This is some 

POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

AA SSNNAAPPSSHHOOTT OOFF TTIITTLLEE II SSCCHHOOOOLLSS,, 220000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC # 2003–02

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

AA SSNNNAAAPPPSSSHHHOOOTTTOOOFFFTTIIITTTLLLEEEIISSCCCHHHOOOOOOLLLSSS,, 22000000––0011

SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY

JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS

SCOTT NAFTEL

SHEILA E. MURRAY

RAND 

1200 SOUTH HAYES STREET

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-5050 

2003
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number EA 97010001. The views expressed here

contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. U.S. Department of Education Roderick R. PaigeSecretary Office of the Under SecretaryEugene Hickok Under Secretary Policy and Program Studies Service Alan L. Ginsburg DirectorProgram and Analytic Studies Division David Goodwin Director October 2003 This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this pu

necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies SerTitle I Schools, 2000–01, Washington, D.C., 2003. To order copies of this report, write: ED Pubs Education Publications Center U.S. Department of Education P. O. Box 1398 Jessup, MD 20794-1398; via fax, dial (301) 470-1244; or via electronic mail, send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5

LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833. To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/ppss/index.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For mcontact the Department’s Alternate Format Center (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
CONTENTS 

Introduction ......................................................................................................1 Data Sources ...................................................................................................1 Caveats............................................................................................................2 Key Terms........................................................................................................2 Notes................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................3 Key Findings ....................................................................................................5 Profile of Title I Schools, Students, and Teachers ...........................................7 Student Outcomes .........................................................................................12 Coordination of Funds....................................................................................26 Provision of Extended Learning Time Programs ...........................................27 Provision of Additional Instructional Services ................................................28 Parent Involvement in Schools ......................................................................30 Professional Development.............................................................................32 Instructional Leadership.................................................................................36 School Accountability Under Title I ................................................................37 Appendix........................................................................................................43

Page i | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Page ii | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1. School Poverty Level ....................................................................................................................................................Exhibit 2. Percentage Minority Students.......................................................................................................................................Exhibit 3. Schools Serving Selected Student Subgroups .............................................................................................................Exhibit 4. Experience and Attrition Rates of Teachers .................................................................................................................Exhibit 5. Prevalence of Schoolwide Programs and Research-Based School Reform Models....................................................Exhibit 6. Student Readiness for the Next Grade and Promotion Rates ......................................................................................Exhibit 7. Trends in Participation of Selected Student Subgroups in Annual State Assessments................................................Exhibit 8. Reporting of Disaggregated Assessment Results ........................................................................................................Exhibit 9. State Reports of the Categories by Which They Disaggregate State Assessment Results .........................................Exhibit 10. Proficiency Levels of Low-Income and Other Students on the 2002 State NAEP, 4th Grade Reading.........................

Exhibit 11. Gap in Proficiency Levels of Low-Income and Other Students on the 2002 State NAEP, 4th Grade Reading .............

Exhibit 12. Gap in Proficiency Levels in High- and Low-Poverty Schools on the 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Reading ...

Exhibit 13. Proficiency Levels of Low-Income and Other Students on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th Grade Mathematics..................

Exhibit 14. Gap in Proficiency Levels of Low-Income and Other Students on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th Grade Mathematics ......

Exhibit 15. Gap in Proficiency Levels in High- and Low-Poverty Schools on the 2001 State Assessments, 8th Grade Mathemati

Exhibit 16. Student Proficiency Levels on the 2002 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Reading ....................

Exhibit 17. Differences in Student Proficiency Levels on the 2002 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Readin

Exhibit 18. Student Proficiency Levels on the 2000 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 8th Grade Mathematics .............

Exhibit 19. Differences in Student Proficiency Levels on the 2000 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 8th Grade Mathem

Exhibit 20. Coordination of Title I Funds with Other Sources of Funds ..........................................................................................Exhibit 21. Prevalence of Extended Learning Time Programs .......................................................................................................Exhibit 22. Settings in Which Additional Instructional Services Were Provided .............................................................................Exhibit 23. Use of Teacher Aides to Provide Additional Instructional Services ..............................................................................Exhibit 24. Level of Parent Involvement in Schools........................................................................................................................Exhibit 25. Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Student Learning...................................................................................Exhibit 26. Focus of Teacher Professional Development ...............................................................................................................

Page iii | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 27. Duration of Teacher Professional Development Activities and Relationship to Teaching Practices.............................

Exhibit 28. Relationship Between Professional Development and Teacher Preparedness............................................................Exhibit 29. Professional Development Opportunities for Teacher Aides ........................................................................................Exhibit 30. Teachers’ Ratings of Principals as Instructional Leaders .............................................................................................

Exhibit 31. Percentage of Title I Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement Under Title I, State Reports ...............................Exhibit 32. Principal Knowledge About the School Improvement Process .....................................................................................Exhibit 33. Poverty and Minority Status of Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement Under Title I and All Title I Schools ....Exhibit 34. Provision of Technical Assistance ................................................................................................................................Exhibit 35. Additional Strategies Adopted by Schools as a Result of Being Identified for Improvement ........................................Exhibit 36. Additional Steps and Corrective Actions Taken by Districts with Schools as a Result of Their Being Identified for 

Improvement .................................................................................................................................................................

Exhibit A.1. Categories by Which State Assessment Results Are Disaggregated, 2000–01...........................................................

Exhibit A.2. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2002 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessm

4th Grade Reading.........................................................................................................................................................

Exhibit A.3. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2000 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessm

8th Grade Mathematics..................................................................................................................................................

Exhibit A.4. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2002 State NAEP, 4th Grade Reading, 

Categorized by Eligibility for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program..................................................................

Exhibit A.5. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th Grade Mathematics, 

Categorized by Eligibility for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program..................................................................

Exhibit A.6. Gap Between High- and Low-Poverty Schools in the Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Lev

the 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Mathematics.............................................................

Exhibit A.7. Title I Schools Identified for School Improvement, by State, 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01 ..............................

Page iv | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
INTRODUCTION 

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the largest compensatory federal education program—cu

annually—aimed at improving the educational opportunities of disadvantaged students. It provides resources to schools 

students at risk of educational failure, especially in districts with the highest concentrations of poverty. More than 15 millioprivate schools participate in Title I, two-thirds of whom are in elementary schools. Ninety-six percent of the nation’s 

(defined as those with 75 percent or more of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program) receive nearlprovided to schools. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) embodies four principles: stronger accountability for results; expanded fle

an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work; and expanded options for parents. For example, N

develop and implement challenging content and performance standards for all students, to adopt yearly assessments thastandards, and to establish rigorous and explicit criteria for measuring school progress (adequate yearly progress or AY

schools with 40 percent or more of their students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program have been givecombining Title I funds with other sources of funding to implement schoolwide Title I programs, to improve the educational 

rather than just targeted Title I students. Schools are to be provided data on the performance of their students, disagg

characteristics, including race-ethnicity, poverty status, limited English proficiency status, student disability status, gendefoster data-driven decisionmaking.1 If schools fail to attain the AYP goal for two consecutive years, they are to be 

improvement under Title I and provided technical assistance to help them improve. In the first year of being identified as schools must provide students the option of transferring to a better-performing school; in the second year, schools m

students supplemental educational services from approved providers (including outside groups). If schools fail to make after being identified for improvement, they are subject to “corrective action” by districts, including replacing school st

curriculum, significantly decreased management authority, or restructuring. Many of these provisions were first inreauthorization of the ESEA. As such, understanding the progress that Title I schools made in implementing the provisionand the challenges they faced in doing so should offer useful lessons for the implementation of NCLB. This booklet presents a collection of exhibits utilizing data from several sources. Taken together, these exhibits provide a just prior to the passage of NCLB and document how conditions in these schools changed over time, particula

implementation of several key provisions of both the 1994 and 2001 legislation. Thus, this booklet offers baseline data owhich to measure progress under NCLB.

DATA SOURCES This report integrates data from several different sources, including the following: 

(a) Schools and Staffing Survey, Public School and Public Charter School Files, school year (SY) 1999–2000 (Exhibit

1The definition of adequate yearly progress for schools includes separate objectives for improvement in the achievement of students grou

with the exception of gender and migrant status. 

Page 1 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
(b) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) state assessments (Exhibits 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19; 

state NAEP is designed to provide accurate and representative state-level estimates of the performance 

representative state samples. Data shown are from the 2002 State NAEP assessment (4th grade reading) and 

assessment (8th grade mathematics). 

(c) U.S. Department of Education Consolidated State Performance Reports: 

a. Student performance on 4th grade reading and 8th grade mathematics on the 2001 state-mandated asses

16, 17, 18, 19; A.2, A.3, A.6); and 

b. Student categories by which state assessment data are disaggregated (Exhibits 9; A.1). 

(d) State reports to the U.S. Department of Education on the number of schools identified as in need of improveme

31; A.7). 

