Study of Title I Schoolwide and 

Targeted Assistance Programs:
 

Final Report
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and
 

Targeted Assistance Programs:
 

Final Report
 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education
 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
 

Policy and Program Studies Service
 

Prepared by: 

Kerstin Carlson Le Floch
 

Jesse Levin
 

Drew Atchison
 

Courtney Tanenbaum
 

Steven Hurlburt
 

Karen Manship
 

American Institutes for Research
 

Stephanie Stullich
 

U.S. Department of Education 

2018 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. EDPEP-11-O-0089/ 

Task Order 29 with American Institutes for Research. Joanne Bogart and Oliver Schak served as the 

contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the 

positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of 

Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or 

should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this publication contains information about and from 

outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. Inclusion of such information does not constitute 

an endorsement by the Department. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Betsy DeVos 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Frank Brogan 

Delegated the Duties of the Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Victoria Hammer 

Acting Director 

April 2018 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report, Washington, DC, 2018. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

Availability of Alternate Formats 

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons 

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. 

Content Contact: 

Stephanie Stullich 

Phone: 202-401-2342 

Email: stephanie.stullich@ed.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Contents
 

List of Exhibits....................................................................................................................................v
 

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ix
 

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................xi
 

Study Purpose ................................................................................................................................ xii
 

Methodology and Study Limitations.............................................................................................. xii
 

Summary of Findings .....................................................................................................................xiii
 

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................xviii
 

Chapter 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1
 

Study Overview................................................................................................................................2
 

Sample Selection.............................................................................................................................. 5
 

Data Collection................................................................................................................................. 8
 

Analysis Methods.............................................................................................................................9
 

Study Limitations ...........................................................................................................................10
 

Chapter 2. Use of Title I Funds for Personnel and Nonpersonnel Resources .......................................11
 

Overview of Title I Funding............................................................................................................11
 

Title I Personnel Resources............................................................................................................13
 

Types of Nonpersonnel Resources Purchased With Title I Funds .................................................20
 

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................21
 

Chapter 3. Services Provided With Title I Funds.................................................................................23
 

Services Supported by Title I Staff .................................................................................................23
 

Services Supported by Title I Nonpersonnel Resources ................................................................31
 

Novel Uses of Title I Funds in Schoolwide Programs.....................................................................32
 

Novel Uses of Title I Funds in Targeted Assistance Programs .......................................................35
 

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................35
 

Chapter 4. Making Decisions About the Use of Title I Funds ..............................................................37
 

Consistency of Schools’ Use of Title I Funds Over Time ................................................................38
 

Title I Needs Assessments..............................................................................................................39
 

Control of Title I Funds by Schools and Districts............................................................................41
 

District and School Responsibilities for Decisions About the Use of Title I Funds.........................46
 

Technical Support Provided by Districts to Support Title I Schools...............................................49
 

Timing of Title I Decisions..............................................................................................................51
 

Connections Between Title I-Funded Interventions and School Improvement Goals...................53
 

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................58
 

Chapter 5. Title I Flexibility in Schoolwide Programs .........................................................................59
 

Consolidation and Coordination of Title I Funds in Schoolwide Programs ...........................................59
 

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................63
 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................65
 

References.......................................................................................................................................67
 

Appendix A. Data Collection Technical Appendix ..............................................................................71
 

School District Administrator and Principal Surveys .....................................................................71
 

Case Studies...................................................................................................................................85
 

Extant Data.....................................................................................................................................87
 

Disclosure Review ..........................................................................................................................88
 

Appendix B. Additional Exhibits........................................................................................................89
 

Appendix C. Data Collection Instruments..........................................................................................93
 

District Budget Officer Interview Protocol...................................................................................127
 

District Title I Coordinator Interview Protocol.............................................................................129
 

Principal Interview Protocol.........................................................................................................131
 

School Budget Officer Interview Protocol ...................................................................................133
 

School Improvement Team Focus Group Protocol (SWP Schools)..............................................135
 

Teacher Interview Protocol (SWP and TAP Schools) ...................................................................136
 

Appendix D. Case Study Narratives.................................................................................................137
 

Case Study Narrative: Landmark Academy..................................................................................137
 

Case Study Narrative: Sugarwoods Elementary ..........................................................................140
 

Appendix E. Mixed-Method Codebook ...........................................................................................143
 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibits
 

Exhibit ES-1.	 Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff by position type in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16....................................xiv
 

Exhibit ES-2.	 Level of school involvement in making decisions about the use of Title I funds, by
 

school characteristics, as reported by principals................................................................xvii
 

Exhibit 1.	 Conceptual framework for study ........................................................................................... 3
 

Exhibit 2.	 Distribution of schools, students, and students from low-income families, by
 

school Title I status, 2014–15 ................................................................................................ 4
 

Exhibit 3.	 Distribution of schoolwide programs, targeted assistance programs, Title I schools,
 

and non-Title I schools, by various demographic characteristics, 2014–15 .......................... 5
 

Exhibit 4.	 Characteristics of case study schools..................................................................................... 7
 

Exhibit 5.	 Survey distribution of schoolwide programs, targeted assistance programs, Title I
 

schools, and non-Title I schools, by various demographic characteristics, 2014–15 ............ 8
 

Exhibit 6.	 Average Title I allocations for schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, as
 

reported by district officials, 2015–16................................................................................. 12
 

Exhibit 7.	 Number of case study schools that spent various percentages of their Title I funds
 

on personnel, 2016–17 ........................................................................................................ 13
 

Exhibit 8.	 Percentage of principals who reported using Title I funds to support various staff
 

positions in schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, 2015–16 ................................ 14
 

Exhibit 9.	 Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff by position type in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16.................................... 15
 

Exhibit 10.	 Common combinations of staff positions paid for with Title I funds in schoolwide
 

and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16............................. 16
 

Exhibit 11.	 Common combinations of staff positions paid for with Title I in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, by Title I allocation size, as reported by principals,
 

2015–16 ............................................................................................................................... 17
 

Exhibit 12.	 Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff in case study schools by position
 

type, 2016–17 ...................................................................................................................... 19
 

Exhibit 13.	 Percentage of principals who reported using Title I funds for various types of 

nonpersonnel resources in schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, 2015–
 

16 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
 

Exhibit 14.	 Distribution of nonpersonnel Title I expenditures by resource type, in schoolwide
 

and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16............................. 21
 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 15.	 Percentage of principals who reported using Title I funds for staff supporting
 

various services in schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, 2015–16 ..................... 24
 

Exhibit 16.	 Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff supporting different services in
 

schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16.......... 25
 

Exhibit 17.	 Common combinations of services supported by Title I staff in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16.................................... 26
 

Exhibit 18.	 Common combinations of services supported by Title I staff in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, by Title I allocation size, as reported by principals,
 

2015–16 ............................................................................................................................... 27
 

Exhibit 19.	 Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff supporting various services in
 

schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, by school grade level, as reported
 

by principals, 2015–16 ......................................................................................................... 28
 

Exhibit 20.	 Primary and secondary responsibilities reported by teachers and
 

paraprofessionals in case study schools, by type of Title I program, 2016–17 ................... 29
 

Exhibit 21.	 Percentage of principals who reported using Title I funds for nonpersonnel
 

resources to support various services, in schoolwide and targeted assistance
 

programs, 2015–16.............................................................................................................. 31
 

Exhibit 22.	 Distribution of school-level Title I nonpersonnel spending by service in schoolwide
 

and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16............................. 32
 

Exhibit 23.	 Changes in the use of Title I funds during the past three years in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2016–17.................................... 38
 

Exhibit 24.	 Involvement of various stakeholders in conducting the Title I needs assessment in
 

schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2016–17.......... 40
 

Exhibit 25.	 Distribution of schoolwide programs and targeted assistance programs by the
 

percentage of Title I funds over which schools had control, as reported by district
 

administrators, 2016–17...................................................................................................... 42
 

Exhibit 26.	 School autonomy to make decisions about the use of Title I funds, in case study
 

schools, 2016–17 ................................................................................................................. 43
 

Exhibit 27.	 Level of school involvement in making decisions about the use of Title I funds, by
 

school characteristics, as reported by principals, 2016–17................................................. 47
 

Exhibit 28.	 Number of case study schools in which various individuals played a minor,
 

moderate, or major role in decisions about how to use Title I funds at the school
 

level, by type of Title I program, 2016–17 ........................................................................... 48
 

Exhibit 29.	 Number of months between when Title I resources are known and when Title I 

plans are due to the district, 2016–17................................................................................. 52
 

vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 30. Extent to which case study schoolwide program and targeted assistance program 

principals articulated a connection of Title I interventions with their broader 

improvement goals, 2016–17 .............................................................................................. 54
 

Exhibit 31. Extent to which case study principals articulated a connection of Title I 

interventions with their broader school improvement goals, by level of 

understanding of Title I, 2016–17........................................................................................ 57
 

Exhibit 32. Percentage of Title I schoolwide program schools using schoolwide flexibility, as
 

reported by principals, 2016–17.......................................................................................... 60
 

Exhibit 33. Percentage of districts reporting moderate or major challenges to consolidating
 

Title I funds with funds from other sources in Title I school programs, 2016–17 ............... 62
 

Exhibit A1. Sample frame exclusions...................................................................................................... 72
 

Exhibit A2. Number and percentage of districts in the study frame, allocated sample size, and
 

sampling rate by stratum..................................................................................................... 73
 

Exhibit A3. Characteristics of sampling frame and sample for school district survey ........................... 75
 

Exhibit A4. Characteristics of sampling frame and sample for principal survey ................................... 77
 

Exhibit A5. Final case disposition for district administrator survey sample .......................................... 79
 

Exhibit A6. Final case disposition for school principal survey sample ................................................... 79
 

Exhibit A7. Characteristics of released sample and response sample for school district survey........... 82
 

Exhibit A8. Characteristics of released sample and response sample for principal survey:
 

School level .......................................................................................................................... 83
 

Exhibit A9. National survey sampling frame and response sample: District level and school 

level...................................................................................................................................... 84
 

Exhibit B1. Ranges of Title I allocations as a percentage of total school budgets, in case study
 

schools, 2016–17 ................................................................................................................. 89
 

Exhibit B2. Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff by position type in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16.................................... 89
 

Exhibit B3. Common combinations of staff positions paid for with Title I in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, by Title I allocation size, as reported by principals, 

2015–16 ............................................................................................................................... 90
 

Exhibit B4. Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff supporting different services in
 

schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16.......... 90
 

Exhibit B5. Common combinations of services supported by Title I staff in schoolwide and
 

targeted assistance programs, by Title I allocation size, as reported by principals, 

2015–16 ............................................................................................................................... 91
 

vii 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Acknowledgments
 

We wish to thank numerous individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. First, we 

would like to thank the district administrators, school principals, and other school staff who responded 

to our surveys and welcomed us to their districts and schools for our case study site visits. Their insights 

were critical to this report and we are truly appreciative of their time. We are grateful for the guidance 

and support of the U.S. Department of Education. In particular, we thank Stephanie Stullich, Chase 

Sackett, Oliver Schak, and Joanne Bogart of the Policy and Program Studies Service. We also would like 

to thank the AIR staff who contributed to this report in various capacities, including Catherine Barbour, 

Andrea Boyle, Charlotte Chen, Anastasia Chobany, Sandy Eyster, Ursula Hill, Marcelino Justo-Zavaleta, 

Katelyn Lee, Meghan McQuiggan, Julie Nguyen, Kathy Sonnenfeld, Janey Tietz, Kim Williams, Emily 

Vontsolos, Bao-Lin Xu, and Cong Ye. We also would like to thank our consultants, Bruce Baker, Diane 

Massell and Kristi Holmstrom for their assistance with the study. We are grateful to the district 

administrators, principals, and other school staff for their cooperation in completing the surveys and 

participating in interviews as part of data collection for this study. Without their efforts, this report 

would not have been possible, and we deeply appreciate their assistance. We also would like to 

acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of the members of our expert practitioner panel, Elena Bell, 

Deann Collins, Melanie Kay-Wyatt, Tamiya Larkin, and Fred Williams. 

Although we appreciate the assistance and support of these individuals, any errors in judgment or fact 

are the responsibility of the authors. 

ix 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Executive Summary
 

The original purpose of the Title I program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) 

was to provide supplemental services to assist low-achieving students in high-poverty schools, and schools 

were required to target Title I funds specifically to serve such students. In 1978, the schoolwide program 

(SWP) option was introduced to provide high-poverty schools with the flexibility to use Title I funds for 

whole-school approaches to improving achievement for all students in schools with high concentrations of 

poverty, particularly low-achieving students. Unlike schools using the traditional targeted assistance 

program (TAP) approach, SWP schools are allowed to consolidate Title I funds with those from other 

federal, state, and local sources and are not required to ensure that the funds are spent only for specific 

students identified as low achieving. As successive reauthorizations of ESEA have lowered the poverty rate 

threshold for eligibility to operate SWPs, the prevalence of SWP schools has grown, gradually rising from 

10 percent of all Title I schools in 1994–95 to 77 percent in 2014–15. 

Implicit in the intent for SWPs is that this flexibility will allow them to implement systemic schoolwide 

interventions to improve academic outcomes for students from low-income families. At the same time, 

the continuation of the TAP approach also reflects a specific policy intent: to focus the smaller amount 

of total Title I funding in low-poverty schools on supporting students with the greatest needs, rather 

than diluting the funds across a larger number of students. This study examines how these two types of 

programs compare in the services and resources they provide with Title I funds and their decisionmaking process for allocating these resources. 

