provided to migrant children. Its goal is to 

help all migrant students meet challenging academic standards and graduate from high school (or a GED 

program) with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and 

productive employment. To help migrant students reach challenging standards, the 1994 reauthorization 

established a priority for services for migrant children whose education has been interrupted during the 

school year and who are failing, or at risk of failing, to meet their states’ content and performance 

standards. There is some indication that this priority is being met. According to 80 percent of principals 

of schoolwide programs, migrant students who fail to meet their state’s performance standards have the 

highest priority for instructional services.107

States operated 12,200 local MEP projects in 1997-98 and served a total of 621,000 students. Of those 

projects, 54 percent served students only during the regular school year, 35 percent served participants 

both during the regular term and during the summer, and 11 percent of projects operated during the 

summer term only. About 23 percent of all MEP projects operated as part of a schoolwide program, 

wherein MEP funds are combined with other federal funds (including Title I, Part A).108

MEP summer-term and extended-time projects play an important role in the education of migrant 

students. Summer projects provide academic and support services to improve instructional continuity for 

migrant students and to address the unique needs that result from their migratory lifestyles. In 1997-98, 

most summer projects provided instruction in reading (96 percent), other language arts (88 percent), and 

math (87 percent).109 Over the past decade, summer projects have grown faster than the regular program, 

and they now serve approximately 50 percent of the number of students served during the regular term. 

The number of summer participants increased from 220,800 in the 1995-96 school year to 312,400 in 

1997-98.110 
High Standards for All Students 49

A concern about whether migrant students’ needs were being met in schoolwide programs prompted a 

Congressionally mandated evaluation of schoolwide schools that enroll migrant students. The 1997 study 

found that migrant children were served and did receive supplemental academic and support services, but 

it was unclear whether their unique needs were being met. Most of the school staff did not view the 

educational or support service needs of migrant students as significantly different than those of other 

students, and many were unable to identify migrant students in their schools. Migrant students' needs for 

supplemental services were assessed in the same ways as other students, without particular attention to the 

differences associated with the migratory lifestyle. The perception that migrant students do not have 

unique needs may exist because schools often did not disaggregate their needs assessment data for 

migrant students. However, in the schools in which migrant staff or migrant parents participated in the 

schoolwide planning process, schoolwide plans were much more likely to address the needs of migrant 

students (80 percent of the schools with involvement, versus only 34 percent of the schools with no 

involvement addressed the migrant students' needs).111

In most states that track migrant students’ achievement, migrant students perform significantly 

lower than other students on state assessments. In 1997-98, 16 states tracked the achievement of their 

migrant students by disaggregating their assessment results by migrant status. The disparity between 

migrant students and other students varied a great deal among states, with some states showing 

differences as large as 30 percentage points while others showed more modest differences of less than 10 

percentage points.112 A recent study of Title I schools serving high numbers of migrant students found 

that these schools were more likely than other Title I schools to report that content and performance 

standards were too rigorous for most of their students, and to cite student mobility, diversity of student 

populations, and language as barriers in using content standards with all students.113 

Although they provide an indication of migrant student performance, state assessment results may 

not represent a complete and accurate picture of migrant students’ performance in each state 

because estimates of the degree to which migrant students participate in state assessments are not 

yet available. While many states track migrant students' performance, most do not track the extent of 

their inclusion in state assessments. Factors that present barriers to migrant students’ inclusion in state 

assessments are the same factors that hinder their performance, including their limited English proficiency 

and mobility. While language accommodations are made for migrant students in many states (29 MEP 

administrators reported migrant students could take state assessments in their native language in 1998),114

accommodations for student mobility are less common. Some migrant students do not participate in state 

assessments because they change schools during the spring, when state assessments are often given, while 

others may be exempted if they are new to the United States, new to English as a Second Language (ESL) 

programs, or score low on English proficiency exams.115 

While states continue to provide services to meet the unique needs of migrant students and have made 

progress in tracking their academic performance, many challenges remain in ensuring that these students 

are being included in assessment and accountability systems and are making satisfactory academic 

progress. 