(e) National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS), the primary source of data for the exhibits, except as noted ab

year study launched by the U.S. Department of Education to collect data on the implementation of the 1994 provrepresentative sample of 1,507 Title I schools in SY 1998–99. Designed and conducted by Westat, the principathe NLSS were first fielded during 1998–99; schools that remained in the Title I program were followed for the 

2000–01. The total number of responding schools was 1,081 in 1998–99, 987 in 1999–2000, and 967 in 2000–

were sampled in each school: a Title I teacher (where present), and mathematics and reading, language arts, o

total number of responding teachers was 5,422 in 1998–99, 5,419 in 1999–2000, and 5,255 in 2000–01. 

CAVEATS It is important to keep in mind that the NLSS analyses reported here are based on survey data that rely on respondents’ s

the findings generally present subgroup comparisons (e.g., highest-poverty versus low-poverty schools) for the variables meant to suggest causality. Another important caveat is that the samples of respondents in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 arthe 1998–99 population of Title I schools that remained eligible in those two subsequent years, and not of the popula

1999–2000 or 2000–01 (which would include new Title I schools not represented in the 1998–99 sample).

KEY TERMS Title I School: School receiving Title I funds. School Poverty Level: Measured by the percentage of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program. 

as follows, based on the percentage of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program: “highest-poverpoverty” (≥50 percent); “low-to-medium poverty” (35–49.9 percent); and “low-poverty” (<35 percent). 

Low-Income Student: Measured by a student’s eligibility for the free and reduced-price lunch program.

Percentage Minority Students: Measured by the percentage of students who were classified as other than “white, non

categorized as follows, based on the percentage of minority students: “highest-minority” (≥75 percent); “high-minority” 

medium minority” (25–49.9 percent); and “low-minority” (<25 percent). 

Page 2 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Schoolwide Schools: Under the 1994 legislation, high-poverty schools (those with school poverty level ≥50 percent) we

money, in combination with other federal, state, and local funds, to improve the entire educational program for all their s

targeted Title I students), i.e., to operate schoolwide programs.2 Schools that do not meet the eligibility criteria can som

operate schoolwide programs. Schools operating schoolwide programs are referred to as “schoolwide schools.” Targeted Assistance Schools: Targeted assistance programs use Title I funds to provide services to students identified 

of failing to meet a state’s content and student performance standards. Schools operating targeted assistance progr

“targeted assistance schools.” Significant: The term is used in the statistical sense to indicate that the difference between the estimates being com

significant at the 0.05 level. 

NOTES • Results from the NAEP are compared with data from the state assessments to provide multiple indicators of student pe

Note that, because of the differences in definitions of proficiency levels in the NAEP and state performance standards, 

directly comparable.3 Nonetheless, the data provide an indication of how results vary between standard setting metho

and the states in terms of percentage of students regarded as “proficient.” 

• The NLSS exhibits report weighted estimates. • Each exhibit is accompanied by an “Exhibit reads” below the graph or table. This is not intended to highlight the key po

statistically significant findings, but simply to illustrate how to read the first few data points on the exhibit. 

• The text in the main body of the exhibit discusses key points and where appropriate, the statistical significance of the f• The exhibits report estimates that have been rounded. As a result, numbers may not total 100 percent. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Susan Sanchez and Daphne Hardcastle, the former and current Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for 

Gutmann of Westat, the Project Director of the NLSS, for their interest in and support of this study. Several staff members of Education, in particular Stephanie Stullich, David Goodwin, and Alan Ginsburg, provided useful comments on earlier ve

are grateful to the following RAND colleagues for their assistance with this report: Stephen Bloodsworth, our graphics 

editor; Heather Barney, our research assistant; and Carolyn Rowe, our administrative assistant. Most of all, we thank the teachers, principals, and staff in the studied schools who gave of their time to participate in the su

2As mentioned, the 2001 legislation expanded eligibility from schools with 50 percent or more of their students eligible for the free and red

program to schools with 40 percent or more of their students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program. 3See, for example, National Research Council. (1999). Uncommon measures: Equivalence and linkage among educational tests. Was

Academy Press; Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (2); Linn, R. L. (2003). Performance 

different uses of assessments. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(31).

Page 3 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 4 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
KEY FINDINGS

• Compared with all public schools in 2000–01, Title I schools had higher student poverty levels and served higher 

students, students with limited English proficiency, migrant students, and Native American students.

• Compared with Title I low-poverty schools, Title I highest-poverty schools faced greater challenges in terms of high

teacher inexperience, higher percentages of students not being prepared to work at the next grade level, and involvement. However, these schools had adopted a number of strategies, including appointing parent liaisons aparents, to increase parental involvement in student learning. 

• Despite legislation requiring schools to minimize pullout programs (programs that remove struggling students from 

supplemental instructional services), over 70 percent of Title I schoolwide schools used pullout programs to proservices.

• Participation of migrant students and students with disabilities in the state assessments increased markedly ove

2000–01.

• The percentage of low-income students achieving at or above the proficient level on the NAEP in both reading and 

lower than the percentage of students who were not low-income who scored at or above the proficient level. The gap poverty schools in the percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient level on state assessments in both rewas large. In half the states for which data were available, the difference was 30 percentage points or higher. 

• About half the states reported disaggregating assessment results by various categories of students including poverty, 

proficiency, and disability status of students. However, while the percentage of Title I schools receiving disaggregate

1998–99 to 2000–01, many principals reported not yet receiving disaggregated data.

• There was considerable confusion on the part of principals about the school improvement process. Only a little 

principals in schools identified by the district for improvement agreed that their school had been identified as in nethese, many did not know what the state considered to be adequate yearly progress.

• Only half of the schools in need of improvement had received additional technical assistance or professional develop

law. Districts appeared to be targeting newly-identified schools and schools that had been identified for four or m

assistance. 

Page 5 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 6 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 1 Profile of Title I Schools

School Poverty Level SOURCE: Schools and Staffing Survey, SY 1999–2000.

Compared with non-Title I public schools, Title I schools were much 1999–2000, over a quarter (26 percent) of Title I schools were highest-pothose with 75 percent or more of students eligible for the free and reducompared with only 7 percent of non-Title I schools. Overall, more th(52 percent) were high-poverty schools, with 50 percent or more of stuand reduced-price lunch program, compared with 18 percent of non-Titthirds of non-Title I schools (67 percent) were low-poverty schools, define35 percent of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch prog30 percent of Title I schools. All the differences between Title I and nshown in the exhibit were statistically significant. School Poverty Level: Title I and Non-Title I Public Schools, 1999–2000 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools 26 26

18 14

11 7

75–100 50–74 35–49 

Percentage low-income students

Title I schoolsNon-Title I schools

Exhibit reads: In 1999–2000, 26 percent of Title I schools were highest-poverty sch7 percent of non-Title I schools.

Page 7 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 2 Profile of Title I Schools

Percentage Minority Students SOURCE: Schools and Staffing Survey, SY 1999–2000. 

In 1999–2000, Title I schools served a higher percentage of minority stuschools. For example, 23 percent of Title I schools were in the highe75 percent or more students being minority, compared with only 10 percThirty-seven percent of Title I schools served student bodies that were 50 compared with 19 percent of non-Title I schools. All the differences betwpublic schools shown in the exhibit were statistically significant.Percentage Minority Students: Title I and Non-Title I Public Schools, 1999–2

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools

23

14 15 18

10 9

75–100 50–74 25–49 

Percentage minority students

Title I schoolsNon-Title I schools

Exhibit reads: In 1999–2000, 23 percent of Title I schools were in the highest-mino

compared with 10 percent of non-Title I schools.

Page 8 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 3 Profile of Title I Schools

Schools Serving Selected Student Subgroups SOURCE: Schools and Staffing Survey, SY 1999–2000.

In 1999–2000, students with limited English proficiency, migrant studenstudents were much more likely to attend Title I schools than non-Title 69 percent of students with limited English proficiency, 71 percent o64 percent of Native American students attended a Title I school. All Title I and non-Title I public schools shown in the exhibit were statistically Percentage of Selected Student Subpopulations Being Served by Title I and 1999–2000 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of students in selected

subpopulations 69 71 

29 31

Students with limited

English proficiency

Migrant students 

Exhibit reads: In 1999–2000, 69 percent of students with limited English proficienc

while 31 percent attended non-Title I schools. 

Page 9 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 4 Profile of Title I Schools

Experience and Attrition Rates of Teachers SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

In 2000–01, 12 percent of teachers in Title I schools had less than three 7 percent of the teachers did not return to the same school after sumpoverty schools were significantly more likely to have higher perceteachers and rates of teacher attrition than low-poverty schools. SeventeTitle I highest-poverty schools had less than three years of experience, cothe low-poverty schools. The annual attrition rate of teachers in the higalso higher than that of teachers in the low-poverty schools (8 percent vePercentage of Inexperienced Teachers and Attrition Rates of Teachers: Title Poverty Level, 2000–01 

05

101520

Percentage of teachers 7 

9 17 12 

Less than three years of total

teaching experience

No longer tea

All Title I schoolsHighest-poverty schLow-poverty schoo

Exhibit reads: In 2000–01, on average, 12 percent of the teachers in all Title I scho

years’ teaching experience, compared with 17 percent of the teachers in the highespercent of the teachers in low-poverty schools. 