Top findings from this study include the following: 

•	 Although a majority of both SWP and TAP schools used Title I funds to hire teachers, such 

teachers accounted for a smaller percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools (41 percent) than in 

TAP schools (67 percent). 

•	 SWPs were more than twice as likely as TAPs to use Title I funds for instructional coaches, 

paraprofessionals, parent and community liaisons, technology support staff, and English learner 

(EL) specialists. 

•	 Both SWP and TAP schools most commonly used Title I-funded staff to provide supplemental 

instruction in reading and mathematics, but SWPs were more than twice as likely as TAPs to also 

use the funds for instruction in other subjects, data/analytics support, parental involvement, 

and other approaches. 

•	 In most Title I schools, districts and schools collaborated on decisions regarding the use of Title I 

funds. Principals in SWPs were more likely than those in targeted assistance schools to report 

making all or most decisions about how to use their school’s Title I funds (25 percent vs. 

12 percent). 

•	 Few principals of SWPs reported that their school consolidated Title I funds with other federal, 

state, and local funds (6 percent), but a larger proportion (50 percent) indicated that they 

coordinated the use of Title I funds with other funds. 

•	 According to district administrators, the biggest challenge for consolidating Title I funds with 

funds from other sources was state accounting rules that require separate accounting for 

federal programs. 

xi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Study Purpose 

This study examined how SWPs use their flexibility to design schoolwide services and strategies to 

address the needs of students who are low achieving and compare these practices with those used by 

TAP schools. Specifically, the data collected for this study provide insight into the types of services that 

are supported by Title I funds in SWP and TAP schools, the decision-making processes that inform the 

use of funds, and the extent to which Title I funds are consolidated or coordinated with other funding 

sources to support improved student outcomes. The study focused on three main study questions: 

1.	 Do schoolwide and targeted assistance programs differ in how they use Title I funds to improve 

achievement for low-achieving students? 

2.	 How do districts and schools make decisions about how to use Title I funds in schoolwide 

programs and targeted assistance programs? 

3.	 To what extent do schoolwide programs consolidate Title I funds with other funds or coordinate 

the use of Title I funds with other funds? 

Methodology and Study Limitations 

To answer these questions, this study conducted surveys of a nationally representative sample of 404 

Title I districts and 1,421 schools, including 823 SWP schools and 598 TAP schools, as well as interviews 

and extant data analysis in selected case study sites. The response rates were 76 percent on the district 

survey and 75 percent on the principal survey (for both SWP principals and TAP principals). The surveys 

were completed by 310 districts and 1,042 principals, including 622 SWP and 420 TAP principals. 

In addition, the study team conducted case studies of a purposive sample of 35 Title I SWP and TAP 

schools and their districts in five states. The case studies included collection and analysis of school-level 

budgets and Title I plans as well as site visits during which semistructured interviews were conducted 

with principals, other school staff involved in Title I, and district administrators. 

Throughout this report, highlighted key finding are based on survey analyses unless the finding 

specifically refers to the case studies. In our primary analyses of survey data to examine differences 

between SWP and TAP schools, the report text only highlights differences that are statistically 

significant. However, there are occasions where we present conditional analyses for which we did not 

do statistical significant tests (e.g., showing data broken down by both Title I program type and Title I 

allocation size). 

Readers should note some limitations to the interpretation and generalizability of the study findings. 

The case study sites are not nationally representative and those data cannot be generalized to the 

nation as a whole. Also, the detailed information that the surveys requested on the uses of Title I funds 

may not have been readily available in the standardized categories used in the survey, and respondents 

were asked to provide their best estimates of Title I expenditures in various categories. 

xii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Summary of Findings 

Use of Title I Funds for Personnel and Nonpersonnel Resources 

Although a majority of both SWP and TAP schools used Title I funds to employ teachers, 

SWP schools were much more likely to use Title I funds for instructional coaches, 

paraprofessionals, parent liaisons, technology support staff, and EL specialists. 

TAP and SWP principals most commonly reported using Title I funds for teachers (76 percent and 

67 percent, respectively). SWP schools were more than three times as likely as TAP schools to report using 

Title I funds for instructional coaches (40 percent vs. 11 percent); parent and community liaisons 

(18 percent vs. 4 percent); and technology support staff (10 percent vs. 2 percent). SWPs were also more 

likely to use Title I funds for EL specialists (12 percent vs. 4 percent) and paraprofessionals (59 percent vs. 

32 percent. 

SWP schools typically used Title I funds for a wider variety of staff types than TAP schools: Although 52 

percent of TAP schools employed only teachers with their Title I funds, this was true of just 14 percent of 

SWP schools. 

Similarly, instructional coaches, paraprofessionals, and parent liaisons accounted for a 

higher percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools than in TAP schools, and teachers 

accounted for a relatively lower percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools. 

Instructional coaches accounted for 14 percent of staff in SWP schools, which is more than twice the 

percentage in TAP schools (6 percent). Parent, family, and community liaisons accounted for 3 percent 

of staff in SWPs and less than 1 percent in TAPs. Paraprofessionals accounted for 29 percent of staff in 

SWPs and 20 percent in TAPs. Other types of non-teacher staff (such as EL specialists, curriculum 

coordinators, assessment coordinators, data analysts, administrative staff, and technology support staff) 

also accounted for a greater proportion of Title I-funded staff in SWPs than in TAPs (12 percent vs. 

6 percent). In contrast, teachers accounted for a smaller percentage of staff in SWP schools than in TAP 

schools (41 percent vs. 67 percent) (Exhibit ES-1). 

xiii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit ES-1.Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff by position type in schoolwide and 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: On average, teachers represented 41 percent of Title I-funded staff in SWP schools. 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for full-time equivalent staff are not included in this analysis. The “All other” category 

includes English learner specialists, curriculum coordinators, assessment coordinators, data analysts, administrative staff, technology support
 

staff, and those categorized as “other” on the survey. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p
 

< .05,
 

**p < .01, ***p < .001.
 

Source: Principal survey (n = 520 SWP and 336 TAP schools).
 

Nonpersonnel Title I spending amounted to an average of $61 per pupil in SWP schools 

and $22 per pupil in TAP schools. 

On average, nonpersonnel resources accounted for 15 percent of Title I expenditures in SWP schools 

and 9 percent in TAP schools. Principals in SWP schools were more likely than those in TAP schools to 

report using Title I funds for instructional materials, professional development, and other types of 

nonpersonnel resources. Among SWP and TAP schools that spent some of their Title I funds on 

nonpersonnel resources, similar shares of those funds were used for instructional materials (45 percent 

and 47 percent, respectively) and for professional development (27 percent and 30 percent). 

xiv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Services Provided With Title I Funds 

Both SWP and TAP schools most commonly used Title I-funded staff to provide

supplemental instruction in reading and/or mathematics, but SWPs were more than twice 

as likely as TAPs to use these staff for other types of instruction and instructional support. 

Principals in SWP schools were more likely than those in TAP schools to report using Title I staff to 

support instruction in reading (74 percent vs. 55 percent) and mathematics (55 percent vs. 33 percent). 

Larger differences were found for other types of instruction and instructional support. SWPs were more 

than five times as likely to use Title I-funded staff to provide instruction in subjects other than mathematics 

and reading (26 percent vs. 5 percent). SWPs were more than twice as likely to use Title I staff to provide 

support for EL students (21 percent vs. 9 percent), support for special education (19 percent vs. 8 percent), 

parent involvement (33 percent vs. 15 percent), data and analytics support (40 percent vs. 18 percent), and 

technology support (20 percent vs. 6 percent). SWPs were also more likely to use Title I staff to support 

extended-time programs (25 percent vs. 14 percent). 

Most of the staff funded through Title I focused on reading instruction or math 

instruction, followed by extended-time programs and data and analytic support. 

Reading instruction accounted for 39 percent of Title I staff in SWP schools and 47 percent in TAP 

schools, and mathematics instruction accounted for 19 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Differences 

between SWP and TAP schools were in most cases not statistically significant, with the exception of a 

significant difference for instruction in subjects other than reading or mathematics, which accounted for 

6 percent of SWP staff and less than 2 percent of TAP staff. 

Few SWP schools used their Title I staff only for reading instruction (7 percent, 

compared with 21 percent of TAP schools). 

Although SWP schools were less likely to use staff only for reading, SWP schools more often had staff 

supporting service areas in addition to reading and mathematics compared with TAP schools (48 percent 

vs. 22 percent). 

While the majority of SWP schools reported traditional uses of Title I, namely reading 

and mathematics instruction, and push-in or pull-out interventions, six of the 26 SWP 

case study schools provide examples of more novel uses of Title I funds. 

These activities included (1) counseling services to address students’ social-emotional and nonacademic 

skills, (2) school climate interventions, (3) use of education technology and digital learning tools, (4) 

summer bridge programs for incoming students, (5) specialized use of academic specialists, and (6) 

academic enrichment activities. 

xv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Making Decisions About the Use of Title I Funds 

The ways that schools used Title I funds were relatively stable over time, with the

majority of principals in both SWP and TAP schools reporting minor changes or no 

changes to how Title I funds were used during the previous three years. 

Twenty-one percent of SWP principals reported having made significant revisions to their use of Title I 

funds, compared with 12 percent of TAP principals; the difference between SWP and TAP schools was 

not statistically significant. However, TAP schools were significantly more likely than SWP schools to 

report making no changes to how they used their Title I funds during the past three years (30 percent vs. 

10 percent). 

District administrators reported that SWP schools controlled an average of 47 percent 

of the Title I funds allocated to their schools, compared with 8 percent in TAP schools. 

The figures reported by district administrators indicate that 40 percent of SWP schools controlled at 

least three quarters of their Title I funds, compared with just 5 percent of TAP schools. Conversely, 

90 percent of TAP schools controlled less than a quarter of the Title I funds allocated to them, compared 

with 47 percent of SWP schools. 

In most Title I schools, districts and schools collaborated on decisions regarding use 

of Title I funds. However, principals in SWP schools were more likely than principals of 

TAP schools to report making all or most decisions about the use of Title I funds. 

Title I school principals most commonly indicated a joint decision-making process for the use of Title I 

funds between school and district staff (40 percent of SWP principals and 32 percent of TAP principals). 

However, principals of SWP schools were more likely to report that they made most or all decisions 

regarding Title I funds (25 percent vs. 12 percent), while TAP school principals were more likely to report 

that the district made decisions on all Title I funds (24 percent, compared with 10 percent of SWP 

principals) (Exhibit ES-2). 

xvi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit ES-2.Level of school involvement in making decisions about the use of Title I funds, 

by school characteristics, as reported by principals 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Among Title I SWP schools, 25 percent reported that schools staff make most or all decisions related
 

to Title I funds.
 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < . 05, **p < . 01, ***p < . 001.
 

Source: Principal survey (n = 608 SWP and 400 TAP schools). 

Title I Flexibility in Schoolwide Programs 

Few SWP principals reported that their school consolidated Title I funds with other 

federal, state, and local funds (6 percent), but a larger proportion (50 percent) indicated 

that they coordinated the use of Title I funds with other funds. 

Eight percent of SWP schools reported that they neither consolidated nor coordinated funds from Title I 

and other programs, and, notably, 36 percent of principals did not know how to characterize their 

schools’ approach. 

Case study SWP principals who reported coordinating the use of Title I funds with 

other federal, state, and local funds often described co-funding staff positions or
 

services in a way that may have a similar practical result as consolidating the funds.
 

Among the 10 case study schools that reported coordinating funds from Title I and other programs, five 

co-funded specific staff positions, such as support teachers, instructional coaches, and classroom 

teachers. The remaining five schools otherwise managed funds in concert to support particular 

initiatives. For example, one SWP middle school used multiple funding streams to support student 

tutoring to prepare for state assessments. In another school, three EL teachers were funded through 

Title I and one through other funds, with “all working together” to serve EL students. 

xvii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

According to district administrators, the biggest challenge for consolidating Title I 

funds with funds from other sources was state accounting rules that require separate 

accounting for federal programs. 

Nearly half (47 percent) of district administrators surveyed reported that state accounting rules 

requiring separate accounting for federal program funds posed a moderate or major challenge to 

consolidating Title I funds with funds from other sources. Other commonly reported challenges included 

a lack of information about how to consolidate funds (37 percent), concern about potential audit 

exceptions (37 percent), district accounting rules requiring separate accounting for different funding 

sources (35 percent), and the need for more training and understanding about program issues (34 

percent) and finance issues (32 percent). 

Conclusion 

In summary, this study detected some notable differences between SWPs and TAPs. Consistent with the 

intent that SWP schools use the federal funds in a comprehensive, schoolwide manner, SWP schools 

used Title I funds for a broader array of staff position types and services compared with TAP schools. 

Moreover, SWPs had greater control over their use of Title I funds than did TAP schools. Not only do 

SWP schools control a greater portion of their Title I funds, but a wider range of stakeholders are 

involved in decisions about how Title I funds are used. Although survey data suggest that most Title I 

schools are using their funds for fairly traditional purposes, the case study data provide examples of 

Title I-funded activities that go beyond conventional practices, including such activities as counseling 

services, interventions to improve school climate, summer bridge programs, and academic enrichment 

activities. These examples suggest that more Title I schools, particularly SWPs, have an open opportunity 

to leverage the flexibility under Title I to implement more innovative strategies that might better meet 

the varied needs of their students. 

xviii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Chapter 1. Introduction
 

Students in high-poverty schools often enter school with profound educational needs, both academic 

and social-emotional. Compounding this, schools with high concentrations of students from 

impoverished backgrounds often have lower capacity to address their learning needs, thus putting these 

students at an even greater disadvantage (Baker 2014; Betts, Rueben, and Danenberg 2000). For more 

than 50 years, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) has aimed to 

improve the prospects of these students by providing additional funding for their schools to support 

supplementary educational services and improve outcomes for low-achieving students. 