Programs for Students Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk of Dropping Out (Title I, 

Part D) 

Part D of Title I is intended to serve neglected or delinquent (N or D) children and youth who are not 

enrolled in regular school programs, most commonly because they are incarcerated in state or local 

correctional institutions. Part D authorizes two programs for neglected and delinquent students—

programs for youth in state-operated institutions or community day programs (Subpart 1), and school 
High Standards for All Students 50

district programs involving collaboration with locally-operated correctional facilities (Subpart 2). State 

agency programs are funded through a separate appropriation ($46 million in FY 2001), while local 

N or D programs are allocated to school districts from funds reserved under Title I Part A (an estimated 

$59 million in FY 2001). 

In 1997-98, state agency N or D programs served 205,000 neglected and delinquent students in state 

institutions, while local agency programs served an additional 85,000 students in local correctional 

facilities. Among participants residing in state institutions, 30 percent were in institutions for neglected 

children, 56 percent were in juvenile correctional facilities, and 14 percent were in adult correctional 

institutions. Participants in state institutions were overwhelming male (89 percent), about half 

(51 percent) were African American, and 53 percent were between the ages of 14 and 17.116

The 1994 reauthorization encouraged the implementation of institution-wide programs designed to 

improve the entire educational program and to serve the entire student population in institutions for 

neglected or delinquent youth. One-third (36 percent) of all state institutions eligible to implement an 

institution-wide project did so in 1999, more than double the percentage two years ago. 117 The universal 

eligibility inherent in an institution-wide approach is in itself one way to better meet the educational needs 

of incarcerated youth, in that it reflects the universal need among this population for additional assistance. 

State agencies most commonly report using Title I N or D funds to purchase instructional materials 

(92 percent), computer software (84 percent), and computers (75 percent); to hire additional staff 

(79 percent); and to support staff development activities (61 percent). Agencies that operated institutionwide projects are especially likely to use funding for staff development (96 percent). State agencies were 

less likely to use Title I N or D funds for student assessment (48 percent), tutors or mentors (28 percent) 

or community activities (26 percent). 118

Title I N or D funds support a wide range of academic and support services at state correctional 

institutions (Exhibit 27). The most widely available Title I-funded instructional services—reading and 

mathematics—were provided at more than 80 percent of all institutions, a finding that is consistent with 

the history of the N or D program. However, the provision of social or life skills instruction has increased 

to 61 percent in juvenile institutions, and to 80 percent in adult institutions, a much higher percentage 

than was found a decade ago when just 31 percent of all institutions offered this type of instruction with 

Title I funds. Adult institutions were also three times more likely than juvenile institutions to use Part D 

funds to provide combined classes in reading, mathematics, language arts, or English as a Second 

Language. Juvenile institutions more often used N or D funds to provide study skills instruction or 

counseling services. 119
High Standards for All Students 51

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Agency 

Activities Under the Title I Part D Program (draft). 

The most frequently reported challenge involved in meeting students’ needs, as reported by state 

agencies, is poor educational follow-up with aftercare agencies. Although nearly half of state agencies 

reported on the availability of post-release case management services to assist youths in the re-entry 

process through referrals and counseling, far fewer reported on post-release tracking and documenting 

neglected or delinquent youths' reentering into school or obtaining employment. Other issues identified 

as serious problems included inadequate funding, limited space conducive to learning, a shortage of 

qualified teachers, and low student motivation. State agencies cite inadequate funding, staffing issues, 

such as shortages of qualified teachers, turnover, and poorly motivated teachers, and poor followup/transition programs, as the most frequent problems in implementing the Title I N or D program. The 

recommendation most often identified by state agencies for changing or improving the program is to 

increase funding. Indeed, state agencies report that the most frequent reason why some eligible 

institutions do not participate is that the amount of funds available are insufficient to justify the effort 

required to implement a program.120

Most state agencies’ inability to maintain or report student outcome data underscores a widespread 

need among state agencies and institutions for additional technical assistance in program 

evaluation. Few states collect performance data on Part D participants other than test results—which 

may not provide an appropriate indicator of progress for these programs due to high turnover and the 

