|  |  |  | Information For          StudentsParentsTeachersAdministratorsInformation AboutGrants & ContractsFinancial AidResearch & StatisticsPolicyPrograms |  |  |
|--|--|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|

## Promising Results, Continuing Challenges:Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I

### Executive Summary (Part 1 of 3)

### Context for Title I

| ***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." |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First enacted in 1965 as a "War on Poverty" program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) [P.L. 103-382] now provides over $8 billion (1)  per year to fund system-wide supports and additional resources for schools to improve learning for students at risk of educational failure.  The program's central objective is to support state and local efforts to ensure that all children reach challenging standards by providing additional resources for schools and students who have farthest to go in achieving the goal.

**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-five 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.(2)  While the highest poverty schools make up almost 15 percent of schools nationwide, 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. (3)

**Fully 99 percent of Title I dollars go to the local level.**  School districts use 90 to 93 percent of their Title I funds for instruction and instructional support(4)—most often in reading and math.  Although Title I accounts for a relatively small percentage of total funding for elementary and secondary education (just under 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 or other extended-time programs, and other strategies for raising student achievement.

**Title I also provides supplemental assistance to children who face unique educational barriers.**  These include children who come from families with low literacy, the children of migrant agricultural workers, and children who are neglected or delinquent.  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, which increases the risk of school failure.  Migrant children have families who move frequently to pursue agricultural work—and thus must change schools frequently—which has a detrimental effect on their achievement.  Neglected or delinquent students are extremely educationally disadvantaged; most are incarcerated in state juvenile and adult correctional facilities and have experienced numerous disruptions in their education. 

| **Exhibit 1Percentage of Schools Participating in Title I,by School Poverty Level, 1997-98**

School Poverty Level (Free or Reduced-Price Lunch |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

> 
Exhibit reads: Almost all of the highest-poverty schools (95 percent) receive Title I funds, compared with 36 percent of the lowest-poverty schools.Source: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the *Follow-Up Survey of Education Reform.*

**Title I reaches over 11 million students enrolled in both public and private schools—about two-thirds of whom are in elementary grades 1-6.**  The percent of students in middle and secondary schools remains a small proportion of those served overall.   Minority students participate at rates higher than their proportion of the student population.  African American students represent 28 percent of Title I participants, 30 percent are Hispanic, 36 percent are non-Hispanic white, and the remaining 5 percent are from other ethnic/racial groups. Among those served by the Title I Part A program (local education agency program) are about 167,000 private school children, close to 300,000 migrant children, and over 200,000 children identified as homeless.  Title I services are also available to about 2 million students with limited English proficiency, almost one fifth of all students served and growing in number, and 1 million students with disabilities.(5) In 1996-97, Even Start served (Part B) some 48,000 children and almost 36,000 adults.(6)  Over 580,000 migrant children were served under the Migrant Education Program (Part C)(7), and 200,000 neglected or delinquent youth were served in the Title I Part D program for neglected or delinquent youth.(8)

### The 1994 Reauthorization of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, along with the Goals 2000:  Educate America Act, introduced a new federal approach built around a framework of standards-driven reform.  Challenging standards for all students would promote excellence and equity, and better link Title I along with other federally-supported programs to state and local reform efforts.  As the largest single federal investment in elementary and secondary education, the reauthorized Title I adopted each of the key principles outlined in the legislation:

- Support states in setting high standards for all children—with the elements of education 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
- Provide flexibility to stimulate school-based and district initiatives, coupled with responsibility for student performance
- Create links among schools, parents, and communities 
- Target resources to where the needs are greatest

Six years ago, the U.S. Department of Education reported to Congress on the effectiveness of the program as it operated as Chapter 1.  That report, Reinventing Chapter 1:  The Current Chapter 1 Program and New Directions, which drew from the Prospects longitudinal study, concluded that in order for the program to effectively support all students in meeting challenging standards, fundamental change was required.   Indeed, as the prior National Assessment of Chapter 1 found, Chapter 1 programs reinforced low expectations of the students they served by providing students with remedial instruction and holding them to lower academic standards than other students.(9)