Although the Title I program initially targeted services to specific students identified as low achieving, the 

program has increasingly emphasized the provision of schoolwide services in high-poverty schools. Early 

evaluations of the Title I program found that targeting services specifically to certain students could 

fragment a student’s learning experience; targeted students often were pulled out of their regular 

classrooms to receive remedial instruction, in many cases by teacher aides with less education and 

experience compared with classroom teachers (Birman et al. 1987; Commission on Chapter 1 1992; Wong 

and Wang 1994). In contrast, research on effective high-poverty schools illustrated that such schools could 

improve student outcomes for at-risk students by adopting whole-school strategies (Berends et al. 2002; 

Borman and Hewes 2002; Borman et al. 2003; Mac Iver and Kemper 2002; Wang and Wong 1997). 

Because of these concerns, the 1978 reauthorization of the Title I program introduced the option for 

high-poverty Title I schools to operate SWPs, which provide the flexibility to use Title I funds for wholeschool approaches to improvement. Unlike schools using the traditional TAP approach, SWP schools are 

allowed to consolidate Title I funds with those from other federal, state, and local programs and are not 

required to ensure that the funds are used only for specific students identified as low-achieving. Initially 

aimed at schools with a student poverty rate of 75 percent or more, successive reauthorizations have 

reduced the poverty rate threshold for eligibility for schoolwide status to 50 percent under the 1994 

reauthorization and 40 percent under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The most recent 

reauthorization, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) retained the 40 percent threshold for an 

SWP but added the authority for state educational agencies to waive the minimum poverty threshold if 

they determine that an SWP will best serve the academic needs of the students in the school, among 

other factors.1 Over time, the percentage of Title I schools that operated SWPs increased from 10 

percent in 1994–95 to 32 percent by 1996–97, 58 percent by 2004–05, and 77 percent in 2014–15 (the 

most recent year for which such data are available). 

Implicit in the intent for SWPs is that the flexibility will allow them to implement systemic, schoolwide 

interventions, thus leading to more effective services and better academic outcomes for all students in 

schools with high concentrations of poverty, particularly the lowest-achieving students. At the same 

time, the continuation of the TAP approach also reflects a specific policy intent: to focus the smaller 

amount of total Title I funding in lower-poverty schools2 on supporting students with the greatest needs 

rather than diluting the funds across a larger number of students. 

1 Most of the changes enacted under ESSA, including those relevant to SWPs and TAPs, did not take effect until the 2017–18 

school year. Thus, the requirements under NCLB remained in effect during the period covered by this study. 

2 Because Title I funds are allocated to schools based on their numbers of children from low-income families, schools with low 

concentrations of such children tend to receive smaller total amounts of Title I funds than schools with higher poverty rates. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Study Overview 

Study Purpose 

The purpose of this study was to enable policymakers and educators to gain a better understanding of 

how SWPs use their flexibility to design schoolwide services and strategies to address the needs of low 

achievers and compare these practices with those used by TAPs. Specifically, the data collected for this 

study provide insight into the types of interventions and services that SWP and TAP schools support with 

Title I funds; the decision-making processes that inform the use of funds, including the stakeholders who 

participate in that decision making; and the extent to which Title I funds are coordinated or consolidated 

with other funding sources to support improved student outcomes.3 The study focused on three main 

study questions: 

1.	 Do schoolwide and targeted assistance programs differ in how they use Title I funds to improve 

student achievement, particularly for low-achieving subgroups? 

2.	 How do districts and schools make decisions about how to use Title I funds in schoolwide 

programs and targeted assistance programs? 

3.	 To what extent do schoolwide programs consolidate Title I funds with other funds or coordinate 

the use of Title I funds with other funds? 

This chapter describes the general framework for the overall study and provides information on sample 

selection, data collection, analysis, and quality control protocols. Additional detail is provided in 

Appendix A. 

Conceptual Framework 

Conceptual Framework. The concept underlying the SWP provisions of Title I is to provide high-poverty 

schools with additional flexibility – both in terms of the students that may be served and the fiscal 

requirements that must be met – in exchange for comprehensive schoolwide planning. Whereas TAP 

schools may use Title I funds only to provide supplemental services to specific students who have been 

identified as failing (or most at risk of failing) to meet state standards, SWPs may use the funds to 

upgrade the entire educational program in the school in order to improve the academic achievement of 

all students, particularly the lowest-achieving students. SWPs are not required to identify specific 

students as eligible to participate or demonstrate that the services provided with Title I funds are 

supplemental to services that would otherwise be provided. 

In addition, SWP schools may consolidate Title I funds with federal, state, and local funding, while TAP 

schools may not. In consolidating funds, an SWP does not need to meet most of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements of the federal programs included in the consolidation as long as it meets the 

intent and purposes of those programs. Moreover, SWPs are not required to maintain separate fiscal 

accounting records by program that identify the specific activities supported by those funds. In exchange 

for this flexibility, SWP schools must develop a comprehensive plan, based on a needs assessment of the 

3 In this report, we use the term “consolidated” to mean that funds from Title I and other sources are merged together in a 

single account and cannot be identified as specifically associated with any particular expenditure. We use the term 

“coordinated” to mean that specific expenditures could be associated with funding sources, but expenditures were planned 

in a coordinated way so that multiple funding sources sometimes supported the same objectives or similar programs. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

entire school, that includes strategies for improving teaching and learning in the school. The law 

requires SWPs to include parents and other key stakeholders in the development of the schoolwide 

plan. In addition, the school must annually evaluate the SWP’s implementation and results in terms of 

student achievement and revise the schoolwide comprehensive plan as necessary. In contrast, TAPs 

must ensure that planning for serving Title I-eligible students is incorporated into existing school 

planning; coordinate with and support the regular education program; and review the progress of 

participating students on an ongoing basis and revise the TAP as necessary. 

The study focused on how Title I SWPs and TAPs compare in how they use these federal resources to 

improve academic outcomes, particularly for low-achieving students, as well as on the complex interplay 

among school decision making, use of funds, and implementation of educational practices. The 

conceptual framework grounding this study is depicted in Exhibit 1. 

Exhibit 1. Conceptual framework for study 

Study Design Overview 

This study used both quantitative and qualitative approaches and included three data collection activities: 

1.	 Nationally representative surveys of 404 Title I district coordinators and 1,421 principals of 

Title I schools, including 823 SWP schools and 598 TAP schools. The surveys were completed by 

310 districts and 1,042 principals from this sample, including 622 SWP and 420 TAP principals. 

The survey data were used to provide estimates of practices in Title I schools across the United 

States. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

2.	 Site visits to a purposive sample of 35 Title I SWP and TAP case study schools in five states. 

During the site visits, the study team conducted interviews with principals, other school staff 

involved in Title I, and district administrators. The case studies were used to obtain deeper 

insight into the decision-making process for the use of Title I and other funds in SWP and TAP 

schools, including the key stakeholders involved, the strategies and interventions that Title I 

funds are used to support, how Title I funds are coordinated or consolidated to improve student 

outcomes, and factors that challenge and facilitate Title I implementation at the local level. 

3.	 Extant data from the 35 case study school sites, including school-level Title I plans and school 

budget documents. These documents were used to identify the educational interventions and 

services that are supported with Title I funds at SWP and TAP schools, the amounts of funding 

devoted to various types of interventions and services in both types of schools, and the extent 

to which SWP schools use schoolwide funds flexibly and in ways that would not be permissible 

in TAP schools. The data also were analyzed to identify any potentially innovative ways of using 

funds to support improvement efforts. 

Characteristics of Schoolwide Programs and Targeted Assistance Programs 

Nationwide, there were nearly 44,000 SWPs and over 12,000 TAPs in the 2014–15 school year. SWPs 

accounted for 49 percent of all regular elementary and secondary schools, 46 percent of students, and 

64 percent of students from low-income families (based on eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch). 

In contrast, TAPs accounted for 14 percent of schools, 11 percent of students, and 8 percent of lowincome students (see Exhibit 2). 

Exhibit 2.	 Distribution of schools, students, and students from low-income families, by school Title I 

status, 2014–15 

Students eligible for free 

School type Schools Students or reduced-price lunch 

Title I schools 62% 56% 71% 

Schoolwide programs 49% 46% 64% 

Targeted assistance programs 14% 11% 8% 

Non-Title I schools	 38% 44% 29% 

All schools	 89,834 49,168,748 25,594,334 

Exhibit reads: Title I schools accounted for 62 percent of all regular elementary and secondary schools in 2014–15. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2014–15. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

SWPs and TAPs are similarly distributed among the elementary, middle, and high school levels, but 

SWPs are more frequently located in urban areas while TAPs are more common in suburban and rural 

areas. Due to the schoolwide eligibility requirements, SWPs tend to have substantially higher poverty 

levels than TAPs: 86 percent of SWPs had more than 50 percent low-income students, compared with 29 

percent of TAPs (see Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3.	 Distribution of schoolwide programs, targeted assistance programs, Title I schools, and 

non-Title I schools, by various demographic characteristics, 2014–15 

Schoolwide Targeted assistance All Title I Non-Title I 

Characteristic programs programs schools schools 

By grade level 

Primary 70% 71% 71% 40% 

Middle 15% 15% 15% 23% 

High 10% 9% 10% 32% 

Other 4% 4% 4% 5% 

By percent eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch 

75–100% 49% 8% 40% 5% 

50–74% 37% 21% 33% 19% 

35–49% 10% 26% 14% 23% 

0–34% 4% 45% 13% 52% 

By urbanicity 

City 36% 10% 30% 21% 

Suburb 25% 39% 28% 39% 

Town 14% 13% 14% 12% 

Rural 25% 38% 28% 28% 

Number of schools	 43,612 12,229 55,841 33,993 

Exhibit reads: Primary schools accounted for 70 percent of SWPs in 2014–15. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2014–15. 

Sample Selection 

This section briefly describes the methods for selecting the nationally representative samples of Title I 

districts, SWPs, and TAPs as well as the case study sample. 

Survey Sample 

The target school population included schools that received Title I funding in either the current school year 

(i.e., 2016–17) or the previous school year (i.e., 2015–16), and the target district population included 

districts that had at least one school receiving Title I funding in either the current or prior school year. The 

sample frame for both the district and school principal surveys was constructed from the 2013–14 

Common Core of Data (CCD) Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe File, which was the most 

recent list of schools available at the time of sampling. Because school Title I status may change from one 

year to another, more recent Title I status data from EDFacts 2014–15 was merged into the CCD file and 

used to identify the Title I status of schools and districts. Schools with no student enrollment were 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

considered ineligible for inclusion in the study, as were the following types of schools: school type other 

than regular or vocational, online or virtual schools, detention or treatment centers, and homebound 

schools. The nationally representative sample selected for the study included 404 districts and 1,421 

schools, including 823 SWP schools and 598 TAP schools. The survey data were used to provide estimates 

of practices in Title I schools across the United States.4 In all, 310 districts and 1,042 principals completed 

the surveys, including 622 SWP and 420 TAP principals.

5 

Case Study Sample 

To select the purposive sample of 35 schools, the study team first selected five states in which the case 

study schools would be located, and then used an iterative process aimed at selecting a school sample 

that included variation on observable characteristics such as school grade level, urbanicity, school 

accountability status, school size, and student demographics, while limiting the total number of districts 

represented in the sample (in order to minimize travel costs). The case study sample was developed 

independent of the survey sample. Fourteen case study schools were also included in the survey sample 

by chance; however, the survey was administered to all case study schools for use in case study analyses. 

The five states were selected from states that have a sufficiently large pool of SWP and TAP schools that 

met the school-level criteria and were clustered within districts with schools of the same school level and 

opposite Title I program type (e.g., SWP elementary schools and TAP elementary schools). We also sought 

to balance the five-state sample across geographic regions. There were three school-level criteria to be 

considered for the case study sample, a school must: (1) be identified as an elementary, middle, or high 

school; (2) have at least 40 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; and (3) have 

data available on urbanicity and school accountability status. Because SWPs tend to have higher poverty 

rates than TAPs, we also sought to balance the number of SWPs and TAPs that had relatively high and low 

poverty rates. 

The final case study sample was nested within the states of California, Georgia, Michigan, New York, and 

Virginia. The 35 case study schools included 26 SWPs and nine TAPs; 17 elementary schools, nine middle 

schools, and nine high schools; and 14 high-poverty schools (with 75 percent or more of students 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch), 14 medium-poverty schools (50 percent to 74 percent of 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch), and seven low-poverty schools (40 percent to 49 

percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch). Schools of various poverty levels were well 

balanced within the SWP and TAP groups: the 26 SWPs included 11 high-poverty, 11 medium-poverty, 

and four low-poverty schools, and the nine TAPs included three high-poverty, three medium-poverty, 

and three low-poverty schools. School enrollment size ranged from a high of 1,877 to a low of 37 

students. Exhibit 4 displays key characteristics of the case study schools; readers should note that all 

case study school names in this report are pseudonyms. 