limited length of stay for many participants. Only a few state agencies maintain data on the number of 

school credits earned by Part D participants. Institutions are generally unable to collect comprehensive 

data on students' educational experiences and transition to further education or employment. When asked 

to identify areas of need for technical assistance among institution staff, the four areas of “great need” 

most frequently identified by state agencies concerned evaluation—setting up evaluation procedures, 

analyzing program evaluation results, designing a needs assessment, and testing issues. Part D programs 

need significant improvements in data collection and evaluation if they are to have sufficient information 

to guide program improvement efforts. 121

Exhibit 27

Title I Part D Services Offered in Juvenile and Adult Institutions

for Neglected and Delinquent Children

59% 56%

64%

80%

76%

61%

40%

21%

17%

81%

85%

27%

89%

84%

46% 45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reading Mathematics English as a

Second

Language

(ESL)

Combined

Reading,

Language

Arts, Math, or

ESL

Study Skills Counseling Social or Life

Skills

Transitional

Services

Juvenile Institutions Adult Institutions
High Standards for All Students 52

VII. Progress and Challenges 

Since Title I was reauthorized in 1994, states have made significant and thoughtful progress in its 

implementation. Although the current authorization period (1994 - 1999) has expired, the full impact of 

the law may not be seen for several years. While structural components of the law are scheduled to be in 

place in the 2000-01 school year, many features of states’ accountability systems will not be fully 

implemented until later. For example, many of the requirements related to identifying schools in need of 

improvement and taking corrective actions take effect only after a school has failed to make progress for 

several years. 

Almost all states have content standards, and 25 have performance standards. All have submitted 

evidence for peer review on their aligned assessment systems. Of these, 11 have been fully approved, six 

have been conditionally approved, 14 have been given a waiver of the time limit, and three have 

compliance agreements. Reviews of the remaining states are expected to be completed in spring 2001. 

Requirements to track progress are helping states, districts, and schools focus on implementing school 

improvement strategies. 

Student achievement on national tests (NAEP) has shown little academic progress for children in highpoverty schools. Student scores have remained flat in reading but are slightly improved in mathematics. 

In addition, the increased gap between students in high- and low-poverty schools is troubling. These 

findings are perplexing in that states are reporting significantly more progress in student achievement as 

measured by state assessments. These inconsistent findings raise questions about the rigor of the content 

and performance standards and assessments that states have adopted. Perhaps an independent body such 

as the National Academy of Sciences should examine how we can best interpret these data from multiple 

sources. 

A related problem is that timely and accurate data are not readily available. States are required to submit 

a program performance report describing basic program elements such as who the program is serving, the 

number of schoolwide programs vs. targeted assistance programs, and the number of schools and districts 

identified for improvement. These data are often received late and are often incomplete. In addition, the 

state-reported data frequently contain numerous errors that are corrected only after repeated calls to the 

states. For an accountability system to work, all parties must receive accurate and timely information. 

States need the information to help districts and schools; schools need the information so that they can 

improve instruction; parents need the information so that they will know how well the schools are 

meeting the needs of their children; and the U.S. Department of Education needs the information so that it 

can report to Congress how the funds that they have appropriated are being spent and the impact of those 

funds on achieving program goals. 

As states continue to implement the Title I law, several significant challenges remain. 

 Recent research has documented the impact of having high-quality instruction on student learning and 

conversely the lasting negative impact of even one year of poor instruction. Yet, a disproportionate 

number of teachers in high-poverty schools are inexperienced, lack proper certification, and are less 

likely to have opportunities for professional development. Moreover, a significant number of 

children who are the weakest academically are still receiving instruction from aides. 

 While we know a great deal about what constitutes a high-quality education, we know less about how 

to turn around low-performing schools so that disadvantaged children can receive this kind of 

education. The capacity of states and districts to turn around these schools is hampered by both 
High Standards for All Students 53

resources as well as know-how. Many low-performing schools are not getting the help they need to 

improve, even after having been identified as in need of improvement for several years. 

 Title I serves a large number of students with limited English proficiency and students with 

disabilities, but many states have not yet implemented requirements to include these students in 

assessment and accountability systems. 