- Different expectations were clearly evident for students in high- and low-poverty schools.  Indeed, when measured against a common test, an "A" student in a high-poverty school would be about a "C" student in a low-poverty school. (10) 
- Program-supported services pulled most Chapter 1 students out of their regular classrooms for program-supported services, adding an average of only 10 minutes of instructional time per day, and often failing to relate to the rest of the student's educational experience. (11) 
- Chapter 1 did not contribute to high-quality instruction, and often relied on teachers' aides who lacked educational credentials required to deliver high-quality instruction. (12) 
- Chapter 1 had not kept pace with the growing movement, across the country, toward the establishment of challenging standards and assessments.  Therefore, weaknesses in instruction were compounded by minimum competency assessments that tested primarily low-level skills. (13) 

The reauthorized Title I legislation coupled flexibility in the use of resources with attention to accountability for results.  Providing flexibility in tandem with performance accountability is the centerpiece of Title I, and an overall focus of the National Assessment of Title I.  The National Assessment also examines the implementation of key Title I provisions at the state, district and school levels.

### The Mandate for a National Assessment of Title I

The final report of the National Assessment of Title I responds to Congress' mandate to examine the progress of students served by the program and implementation of key provisions, and suggests strategies for improved policies or changes in statutory requirements.

Key issues addressed include: 

- The performance of students in high-poverty schools and low-performing students, the prime beneficiaries of Title I services
- The implementation of systems designed to support schools in helping students meet high standards, including the establishment of systems of challenging standards and assessments, the role of Title I in holding schools accountable for results, and targeting of Title I funds and the allocation and use of resources in states, districts and schools
- The implementation of Title I services at the school level, including strategies for providing challenging curriculum and instruction in high-poverty Title I schools, uses of schoolwide and targeted assistance approaches for providing services in Title I schools, qualifications of and support for staff (including aides) in Title I high-poverty schools, and Title I support for partnerships with families
- The implementation of additional Title I services targeted at special populations, including Part A Services to Students Enrolled in Private Schools, Even Start (Part B), Migrant Education Program (Part C), and Services to Neglected or Delinquent Children (Part D) 

The National Assessment of Title I also reports progress on key indicators identified for the  Title I program in response to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) [P.L. 103-62], which requires that agencies establish performance goals and track indicators for every program.  These indicators address improved achievement for students enrolled in high-poverty schools, increases in the number of Title I schools using standards-based reform and effective strategies to enable all children to reach challenging standards, and accelerated state and local reform efforts and assistance to Title I schools.

The National Assessment of Title I benefited from the involvement of an Independent Review Panel composed of representatives of state and local education agencies and private schools, school-level staff, parent representatives, education researchers, and policy experts.  The Panel, mandated under Sections 1501 and 14701 of the ESEA, has met three to four times a year since May 1995.  It has defined issues for the National Assessment of Title I and the companion *Report on the Impact of Federal Education Legislation Enacted in 1994* to address.  Panel members have also participated in reviews of study plans, data analysis, and draft text for both reports.

### KEY FINDINGS

#### Progress in the Performance of Students in High-Poverty Schools 

The impact of standards-based reform is beginning to be seen in improved achievement among students in high-poverty schools and among low-performing students—who are the primary recipients of Title I services.

***Performance on National Assessments of Reading***

**Since 1992, prior to the reauthorization of Title I, national reading performance has improved for 9-year-olds in the highest-poverty public schools, (those with 75 percent of more low-income children) regaining ground lost in the late 1980s and early 1990s.**  Scores on the long-term trend assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) of 9-year olds in high-poverty public schools increased 8 points (close to one grade level) between 1992 and 1996 (Exhibit 2).

| **Exhibit 2Trends in NAEP Reading Performance**Average Scale Scores of 9-Year-Old Public School Students, by Poverty Level of School (1988 - 1996)

Highest-poverty school = 76% to 100% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.  Low-poverty school = 0% - 25% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.  Scale scores are 0-500. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

> 
Exhibit reads:  In 1996, the average reading scale score for 9-year-old students in the highest-poverty schools was 188.Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP Reading Trends, unpublished tabulations, 1998 

**Among the lowest achieving public school 4th graders—those most likely to be served by Title I—there were fairly substantial improvements in reading between 1994 and 1998.**  Results of the Main NAEP reading assessment showing substantial gains for low achievers—9 points among the bottom 10 percent and 5 points among the bottom 25 percent—compared to the stable performance of other percentile groups, suggest that it was the performance of the lowest achievers that raised the national average of all fourth graders.