4 By chance, the nationally representative sample of Title I schools included 14 schools that were also part of the case study 

sample. Although the principal survey was administered to all case study schools (to support the case study analyses), the 

survey results presented in this report are based just on the responses of the randomly sampled schools. 

5 For more detailed explanations of the survey sampling and methodology, see Appendix A. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 4. Characteristics of case study schools 

Title I Percent eligible for free or Percent Percent 

Case study schools status* School level reduced-price lunch Enrollment Hispanic Black 

State A 

School A-1 SWP Elementary 72 400 41 3 

School A-2 SWP Elementary 64 300 96 2 

School A-3 SWP Middle 94 500 93 2 

School A-4 SWP Middle 50 1,700 46 9 

School A-5 SWP High 47 1,200 15 75 

School A-6 TAP High 87 1,400 94 1 

School A-7 TAP High 43 1,800 59 3 

State B 

School B-1 SWP Elementary 68 800 8 52 

School B-2 SWP Elementary 67 400 2 67 

School B-3 SWP Middle 100 300 4 53 

School B-4 SWP High 100 800 1 67 

School B-5 SWP High 96 1,900 38 46 

School B-6 SWP High 91 1,300 78 12 

School B-7 TAP Middle 41 1,200 6 15 

State C 

School C-1 SWP Elementary 95 600 0 1 

School C-2 SWP Elementary 65 700 1 2 

School C-3 SWP Elementary 57 500 2 10 

School C-4 SWP Middle 61 900 1 15 

School C-5 SWP High 56 200 4 14 

School C-6 SWP High 48 1,900 3 7 

School C-7 TAP Middle 58 800 1 16 

State D 

School D-1 SWP Elementary 86 300 33 57 

School D-2 SWP Elementary 43 50 0 0 

School D-3 SWP Middle 41 300 1 6 

School D-4 SWP High 85 1,600 30 55 

School D-5 TAP Elementary 84 400 61 23 

School D-6 TAP Elementary 81 700 40 56 

School D-7 TAP Elementary 55 400 15 63 

State E 

School E-1 SWP Elementary 84 400 6 89 

School E-2 SWP Elementary 66 600 53 22 

School E-3 SWP Elementary 51 300 4 9 

School E-4 SWP Middle 96 700 0 98 

School E-5 SWP Middle 77 1,000 63 20 

School E-6 TAP Elementary 66 700 28 54 

School E-7 TAP Elementary 42 500 7 15 

Exhibit reads: The first of the seven case study schools in “State A” is an SWP with 72 percent of its students 

receiving free or reduced-price lunches. 

Note: Enrollment numbers have been rounded to mask the identity of the schools.
 

Source: Demographic data for the case study schools were obtained from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
 

Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2014–15.
 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Data Collection 

Surveys 

The surveys were administered to districts and principals from November 2016 through April 2017. 

The target respondent for the district survey was the individual with the most knowledge about district 

Title I implementation (typically the district Title I coordinator). To be eligible for the surveys, districts 

had to have at least one school receive Title I funding for either the 2015–16 or the 2016–17 academic 

year, and the selected school for the principal survey also had to have received funding. Surveys were 

administered primarily through an online platform, with a small percentage completing a paper 

questionnaire. The final response rates were 76 percent on the district survey and 75 percent on the 

principal survey (for both SWP principals and TAP principals). 

To ensure that analyses reflected the population of Title I-eligible schools and districts serving Title Ieligible students, analytic weights were created to reflect the probability of selection into the sample, 

with adjustments for differential response rates among subgroups (see Exhibit 5). 

Exhibit 5.	 Survey distribution of schoolwide programs, targeted assistance programs, Title I schools, 

and non-Title I schools, by various demographic characteristics, 2014–15 

Characteristic Schoolwide programs 

Targeted assistance 

programs All Title I schools 

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted 

By grade level 

Primary 

Middle 

High 

Other 

76% 

14% 

8% 

2% 

73% 

14% 

10% 

3% 

70% 

15% 

10% 

4% 

68% 

18% 

10% 

4% 

74% 

14% 

9% 

3% 

72% 

15% 

10% 

3% 

By percent eligible 

for free or reducedprice lunch 

0–34% 

35–49% 

50–74% 

75–100% 

3% 

9% 

36% 

53% 

3% 

10% 

40% 

48% 

45% 

25% 

19% 

12% 

43% 

28% 

23% 

6% 

19% 

15% 

29% 

36% 

12% 

14% 

36% 

38% 

By urbanicity 

City 

Suburb 

Town 

Rural 

35% 

36% 

10% 

19% 

37% 

25% 

14% 

25% 

11% 

41% 

12% 

36% 

8% 

37% 

13% 

43% 

25% 

38% 

11% 

26% 

30% 

27% 

14% 

29% 

Number of 

observations 622 42,358 420 12,197 1,042 54,555 

Exhibit reads: Primary schools accounted for 76 percent of the unweighted survey sample distribution of SWP 

schools. 

Sources: Principal survey; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2014–15. 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Case Studies 

Data Collection. The research team conducted site visits to the 35 case study schools from January 

through March 2017. In each site, research staff conducted interviews with up to 10 respondents: 

• District Title I coordinator 

• District budget official (if different from the Title I coordinator) 

• School principal 

• School budget official (if different from the principal) 

• Staff member paid through Title I 

• Focus group with up to five school improvement team members, excluding the principal 

In total, the study team conducted 154 interviews and focus groups on-site, including 39 interviews with 

district officials, 33 principal interviews, 30 interviews of staff paid through Title I, 18 interviews with 

other staff (such as school budget officers), and 34 school improvement team focus groups. All but six of 

the interviews were audio recorded; one district superintendent asked that staff not consent to 

recordings. The study team also conducted follow-up telephone interviews to obtain missing 

information, where necessary. Immediately after the site visits, the site visitors completed a preliminary 

data capture document to facilitate quick synthesis of the information gained from the interviews. 

Case study schools were also asked to provide their Title I budgets for the 2015–16 and 2016–17 school 

years, as well as their total operational budgets (totals only). All 35 case study schools provided their 

Title I budgets for 2016–17 and 26 schools provided this for 2015–16. In addition, the same principal 

survey that was conducted in the nationally representative sample of Title I schools was also 

administered to all case study schools for use in the case study analyses.6 

Analysis Methods 

The analysis of the survey and case study data was guided by three core principles: (1) structuring the 

analyses such that they yield relevant findings, (2) adhering to standards for the rigor of qualitative and 

quantitative analyses to ensure valid and reliable results, and (3) following National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) and Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) standards for reporting the results. 

Surveys 

The analyses for this study were largely descriptive and involved calculating averages of various survey 

items across different subgroups of respondents. In analyses comparing survey responses for SWP and 

TAP schools, significance tests were conducted to determine whether the differences between SWP and 

TAP schools were statistically significant at conventional levels.7 

6 Survey results for the case study schools were not included in the survey results presented in this report, except for the 14 

case study schools that were also selected, by chance, for the nationally representative sample. 

Throughout the report, for our primary analyses examining differences between SWP and TAP schools, the text only highlights 

differences that are statistically significant. However, occasionally we present certain tentative conditional analyses without 

conducting statistical significance tests (e.g., showing data broken down by both Title I program type and Title I allocation size). 

We also do not conduct statistical significance tests when presenting tabulations based on case study data. 

9
 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Responses to the survey were used to summarize findings in an aggregate manner or to provide 

examples of program implementation in a manner that does not associate responses with a specific site 

or individual. No district, school, or staff member is named in the reporting of these data. All efforts 

were made to keep the description of the site general enough so that the identity of the site cannot be 

determined. In addition, responses to each item in the survey were reviewed for potential disclosure 

risk and suppressed as necessary. Please note that key findings in this report are based on survey 

analyses unless the finding specifically refers to the case studies. 

Case Studies 

Our approach to the case study analyses was purposefully integrated, leveraging all data sources to 

enhance our understanding of each school site as a whole as well as to detect patterns across schools 

with different characteristics and contexts. 

Data from the three data sources — on-site interviews, budget and fiscal data, and surveys of district 

and school administrators — were used to produce case narratives that integrated data to provide a 

holistic understanding of exemplar school cases. In addition, school-level classification rubrics (e.g., high, 

medium, and low ratings on key constructs) were created to facilitate understanding and description of 

variation among the case study schools and to identify outliers or exemplars. 

To analyze the Title I budget data, budget line items were categorized using consistent categories across 

the sites, as well as distinguishing personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures. Interview data and budget 

narratives (when available) helped inform this coding. We then summarized the proportion of spending 

in each category for each school, SWP schools, TAP schools, and the sample overall. To understand the 

extent to which the planned use of Title I funds differed from year to year, we compared the proportion 

of Title I funds planned for each category in 2015–16 and 2016–17. Data on schools’ total operational 

budgets were used to estimate the proportion of school resources provided through Title I. 

The study team also conducted a cross-case analysis to assess the prevalence of practices across sites, 

prepared cross-tabulations to detect associations among variables, and identified examples of Title I 

practices that may be of interest to policymakers and other educators. Although the survey data 

provided nationally representative findings about key practices in Title I schools that could be 

disaggregated by key variables of interest (e.g., SWP vs. TAP schools), the case study data enabled us to 

examine associations among variables that could not be measured in the survey. Further details on the 

methods for the case study analyses are provided in Appendix A. 

Study Limitations 

Readers should note some limitations to the interpretation and generalizability of the study findings. 

Although the study included a relatively large number of case study sites, these sites are not nationally 

representative and the data cannot be generalized to the nation as a whole. The study aimed to collect 

detailed information on the uses of Title I funds through the surveys, but this information may not have 

been readily available to respondents or may not have existed in the standardized categories requested 

in the surveys, and respondents were asked to estimate their Title I expenditures for various categories. 

The survey response rates (75 percent) were lower than the Office of Management and Budget target 

for federal evaluations (85 percent), but we consider them very good for a survey with unusually 

challenging items that requested detailed fiscal information. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Chapter 2. Use of Title I Funds for Personnel and
 

Nonpersonnel Resources
 

The goal of the flexibility offered to Title I schoolwide programs is to enable them to use Title I funds to 

implement “a comprehensive reform strategy designed to upgrade the entire educational program in a 

Title I school to improve the achievement of the lowest-achieving students” (ESEA section 1114(a)(1)). 

In contrast, targeted assistance programs must focus their Title I funds exclusively on services and 

resources for students identified as eligible for Title I services based on their low achievement levels. 

Historically, the bulk of Title I funds have been used to support staff: In 2004–05, 87 percent of Title I 

school-level expenditures were spent on salaries and benefits for teachers and paraprofessional 

(Chambers et al. 2009). However, previous resource allocation studies have not sought to compare 

practices in SWP and TAP schools or to explore the activities in which Title I staff engage. 

This chapter provides an overview of Title I funding levels and allocation requirements, followed by an 

examination of the types of personnel and nonpersonnel resources purchased with Title I funds. In the 

next chapter we will examine the services supported by Title I-funded personnel and nonpersonnel. 

Overview of Title I Funding 

In fiscal year 2016, funding for Title I Part A Grants to local educational agencies was $14.9 billion, or 

39 percent of total appropriations for federal elementary-secondary education programs administered 

by the U.S. Department of Education ($38.1 billion). More than half of all public schools received Title I 

funds, including two thirds of all elementary schools. More than three out of four Title I schools 

operated SWPs (U.S. Department of Education 2016a). 

Title I funds are allocated to school districts and schools primarily based on the numbers of children 

from low-income families residing in each district and school attendance area. At the district level, the 

statutory funding formulas are designed to provide higher levels of funding per low-income student to 

districts with high percentages or numbers of children in families living below the federal poverty line, 

based on annual estimates provided by the Census Bureau. In turn, school districts suballocate most of 

their Title I funds to eligible schools based on each school’s number of low-income children, typically 

using data from the free or reduced-price lunch program.8 Districts may give schools differing amounts 

per low-income child as long as schools with higher poverty rates received higher allocations than 

schools with lower poverty rates. Because of these provisions, it is expected that, all else being equal, 

SWPs would receive higher Title I allocations per low-income student, on average, than TAPs (since 

SWPs have higher poverty rates, on average, than TAPs). 

To examine differences in funding between SWP and TAP schools, we calculated average amounts of 

Title I funds per student and per low-income student (defined as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) 

in survey schools and examined Title I as a share of overall budgeted spending in case study schools. 

A school is eligible if it has a poverty rate that is at least equal to the district average poverty rate or 35 percent (whichever is 

less). However, districts may choose to concentrate their Title I funds on their highest-poverty schools and limit school 

eligibility to a poverty level that is higher than the districtwide average. 

11
 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

On average, Title I funding per low-income student amounted to $559 in SWP schools

and $657 in TAP schools), but the difference between the two school types was not 

statistically significant. 

This finding is consistent with prior research that found that high-poverty schools actually receive 

smaller allocations per low-income student than do low-poverty schools, on average, despite what is 

expected based on the targeting provisions in the law.9 

In contrast, when examining per-pupil allocations based on the entire student body, SWP schools 

received significantly more Title I funding than TAP schools ($405 and $255 per pupil, respectively), due 

to the higher proportions of low-income students enrolled in SWP schools (Exhibit 6). 

Exhibit 6. Average Title I allocations for schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, as reported 

by district officials, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: SWP schools received an average of $559 per free or reduced-price lunch student. This amounted to
 

an average of $405 per student based on overall school enrollment.
 

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: ***p < .001.
 