 Despite research on the critical importance of early childhood education, most American children—

and a disproportionate number of poor children—lack access to quality preschool programs. While 

the U.S. Department of Education is beginning to coordinate with Head Start so that federal support 

for early childhood education through Title I, Even Start, IDEA, and Head Start can be better 

integrated, this link needs to be strengthened. In particular, increased emphasis is needed on early 

literacy and on coordinating Head Start and Title I performance indicators on child learning and 

development. 

 The recognition of the importance of providing opportunities for extended-time instruction has not yet 

led to sufficient after-school programs, particularly for poorer children. Consequently these children 

are not receiving the extra time that may be needed to catch up to their more advantaged peers. 

 Research on the importance of parental involvement in children's education has not yet led to 

sufficient involvement, particularly in poor families. While parent-school compacts highlight the 

joint effort required by students, schools, and families, they tend to operate outside of the regular 

school plan. Parent involvement must become an integral part of a school’s efforts to improve 

student learning. 

 Reports from states show that in many cases states are still operating under a dual system—an 

accountability system under the Title I provisions and a state-sponsored accountability system. The 

intent of the law was that there would be one strong and rigorous system and that Title I would be 

included in that system. It causes confusion within a state when two systems operate that have 

different standards. 

Despite these challenges, we have reason to remain positive. We know a lot about what constitutes good 

reading and math instruction and have developed more focused programs of professional development to 

equip teachers with the skills they need to provide high-quality instruction aligned to their content 

standards. We also have observed many schools that—despite high odds for failure—are becoming 

successful and can serve as models for other schools. Moreover, students’ scores tend to be higher in 

classrooms where teachers are aware of standards. The U.S. Department of Education must help districts 

and schools improve instruction by disseminating more accessible information on research-based practice 

and best practice sites, and by providing appropriate technical assistance to help districts and schools 

utilize the information in order to improve their students’ achievement. Furthermore, we must do a better 

job of collecting, analyzing, and using state performance data and NAEP data to closely monitor the 

nation's progress in serving disadvantaged children. 
High Standards for All Students 54

Endnotes 

 

1

 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The 

Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I, Washington, DC: 1999. 2

 The FY 2001 appropriation of $9.5 billion for Title I includes: Part A, Grants to LEAs ($8.6 billion), Part B, Even 

Start ($250 million), Part C, Migrant Education Program ($380 million), Part D, Neglected and Delinquent State 

Agency Programs ($46 million), Part E, Evaluation ($9 million), and the Comprehensive School Reform 

Demonstration program ($210 million). U.S. Department of Education, FY 2001 Budget Summary. 3 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 

Program and New Directions: Final Report of the National Assessment of the Chapter 1 Program, Washington, DC: 

1993.

4 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, National Assessment of the Chapter 1 Program: 

The Interim Report, Washington, DC: 1992, p. 92. 5

 U.S. Department of Education, State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report, 

by Beth Sinclair and Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000. 

6 U.S. Department of Education, State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report, 

by Beth Sinclair and Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000.

7

 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Third National Even Start Evaluation: Interim 

Report on 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 Data, by Robert St. Pierre, Anne Ricciuti, Fumiyo Tao, Cindy Creps, Takeko 

Kumagawa, and William Ross (draft), p. 133. 

8

 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Title I Migrant Participation Information: 

1997-98, by Allison Henderson, Julie Daft, and Pauline Fong, Washington, DC: 1998. 9

 U.S. Department of Education, State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report, 

by Beth Sinclair and Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000. 

10 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations 

Within School Districts, by Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg, Washington, DC: 1999. 11 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

12 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

13 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations 

Within School Districts, by Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg, Washington, DC: 1999. 14 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

15 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

16 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Use of Federal Education Funds for 

Administrative Costs, Washington, DC: 1998, p. iii. 17 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

18 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

19 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations 

Within School Districts, by Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg, Washington, DC: 1999. 20 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations 

Within School Districts, by Stephanie Stullich, Brenda Donly, and Simeon Stolzberg, Washington, DC: 1999. 21 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 
High Standards for All Students 55

 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

22 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

23 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft). 