Page 10 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 5 Profile of Title I Schools

Prevalence of Schoolwide Programs and ResearchBased School Reform Models SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999–2000 and SY 2000–01.

In 2000–01, 85 percent of high-poverty Title I schools and 30 percent of less than 50 percent low-income students) operated schoolwide programuse Title I funds for overall school improvement, and this difference waMany schools had adopted “research-based” reform models as a walearning, and student achievement (although the degree to which all thesresearch is open to question). High-poverty Title I schools were somewschool reform model than were other schools, although the differensignificant. Although not shown in the exhibit, schools operating schoolwthat had been identified as in need of improvement were more likely models than were targeted assistance schools or schools that had not former difference was statistically significant). The percentage of Title adopting a research-based school reform model increased significantly 2000–01, from 46 to 62 percent. Percentage of Schools Adopting Schoolwide Programs and Research-BaseTitle I Schools, by School Poverty Level, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools 62 6

85

30

59

Schoolwide Title I program Research-bas

All Title I schoolsHigh-poverty schools ( 50% poveLow- and medium-poverty schools 

–

>

Exhibit reads: Fifty-nine percent of all Title I schools operated schoolwide Title I prothe high-poverty schools and 30 percent of the medium- to low-poverty schools. 

Page 11 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 6 

Student Readiness for the Next Grade and Promotion Rates SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

In 2000–01, principals in Title I schools reported that 19 percent of prepared to work at the next grade level, but only 5 percent of students next grade. Students in the highest-poverty schools were significantly lesdo work at the next grade level. For example, on average, principaschools reported that 24 percent of students were not ready for the ne10 percent of students in the low-poverty schools. Despite this, only 8 phighest-poverty schools and 3 percent in the low-poverty schools were redifference was statistically significant.Principal Reports About Percentage of Students Not Prepared to Work at the Percentage Not Promoted: Title I Schools, by School Poverty Level, 2000–01 

05

1015202530

Percentage of students 19 24 

8

5

All Title I schools L

Noat nNogra

Highest-poverty schools

( 75% po >– verty) 

Exhibit reads: Title I school principals reported that while 19 percent of their studenat the next grade level, only 5 percent of their students were not promoted to the ne

Page 12 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 7 

Trends in Participation of Selected Student Subgroups in Annual State AssessmentsNOTE: Questions were asked of principals who reported their school used the state or district assessment. Questions regarding participation of migrant students and students with limited English proficiency in the 1997–98 

assessments were asked only of principals in schools with migrant students or more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency. The question was changed to include any students with limited English proficiency in the later year. For comparability, data shown for both years are for schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency.

SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01.

Principals reported that over 90 percent of students participated in the state or district assessments. Participation of students with limited Engfrom 80 percent to 83 percent between 1997-98 and 1999-2000, althougstatistically significant. Participation of students with disabilities (i.e., education plans or IEPs) increased significantly from 72 percent to 86 pand 1999–2000, as did the participation of migrant students, from 60 percPercentage of All Students and Selected Student Subgroups Participating in Title I Schools, 1997–98 and 1999–2000 

0

204060

100

80

Percentage of students participating

in the state assessments

All students Students with

limited English

proficiency

Migrant students 

92

80

72

86

83

93

SY 1997–98SY 1999–2000

Exhibit reads: In 1997–98, 92 percent of all students participated in the state assesparticipated in 1999–2000.

Page 13 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 8 

Reporting of Disaggregated Assessment ResultsNOTE: Questions were asked of principals who reported their school used the state or district assessment. Questions regarding participation of migrant students and students with limited English proficiency in the 1997–98 assessments were asked only of principals in schools with migrant students or more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency. The question was changed to include any students with limited English proficiency in the subsequent years. For comparability, data shown for all years are for schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency.SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99, SY 1999–2000, and SY 2000–01.

States and districts were required to disaggregate assessment results were in place by 2000–01) by various categories of students and to pschools to facilitate data-driven decisionmaking. There was some prodisaggregated data to Title I schools from 1998–99 to 2000–01, witoccurring between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The percentage of ssummarized by disability status of students (i.e., students with and withTitle I participation, and poverty level increased significantly from 1998–9many principals reported not yet receiving disaggregated data. (It mprovided disaggregated data but principals either did not receive them receiving them). For example, in 2000–01, only 38 percent of ssummarized by student poverty level, 57 percent received results summand 62 percent received results summarized by gender. Percentage of Schools Receiving Assessment Results Summarized by SubSchools, 1998–99 to 2000–01 

SY 1998–99 SY 1999

Percentage o

Gender 54 62 Students with disabilities 43 58 Race-ethnicity 43 52 Title I students 30 43 Low-income students 19 33 Students with limited Englishproficiency

62 60 

Migrant students 33 31 

Exhibit reads: In 1998–99, 54 percent of Title I schools received state assessment gender. In 1999–2000 and 2000–01, this had increased to 62 percent. 

Page 14 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 9 

State Reports of Categories byWhich They Disaggregate State Assessment ResultsSOURCE: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001.

In 2000–01, of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto included in subsequent exhibits as “states”), a total of 37 states reported state assessment results by whether schools were high-poverty or characteristics of students, over 40 states disaggregated state asseethnicity (44), limited English proficiency (43), and disability status of stusmaller number (38) reported they disaggregated results by the migranonly 30 states reported doing so by student poverty level. Half of the stdisaggregated by all the above categories. Three states (Arizona, Connnot report this information, one state (Hawaii) did not administer a state and two states (Iowa, Nebraska) did not have uniform, statewide assessin the appendix for more details.)Number of States Reporting Disaggregating State Assessment Results SumSubgroups of Schools and Students: 2000–01 

Categories by which state assessment results weredisaggregated in 2000–01High-poverty schools Race-ethnicity of students Students with limited English proficiency Migrant students Students with disabilities Economically disadvantaged students All of the above categories Not reported or no assessment in 2000–01 orno state-wide assessment* 

Note: *Not reported: Arkansas, Connecticut, Pennsylvania; No assessment iNo state-wide assessment: Iowa, Nebraska.

Exhibit reads: In 2000–01, 37 states disaggregated state assessment results by po

Page 15 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 10 

Proficiency Levels of LowIncome and Other Students on the 2002 State NAEP, 4th

Grade Reading

SOURCE: 2002 State NAEP. 

The percentage of low-income students scoring at or above the prof4th grade reading state NAEP was much lower than the percentage of stu

income who scored at this level. Among the 44 states for which percentage of low-income students scoring at or above the proficient lev(District of Columbia) to 30 percent (Minnesota). In contrast, betweeColumbia) and 56 percent (Massachusetts) of students who were not above the proficient level. There is little overlap between the two distrione state in which the percentage of low-income students achieving alevel reached 30 percent. In 40 out of 44 states, the percentage of stuincome who reached proficiency level was 30 percent or higher, and in 2was 40 percent or higher. (See Exhibit A.4 in the appendix for the detaile

Number of States by Percentage of Low-Income and Other Students Scoring Level on the 2002 State NAEP, 4th Grade Reading 

Percentage of students Number of statesachieving at or above theproficient level Low-income students 0–9

10–19

20–2930–3940–4950–59Data not available

2

2714

1008

Exhibit reads: In two states, the percentage of low-income 4th grade students scori

level in reading on the 2002 State NAEP was less than 10 percent. There was no percentage of other (i.e., not low-income) students scoring at or above the proficienpercent. 

Page 16 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 11 

Gap in Proficiency Levels of Low-Income and Other Students on the 2002 State NAEP, 4th Grade ReadingNOTE: Gap = Proficiency levels of students who were not low-income minus proficiency levels of students who were low-income. SOURCE: 2002 State NAEP.

The difference between the percentage of low-income students scoring level on the 2002 4th grade reading state NAEP and the percentage of st

income scoring at this level was between 11 and 33 percentage pointsdata were available, two states reported differences of between 10 and states reported differences of between 20 and 24 percentage points, differences of 30 percentage points or higher. The smallest differenceNevada (11 and 14 percentage points respectively), and the larMassachusetts, where 56 percent of students who were not low-incomproficient level, compared with only 23 percent of students who were loA.4 in the appendix for the detailed results by state.) Gap in the Percentage of Low-Income and Other Students Scoring at or Abo

the 2002 State NAEP, 4th Grade Reading 

05

10152025

Number of states

2

19

8

10

15–19

percentage

points

10–14

percentage

points

20–24

percentage

points

25–29

percentage

points

30

perce

po

Gap in performance between low-income and other stu

Exhibit reads: In two states, the difference between the percentage of low-income 

or above the proficient level in reading on the 2002 State NAEP and the percentaglow-income scoring at this level was between 10 and 14 percentage points. 

Page 17 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 12 

Gap in Proficiency Levels in High- and Low-PovertySchools on the 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade 

Reading 

NOTE: Gap = Proficiency levels of students in low-povertyschools minus proficiency levels of students in high-povertyschools. SOURCE: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001. 