Source: District survey, item D.4 (n = 334 SWP and 261 TAP schools). 

Given that the operational expenditures per pupil nationwide in 2013–14 were slightly more than 

$11,000 per pupil (NCES 2017), Title I allocations represent, on average, a relatively small share of the 

overall school budget. Because case study schools provided data on their overall operational budgets as 

well as their Title I budgets, we were able to calculate the share of total budgets provided through Title I 

in these schools, which ranged from a high of 6.6 percent to a low of 0.7 percent. 

Chambers et al. (2009) found, based on school allocation data for 2004–05, that Title I funding per low-income student was 

lower in SWPs than in TAPs, and that it was lower in high-poverty schools than in low-poverty schools, on average. Based on 

a detailed analysis of within-district Title I allocations, the study concluded that this occurred because low-poverty Title I 

districts tended to fund a relatively small percentage of their schools and to provide those schools with relatively large 

allocations per low-income student, whereas high-poverty districts typically provided Title I funds to a large majority of their 

schools but provided each of these schools with relatively smaller allocations per low-income student, compared with the 

funding levels that lower-poverty districts provided to their schools. 

12
 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

SWP schools were found throughout the range of school-level operational budget shares made up by 

Title I allocations. TAP schools, however, had a slightly narrower range, with Title I accounting for no 

more than 5 percent of a school’s budget (see Exhibit B1 in Appendix B). Although principals generally 

recognized that Title I was an important funding source, they also pointed out that Title I was a relatively 

small part of total school funding. 

Title I Personnel Resources 

To examine differences in how SWP and TAP schools used their Title I funds, we first examined staff 

supported by Title I funding by their position type or role. Personnel resources accounted for a majority 

of Title I spending. On average, Title I schools reported employing approximately six staff per 500 

students using Title I funds, with SWP schools averaging 6.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff per 500 

students and TAP schools averaging 5.0 FTE staff per 500 students.10 

In 25 of the 34 case study schools with budget data that allowed for an analysis of 

personnel and nonpersonnel spending, personnel represented more than 75 percent of 

the overall Title I budget. 

However, in some case study schools, nonpersonnel expenditures accounted for the majority of the 

Title I budget, including five SWPs and one TAP (Exhibit 7). 

Exhibit 7. Number of case study schools that spent various percentages of their Title I funds on 

personnel, 2016–17 

 

Exhibit reads: Among the 25 SWP case study schools, five spent less than 50 percent of their Title I funds on
 

personnel.
 

Notes: Includes 34 of the 35 case study schools; one school did not provide their Title I budget.
 

Sources: Extant budget data; Interview data. 

10 For the remainder of this chapter when discussing percentages of staff of different types or used in different services, these 

measures always refer to percentages of staff FTEs rather than percentages of positions. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Types of Staff Paid for With Title I Funds 

Although a majority of both SWP and TAP schools used Title I funds to hire teachers,

SWP schools were much more likely than TAPs to use Title I funds to hire instructional 

coaches, parent and community liaisons, technology support staff, and EL specialists. 

TAP and SWP principals most commonly reported using Title I funds for teachers (76 percent and 

67 percent, respectively; this difference was not statistically significant between TAP and SWP schools). 

SWP schools were more than three times as likely as TAP schools to report using Title I for instructional 

coaches (40 percent vs. 11 percent); parent and community liaisons (18 percent vs. 4 percent); and 

technology support staff (10 percent vs. 2 percent). SWPs were also more likely to use Title I funds for EL 

specialists (12 percent vs. 4 percent) and paraprofessionals (59 percent vs. 32 percent (Exhibit 8)). These 

findings suggest that SWP schools use Title I funds for a broader array of staff types than TAP schools. 

Exhibit 8. Percentage of principals who reported using Title I funds to support various 

staff positions in schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: In Title I schools, 67 percent of SWP principals and 76 percent of TAP principals reported using Title I
 

funds for teachers.
 

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < . 05, ***p < . 001.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.2 (n = 561 SWP and 367 TAP schools). 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Similarly, instructional coaches, paraprofessionals, and parent/community liaisons

accounted for a higher percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools than in TAP schools, 

and teachers accounted for a relatively lower percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools. 

Instructional coaches accounted for 14 percent of staff in SWP schools, more than twice the percentage 

in TAP schools (6 percent).

11 Parent and community liaisons accounted for 3 percent of staff in SWPs 

and less than 1 percent in TAPs. Paraprofessionals accounted for 29 percent of staff in SWPs and 20 

percent in TAPs. Other types of non-teacher staff (such as EL specialists, curriculum coordinators, 

assessment coordinators, data analysts, administrative staff, and technology support staff) also 

accounted for a greater proportion of Title I-funded staff in SWPs than in TAPs (12 percent vs. 

6 percent). In contrast, teachers accounted for a smaller percentage of staff in SWP schools than in TAP 

schools (41 percent vs. 67 percent) (Exhibit 9). 

Exhibit 9. Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff by position type in schoolwide and 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: On average, teachers represented 41 percent of Title I-funded staff in SWP schools. 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff are not included in this analysis. The “All other” category includes EL
 

specialists, curriculum coordinators, assessment coordinators, data analysts, administrative staff, technology support staff, and those
 

categorized as “other” on the survey. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < .05, **p < .01,
 

***p < .001. For complete results see Exhibit B2 in Appendix B.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.2 (n = 520 SWP and 336 TAP schools).
 

11	 When examining the distributions of staff, any respondents reporting that they did not use Title I funds for staff are not 

included. Consequently, the sample sizes for analyses examining the distribution of resources across categories (e.g., Exhibit 

9) are smaller than the analyses examining the extent to which principals reported using Title I funds for a particular category 

of resource (e.g., Exhibit 8). 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Common Combinations of Title I Staff Positions 

To examine whether SWP schools were more likely to use Title I funds for a wider variety of staff 

positions than TAP schools, we looked at the common combinations of staff used in SWP and TAP 

schools. That is, did Title I schools hire only teachers or only teachers plus paraprofessionals? Or did they 

hire other sorts of staff in combination with teachers? 

A majority of TAP schools dedicated their Title I personnel expenditures exclusively to 

hiring teachers, while SWP schools more commonly used these funds for a 

combination of staffing types. 

A relatively small share of SWP schools (14 percent) used Title I staffing positions exclusively for 

teachers, compared with 52 percent of TAP schools. In contrast, 29 percent of SWP schools used Title I 

funds for a combination of teachers, paraprofessionals, and at least one other staffing position type, 

compared with only 11 percent of TAP schools. Similarly, SWPs were more likely than TAPs to use Title I 

funds for a combination of paraprofessionals and one or more other staffing types (16 percent vs. 

4 percent) and for a combination of teachers and one or more other staffing types (14 percent vs. 

6 percent) (see Exhibit 10). 

Exhibit 10. Common combinations of staff positions paid for with Title I funds in schoolwide 

and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Among SWP schools using Title I funds for staff, 14 percent used these funds only for teachers. 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff are not included in this analysis. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant
 

difference between SWP and TAP schools: * p < . 05, **p < . 01, ***p < . 001.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.2 (n = 536 SWP and 343 TAP schools).
 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

This analysis indicates substantive differences in the ways that SWP and TAP schools used their Title I 

funds to employ different combinations of staff. One possible reason for these differences is that SWP 

schools had larger Title I allocations on average and could, therefore, afford to spread their resources 

across multiple position types, whereas TAP schools might have had the resources to hire only a single 

staffing position, often a teacher. To examine this hypothesis, combinations of staff positions by Title I 

allocation size and program type were examined (Exhibit 11). 

However, allocation size does not appear to explain all the differences between SWP and TAP schools. 

The pattern that TAPs are more likely than SWPs to focus their Title I staff on just teachers was 

consistent at all three allocation sizes examined (small, medium, and large). Similarly, the use of Title I 

staff for a combination of teachers, paraprofessionals, and at least one other staffing type was found for 

higher percentages of SWPs than TAPs at all three allocation sizes examined. It is important to note that 

the allocation size variable is missing for a sizable portion of schools in our sample, resulting in a 

46 percent reduction in SWP schools and a 35 percent reduction in TAP schools for Exhibit 11, relative to 

Exhibit 10. Additionally, we did not test these differences for statistical significance, and the patterns 

discussed here should be interpreted with caution. 

Exhibit 11. Common combinations of staff positions paid for with Title I in schoolwide and targeted 

assistance programs, by Title I allocation size, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Among schools that used Title I funds to employ staff, 32 percent of SWP schools with small Title I 

allocations used the funds only for teachers. 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff are not included in this analysis. Small allocations were defined as less than 

$83,500, medium allocations as $83,500–$187,500, and large allocations as more than $187,500. These ranges were constructed to have 

similar numbers of total schools within each allocation size category. SWP averages are based on 52 schools with small allocations, 92 schools 

with medium allocations, and 148 schools with large allocations. TAP averages are based on 109 schools with small allocations, 78 schools with 

medium allocations, and 35 schools with large allocations. Statistical significance tests were not conducted for this comparison of SWP and TAP 

schools conditional on allocation size. For complete results see Exhibit B3. in Appendix B. 

Source: Principal survey, item D.2; District survey, item D.4 (n = 292 SWP and 222 TAP schools). 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Examining the Roles of Title I Staff in Case Study Schools 

The case study data provide another lens on the types of staff hired by Title I schools as well as the 

reasoning behind schools’ decisions to use their Title I funds for these roles. In addition, although the 

survey data provide information on certain staff types, the case study data allow for further parsing of 

common staff types. For example, we found that an important distinction within the role of teacher was 

whether teachers were providing additional supports or specialized in instructing reading or 

mathematics or were primarily used as a classroom teacher for the purpose of class size reduction. 

Across all of the case study schools, 48 percent of staff hired with Title I funds were 

specialists and support teachers, 18 percent were classroom teachers, and 16 percent 

were paraprofessionals. 

All but one case study school used Title I funds to pay for personnel. On average these schools hired 

almost two FTEs per school with Title I funds. In addition to specialist and support teachers, classroom 

teachers, and paraprofessionals – which accounted for 82 percent of Title I staff in case study schools – 

other Title I-funded staff positions included parent liaisons, instructional coaches, Title I coordinators, 

technology support staff, and counselors. 

In the case study schools, specialists and support teachers accounted for a larger 

share of Title I staff in TAP schools than in SWP schools. 

In case study TAP schools, 63 percent of Title I staff served as specialists or support teachers (such as 

reading and math specialists, EL specialists, and student support specialists), compared with 43 percent 

in case study SWP schools. Classroom teachers accounted for similar proportions of Title I staff in case 

study TAP and SWP schools (17 percent and 18 percent, respectively). In contrast, instructional coaches, 

parent liaisons, and paraprofessionals accounted for a larger proportion of Title I staff in case study SWP 

schools than in case study TAP schools (Exhibit 12). 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 12. Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff in case study schools by position type, 

2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Across the case study SWP schools, 43 percent of the staff were specialist or support teachers. 

Notes: To determine the roles of Title I staff in the case study schools, the study team cross-checked three data sources: interview data (spring
 

2017), Title I budget data (2016–17), and the principal survey (2017). Budget data are missing from one SWP school. The missing bar segment
 

for TAP schools is for instructional coaches and represents a value that is less than 1 percent.
 

Sources: Principal survey, interview data, and Title I budgets (n = 25 SWP and 9 TAP schools).
 

In addressing the reason for choosing to fund a specialist and a support teacher, one principal of an SWP 

school explained as follows: 

We have a student support specialist [who] works with the students as well. A lot of times 

some of [the students’] issues are deeper than academic. [The support specialist] supports 

us in that manner [and is] a big support system to the students as well. We try to knock 

down any barrier that would possibly get in the way of students being successful and help 

smooth that out so they can just focus on college and career readiness. 

Another principal of a TAP school believed that specialists and support teachers play a key role in 

improving teacher practice through coaching and modeling best practices for classroom teachers as well 

as providing students at risk with well-rounded support: 

We wrap that kid up in services ... we have access to our reading resource folks from our 

Title I program. We have a math specialist that supports our classroom teachers, who 

works occasionally with kids or small groups, but they’re more for coaching and 

modeling. It’s building capacity in the adults ... to work with the [moderately at-risk] kid 

to keep them from becoming “red” [seriously at-risk] by providing the services and 

strategies to support the planning but then somebody else delivering that and giving 

support long-term in the back end. 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Types of Nonpersonnel Resources Purchased With Title I Funds 

Nonpersonnel Title I spending amounted to an average of $61 per pupil in SWP
 

schools and $22 per pupil in TAP schools.
 

Using the average total Title I allocations of $405 per pupil for SWP and $255 per pupil for TAP schools 

that were presented earlier, nonpersonnel accounts for, on average, approximately 15 percent of SWP 

Title I spending and 9 percent of TAP Title I spending. 

Principals in SWP schools were more likely than those in TAP schools to report using
 

Title I funds for instructional materials, professional development, and other types of
 

nonpersonnel resources. 

Eighty-two percent of SWP schools reported using Title I funds for instructional materials and other 

materials, compared with 49 percent of TAP schools. Similarly, 69 percent of SWP schools reported using 

Title I funds for professional development, compared with 34 percent of TAP schools (Exhibit 13). 

Exhibit 13. Percentage of principals who reported using Title I funds for various types of 

nonpersonnel resources in schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: In Title I schools, 82 percent of SWP principals and 49 percent of TAP principals reported using Title I
 

funds for instructional materials and other materials.
 