24 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

25 Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Assessment Center, draft State Assessment Results 

1995-96 to 1998-99 (September 2000). 

26 Scott Joftus and Ilene Berman, Great Expectations: Defining and Assessing Rigor in State Standards for 

Mathematics and English Language Arts, Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education, 1998.

27 American Federation of Teachers, Making Standards Matter, Washington, DC: 1999.

28 Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Michael J. Petrilli, “The State of State Standards 2000,” Fordham Report, Washington 

DC: Fordham Foundation, 2000.

29 Douglas Archbald, "The Reviews of State Content Standards in English-Language Arts and Mathematics: A 

Summary and Review of Their Methods and Findings and Implications for Future Standards Development," 

Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel, 1998.

30 Diane Massell, Michael Kirst, and Margaret Hoppe, Persistence and Change: Standards Based Reform in 9 

States, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 1997.

31 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, One System or Two?: Title I Accountability in 

the Context of High Stakes for Schools in Local Districts and States, by Jennifer O’Day and Bethany Gross, 

Washington, DC: 1999.

32 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, unpublished data from the National Longitudinal 

Survey of Schools (Year 2 survey, conducted in 1999-2000). 

33 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, unpublished data from the National 

Longitudinal Survey of Schools (Year 2 survey, conducted in 1999-2000). 34 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel and Jennifer Sloan (draft). 

35 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Local Implementation Study. 36 Margaret Goertz, Diane Massell, and Tammi Chun, District Response to State Accountability Systems, paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 1998.

37 Council of Chief State School Officers, Using Data on Enacted Curriculum in Mathematics and Science: Sample 

Results from a Study of Classroom Practices and Subject Content, a collaborative project with the Wisconsin Center 

for Education Research and 11 states, Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, 2000.

38 Jason Kim, Rolf Blank, Pendred Noyce, and Lloyd Richardson, "How Reform Works: An Evaluative Study of 

NSF's Urban Systemic Initiatives, " Norwood, MA: Systemic Research, Inc., March 2000 (www.systemic.com/usi/). 

39 Rolf Blank, "Summary of Findings from SSI and Recommendations for NSF’s Role with States: How NSF Can 

Encourage State Leadership in Improvement of Science and Mathematics Education," Washington, DC: Council of 

Chief State School Officers, 2000.

40 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change 

and Performance: Final Report: Volume I: Executive Summary, by Westat and Policy Studies Associates (draft).

41 David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan, "Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in North Carolina and Texas," paper 

commissioned by the National Education Goals Panel, 1998.

42 The Education Trust, in collaboration with the Council of Chief State School Officers, Dispelling the Myth: 

High-Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations, Washington, DC: 1999.

43 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Hope for Urban Education: A Study of Nine 

High-Performing, High-Poverty, Urban Elementary Schools, by the Charles A. Dana Center, Washington, DC: 

1999.
High Standards for All Students 56

 44 Susan Bodilly, Lessons from New American Schools’ Scale-Up Phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple 

schools. Santa Monica: RAND: 1998. 

45 Mark Berends, “Teacher-reported effects of New American Schools design: Exploring relationships to teacher 

background and school content,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v22 n1 (2000), pp. 65-82. 46 Laura Desimone, Making Comprehensive School Reform Work, New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban 

Education, 2000.

47 Rebecca Herman, Daniel Aladjem, Patricia McMahon, Erick Masem, Ivor Ulligan, Amy Smith O’Malley, Sherri 

Quinones, Alison Reeve, and Darren Woodruff, An Educators’ Guide to Schoolwide Reform, Arlington, VA: 

Education Research Services, 1999. 

48 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 49 U.S. Department of Education, Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Schools: Early Findings 

on Implementation, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft).

50 Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, CSRD Database (www.sedl.org/csrd/awards.html). 