Large differences existed in the relative performance of 4th grade stud

poverty schools on the 2001 state reading assessments. In all states bupoverty schools achieved higher scores than did students from higexample, in 8 of the 32 states for which data were reported, the percentpoverty schools that scored at or above the proficient level was 40–65 than the percentage of students from high-poverty schools who scored 32 states, the difference was 30 percentage points or higher. Virginia rdifference (–4 percentage points) and Louisiana reported no difference istudents from low-poverty and high-poverty schools. The largest difIndiana (65 percentage points). (See Exhibit A.6 in the appendix for the dGap Between High- and Low-Poverty Schools in the Percentage of Students 

Proficient Level on the 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Reading 

05

10152025

Number of states

2

4

8

10

8

Less than 10

percentage

points

10–19

percentage

points

20–29

percentage

points

30–39

percentage

points

4

perce

points an

Gap in performance between high- and low-poverty sch

Exhibit reads: In two states, the gap in the relative performance of 4th grade spoverty schools on the 2001 state reading assessments was less than 10 percenta

Page 18 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 13 

Proficiency Levels of LowIncome and Other Students on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th Grade Mathematics SOURCE: 2000 State NAEP.

Similar to the 2002 results for 4th grade reading, the percentage of lo

scored at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the 2000 8th gra

across the states than the percentage of students not classified as low-inlevel. Of the 38 states for which data were available, the percentage scoring at or above the proficient level ranged from 2 percent (District of (Minnesota). In contrast, between 14 percent (Mississippi) and 43 percewho were not low-income scored at this level. In 19 out of 38 states, thwho were not low-income who achieved the proficiency level was 30 percno state in which the percentage of low-income students achieving at or reached 30 percent. (See Exhibit A.5 in the appendix for the detailed res

Number of States by Percentage of Low-Income and Other Students Scoring Level on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th Grade Mathematics

Percentage of students Number of statesachieving at or above theproficient level Low-income students 0–9 22 

10–19 12 

20–29 4 30–39 0 40–49 0 Data not available 14 

Exhibit reads: In 22 states, the percentage of low-income 8th grade students scorin

level in mathematics on the 2000 state NAEP was less than 10 percent. There wepercentage of other students scoring at or above the proficient level was less than 

Page 19 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 14 

Gap in Proficiency Levels of Low-Income and Other Students on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th Grade Mathematics NOTE: Gap = Proficiency levels of students who were not low-income minus proficiency levels of students who were low-income.SOURCE: 2000 State NAEP.

The difference between the percentage of low-income students scoring level on the 2000 8th grade mathematics state NAEP and the percentage 

low-income scoring at this level was between 11 and 35 percentage polow-income students scoring at or above the proficient level was conpercentage of students who were not low-income who scored at this ledifferences of 10–14 percentage points, while six states reported differenpoints. The smallest differences were in Arkansas and Mississippi (11 pelargest difference was in Connecticut, where 42 percent of students wscored at or above the proficient level, compared with only 7 percent oincome. (See Exhibit A.5 in the appendix for the detailed results by state

Gap in the Percentage of Low-Income Students and Other Students Scoring Level on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th Grade Mathematics 

05

10152025

Number of states

6

14

12

4

2

10–14

percentage

points

15–19

percentage

points

20–24

percentage

points

25–29

percentage

points

30–

perce

poi

Gap in performance between low-income and other stud

Exhibit reads: In six states, the difference between the percentage of low-income 8

or above the proficient level in mathematics on the 2000 state NAEP and the percenot low-income scoring at this level was between 10 and 14 percentage points. 

Page 20 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 15 

Gap in Proficiency Levels in High- and Low-PovertySchools on the 2001 State Assessments, 8th Grade 

Mathematics 

NOTE: Gap = Proficiency levels of students in low-povertyschools minus proficiency levels of students in high-povertyschools.SOURCE: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001. 

Similar to what was shown earlier for 4th grade reading, there were fairl

relative performance of 8th grade students from high- and low-poverty s

mathematics assessments. For example, in 11 of the 26 states for whicdifference between the percentage of students from high-poverty schools the proficient level and the percentage of students from low-poverty sclevel was 40–49 percentage points, with the largest difference being in states was the difference less than 10 percentage points: Puerto Rico West Virginia (5), Alaska (8), and Texas (9). (See Exhibit A.6 in the results by state.)

Gap Between High- and Low-Poverty Schools in the Percentage of Students Proficient Level on the 2001 State Assessments, 8th Grade Mathematics 

05

101520253035

Number of states

5

3

5

2

1

Less than 10

percentage

points

10–19

percentage

points

20–29

percentage

points

30–39

percentage

points

40–

perce

po

Gap in performance between high- and low-poverty sch

Exhibit reads: In five states, the gap in the relative performance of 8th grade studen

poverty schools on the 2001 state mathematics assessments was less than 10 pe

Page 21 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 16 

Student Proficiency Levels on the 2002 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade 

Reading 

SOURCE: 2002 State NAEP and Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001.

The distributions of proficiency levels of 4th grade students in reading fro

and the 2001 state assessments are very different, with little overlap. that, among the 44 states for which data were available, the highest scoring at or above the proficient level was 47 percent (Massachusettspercent (District of Columbia). According to the state assessments, thpercent (Texas) and the lowest was 23 percent (Rhode Island). In fact, 2percent or more of their students scored at or above the proficient level owhile, according to the NAEP, in no state did the percentage of students 50 percent. (See Exhibit A.2 in the appendix for the detailed results by st

Number of States by Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the ProficiState NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Reading 

Percentage of students Number of statesachieving at or above theproficient level

2002 State NAEP 20

10–19 2 

20–29 15 30–39 25 40–49 2 50–59 0 60–69 0 70 and over 0 Data not available 8 

Exhibit reads: In two states 10 and 19 percent of their students achieved at or abov2002 State NAEP for 4th grade reading. There were no states in which less than 2

students achieved at or above the proficient level on the 2001 state assessments. 

Page 22 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 17 

Differences in Student Proficiency Levels on the 2002 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade 

Reading 

NOTE: Difference = Proficiency levels of students on 2001 state assessments minus proficiency levels of students on 2002 State NAEP.SOURCE: 2002 State NAEP and Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001.

Within-state comparisons of the percentage of students at or above pro

reading on the state assessments and the state NAEP show large diffepoint differences within states ranged from a low of –9 percenta65 percentage points. Rhode Island scored higher on the state NAEassessment. In two states, Mississippi and Texas, the difference exceedFor example, Mississippi reported that 81 percent of students scored alevel on the state assessment on 4th grade reading, compared with on

who scored at or above this level on the state NAEP. The comparable nupercent and 28 percent respectively. Of the 30 states for which data wera difference of 40 percentage points or higher, and 21 states had a diffpoints or higher. (See Exhibit A.2 in the appendix for the detailed results 

Number of States by Difference Between Percentages of Students Scoring aLevel on the 2001 State Assessments and 2002 State NAEP, 4th Grade Readi

Percentage point difference between percentage of studentsat or above the proficient level on the 2001 state assessmentsand the 2002 state NAEP, 4th grade reading

Less than 0* 0–9 

10–19 

20–29 30–39 40–49 50 and over Data not available 

Note: *Rhode Island had a higher score on the state NAEP (32 percent) thaassessment (23 percent).

Exhibit reads: In one state, the within-state percentage point difference between th

students scoring at or above the proficient level in reading on the 2001 state assesNAEP was less than zero. 

Page 23 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 18 

Student Proficiency Levels on the 2000 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 8th Grade 

Mathematics 

SOURCE: 2000 State NAEP and Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001.

As seen earlier with respect to 4th grade reading results comparing the 20

assessments, there was considerable difference between the distribution8th grade students in mathematics from the 2000 state NAEP and the 200

the 38 states participating in the state NAEP, the highest percentage above the proficient level was 40 percent (Minnesota) and the lowest wColumbia). According to the state assessments, the highest percentage and the lowest was 11 percent (District of Columbia). Eighteen states remore of their students scored at or above the proficient level in 8th gra

state assessment, while according to the NAEP, in no state did the perceat or above the proficient level reach 50 percent. All but two states scoreNAEP than on the 2001 state assessments. (See Exhibit A.3 in the aresults by state.) Number of States by Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Profici

State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 8th Grade Mathematics 

Percentage of students Number of statesachieving at or above theproficient level

2000 State NAEP 20

0–9 2 

10–19 11 

20–29 13 30–39 11 40–49 1 50–59 0 60– 69 0 70 and over 0 Data not available 14 

Exhibit reads: In two states, less than 10 percent of students scored at or above thstate NAEP for 8th grade mathematics. There was no state in which the percentag

scoring at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the 2001 state assessmepercent. 

Page 24 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 19 

Differences in Student Proficiency Levels on the 2000 State NAEP and 2001 State Assessments, 8th Grade 

Mathematics 

NOTE: Difference = Proficiency levels of students on 2001 state assessments minus proficiency levels of students on 2000 state NAEP.SOURCE: 2000 State NAEP and Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001.