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: ***p < . 001.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.4 (n = 435 SWP and 219 TAP schools). 

Among SWP and TAP schools that spent some of their Title I funds on nonpersonnel
 

resources, similar shares of those funds were used for instructional materials and for
 

professional development.
 

In SWP and TAP schools that used Title I funds for nonpersonnel spending, instructional and other 

materials represented, on average, 45 percent and 47 percent, respectively, of total nonpersonnel Title I 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

spending. Spending on professional development represented 27 percent and 30 percent, respectively, 

of nonpersonnel Title I spending (Exhibit 14). 

Exhibit 14. Distribution of nonpersonnel Title I expenditures by resource type, in schoolwide and 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Among SWP schools that reported using Title I funds for nonpersonnel resources, spending on 

instructional materials and other materials represented 45 percent of their Title I nonpersonnel spending. 

Note: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for nonpersonnel are not included in this analysis. The “All other” category includes
 

licenses, and fees, and spending categorized as “other” on the survey. None of the three categories had differences between SWP and TAP
 

schools statistically significant at conventional levels (p < .05).
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.4 (n = 386 SWP and 128 TAP schools).
 

Conclusion 

The survey and case study findings described in this chapter indicate some clear differences in the types 

of resources that SWP and TAP schools funded with Title I. In particular, the results show that SWP 

schools used Title I funds for a broader array of staff position types compared with TAP schools. 

Although a majority of both SWP and TAP schools used Title I funds to employ teachers, SWP schools 

were more likely to use Title I funds for instructional coaches, paraprofessionals, and parent liaisons, 

and these staff accounted for a relatively higher percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools than in TAP 

schools. 

21
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Chapter 3. Services Provided With Title I Funds 

Previous studies of Title I resource allocation have largely focused on the types of resources purchased – 

such as instructional staff – rather than the services supported by those resources (Chambers et al. 

2009; Chambers et al. 2000). In our surveys of district administrators and school principals we asked the 

respondents to identify how many staff or the dollar amount of nonpersonnel used to support the 

following services: reading instruction, mathematics instruction, instruction in other subjects, extendedtime programs, increasing parent involvement, supports for EL students, supports for students with 

disabilities, use of data to inform instruction and school improvement, and support for use of 

technology. In addition, we interviewed Title I staff at each of the case study schools and identified the 

primary services those staff provided in the school. This chapter expands upon the results presented in 

Chapter 2 and prior studies of Title I by examining the services provided with Title I resources rather 

than focusing merely on what was purchased with these dollars. 

Services Supported by Title I Staff 

In SWP schools, Title I funds may be used for any activity that supports all students attending the school, 

provided it is identified as part of a required needs assessment and its purpose is aligned with the 

intended goals of the Title I program. Nonregulatory guidance from the Department describes a broad 

range of possible uses of Title I funds in SWP schools, including recruitment and retention of teachers, 

professional development, extended learning time, school climate interventions, support for EL 

students, and more (U.S. Department of Education 2016b). In contrast, TAP schools have less flexibility 

in how they may use their Title I funding, and they must restrict Title I-supported services to students 

who are specifically identified as Title I eligible because they are failing or at risk of failing to meet state 

academic standards (U.S. Department of Education 2015). Because of these differences in the scope of 

the programs, we might expect SWP schools to use their resources for a wider variety of services than 

TAP schools. 

Shares of Title I Staff Supporting Different Services 

Both SWP and TAP schools most commonly used Title I-funded staff to provide 

supplemental instruction in reading and/or mathematics, but SWPs were more than twice 

as likely as TAPs to use these staff for other types of instruction and instructional support. 

Principals in SWP schools were more likely than those in TAP schools to report using Title I staff to 

support instruction in reading (74 percent vs. 55 percent) and mathematics (55 percent vs. 33 percent). 

Larger differences were found for other types of instruction and instructional support. SWPs were more 

than five times as likely as TAPs to use Title I-funded staff to provide instruction in subjects other than 

mathematics and reading (26 percent vs. 5 percent). SWPs were more than twice as likely to use Title I staff 

to provide support for EL students (21 percent vs. 9 percent), support for special education (19 percent vs. 

8 percent), parent involvement (33 percent vs. 15 percent), data and analytics support (40 percent vs. 

18 percent), and technology support (20 percent vs. 6 percent). SWPs were also more likely to use Title I staff 

to support extended-time programs (25 percent vs. 14 percent) (Exhibit 15). 

23
 
 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 15. Percentage of principals who reported using Title I funds for staff supporting 

various services in schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: In Title I schools, 74 percent of SWP principals and 55 percent of TAP principals reported using Title I
 

funds to employ staff supporting reading instruction.
 

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.3 (n = 516 SWP and 328 TAP schools). 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Most of the staff funded through Title I focused on reading instruction or math 

instruction, followed by extended-time programs and data and analytic support. 

Reading instruction accounted for 39 percent of Title I staff in SWP schools and 47 percent in TAP 

schools, and mathematics instruction accounted for 19 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Differences 

between SWP and TAP schools were in most cases not statistically significant, with the exception of a 

statistically significant difference for instruction in subjects other than reading or mathematics, which 

accounted for 6 percent of SWP staff and less than 2 percent of TAP staff. 

In both SWP and TAP schools, the bulk of school-level Title I funds used for personnel directly supported 

the learning needs of students (Exhibit 16). An average of 64 percent of Title I staff in SWP schools and 

69 percent of Title I staff in TAP schools were involved in instruction (taking into account reading, 

mathematics, or other instruction). 

Exhibit 16. Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff supporting different services in schoolwide 

and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: On average, staff involved in reading instruction represented 39 percent of school-level staff paid
 

through Title I funds at Title I SWP schools.
 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff supporting services are not included in this analysis. The “All other” category 

includes English learner support, special education support, and technology support. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference 

between SWP and TAP schools: **p < .01. For complete results see Exhibit B4 in Appendix B.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.3 (n = 392 SWP and 221 TAP schools).
 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Common Combinations of Services Supported by Title I Staff 

SWP schools were more likely than TAP schools to use Title I-funded staff for a 

combination of three or more types of services that included reading, math, and another 

service area. Few SWP schools used their Title I staff only for reading instruction. 

Forty-eight percent of SWP schools used Title I staff for reading instruction, mathematics instruction, 

and at least one other service area, compared with just 22 percent of TAP schools. In contrast, just 

7 percent of SWPs used Title I staff for reading instruction alone, compared with 21 percent of TAPs 

(Exhibit 17). 

Exhibit 17. Common combinations of services supported by Title I staff in schoolwide 

and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: On average, 7 percent of Title I SWP schools used Title I to employ staff that supported reading 

instruction only. 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff supporting services are not included in this analysis. Asterisks indicate a statistically 

significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: ** p < .01, ***p < .001. The unlabeled bar segment for math only in SWP schools is 1 percent. 

Source: Principal survey, item D.3 (n = 420 SWP and 226 TAP schools). 

Exhibit 19 shows how combinations of services supported by Title I staff in SWP and TAP schools vary by 

the size of Title I allocations, in order to examine the possible hypothesis that TAPs may tend to focus 

their Title I resources on a single service (such as reading) because they tend to receive smaller total 

Title I allocations than SWPs, on average. However, the pattern that TAPs are more likely than SWPs to 

focus their Title I staff on just reading was consistent at all three allocation sizes examined (small, 

medium, and large). Similarly, the use of Title I staff for a combination of three or more services that 

include reading, math, and another service type was found for higher percentages of SWPs than TAPs at 

26
 
 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

all three allocation sizes examined. However, it is important to note that the allocation size variable is 

missing for about half of the sample schools, and the sample sizes for the categories in Exhibit 19 are 

sometimes very small. We did not test these differences for statistical significance, and the patterns 

discussed here should be interpreted with caution. 

Exhibit 18. Common combinations of services supported by Title I staff in schoolwide and targeted 

assistance programs, by Title I allocation size, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: On average, 6 percent of Title I SWP schools with small Title I allocations used their Title I staff only 

for reading instruction. 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff supporting services are not included in this analysis. Small Title I allocations 

were defined as less than $83,500, medium allocations as $83,500–$187,500, and large allocations as more than $187,500. These ranges were 

constructed to have similar numbers of total schools within each allocation size category. SWP averages are based on 39 schools with small 

allocations, 75 schools with medium allocations, and 121 schools with large allocations. TAP averages are based on 72 schools with small 

allocations, 56 schools with medium allocations, and 21 schools with large allocations. Statistical significance tests were not conducted for this 

comparison of SWP and TAP schools conditional on allocation size. For complete results see Exhibit B5 in Appendix B. 

Source: Principal survey, item D.3; District survey, item D.4 (n = 235 SWP and 149 TAP schools). 

27
 
 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Differences Across Schools in Title I-Supported Services by 

Schooling Level 

Within SWP schools, as the schooling level increases fewer Title I-funded staff are used for

reading instruction and more are used for extended learning time. Within TAP schools, as 

schooling level increases more Title I-funded staff are involved in math instruction. 

Reading instruction accounted for 43 percent of Title I staff in SWP elementary schools and 54 percent in 

TAP elementary schools (see Exhibit 19). At the high school level, the shares of staff devoted to reading 

instruction were about 20 percentage points lower for both SWP and TAP schools (22 percent and 

35 percent, respectively). Although SWP high schools tended to devote more Title I-funded staff to 

extended learning time (24 percent) than elementary and middle schools (7 percent and 11 percent, 

respectively), TAP high schools devoted more Title I-funded staff to math instruction (40 percent) than 

elementary and middle schools (18 percent and 21 percent, respectively). 

Exhibit 19. Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff supporting various services in schoolwide 

and targeted assistance programs, by school grade level, as reported by principals, 2015– 

16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: On average, staff involved in reading instruction represented 43 percent of school-level staff 

supported by Title I funding at Title I SWP elementary schools. 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff supporting services are not included in this analysis. SWP averages are based 

on 410 elementary schools, 74 middle schools, and 46 high schools. TAP averages are based on 244 elementary schools, 48 middle schools, and 

38 high schools. The “All other” category includes instruction in subjects other than reading or mathematics, data and analytics support, English 

learner support, special education support, and technology support. Statistical significance tests were not conducted for this comparison of 

SWP and TAP schools conditional on grade level. 

Source: Principal survey, item D.3 (n = 530 SWP and 330 TAP schools). 

28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Examining the Services Supported by Title I Staff in Case Study Schools 

To supplement the survey findings, interviews with Title I staff in the case study schools provide 

additional insight into how these staff spent their time and how they supported student achievement. 

Title I teachers and paraprofessionals interviewed in case study schools most

commonly identified push-in and pull-out instruction, as well as classroom instruction, 

as their primary responsibilities. 

In addition to push-in and pull-out instruction and classroom instruction, 12 percent of the interviewed Title I 

teachers and paraprofessionals in the SWP case study schools indicated that advising or mentoring students 

and modeling instruction were among their primary responsibilities. None of the TAP case study schools 

identified advising, mentoring, or modeling instruction as primary responsibilities, but 10 percent of the 

interviewed staff at TAP schools indicated those categories were secondary responsibilities. The most 

common secondary responsibility identified by Title I teachers and paraprofessionals in SWP and TAP case 

study schools was lesson planning (Exhibit 20). 

Exhibit 20. Primary and secondary responsibilities reported by teachers and 

paraprofessionals in case study schools, by type of Title I program, 2016–17 

Exhibit reads: In case study SWP schools, 41 percent of the interviewed Title I teachers and paraprofessionals 

indicated that push-in or pull-out instruction was a primary responsibility and 18 percent indicated it was a 

secondary responsibility. 

Notes: Percentages are based on 17 teacher and paraprofessional staff interviewed in case study SWP schools and 10 in TAP schools (one TAP
 

school included two interviewees). Secondary responsibilities do not sum to 100 because not all respondents described a secondary
 

responsibility.
 

Source: Interview data (n = 27 interviewees).
 

29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Explanations from interviewees illustrate some of the activities undertaken by staff paid through Title I. 

One academic support teacher in an SWP school described a typical day as follows: 

A typical day for me is I push into six or seven classrooms a day and I co-teach with the 

teacher. ... [W]e’d have whole group lessons. We do parallel teaching where we break up 

into smaller groups. The small group is where we can be most effective with [meeting 

the needs of students in certain content areas]. 

Another academic support teacher (from a different SWP school) explained, 

I work with very specific guidelines and data analysis, knowing which groups of students 

I target. It is a very targeted diagnostic group of students. My job is to go in and 

diagnose groups and constantly looking at data. Every single day, looking at data, 

figuring out which group of students I need to target. I work with [small groups of] 

students 45 minutes a day five days a week. Without funding like [Title I] Tier 2 kids 

would maybe get three days a week. ... It fluctuates between 30 and 35 students a day. 

Some students I work with an hour with kindergarten students with highest needs, for 

advancement and developmental reasons. In general, it’s 45 minutes. I push in, there is 

no opportunity or space to pull out in this building. A lot of what I do is try to model and 

push for that cohesive team framework in my role. 