51 See Willis Hawley, William Schager, Francine Hultgren, Andrew Abrams, Ernestine Lewis, and Steve Ferrara, An 

Outlier Study of School Effectiveness: Implications for Public Policy and School Improvement, paper presented at 

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1997; The Education Trust, in collaboration 

with the Council of Chief State School Officers, Dispelling the Myth: High-Poverty Schools Exceeding 

Expectations, Washington, DC: 1999; and the Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin, Successful 

Texas Schoolwide Programs: Research Study Results, Austin, TX: 1996. 52 U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, 

Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the National from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science 

Teachers for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: 2000, p. 22. 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, 2000. 53 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change 

and Performance: Final Report: Volume I: Executive Summary, by Westat and Policy Studies Associates (draft). 

54 R. Greenwald, L. Hedges, and R. Laine, "The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement," Review of 

Educational Research, 66 (Fall), 1996, pp. 361-396. 55 Ronald Ferguson and Helen Ladd, “How and Why Money Matters: An Analysis of Alabama Schools,” in Helen 

Ladd (ed.), Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education, Washington, DC: Brookings 

Institution Press, 1996; Ronald Ferguson, “Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money 

Matters,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 1991; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 

What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, New York: 1996. 56 William L. Sanders and J.C. Rivers, Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic 

Achievement, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, 1996. 57 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft). 

58 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, School-Level Implementation of StandardsBased Reform: Findings from the Follow-Up Public School Survey on Education Reform, by Camilla Heid and Ann 

Webber, Washington, DC: 1999. 

59 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

60 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

61 U.S. Department of Education, Roles for Paraprofessionals in Effective Schools, Washington, DC: 1997. 62 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

63 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Designing Effective Professional Development: 

Lessons from the Eisenhower Program, by Michael Garet, Beatrice Birman, Andrew Porter, Laura Desimone, and 
High Standards for All Students 57

 

Rebecca Herman, with Kwang Yuk Soon, Washington, DC: 1999, pp. ES-7-9. 64 Geoffrey D. Borman and L.T. Rachuba, “Qualifications and Professional Growth Opportunities of Teachers in 

High- and Low-Poverty Elementary Schools,” Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 68, 1999, pp. 366-382. 

65 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft).

66 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Does Professional Development Change 

Teaching Practice? Results from a Three-Year Study, by Andrew Porter, Michael Garet, Laura Desimone, Kwang 

Yuk Soon, and Beatrice Birman, Washington, DC: 2000, p. v. 

67 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft).

68 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change 

and Performance: Final Report: Volume I: Executive Summary, by Westat and Policy Studies Associates (draft). 69 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 

70 National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Catherine Snow, M. Susan Burns, 

and Peg Griffin (eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998. 

71 W.S. Barnett, “Long-term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes,” in The 

Future of Children: Long-term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs, 5(3), 1995, pp. 25-50; Early Learning, 

Later Success: The Abecedarian Study, Early Childhood Educational Intervention for Poor Children, Executive 

Summary (www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/embargoed/executive_summary.htm); E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, 

R.M. Clifford, N.L., Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, and J. Zelazo, The Children of 

the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go To School: Executive Summary (1999); Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter 

Graham Child Development Center; National Research Council, Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers, 

Executive Summary, Barbara Bowman, M. Suzanne Donovan, and M. Susan Burns (eds.), Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press, 2000; L. Karoly, P. Greenwood, S. Everingham, J. Hoube, R. Kilburn, C. Rydell, 

M. Sanders, and J. Chiesa, Investing in Our Children. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1998. 72 E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L., Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, 

J. Rustici, and J. Zelazo, The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go To School: Executive Summary

(1999); Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center; W.S. Barnett, “Long-term Effects of 

Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes,” in The Future of Children: Long-term Outcomes of 

Early Childhood Programs, 5(3), 1995, pp. 25-50. 73 Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, Early Learning, Later Success: The Abecedarian Study, Early 

Childhood Educational Intervention for Poor Children, Executive Summary, Chapel Hill, NC: 2000 

(www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/embargoed/executive_summary.htm). 

74 E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L., Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, 

J. Rustici, and J. Zelazo, The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go To School: Executive Summary. 

Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, 1999. 75 E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L., Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, 

J. Rustici, and J. Zelazo, The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go To School: Executive Summary. 

Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, 1999. 