The differences between the percentage of students scoring at or abo8th grade mathematics reported on the 2001 state assessments and the 

from a low of –12 percentage points to a high of 69 percentage pointsUtah, reported a higher percentage of students scoring at or above the pNAEP than on their own state assessments. The largest differenc93 percent of students scored at or above the proficient level on the statwith only 24 percent of students who scored at or above this level on t21 states for which data were available, six states had a difference of higher and 15 states had a difference of 20 percentage points or higherappendix for the detailed results by state.) Number of States by Difference Between Percentage of Students Scoring at 

Level on the 2001 State Assessments and 2000 State NAEP, 8th Grade Mathe

Note: *Two states, Maine and Utah, had a higher score on the state NAEP (3tively) than on the state assessments (20 and 23 percent respectively).

Percentage point difference between percentage of studentsat or above the proficient level on the 2001 state assessmentsand the 2000 state NAEP, 8th grade mathematics

Less than 0* 0–9 

10–19 

20–29 30–39 40–49 50 and over Data not available 

Exhibit reads: In two states, the within-state percentage point difference between t

students scoring at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the 2001 state astate NAEP was less than zero. 

Page 25 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 20 

Coordination of Title I Funds with Other Sources of Funds SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

When principals were asked about the challenges they faced in coordwith other school funds, almost two-thirds of them (66 percent) respondethe use of funds was a challenge, and 53 percent reported state control oproblem. About 45 percent of principals reported that they were unsure acombined, creating a challenge in coordinating different sources of fundinPercentage of Principals Reporting Various Challenges in Coordinating Title Sources of Funding: Title I Schools, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of principals 66 53 45

District controls

the use of funds

State controls

the use of funds

Unsure what

is allowed

Exhibit reads: In 2000–01, 66 percent of principals in Title I schools reported that dfunds was a challenge in coordinating Title I funds with other sources of funds. 

Page 26 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01
Exhibit 21 Provision of Extended 

Prevalence of Extended Learning Time Programs SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01.

In 2000–01, the majority of Title I schools offered before- or after-scho(69 percent) or summer or intersession programs (68 percent). Relativeextended school-year program (21 percent), weekend program (8 percen(5 percent). There was a significant 17 percentage point increase in offering before- or after-school programs between 1998–99 and 2000–01The percentage of principals reporting that they funded the programs throdeal across the programs. Between 25 and 29 percent of Title I schobefore- or after-school instructional programs or summer or intersession percent of schools used Title I funds for year-round programs or wpercentage of schools using Title I funds for summer or intersession proyear programs, or year-round programs decreased significantly between Percentage of Schools Offering Extended Learning Time Programs and FunTitle I Schools, 2000–01 

Percentage of Title I

schools offering the

program

Before- or after-school instructional program 69 Summer or intersession program 68 Extended school-year program 21 Weekend program 8 Year-round program 5 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-nine percent of Title I schools offered before- or after-school inpercent of Title I schools funded these programs through Title I funds. 

Page 27 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 22 Provision of Additio

Settings in Which Additional Instructional Services Were Provided NOTE: Questions were asked of regular classroom teachers who reported having students who received additional instructional services. Data shown are as a percentage of all elementary teachers. Although the exhibit refers to “additional instructional services,” students receiving these services, particularly in pullout settings, may be missing part of their regular instruction. SOURCE: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01.

Almost 90 percent of teachers in Title I elementary schools reported thaadditional instructional services in mathematics or reading. These insignificantly more likely to be provided either in a pullout setting or througsuch as a before- or after-school instructional program, in schoolwide assistance schools. For example, about 72 percent of the teachers ischools reported that additional instructional services were provided in a with 56 percent of teachers in targeted assistance schools. Similarly, 5schoolwide schools reported that instructional services were provided thtime programs compared with 25 percent of teachers in targeted assistpercent of teachers in schoolwide schools and 27 percent of teacherschools reported that services were provided in both pullout and in-claThis difference was statistically significant, as was the difference in the reporting that services were provided in all three settings (24 percent versPercentage of Elementary Teachers Reporting That Additional Instructional Class, in Pullout Settings, or Through Extended Learning Time Programs: Tby Title I Type, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of elementary teachers 47 72 

56 40

In class In pullout settings Thro

SchooTarget

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of teachers in Title I schools operating schoolwin Title I schools operating targeted assistance programs reported that additional inprovided in class. 

Page 28 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 23 Provision of Additio

Use of Teacher Aides to Provide Additional Instructional Services NOTE: Questions regarding the use of teacher aides were asked only about Title I-funded teacher aides. Data shown are as a percentage of all Title I elementary principals. Questions about services for students with limited English proficiency offered in English and the student’s nativelanguage were only asked of principals in schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency.Although the exhibit refers to “additional instructional services,” students receiving these services, particularly in pullout settings, may be missing part of their regular instruction. SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

Over 90 percent of elementary principals reported that their school used not shown, highest-poverty schools were significantly more likely than lowteacher aides through Title I. There was little difference in the use of additional instructional services between schoolwide and targeted aselementary level, with 47 percent of schools using teacher aides to provand 30–31 percent using aides to provide instruction in mathematischoolwide schools with more than 10 percent of students with limschoolwide schools were somewhat more likely to use teacher aides to pto teach English to these students and to provide services taught in the scompared with targeted assistance schools. However, the differencsignificant. Percentage of Principals Reporting That Teacher Aides Were Used to ProvidServices: Title I Elementary Schools, by Title I Type, 2000–01 

0

204060

100

80

Percentage of elementary principals 47 30 42 27 

31 47

Additional

instructional services

in reading

Additional

instructional services

in mathematics

Services provided in

English for students

with limited English

proficiency

All elementary schools Elementary sch

than 10% stude

English p

Schoolwide schoolsTargeted assistance schools

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of elementary school principals in both schoolwassistance schools reported that their school used teacher aides to provide additionreading. 

Page 29 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 24 Pare

Level of Parent Involvement in Schools SOURCE: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01.

Teachers were asked about the percentage of parents who attended parvolunteered in classrooms, and signed their students’ homework assignpoverty elementary schools reported a significantly higher level of parschool than did teachers in the highest-poverty elementary schools. For low-poverty schools estimated that about 88 percent of parents conferences, compared with the 63 percent reported by teachers in the Smaller, but still significant, differences existed on the other two indicatovolunteering in classrooms and signing homework assignments. Teacher Reports About Percentage of Parents Participating in Various ActivSchools, by School Poverty Level, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of parents 63

8

14

88

Attended parent-teacher

conference

Volunteered in classroom 

Highest-poverty schools ( 75% poveLow-poverty schools (<35% poverty

–

>

Exhibit reads: Teachers in Title I highest-poverty elementary schools reported that attended parent-teacher conferences, compared with the 88 percent reported by teelementary schools.

Page 30 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 25 Pare

Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Student Learning SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

Title I schools had adopted a number of strategies to increase parenlearning. Over half (between 55 and 57 percent) of Title I schools offerehad parent liaisons to improve communication between school and homefamily literacy programs. The highest-poverty schools were significantly mliaisons and offer training and family literacy programs than were the lowthe elementary and secondary levels. For example, among the 69 percent of elementary schools and 93 percent of secondary schocompared with only 41 and 51 percent of the low-poverty schools, respoverty schools offered family literacy programs. Percentage of Schools with Parent Liaisons, Training for Parents, and FamilTitle I Schools, by School Level and School Poverty Level, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools 77 33 41 48

18

93

51

77

69

Parent

liaisons

Elementary schools Secondar

Training for

parents

Family

literacy

program

Parent

liaisons

Traini

par

Highest-poverty schools ( 75% poverty)Low-poverty schools (<35% poverty)

–

>

Exhibit reads: Sixty-nine percent of Title I highest-poverty elementary schools had with 41 percent of Title I low-poverty elementary schools. 

Page 31 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 26 P

Focus of Teacher Professional Development NOTE: Questions about teaching students with limited English proficiency were only asked of principals in schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency.SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

Principals were asked the extent to which professional development various topics. Well over half the principals reported that professional d“to a great extent” on content and performance standards (60 percent), aor curriculum and instruction specific to reading, language arts, or Eng42 percent reported curriculum and instruction specific to mathematics aSmaller percentages reported that professional development focused varying academic abilities (34 percent) and integrating technology in(28 percent). Although not shown in the exhibit, about 41 percent of pmore than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency redevelopment in their school focused on teaching these students. Percentage of Principals Reporting that Teacher Professional Development Extent” on Various Topics: Title I Schools, 2000–01 

Focus of teacher professional development “to a great extent” Pe

Content and performance standards Assessments Reading, language arts, or English curriculum andinstructionMathematics curriculum and instruction Teaching students of varying academic abilities Integrating technology into the classroom 

Exhibit reads: Sixty percent of principals in Title I schools reported that teacher profocused “to a great extent” on content and performance standards. 