Finally, a Title I-funded parent liaison in an SWP school described her daily activities as follows: 

When I come in first thing in the morning ... there are some parents [who] might be 

waiting at 8:15 to come in and see me. So that’s my first responsibility is to take care of 

parents [who] are here and figure out what it is that they’re asking for. A lot of them are 

Spanish speaking, and some are English speaking, so I deal with two cultures, two 

languages, and kind of troubleshoot whatever’s going on at the moment. ... I have 

emails from teachers asking to have parent contacts in Spanish or in English, set up 

conference appointments. I have constant walk-in parents coming to ask questions, 

signing up for parent workshops. If it’s a day that I’m doing a parent workshop, I’ll spend 

a couple of hours with parents in a group. 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Services Supported by Title I Nonpersonnel Resources 

Similar percentages of SWP and TAP schools reported using Title I funds for 

nonpersonnel resources supporting reading instruction. SWP schools were more likely

than TAP schools to use such nonpersonnel resources funds to support other types of 

services, including mathematics instruction, parent involvement, technology support, 

and instruction in subjects other than reading or mathematics. 

Eighty-five percent of SWP principals and 82 percent of TAP principals reported using Title I funds for 

nonpersonnel costs to support reading instruction (Exhibit 21). The service areas with the largest 

differences in nonpersonnel usage between SWP and TAP schools were technology support and 

instruction in subjects other than reading or mathematics. In addition, SWP schools were more likely 

than TAP schools to use such nonpersonnel resources for EL support (26 percent) and special education 

support (22 percent) than were TAP schools (6 percent and 1 percent, respectively). 

Exhibit 21. Percentage of principals who reported using Title I funds for nonpersonnel resources to 

support various services, in schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: In Title I schools, 85 percent of SWP principals and 82 percent of TAP principals reported using Title I
 

nonpersonnel funds to support reading instruction.
 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < . 05, **p < . 01, ***p < . 001.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.5 (n = 328 SWP and 91 TAP schools). 

31
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

SWP schools devoted larger shares of their nonpersonnel Title I spending to technology

support and to support instruction in subjects other than reading or mathematics, while
 

TAP schools spent a larger share on supporting reading instruction.
 

On average, only 35 percent of SWP nonpersonnel Title I spending supported reading instruction, 

compared with 55 percent of TAP nonpersonnel Title I spending (Exhibit 22). In contrast, the share of 

nonpersonnel Title I spending devoted to technology support in SWP schools was three times as large as 

in TAP schools (15 percent vs. 5 percent). 

Exhibit 22. Distribution of school-level Title I nonpersonnel spending by service in schoolwide and 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: On average, nonpersonnel spending for reading instruction represented 35 percent of school-level
 

Title I nonpersonnel spending in SWP schools.
 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for nonpersonnel supporting services are not included in this analysis. The “All other”
 

category includes English learner support, special education support, and support for data and analytics. Asterisks indicate a statistically
 

significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < .05, ***p < .001.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.5 (n = 318 SWP and 90 TAP schools).
 

Novel Uses of Title I Funds in Schoolwide Programs 

As noted earlier in the chapter, the Title I program provides SWPs flexibility to fund activities that best 

meet their needs. Indeed, the very purpose of an SWP is to “upgrade the entire educational program of 

a school” to raise the achievement of the lowest-achieving students (ESSA 2015). However, this goal 

may be thwarted by perceptions that Title I requirements are more restrictive than they actually are. In 

recent Title I guidance, the Department sought to dispel common misunderstandings about the use of 

Title I funds in SWP schools — including incorrect notions that Title I funds may only be used to support 

32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

reading and mathematics instruction, provide remedial or pull-out interventions, and serve low 

achievers (U.S. Department of Education 2016b). In this section, we describe ways that some of the case 

study SWP schools have used Title I funds to support more novel initiatives and activities. 

Although most of the 26 SWP case study schools used the bulk of their Title I funds for 

reading and math instruction, six schools provide examples of more novel uses of 

Title I funds. 

These activities included (1) counseling services to address students’ social-emotional and nonacademic 

skills, (2) school climate interventions, (3) use of education technology and digital learning tools, 

(4) summer bridge programs for incoming students, (5) specialized use of academic specialists, and 

(6) academic enrichment activities. Some of the case study schools used more than one of these 

approaches, as described below. 

Counseling Services. Four SWP case study schools reported using Title I funds to hire a guidance counselor 

(Castle Elementary, Poplar Elementary) or a school psychologist (Waxberry Middle, Westing High) to 

support students’ social-emotional and nonacademic needs. For example, the counselor at one 

elementary school seemed markedly invested in developing students’ skills for social and academic 

success, and interviewees at the school credited this counselor with encouraging the use of Second Step, a 

research-based program to build social-emotional skills. Moreover, the counselor had organized a group of 

interns from a local college to work with the school’s large Native American population to promote 

organizational and study skills and college readiness goals through culturally responsive instruction. 

School Climate Interventions. Two SWP case study schools — Castle Elementary and Poplar Elementary — 

reported using Title I funds to support implementation of positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS). 

District administrators noted the decision was made after reviewing district- and schoolwide surveys of 

parents, students, and staff, which revealed a noticeable “disconnect in terms of how students were feeling 

about school versus how staff was feeling about school.” The PBIS system at Castle Elementary, in particular, 

was cited as integral to the school’s improvement goals. As one staff member described, “We couldn’t just 

keep doing the same things that weren’t accomplishing anything. The principal has been very supportive of it 

as well and requiring the teachers to do their part regarding nonnegotiables.” 

According to the district Title I coordinator, “they [the teachers] have done well implementing [PBIS] 

schoolwide,” and the principal described it as “very helpful,” crediting its implementation with 

improving school climate and culture during the past three years. 

Use of Education Technology and Digital Learning Tools. Although 12 SWP case study schools reported 

buying technology through Title I, in most instances, these purchases went toward standard equipment 

such as computers. At Field High, for example, Title I funds were used to purchase laptop carts for 

general use in the classroom. Two SWP schools — Poplar Elementary and Ocelot Elementary — however, 

seemed to have more distinctive uses of education technology and digital learning tools. In the first 

example, Poplar Elementary purchased Imagine Learning, an adaptive, student-centered software program 

as a means to accelerate language acquisition for newcomer EL students. A teacher explained as follows: 

How the program works is each kid is tested at the beginning by computer to see how 

much English and Spanish they have: Can they read in Spanish? Write in Spanish? Based on 

that, [the program] starts assigning them lessons. As it goes along, [the program] gives 

them instructions in Spanish at first, otherwise they wouldn’t know what to do next. As 

33
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

their English improves, [the program] knows that and it will give them some of the lessons 

in English, and eventually most or all of the lessons in English. It’s all individualized. ... I can 

look up and see what kids are having trouble with through software, which kids are having 

trouble with what. If these three kids are having trouble with their basic vocabulary, I can 

sit with those three kids and talk to them and actually show them lessons on the computer 

that would be about that. I can select different lessons from 1,000 to choose from to 

match what they’re having problems with. ... I’m using the computer to help me decide. It’s 

much easier than before when I had a class of 30 kids and trying to figure it out. The 

computer is much better at analyzing things than I ever was! 

As a second example, Ocelot Elementary introduced a one-to-one tablet initiative under Title I to 

promote universal access to technology. Through the program, students are allowed to take home the 

tablets to help with their homework or practice reading, with students in third grade and above 

provided individualized hotspots because, as the principal explained, “one-to-one programs are a waste 

of money if you do not have Internet [service] at home.” School respondents described how the tablet 

initiative had improved not only student engagement but also student supports. As one teacher 

described, “Not only am I giving them direct instruction, but now they have a supplement to the 

instruction. That’s another part of our world — technology driven — that I would not have been able to 

grant if I did not have those funds.” 

Summer Bridge Programs. To support at-risk incoming students in their transition to ninth grade, 

Whitetail High School offers a voluntary 10-day early start program, through which students receive 

tours of the building, meet school staff members, and are introduced to the core curriculum. Up to 

30 students, identified by Whitetail High School staff in consultation with school leaders at the feeder 

middle schools, were invited to attend. As described by the principal, the students included those who 

were identified as at-risk “not necessarily just [for] academic [reasons], like maybe socially they have a 

high anxiety or their parents have a high anxiety about coming to high school or private school students 

who come from a really small feeder.” 

According to the principal, student failure rates were lower among students who participated in the 

program compared with identified students at risk who did not participate, with this past year being the 

first “in 10 years that not one student failed a class for the whole first semester.” 

Specialized Use of Academic Specialists. Although 17 of the 26 SWP case study schools adopted 

academic specialists or support teachers through Title I, in most cases, these staff members were used 

to provide push-in or pull-out interventions in reading or mathematics. In contrast, at Whitetail High 

School, the literacy specialist is used for push-in services in ninth-grade biology and to coteach two 

hours per day to help “build vocabulary and comprehension skills.” This approach reflects a deliberate 

choice on the part of the school’s leadership. As the principal made clear, “We don’t need two biology 

teachers; we need a biology teacher and someone who can support linguistic and comprehension 

instruction in that context.” 

Academic Enrichment. Through Title I, Ocelot Elementary operates an afterschool STEM club (focused on 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) that is available for all students, which has allowed the 

school to extend the school day by two hours two or three times per week. Students must participate in 

study hall during the first hour to earn the privilege of going to the STEM club for the second hour. The 

principal explained that students “work hard, they get remediated or extended, and then after that they 

go to STEM and they get an extension activity of journalism, photography, science, etc.” 

34
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Novel Uses of Title I Funds in Targeted Assistance Programs 

Although TAPs do not have the same flexibilities offered to SWPs and must use Title I funds only for 

supplemental services for students who have been identified as at risk for failure, a few TAP case study 

schools described novel approaches for using Title I funds within these parameters. Two such cases are 

presented here. 

Summer Camp for Incoming At-Risk Students. Charles Middle School offers a two-week summer camp 

for incoming sixth graders who were identified by their elementary school as likely to struggle. The 

program helps these students become familiar with the school building, meet with their teachers, and 

discuss the curriculum and academic expectations. According to the principal, the program has been 

effective in preparing these students for success, noting the number of “thankful parents who said it 

helped their kids.” Looking forward, the principal has discussed with the district funding a similar 

program for at-risk outgoing eighth graders through Title I. 

Technology to Provide Active, Hands-on Learning Opportunities. Log Cabin Middle School is using 

technology to provide students who are at risk of failure active, hands-on learning opportunities in social 

studies and science. Through Title I, the school purchased Google Expeditions virtual reality kits to take 

students on virtual “field trips to Egypt or swim under water with sharks” and education technology 

from Vizitech for science lessons such as frog dissection. 

Conclusion 

Compared with TAP schools, SWP schools were more likely to use Title I-funded staff to provide a 

broader array of services. Title I staff at SWP schools most commonly supported multiple types of 

services, while at TAP schools Title I-funded staff most commonly supported only reading instruction or 

reading and math instruction, without any additional services. Indeed, SWPs were more than five times 

as likely as TAPs to use Title I-funded staff for subjects other than mathematics and reading, and SWPs 

were more than twice as likely to use these staff to provide support for EL students, support for special 

education, parent involvement, data and analytics support, and technology support. 

Although reading and math instruction continue to be a major focus for Title I staff in both TAP and SWP 

schools, some case study schools provided examples of more novel uses of Title I funds, such as socialemotional supports, digital learning technologies, summer bridge programs, and academic enrichment. 

To that point, the Department has provided guidance on ways that SWPs can leverage Title I and other 

funds to support school reform and improvement (U.S. Department of Education 2016b; see also Junge 

and Krvaric 2016), which may serve to encourage more schools to consider alternate ways to use their 

Title I resources. 

35
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Chapter 4. Making Decisions
 

About the Use of Title I Funds
 

Each year, as Title I funds are allocated to districts and schools, education officials must decide how to 

use these funds to improve academic achievement throughout the school (in the case of SWP schools) 

or for targeted students (in the case of TAP schools). The statutory language notes that Title I plans and 

programs for both types of schools must strengthen the core academic program of the school and 

encourages the participation of numerous staff and stakeholders at the school level in making Title I 

decisions, although the requirements for SWPs are more explicit. Although Title I services are supposed 

to be part of the overall planning process, SWP schools are required to base their plans on a 

comprehensive needs assessment. In addition, TAP programs are encouraged to involve parents to the 

extent possible in program planning and evaluation, but SWP programs must provide evidence of wholestaff and parent involvement, particularly in the development of the needs assessment and 

comprehensive plan. 

An eligible school operating a schoolwide program shall develop a comprehensive plan... 

developed with the involvement of parents and other members of the community to be 

served and individuals who will carry out such plan, including teachers, principals, other 

school leaders, paraprofessionals present in the school, administrators (including 

administrators of programs described in other parts of this title), the local educational 

agency, to the extent feasible, tribes and tribal organizations present in the community, 

and, if appropriate, specialized instructional support personnel, technical assistance 

providers, school staff, if the plan relates to a secondary school, students, and other 

individuals determined by the school. (ESEA, section 1114(b)(2)) 

Although the district shares responsibilities in support of Title I schools, the law makes it clear that 

school-level staff members are expected to play a role in assessing the needs of their students and 

planning for the appropriate use of Title I funds. School leaders and personnel may be in the best 

position to identify the specific academic needs of students and groups of students not yet achieving 

state academic standards, understand the subjects and skills for which teaching and learning need to be 

improved, and determine the extent to which students’ needs are being met under the current Title Ifunded interventions and services. They can use these data to consider whether changes to their current 

Title I program offerings need to be made for the upcoming school year. School leaders and staff, as well 

as parents, families, and community stakeholders, may be in the best position to help ensure that Title I 

interventions are connected to and consistent with the needs of the students and the school’s broader 

approach to school improvement and its improvement goals. 