76 E.S. Peisner-Feinberg, M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, N.L., Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. 

Byler, J. Rustici, and J. Zelazo, The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go To School: Executive 

Summary. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, 1999.

77 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, America’s Kindergartners: Findings 

from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, Fall 1998 (NCES 2000-070 

Revised), by Jerry West, Kristin Denton, and Elvie Germino-Ausken, Washington, DC: 2000.

78 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Kindergarten Year, : Findings from 

the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2001-023), by Jerry West, Kristin 

Denton, and Lizabeth Reaney, Washington, DC: 2000.

79 National Research Council, Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers, Executive Summary, Barbara Bowman, 

M. Suzanne Donovan, and M. Susan Burns (eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. 
High Standards for All Students 58

 80 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Survey, 1999, 

(unpublished tabulations by Westat, 2000). 

81 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000, pp. 102-103. 

82 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Access and Achievement: Reducing Barriers for 

Homeless Children and Youth: A Follow-up Study to the 1995 National Evaluation of the Education for Homeless 

Children and Youth Program, by Clarenda Phillips, Jessica Wodatch, and Catherine Kelliher (draft). 83 U.S. Government Accounting Office, Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting 

Programs, Washington, DC: 2000, p. 12. 84 U.S. Government Accounting Office, Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting 

Programs, Washington, DC: 2000, pp. 14-15. 85 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Third National Even Start Evaluation: Interim 

Report on 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 Data, by Robert St. Pierre, Anne Ricciuti, Fumiyo Tao, Cindy Creps, Takeko 

Kumagawa, and William Ross (draft). 

86 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Even Start: Evidence from the Past and a Look 

to the Future, by Robert St. Pierre, Beth Gamse, Judith Alamprese, Tracy Rimdzius, and Fumiyo Tao, Washington, 

DC: 1998, p. 23-25. 

87 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Third National Even Start Evaluation: Interim 

Report on 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 Data, by Robert St. Pierre, Anne Ricciuti, Fumiyo Tao, Cindy Creps, Takeko 

Kumagawa, and William Ross (draft). 

88 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Third National Even Start Evaluation: Interim 

Report on 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 Data, by Robert St. Pierre, Anne Ricciuti, Fumiyo Tao, Cindy Creps, Takeko 

Kumagawa, and William Ross (draft).

89 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000. 90 Harris Cooper, Kelly Charlton, Jeff Valentine, and Laura Muhlenbruck, "Making the Most of Summer School: A 

Meta-Analytic and Narrative Review," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 65(1), 2000; 

Olatokumbo Fashola, "Review of Extended-Day and After-School Programs and their Effectiveness," Center for 

Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University and Howard University, Report 

No. 24, 1998. 

91 See, for example: J.S. Coleman, E.Q. Campbell, C.J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A.M. Mood, F.D. Weinfeld, and 

R.L. York, Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966; Joyce L. 

Epstein, "Effects on student achievement of teacher practices in parent involvement," in S. Silvern (ed.), Advances 

in Reading/Language Research, Vol. 5, Literacy Through Family, Community, and School Interaction, Greenwich, 

CT: JAI Press, 1991; David L. Stevenson and David P. Baker, "The family-school relation and the child's school 

performance," Child Development, 58, 1987, pp. 1348-1357; and Timothy Z. Keith and Patricia B. Keith, "Does 

parental involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data," School 

Psychology Review, 22(3), 1993, pp. 474-496. See also U.S. Department of Education, Strong Families, Strong 

Schools: Building Community Partnerships for Learning, Washington, DC: 1994. 

92 Jerome D'Agostino, Geoffrey Borman, Larry Hedges, and Kenneth Wong, "Longitudinal achievement and 

Chapter 1 coordination in high-poverty schools: A multilevel analysis of the Prospects data," Journal of Education 

for Students Placed at Risk, 3(4), 1998, pp. 401-420; Ann V. Shaver and Richard T. Walls, "Effect of Title I parent 

involvement on student reading and mathematics achievement," Journal of Research and Development in 

Education, 31(2), 1998, pp. 90-97. 