Page 32 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 27 P

Duration of Teacher Professional Development Activities and Relationship to Teaching Practices CAVEAT: The analyses reported here rely on respondents’ self-reports and may reflect socially desirable responses. The findings focus on comparisons among variables of interest and are not meant to suggest causality.SOURCE: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Teachers reported greater improvement in teaching practices from pactivities that were ongoing and frequent than activities that were oexample, of the teachers who reported engaging in common planning tapproximately 13 percent reported that it improved their teaching practice figure compares with 31 percent of teachers who engaged in the 45 percent of those who engaged in the activity “2–3 times a month,” and engaged in the activity “once a week.” All these differences were signifiholds for mentoring and networking activities. Percentage of Teachers Reporting That Participation in Various Activities ChPractice “To a Great Extent:” Title I Schools, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of teachers reporting that participitation

changed their teaching practice "to a great extent" Common planning Mentoring N

13 31 45 68 16 33 40 58 18 

A few times a year Once a month 2–3 times a month Once a week

Exhibit reads: Thirteen percent of teachers in Title I schools who participated in comtimes a year” reported that it changed their teaching practices “to a great extent,” coteachers who participated “once a month,” 45 percent of teachers who participated 68 percent of teachers who participated “once a week.” 

Page 33 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 28 P

Relationship Between Professional Development and Teacher Preparedness CAVEAT: The analyses reported here rely on respondents’ self-reports and may reflect socially desirable responses. The findings focus on comparisons among variables of interest and are not meant to suggest causality.NOTE: Questions were asked only of teachers who reported receiving professional development in the past 12 months. Questions regarding content standards were asked of teachers who taught the specific subject and were familiar with content standards. SOURCE: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01.

Teachers who received professional development in a given area in tsignificantly more likely to report feeling prepared “to a great extent” to tethan were teachers who had not participated in such activity. For exampteachers who had received professional development in how to teach reading or mathematics reported being very well prepared to do so, cpercent of teachers who had not received such professional developmeknow whether these teachers had received such professional developmdifference with respect to the level of preparedness to use student ptechniques was even larger between teachers who had received tdevelopment and those who had not (54 percent versus 31 percent). Percentage of Teachers Reporting They Felt Prepared “To a Great Extent” to Title I Schools, 2000–01 

0

204060

100

80

Percentage of teachers reporting they

felt prepared "to a great extent" 86 72 71 56 69 49 54 31 

Teach the

subject area in

your main

assignment

Teach to

content

standards in

mathematics

Teach to

content

standardsin reading

Use stude

performan

assessme

technique

Teachers who received the professioTeachers who did not receive the pro

Exhibit reads: Eighty-six percent of teachers in Title I schools who received professmain subject assignment in the past 12 months reported feeling prepared “to a grecompared with 72 percent of teachers who did not receive such professional devel

Page 34 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 29 P

Professional Development Opportunities for Teacher Aides SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

In 2000–01, 88 percent of the principals in schools with teacher aides rewere included in professional development activities. Overall, about 31 schools that had teacher aides and included them in professional develothat their district provided career ladders for teacher aides or offered fuaides to take higher education courses. About 21 percent reported offered release time for the teacher aides to take a class or study for theEducational Development (GED) diploma, while 12 percent offered diploma or GED classes. There were no statistically significant differeports by the poverty level of the school. Percentage of Principals Reporting That Their School District Offered VariouDevelopment Opportunities for Teacher Aides: Title I Schools, 2000–01 

0

2010304050

Percentage of principals 31

21

31 31

Career

ladders

Release time for

higher education

courses

Funding for

higher education

courses

Release time 

courses for h

school diplo

or GED clas

Exhibit reads: About 31 percent of principals in schools that had teacher aides and professional development activities reported that their district provided career ladde

Page 35 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 30 

Teachers’ Ratings of Principals as Instructional Leaders SOURCE: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01.

Teachers in Title I highest-poverty elementary schools gave significanprincipals as instructional leaders, compared with teachers in Title I low-ppercent of teachers in the highest-poverty schools reported that thprofessional collaboration among teachers, compared with 53 percent oschools. Over half of these teachers reported that principals discussestudent evaluation results with them and arranged school staff and time ton classroom instruction, compared with 30–40 percent of teachers in these differences in teacher reports between the highest-poverty and lstatistically significant. Percentage of Elementary Teachers Reporting That Their Principal PerformeGreat Extent:” Title I Elementary Schools, by School Poverty Level, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of teachers reporting the principal

performed each task "to a great extent" 54 39 52 37 45 27 64 53 

Discuss content

standards with

teachers

Discuss student

evaluation

results with

teachers

Discuss

curriculum

materials and

methods with

teachers

Encoura

professio

collaborat

among teac

Highest-poverty schools ( 75% poverty)Low-poverty schools (<35% poverty)

–

>

Exhibit reads: Fifty-four percent of teachers in Title I highest-poverty elementary scprincipal discussed content standards with teachers, compared with 39 percent of telementary schools. 

Page 36 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 31 School A

Percentage of Title I Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement Under Title I, State Reports SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, State Reports, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01.

In 2000–01, most states identified fewer than 20 percent of their improvement under Title I. Fifteen states identified between 10 and 19 and 22 states identified less than 10 percent of their schools as in nenumber of states identifying 40 percent or more of their schools decli1998–99 to three states in 2000–01. The states identifying the largest p2000–01 were Michigan (75 percent) and Hawaii (69 percent). Two statereported identifying no schools as needing improvement, and one stareport any information on this item. (See Exhibit A.7 in the appendix for mNumber of States by Percentage of Title I Schools Identified as In Need of Im1998–99 and 2000–01 

Numbe

Percentage of schools identified as inneed of improvement under Title I SY 1998–99 

None 1 

1–9 17 10–19 10 

20–29 8 30–39 4 40–49 2 50 and over 6 Data not available 4 

Exhibit reads: In 1998–99, one state had no schools identified as in need of improv

Page 37 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 32 School A

Principal Knowledge About the School Improvement Process SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey and District Screener, SY 2000–01.

In 2000–01, about 17 percent of Title I schools were identified by thimprovement. However, many principals were confused about the improvement process. For example, among these schools, only 54 perwith the district that their school had been identified as in need of improaddition, even in schools where the principal agreed with the district identprincipals (43 percent) reported they were unfamiliar with state measprogress (not shown). Percentage of Principals Reporting They Agreed with, Disagreed With, or DiDistrict Identification of Their School as In Need of Improvement Under Title by the District as In Need of Improvement Under Title I, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of principals in schools identified by

district as in need of improvement under Title I 

54

43

Agreed with district

identification

Disagreed with district

identification

Exhibit reads: Fifty-four percent of principals agreed with the district that their schooneed of improvement under Title I. 

Page 38 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 33 School A

Poverty and Minority Status of Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement Under Title I and All Title I Schools NOTE: Data for schools identified as in need of improvement include only schools where the principal agreed with the district identification. See Exhibit 32 for data on level of agreement between principals and districts regarding identification.SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01 and Schools and Staffing Survey, SY 1999–2000.

Compared with all Title I schools, schools identified as in need of improvethe principal and district agreed regarding the identification) were disproserving minority students. For example, about 80 percent of Title I schooimprovement were high-poverty schools and 44 percent were in the hcompared with 52 percent and 26 percent respectively of all Title I schooTitle I schools identified for improvement were high-minority schools anhighest-minority category, compared with 19 percent and 10 percent schools. Over one-third of the Title I schools identified as in need of highest-poverty and highest-minority schools. Distribution of Schools by School Poverty Level and Percentage of Minority Identified as In Need of Improvement Under Title I and All Title I Schools, 200

0

204060

100

80

Percentage of schools

203644

482626

32

9

59

81

9

10

Schools identified

for improvement

All Title I

schools

Schools identified

for improvement

All Title 

schools

Distribution by school

poverty level

Distribution by school concentra

of minority students

Exhibit reads: Forty-four percent of Title I schools identified as in need of improvemhighest-poverty schools compared with 26 percent of all Title I schools. 

Page 39 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 34 School A

Provision of Technical Assistance NOTE: Data for schools identified as in need of improvement include only schools where the principal agreed with the district identification. See Exhibit 32 for data on level of agreement between principals and districts regarding identification.SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

Principals were asked how long their school had been identified as needithey had received additional technical assistance or professional developand if so, from whom. In 2000–01, only half of the principals in schools had received additional technical assistance or professional developmeprincipals showed that districts seemed to be focusing their attentioidentified schools and schools that had been identified for four or more y60 percent of these schools had received additional assistance, compareone-third of schools that had been identified for two or three years. Schools received assistance from a variety of sources. About 40 percenin need of improvement had received assistance from the district; about a little over one-third from an intermediate or regional education agency; received assistance from school support teams (not shown). Percentage of Schools That Received Additional Technical Assistance: Title Need of Improvement under Title I, by Number of Years the School Had BeeImprovement, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools identified as in need

of improvement under Title I that received

additional technical assistance 72 34 26 

One year Two years Three years 

Exhibit reads: Seventy-two percent of schools that had been identified as in need ohad received technical assistance from the district. 