***Performance on National Assessments of Mathematics***

**Math achievement has improved nationally, especially among students in the highest-poverty public schools.**  NAEP scores on the long-term trend assessment show an increase of about 10 points for all 9-year olds from 1986 through 1996 (Exhibit 3).

| **Exhibit 3Trends in NAEP Mathematics Performance**Average Scale Scores of 9-Year-Old Public School Students, by Poverty Level of School (1988 - 1996)

Highest-poverty school = 76% to 100% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.  Low-poverty school = 0% - 25% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.  Scale scores are 0-500. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

> 
Exhibit reads:  In 1996, the average mathematics scale score of 9-year-old students in the highest-poverty schools was 217.Source:  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP Mathematics Trends, unpublished tabulations, 1998. 

**Math scores from the main NAEP assessment also improved substantially among public 4th grade students in the lowest percentiles of performance—those most typically targeted for Title I services.**  The main NAEP assessment shows that from 1990 to 1996, the average performance of the lowest achieving students improved steadily.  NAEP scores of the lowest 25 percent improved by 8 points.

**However, a substantial achievement gap remains between students in the highest- and lowest- poverty schools.** In 1998, 32 percent of students in the highest-poverty schools met or exceeded the NAEP Basic level in reading, about half the rate nationally of students in public schools.  In math, 42 percent of students in the highest poverty schools scored at or above the NAEP Basic level in 1996, compared with 62 percent in all public schools (Exhibits 4 and 5).

 

| **Exhibit 4NAEP 4th-Grade Reading**Percentage of Public 4th Graders Scoring At or Above Basic Level and Proficient Achievement Levels, by Poverty Level of School

Poverty Level of School | **Exhibit 5NAEP 4th-Grade Math**Percentage of Public 4th Graders Scoring At or Above Basic Level and Proficient Achievement Levels, by Poverty Level of School

Poverty Level of School |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

> Exhibit reads:  In 1998, 61 percent of students attending public schools performed at or above the Basic level in reading, and in 1996, 62 percent of all 4th-graders scored at or above the Basic level in math. Source:  U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Main NAEP Reading and Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 1999.

**Despite the nationwide gap in performance, the percent of fourth-grade students enrolled in highest-poverty public schools achieving at or above the Basic level exceeded the national average (62 percent) in 9 states**—indicating that it is possible to bring these students to high levels of achievement (Exhibit 6).

| **Exhibit 6Sate NAEP 4th-Grade Mathematics, 1996**Percentage of Students in the Highest-Poverty Public SchoolsPerforming At or Above Basic Level, by State

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

> 
Exhibit reads: In Maine, 80 percent of 4th graders who attended the highest-poverty schools scored at or above the *Basic* level in math.   Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress, State NAEP Mathematics, unpublished tabulations, 1998.   

***Performance on State and District Assessments***

Trends in student performance based on the assessments of individual states and districts provide an additional perspective for measuring the progress of students in high-poverty areas.

**Three year trends reported by states and districts show progress in the percentage of students in the highest-poverty schools meeting state and local standards for proficiency in mathematics and reading.**  Among states and large urban districts that provided three-year trend data for students in high-poverty schools, progress overall is positive. Due to changes in state assessment systems to comply with Title I legislation, few states can currently provide three-year trend data on students in high-poverty schools. Results from 13 large urban districts are presented to show trends in student performance in areas in which poverty and educational challenges are most highly concentrated.  Districts profiled are among the largest in the country; have student populations that are at least 35 percent minority and 50 percent eligible for free/reduced price lunch; serve high concentrations of limited English proficient students; are geographically diverse; and have at least three years of achievement data on the same assessment in reading and math for elementary and middle school students. As with states, these are among those that provided data (which were available in fall/early winter 1998).

- The achievement of elementary school students in the highest-poverty schools improved in 5 of 6 states reporting three year trends in reading and in 4 of 5 states reporting trends in mathematics.  Students in Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas made progress in both subjects. (14) 
-  Ten of 13 large urban districts showed increases in the percentage of elementary students in the highest-poverty schools who met district or state proficiency standards in reading or math.  Six districts, including Houston, Miami-Dade County, New York, Philadelphia, San Antonio and San Francisco made progress in both subjects. (15)

|  | Highlights | | | Elementary and Secondary Education with Title I | | | Executive Summary (part 2 of 3) |  |
|--|------------|---|-------------------------------------------------|---|---------------------------------|--|