93 Jerome D’Agostino, Larry Hedges, Kenneth Wong, and Geoffrey Borman, Title I Parent Involvement Programs: 

Effects on Parenting Practices and on Student Achievement (in press).

94 Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., The Metropolitan-Life Survey of the American Teacher. Building FamilySchool Partnerships: Views of Teachers and Students (1998). 

95 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent Involvement in Children’s 

Education: Efforts by Public Elementary Schools (NCES 98-032), Washington, DC: 1998.

96 NCES, 1996

97 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 
High Standards for All Students 59

 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft).

98 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft).

99 Jerome D'Agostino, Geoffrey Borman, Larry Hedges, and Kenneth Wong, "Longitudinal achievement and 

Chapter 1 coordination in high-poverty schools: A multilevel analysis of the Prospects data," Journal of Education 

for Students Placed at Risk, 3(4), 1998, pp. 401-420.

100 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft).

101 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, The Status of Standards-Based Reform in Title I 

Schools: First-Year Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of School, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Mark 

Berends, Scott Naftel, and Jennifer Sloan (draft).

102 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Study of Education Resources and Federal 

Funding: Final Report, by Jay Chambers, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and 

Stephanie Stullich, Washington, DC: 2000.

103 U.S. Department of Education, State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report 

by Beth Sinclair and Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000. 104 U.S. Department of Education, State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 1997-98: Final Summary Report 

by Beth Sinclair and Janet Carroll, Washington, DC: 2000. 105 Beth Sinclair, "Title I Funding for Service to Private School Students in Nine School Districts," unpublished 

paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, July 1999. 

106 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Title I Services for Private School Students 

Under the Reauthorization of ESEA: A Snapshot of Federal Assistance in Transition: Final Report, by Michael 

Rubenstein, Keith Gayler, and Bruce Haslam, Washington, DC: 1998. 

107 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Meeting the Needs of Migrant Students in 

Schoolwide Programs: Summary, by William Strang and Adrienne von Glatz, Washington, DC: 1999. 108 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Title I Migrant Participation Information: 

1997-98, by Allison Henderson, Julie Daft, and Pauline Fong, Washington, DC: 1998, pp. 1-17, 1-20. 

109 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Participation of Migrant Students in 

Title I Migrant Education Program (MEP) Summer Term Projects: 1998 (NCES 2000-023), by Basmat Parsad, 

Sheila Heaviside, Catrina Williams, and Elizabeth Farris, Washington, DC: 2000. 110 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Title I Migrant Participation Information: 

1997-98, by Allison Henderson, Julie Daft, and Pauline Fong, Washington, DC: 1998, pp. 1-20. 

111 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Meeting the Needs of Migrant Students in 

Schoolwide Programs, Summary, by William Strang, and Adrienne von Glatz, Washington, DC: 1999. 112 Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I, 1999, by Rolf Blank, 

Jennifer Manise, and Barbara C. Braithwaite, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2000. 

113 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students: 

Recent Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Scott Naftel, Mark 

Berends, and Jennifer Sloan (draft). 

114 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Implementation of the Migrant Education 

Program, by M. Welsh (draft). 115 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Measurement of Migrant Student Achievement: 

A Summary of Recent Research, by Michael Tashjian and Jean Lennon (draft). 

116 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part 

D, Program: Mail Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Youth in State 

Institutions: Final Report, by Michael Tashjian (draft). 

117 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part 

D, Program: Mail Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Youth in State 

Institutions: Final Report, by Michael Tashjian (draft). 

118 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part 

D, Program: Mail Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Youth in State 
High Standards for All Students 60

 

Institutions: Final Report, by Michael Tashjian (draft). 

119 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part 

D, Program: Mail Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Youth in State 

Institutions: Final Report, by Michael Tashjian (draft). 

120 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part 

D, Program: Mail Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Youth in State 

Institutions: Final Report, by Michael Tashjian (draft).

121 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, State Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part 

D, Program: Mail Survey of Agencies that Operate Title I Programs for Neglected or Delinquent Youth in State 

Institutions: Final Report, by Michael Tashjian (draft).