Page 40 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 35 School Acc

Additional Strategies Adopted by Schools as a Result of Being Identified for Improvement NOTE: Data for schools identified as in need of improvement include only schools where the principal agreed with the district identification. See Exhibit 32 for data on level of agreement between principals and districts regarding identification.SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

Schools that had been identified as in need of improvement adopted strategies to help them improve. About 67 percent of schools in neadopted strategies that included increasing family and community developing a school plan, or placing greater emphasis on test-taking skilmade changes to the curriculum. About 46 percent had sought assdistrict, and schools that had been identified for one year or four or more do so. About 44 percent offered increased professional development for Percentage of Schools That Adopted Various Additional Strategies as a ResImprovement: Title I Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement under Tit

School improvement strategies Percentage o

need of imp

More family and community involvement Revise or develop school plan Greater emphasis on test-taking skills Changes to the curriculum Assistance from outside the district More professional development than in prior years 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-seven percent of schools that had been identified as in need ostrategies to increase family and community involvement in order to help the schoo

Page 41 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit 36 School Acc

Additional Steps and Corrective Actions Taken byDistricts with Schools as a Result of Their Being Identified for Improvement NOTE: Data for schools identified as in need of improvement include only schools where the principal agreed with the district identification. See Exhibit 32 for data on level of agreement between principals and districts regarding identification.SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01.

Under the 1994 legislation, if schools identified for improvement failed and districts could take additional steps or corrective actions. The strategies were requiring schools to adopt comprehensive school reform arranging to provide social support services from other public Authorization of transfers of students to other public schools and deauthority were reported by about 6 percent of principals in schools identifmajority of principals in schools that had been identified for one year reprequired to adopt a comprehensive school reform model. Percentage of Schools Subjected to Additional Steps or Corrective Actions Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement under Title I, 2000–01 

Additional steps and corrective actions

Percenta

as in need 

Adoption of comprehensive model Social support services from other agencies Student transfers to other public schools Decreased authority to make decisions Alternative governance arrangements Reconstituted staff Withheld funds Revoked schoolwide program 

Exhibit reads: Forty percent of schools identified as in need of improvement were rcomprehensive school reform model.

Page 42 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
APPENDIX 

Page 43 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.1. Categories by Which State Assessment Results Are Disaggregated, 2000–0

Disaggregated by: 

State 

High-poverty

schools 

Race-ethnicity

of students 

Limited English 

proficiency of students

Migrant status 

of students 

Disability status 

of students 

disa

Alabama X X X X X Alaska X X X X X Arizona X X X X Arkansas Not reportedCalifornia X X X X X Colorado X X X XConnecticut Not reported Delaware X X X X X District of Columbia X X X X X Florida X X X X X Georgia X X X X X Hawaii Assessments not administered 2000–01 Idaho X X X X X Illinois X X X X X Indiana X Iowa None Kansas X X X X X Kentucky X X X X X Louisiana X X X X Maine X X X X Maryland X X X X Massachusetts X X X X

Page 44 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.1. Categories by Which State Assessment Results Are Disaggregated, 2000–01 (c

Disaggregated by: 

State 

High-poverty

schools 

Race-ethnicity

of students 

Limited English 

proficiency of students

Migrant status 

of students 

Disability status 

of students 

disa

Michigan X X X X X Minnesota X X X X X Mississippi X X X X Missouri X X X X XMontana X X X X Nebraska NoneNevada X X X X X New Hampshire X X X X X New Jersey X X X X X New Mexico X X X X New York North Carolina X X X X X North Dakota X X X Ohio X X X X XOklahoma X X X X X Oregon X X X X XPennsylvania Not reported Puerto Rico X X X X X Rhode Island X X X X X South Carolina X X X X X 

Page 45 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.1. Categories by Which State Assessment Results Are Disaggregated, 2000-01 (co

Disaggregated by: 

State 

High poverty

schools 

Race-ethnicity

of students 

Limited English 

proficiency of students

Migrant status 

of students 

Disability status 

of students 

disa

South Dakota X X X X Tennessee X X X X X Texas X X X X X Utah X X X X X Vermont X X X X X Virginia X X X X X Washington X X X X West Virginia X X X X X Wisconsin X X X Wyoming X X X X X Totals 37 44 43 38 44 

SOURCE: Consolidated State Performance Reports, SY 2000–01.

Page 46 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.2. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2002 State NAEP 

Assessments, 4th Grade Reading 

2002 State NAEP 2001 State Assessment 

Percentage P

(2001 State A

2002 Sta

Alabama 22 64 Alaska NA 78 NArizona 22 NA NArkansas 26 NA NCalifornia 21 33 Colorado NA 63 NConnecticut 43 NA NDistrict of Columbia 10 29 Delaware 35 75 Florida 27 61 Georgia 28 74 Hawaii 21 NA NIdaho 32 NA NIllinois NA 62 NIndiana 33 NA NIowa 35 68 Kansas 34 63 Kentucky 30 58 Louisiana 20 NA NMaine 35 51 Maryland 30 38 Massachusetts 47 51 

Page 47 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.2. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2002 State NAEP 

Assessments, 4th Grade Reading (cont.) 

2002 State NAEP 2001 State Assessment 

Percentage P

(2001 State A

2002 Sta

Michigan 30 60 Minnesota 37 49 Mississippi 16 81 Missouri 32 NA NMontana 36 79 Nebraska 34 70 Nevada 21 48 New Hampshire NA 38 NNew Jersey NA 79 NNew Mexico 21 56 New York 35 NA NNorth Carolina 32 75 North Dakota 34 75 Ohio 34 56 Oklahoma 26 66 Oregon 31 84 Pennsylvania 34 NA NPuerto Rico NA 39 NRhode Island 32 23 South Carolina 26 NA N

Page 48 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.2. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2002 State NAEP 

Assessments, 4th Grade Reading (cont.) 

2002 State NAEP 2001 State Assessment 

Percentage P

(2001 State A

2002 Sta

South Dakota NA 63 NTennessee 25 NA NTexas 28 91 Utah 33 48 Vermont 39 NA NVirginia 37 45 Washington 35 66 West Virginia 28 56 Wisconsin NA 79 NWyoming 31 NA N

SOURCE: 2002 State NAEP and Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001.

Page 49 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.3. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2000 State NAEP 

Assessments, 8th Grade Mathematics 

2000 State NAEP 2001 State Assessments 

Percentage P

(2001 State A

2000 Sta

Alabama 16 66 Alaska NA 73 NArizona 21 NA NArkansas 14 NA NCalifornia 18 49 Colorado NA 37 NConnecticut 34 NA NDistrict of Columbia 6 11 Delaware NA 43 NFlorida NA 63 NGeorgia 19 NA NHawaii 16 NA NIdaho 27 NA NIllinois NA 50 NIndiana 31 NA NIowa NA 74 NKansas 34 65 Kentucky 21 28 Louisiana 12 NA NMaine 32 20 –Maryland 29 49 Massachusetts 32 34 

Page 50 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.3. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2000 State NAEP 

Assessments, 8th Grade Mathematics (cont.) 

2000 State NAEP 2001 State Assessment 

Percentage P

(2001 State A

2000 Sta

Michigan 28 NA NMinnesota 40 NA NMississippi 8 39 Missouri 22 NA NMontana 37 68 Nebraska 31 67 Nevada 20 52 New Hampshire NA 26 NNew Jersey NA 61 NNew Mexico 13 24 New York 26 NA NNorth Carolina 30 79 North Dakota 31 75 Ohio 31 61 Oklahoma 19 63 Oregon 32 55 Pennsylvania NA NA NPuerto Rico NA 60 NRhode Island 24 NA NSouth Carolina 18 NA N

Page 51 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.3. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2000 State NAEP 

Assessments, 8th Grade Mathematics (cont.) 

2000 State NAEP 2001 State Assessment 

Percentage P

(2001 State A

2000 Sta

South Dakota NA 32 NTennessee 17 NA NTexas 24 93 Utah 26 23 Vermont NA NA NVirginia 26 NA NWashington NA 27 NWest Virginia 18 58 Wisconsin NA 41 NWyoming 25 NA N

SOURCE: 2000 State NAEP and Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001.

Page 52 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.4. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2002 State NAEP, 4t

Categorized by Eligibility for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program 

Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Not Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Percenta

Diffe

(Not Eli

Elig

Nation 16 41 2Alabama 13 35 2Alaska NA NA NArizona 11 32 2Arkansas 17 38 2California 9 37 2Colorado NA NA NConnecticut 21 51 3District of Columbia 5 23 1Delaware 19 44 2Florida 18 39 2Georgia 16 39 2Hawaii 12 29 1Idaho 21 42 2Illinois NA NA NIndiana 17 41 2Iowa 22 41 1Kansas 21 43 2Kentucky 19 40 2Louisiana 12 37 2Maine 22 42 2Maryland 15 39 2Massachusetts 23 56 3

Page 53 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.4. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2002 State NAEP, 4t

Categorized by Eligibility for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program (cont.) 

Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Not Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Percenta

Differ

(Not Eli

Elig

Michigan 16 39 2Minnesota 30 41 1Mississippi 10 29 1Missouri 17 43 2Montana 23 45 2Nebraska 22 43 2Nevada 13 27 1New Hampshire NA NA NNew Jersey NA NA NNew Mexico 15 35 2New York 19 50 3North Carolina 17 47 3North Dakota 23 39 1Ohio 18 42 2Oklahoma 17 38 2Oregon 18 42 2Pennsylvania 16 45 2Puerto Rico NA NA NRhode Island 14 44 3South Carolina 14 39 2

Page 54 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.4. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2002 State NAEP, 4t

Categorized by Eligibility for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program (cont.) 

Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Not Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Percenta

Differ

(Not Eli

Elig

South Dakota NA NA NTennessee 15 34 1Texas 20 39 1Utah 22 39 1Vermont 21 46 2Virginia 18 46 2Washington 22 43 2West Virginia 19 37 1Wisconsin NA NA NWyoming 21 38 1

SOURCE: 2002 State NAEP.

Page 55 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.5. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th G

Categorized by Eligibility for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program 

Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Not Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Percenta

Diffe

(Not Eli

Elig

Nation 10 35 2Alabama 5 23 1Alaska NA NA NArizona 9 27 1Arkansas 7 18 1California 4 24 2Colorado NA NA NConnecticut 7 42 3District of Columbia 2 18 1Delaware NA NA NFlorida NA NA NGeorgia 5 27 2Hawaii 8 21 1Idaho 17 32 1Illinois NA NA NIndiana 13 36 2Iowa NA NA NKansas 17 41 2Kentucky 8 29 2Louisiana 4 22 1Maine 20 36 1Maryland 7 37 3Massachusetts 11 38 2

Page 56 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.5. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th G

Categorized by Eligibility for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program (cont.) 

Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Not Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Percenta

Differ

(Not Eli

Elig

Michigan 9 35 2Minnesota 27 42 1Mississippi 3 14 1Missouri 9 26 1Montana 25 43 1Nebraska 15 36 2Nevada 6 24 1New Hampshire NA NA NNew Jersey NA NA NNew Mexico 6 21 1New York 12 34 2North Carolina 13 38 2North Dakota 21 35 1Ohio 10 36 2Oklahoma 8 26 1Oregon 16 37 2Pennsylvania NA NA NPuerto Rico NA NA NRhode Island 7 31 2South Carolina 6 27 2

Page 57 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.5. Percentage of Students Scoring at or Above the Proficient Level on the 2000 State NAEP, 8th G

Categorized by Eligibility for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program (cont.) 

Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Not Eligible for the Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Program

Percenta

Differ

(Not Eli

Elig

South Dakota NA NA NTennessee 7 23 1Texas 11 34 2Utah 15 29 1Vermont NA NA NVirginia 8 31 2Washington NA NA NWest Virginia 8 25 1Wisconsin NA NA NWyoming 15 28 1

SOURCE: 2000 State NAEP.

Page 58 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.6. Gap Between High- and Low-Poverty Schools in the Percentage of Students Scoring a

the Proficient Level on the 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Mathem

4th Grade Reading 8th Grade Mathematics 

Percentage Point Difference 

(Low-Poverty Schools — High-Poverty Schools)

Alabama 32 24 Alaska 46 8Arizona NA NA Arkansas NA NA California 44 42 Colorado NA NA Connecticut NA NA District of Columbia 46 40 Delaware 41 NA Florida 36 40Georgia 25 NA Hawaii NA NAIdaho NA NA Illinois 44 46Indiana 65 45 Iowa NA NAKansas 35 46 Kentucky 27 24Louisiana 0 NA Maine NA NAMaryland 29 49 Massachusetts NA NA

Page 59 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.6. Gap Between High- and Low-Poverty Schools in the Percentage of Students Scoring a

the Proficient Level on the 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Mathematic

4th Grade Reading 8th Grade Mathematics 

Percentage Point Difference 

(Low-Poverty Schools — High-Poverty Schools)

Michigan 32 NA Minnesota 41 NAMississippi NA NA Missouri 23 15Montana 30 47 Nebraska NA NANevada 34 23 New Hampshire NA NA New Jersey 37 44 New Mexico 33 26 New York NA NA North Carolina 25 21 North Dakota 36 44 Ohio 40 46Oklahoma 30 30 Oregon 17 33Pennsylvania NA NA Puerto Rico 12 –2 Rhode Island 27 NA South Carolina NA 0 

Page 60 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.6. Gap Between High- and Low-Poverty Schools in the Percentage of Students Scoring a

the Proficient Level on the 2001 State Assessments, 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Mathematic

4th Grade Reading 8th Grade Mathematics 

Percentage Point Difference 

(Low-Poverty Schools — High-Poverty Schools)

South Dakota NA NA Tennessee 21 18Texas 12 9 Utah 22 16Vermont NA NA Virginia –4 NAWashington NA NA West Virginia 14 5 Wisconsin NA NA Wyoming NA NA

SOURCE: Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2001.

Page 61 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.7. Participating Title I Schools Identified for School Improvement, by State, 1998–99, 1999–20

1998–99 1999–2000 

State 

Total 

number

Number in 

improvement

% in

improvement

Total 

number

Number in 

improvement 

% in

improvement

Total 

number

N

imp

Alabama 812 60 7 815 60 7 833 Alaska 361 8 2 281 14 5 278 Arizona 841 181 22 870 169 19 935 Arkansas 783 499 64 783 505 64 795 California 4,543 210 5 4,888 765 16 5,319 Colorado 597 91 15 540 273 51 557 Connecticut 422 26 6 NA NA NA 446 Delaware 101 32 32 97 32 33 116 District of Columbia 125 100 80 156 28 18 161 Florida 977 73 7 1,135 4 * 1,213 Georgia 1,020 603 59 1,032 658 64 1,063 Hawaii 138 91 66 147 97 66 125 Idaho 397 14 4 397 61 15 397 Illinois 2,259 727 32 2,164 378 17 2,245 Indiana 826 98 12 822 173 21 822 Iowa 878 148 17 804 33 4 797 Kansas 687 154 22 681 143 21 642 Kentucky 872 615 71 872 114 13 867 Louisiana 873 162 19 881 61 7 883 Maine NA NA NA 405 12 3 444 Maryland 300 18 6 311 113 36 382 Massachusetts 933 399 43 1,047 276 26 1,084 

Page 62 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.7. Participating Title I Schools Identified for School Improvement, by State, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 

1998–99 1999–2000 

State 

Total 

number

Number in 

improvement

% in

improvement

Total 

number

Number in 

improvement 

% in

improvement

Total 

number

N

imp

Michigan 2,011 1,523 76 2,229 1,712 77 2,145 Minnesota NA NA NA 961 56 6 968 Mississippi 680 100 15 681 125 18 683 Missouri NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,156 Montana 619 62 10 633 60 9 629 Nebraska 496 204 41 422 126 30 436 Nevada 98 35 36 100 8 8 106 New Hampshire 185 4 2 244 4 2 258 New Jersey NA NA NA NA NA NA NA New Mexico 450 149 33 464 62 13 477 New York 2,512 492 20 2,586 369 14 2,844 North Carolina 1,030 46 4 1,030 12 1 1,026 North Dakota 285 20 7 274 19 7 273 Ohio 2,020 508 25 2,027 673 33 2,048 Oklahoma 1,146 31 3 1,138 19 2 1,162 Oregon 584 28 5 518 9 2 585 Pennsylvania 1,731 215 12 1,798 301 17 1,857 Puerto Rico 1,406 200 14 1,519 109 7 1,462 Rhode Island 136 34 25 136 32 24 136 South Carolina 499 75 15 513 35 7 515 

Page 63 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01 
Exhibit A.7. Participating Title I Schools Identified for School Improvement, by State, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 

1998–99 1999–2000 

State 

Total 

number

Number in 

improvement

% in

improvement

Total 

number

Number in 

improvement 

% in

improvement

Total 

number

N

imp

South Dakota 396 0 0 406 15 4 360 Tennessee 770 17 2 806 77 10 794 Texas 4,141 61 1 4,367 127 3 4,447 Utah 232 20 9 228 25 11 219 Vermont 212 27 13 212 30 14 219 Virginia 741 150 20 732 149 20 758 Washington 853 71 8 948 33 3 970 West Virginia 456 130 29 456 118 26 439 Wisconsin 1,036 66 6 1,056 166 16 1,120 Wyoming 144 31 22 140 17 12 164 Bureau of Indian Affairs 173 147 85 173 48 28 NA Total 43,787 8,755 20 45,921 8,505 19 48,660 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, State Reports, SY 1998–99, SY 1999–2000, and SY 2000–01.* Less than 0.5 percent.NOTES: The information shown in this Exhibit should be viewed with caution, as states may have made changes to the assessments in place or assessment leve

to the next. 

For 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01, New Jersey was unable to provide information on the number of schools identified for improvement. Additiona

were unable to provide this information for 1998–99 and Connecticut was unable to provide it for 1999–2000. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has not yet provided a complete consolidated report submission for 2000–01. 

Page 64 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools, 2000–01