Principals’ abilities to make changes to Title I resource allocations and to connect Title I programming, 

whether leading an SWP school or a TAP school, may be (at least partially) based on their own 

knowledge of Title I requirements, the technical support they receive from their districts, and the extent 

to which they incorporate a needs-assessment into their Title I planning and decision-making process. It 

is important to examine the degree to which principals understand the Title I program and use a databased decision-making approach to planning, as well as the level of technical support districts provide to 

their Title I schools. At the same time, because the extent to which principals are able to connect Title I 

with their broader improvement efforts is likely affected by additional factors, it is important to explore 

the Title I planning and budgeting decision-making process, including when key decisions are made and 

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

the level of discretion, input, and involvement that principals and other school-level stakeholders have 

in making Title I funding decisions. 

This chapter begins by discussing the extent to which Title I principals reported making changes to how 

they have used Title I funds to promote improved student outcomes, and whether decisions to change or 

maintain Title I interventions and services were informed by needs-assessment data. It then examines the 

extent to which principals reported autonomy over spending their school Title I allocations, including how 

discretion over Title I expenditures may be shared between schools and districts, and what types of 

educational stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process. We then turn to describing the 

technical support provided by districts to support Title I schools in their annual planning and budgeting and 

the timing of this process. Finally, the chapter examines principals’ ability to articulate a connection 

between Title I-funded interventions and their broader school improvement goals. 

Consistency of Schools’ Use of Title I Funds Over Time 

The ways that schools used Title I funds were relatively stable over time, with the 

majority of principals in both SWP and TAP schools making minor changes or no 

changes to how Title I funds were used during the previous three years. 

Twenty-one percent of SWP principals reported having made significant revisions to their use of Title I 

funds, compared with 12 percent of TAP principals; the difference between SWP and TAP schools was 

not statistically significant. However, TAP schools were significantly more likely than SWP schools to 

report making no changes to how they used their Title I funds during the past three years (30 percent vs. 

10 percent) (Exhibit 23). 

Exhibit 23. Changes in the use of Title I funds during the past three years in schoolwide 

and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2016–17 

Exhibit reads: Among SWP schools, 21 percent reported significant revisions in the use of their Title I funds during 

the past three years. 

Notes: All schools that received Title I funding for less than three years were excluded (in our survey sample, this was one SWP and eight TAP 

schools). Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: ***p < .001. 

38
 

Source: Principal survey, item C.3 (n = 607 SWP and 386 TAP schools). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

To complement the survey analyses, the study team examined Title I budgets for both 2015–16 and 2016–17 

for 25 of the 35 case study schools that provided data for both years to determine the extent to which 

planned Title I expenditures changed from one year to the next. Among the case study schools, the 

majority of principals reported making no changes or small changes to the use of Title I funds, consistent 

with the survey findings. At the same time, budgets from seven case study schools showed substantial 

changes (defined as changes more than 10 percent above or below the previous year in any budget 

category) in planned Title I spending. For example, Castle Elementary used Title I funds to pay the salary of 

a counselor in 2016–17, which the school had not budgeted for in 2015–16. According to case study 

interviews, the school decided on this shift in resources because another grant that had supported the 

counselor’s salary expired, but the school wanted to maintain counseling services that were considered 

effective in improving student behavior and social-emotional outcomes. Eagle High School also showed 

notable differences in Title I budgets between the two years, adding a parent liaison in 2016–17 that was 

not supported by Title I in the previous year and reducing spending on instructional materials. Similarly, 

Field High School elected to spend more on professional development for staff in 2016–17 and less on 

instructional materials. Both high schools were SWP schools. 

Three other schools – Crest Knoll High School (SWP), Scholar Elementary School (SWP), and Loree High 

School (TAP) – also had substantial changes in Title I spending plans that were associated with large 

increases in their Title I allocations during the period from 2015–16 to 2016–17. Crest Knoll High School 

spent their additional Title I funds on academic coaches, while also cutting back some spending on 

instructional materials and equipment. Scholar Elementary School spent more on specialist teachers 

(primarily for EL students, according to interviewees) and paraprofessionals, and Loree High School 

added a parent liaison and additional pupil support staff, cutting back somewhat on instructional 

materials, conferences, and professional development in exchange. These changes in Title I budgets 

were consistent with information provided by interviewees during the case study visits. 

Although changes in Title I spending may indicate strategic thinking by a principal, not making changes 

does not necessarily imply that principals were not thoughtful in making decisions about how to use 

their Title I funds. For example, a principal from one of the TAP schools in the case study sample 

described two programs, one targeting their lowest performing Title I students and one targeting their 

EL students that they had adopted in previous years and were continuing with due to the successes they 

had seen among the targeted students. This principal saw value in having a core group of staff who had 

been well trained in the programs and could use the programs with facility to promote student growth 

and achievement. 

Title I Needs Assessments 

When asked about the needs-assessment processes at their schools, the surveyed SWP and TAP school 

principals differed significantly in their responses. As may be anticipated given Title I statutory 

requirements, principals of TAP schools were more likely than SWP school principals to report that their 

schools do not conduct a formal needs assessment to inform Title I planning (11 percent vs. 4 percent). 

At the same time, notable percentages of principals of both types of schools indicated that they were 

either unaware of or uninvolved in any sort of needs assessment to inform Title I planning (35 percent of 

TAP principals and 21 percent of SWP principals). 

39
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

SWP principals were more likely than TAP school principals to report that school

administrators, teachers, and coaches were involved in conducting the needs

assessment for Title I planning purposes, while TAP principals were more likely to 

report the involvement of district administrators.

Nearly three quarters (73 percent) of SWP principals reported that school administrators were involved 

in conducting the needs assessment to inform Title I decision making, compared with 44 percent of TAP 

principals. Similarly, SWP principals were more likely than TAP principals to report the involvement of 

teachers (38 percent vs. 26 percent) and instructional coaches (41 percent vs. 18 percent) in this 

process. In contrast, 69 percent of TAP school principals reported that district administrators were 

involved in this process, compared with 40 percent of SWP principals (see Exhibit 24). 

Exhibit 24. Involvement of various stakeholders in conducting the Title I needs assessment in 

schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Among SWP schools, 73 percent reported that school administrators were involved in conducting 

the needs assessment for Title I planning purposes.
 

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < .05; ***p < .001.
 

Source: Principal survey, item C.9 (n = 570 SWP and 349 TAP schools). 

The case study schools provide examples of how the needs assessment processes play out at the local 

level. For example, the principal of an SWP middle school described how their Title I needs assessment 

brings together the members of their school site council to reassess the school’s priority areas and how 

to adjust use of Title I resources for the coming school year. As this principal explained, “with us just 

having the seventh and eighth grades, there’s been times where we got back [to school] and said, ‘Wow, 

the new students that we’re serving, we’re seeing some different needs.’ Throughout the next 

[planning] cycle, we need to update or revisit the priorities that we set.” 

40
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Similarly, the principal of one SWP case study school described their planning process as “laser-focused 

on data.” This principal explained that the district’s superintendent had put new policies and procedures 

in place to ensure schools’ Title I decisions were grounded in robust needs-assessment data. The district 

held annual meetings with school leaders to review their school-level data, develop school-level 

milestone goals for student performance, and identify the specific needs of their students. According to 

the principal, the district was emphasizing to principals that “you have to have data to justify why you’re 

spending the [Title I] money on this. ... [It’s] not just, ‘let’s try this program.’ Everything is data-driven.” 

Control of Title I Funds by Schools and Districts 

In some districts, district personnel largely decide how Title I funds are used; in other districts, schools 

have a great deal of control (i.e., can primarily make the decisions) over how Title I allocations are used. 

To determine the proportion of Title I funds controlled by both districts and schools, we examined 

responses from national district and principal surveys, case study interview data, and analyses of case 

study school Title I budgets. 

Over half of the principals of TAP schools did not know the amount of Title I funds 

under school control, compared with approximately one quarter of SWP principals. 

The data show that many principals, particularly in TAP schools, did not know what proportion of the 

total Title I allocation for their schools was under their control. Specifically, more than half of TAP 

principals and approximately one quarter of SWP principals responding to the nationally representative 

survey reported that they did not know the amount of Title I funds under school control. The findings 

that follow reflect data from 233 district administrators who responded to survey questions about Title I 

allocations and control for up to five schools within their district (a total of 582 Title I schools). 

District administrators reported that SWP schools controlled an average of 47 percent 

of the Title I funds allocated to their schools, compared with 8 percent in TAP schools. 

The figures reported by district administrators indicate that 40 percent of SWP schools controlled at 

least three quarters of their Title I funds, compared with just 5 percent of TAP schools. Conversely, 90 

percent of TAP schools controlled less than a quarter of the Title I funds allocated to them, compared 

with 47 percent of SWP schools (see Exhibit 25). 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 25.	 Distribution of schoolwide programs and targeted assistance programs by the percentage 

of Title I funds over which schools had control, as reported by district administrators, 

2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Forty percent of the Title I SWP schools control 75 percent or more of the Title I funds allocated to 

their schools. 

Notes: These analyses are based on district survey respondents estimates of dollars placed under school control for up to five Title I schools in
 

the district. Because of rounding, numbers may not sum to 100. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP
 

schools: *p < . 05, ***p < . 001.
 

Sources: District survey, item D.4 (n = 326 SWP and 256 TAP schools).
 

Among the 35 case study schools, approximately half reported having control over 75 percent or more 

of their Title I budgets, with 10 reporting that they had control over 100 percent of their funds. Of these 

10 schools, one was in a district where it was the only school, while another was a charter school not 

affiliated with the school district in which it was geographically located; this charter school interacted 

directly with the state about its Title I allocations and programming. In addition, five of the 10 schools 

were in one state suggesting that state policies may also guide the degree to which districts manage 

Title I programming and grant control over Title I funds to schools. Although the districts in this state 

enabled schools to drive the decisions about the use of Title I funds, the district offices still maintained 

close oversight of schools’ use of funds to ensure that Title I purchases complied with Title I 

requirements and that the funds were being used in ways that would support student learning. The 

Title I district director and the superintendent review all plans and must approve them before the funds 

are released to the school. As one district Title I director in this state explained, “Yes, you have full 

discretion, but you have to make sure that you identify the plan, the usage [of funds], and the strategies, 

and the goal. It’s just not like, ‘Here’s your money. Start spending,’ and no one knows why.” 

School Autonomy to Make Decisions About the Use of Title I Funds 

School-level perceptions of their autonomy in making Title I decisions are related to but not entirely 

dependent on the percentage of Title I funds over which they have control. On this topic, case study 

data offer important contextual details not available through the survey responses. To gain a better 

understanding of school perceptions of autonomy in the decision-making process for Title I, case study 

school principals were asked to describe how decisions about the use of Title I funds in their schools 

were made, including who was involved at the district and school levels, what data informed their 

42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

decisions, and the extent to which they felt their input was reflected in the funding decisions. Case study 

data indicate that control varied in meaning across the sample of schools. In some cases, districts set 

certain parameters around the funds over which schools had control. In addition, even in some districts 

that controlled, or had ultimate authority over large portions of school’s Title I budgets, principals and 

other school staff were given opportunities to provide input and work with the district to decide which 

interventions and services would be supported at their schools. The extent to which principals 

interacted collaboratively with district staff, or were given a say in important decisions about how Title I 

funds would be spent to meet their specific school’s needs, shaped the degree to which they felt they 

had autonomy in the Title I planning and budgeting process whether or not they directly controlled large 

portions of their budgets. 

For example, several case study school principals and district officials indicated that the district required 

schools to reserve certain portions of their funds for certain purposes (e.g., parent engagement or 

instructional personnel). But within these parameters, schools had the autonomy to determine what 

sorts of services or activities to purchase with their funds for that purpose. Other schools reported that 

the district required specific intervention programs, services, or personnel to be paid with schools’ Title I 

funds. As a specific example, in some districts, the district determined the number of Title I staff to be 

placed in each school, the role they would play, and hired the staff. In these cases, perceptions of 

autonomy were lower among principals. In contrast, some districts identified the number of Title I FTE 

staff to be allocated to each school, but school principals could determine the specific staff roles, as well 

as recruit and hire the staff. In both scenarios, the district determined that a proportion of Title I funds 

would be used to support staff in Title I schools, but the similarities end there. 

In both SWP and TAP case study schools, there was wide variation, from perceptions of complete 

autonomy to no autonomy, although a slightly larger proportion of SWP school principals than TAP 

school principals perceived having high or moderately high levels of autonomy (see Exhibit 26; for 

information on the basis for these ratings, see Box 1). In most cases, the principals of the schools with 

higher levels of autonomy were appreciative of the discretion they were afforded to determine the best 

uses of funds, within what was allowed. Although not all principals with lower levels of autonomy 

perceived their lack of discretion as problematic, many still expressed frustration with the degree of 

oversight and restrictions the district placed on Title I funds use. 

Exhibit 26.	 School autonomy to make decisions about the use of Title I funds, in case study schools, 

2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: In the case study schools, 19 percent of the SWP schools described a high level of autonomy from
 

the district when making decisions about the use of Title I funds.
 

Source: Case study district administrator interviews, principal interviews, extant documents, and principal survey item C.5 (n = 26 SWP and 9 TAP schools).
 

43
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Box 1. Level of School Autonomy in Making Decisions About the Use of Title I Funds 

Classifications related to the level of autonomy were derived from district administrator interviews, principal 

interviews, survey data, and data on the percentage of Title I funds controlled by a school. These classifications 

incorporate three components: the percentage of funds controlled by the school, district parameters on the use 

of Title I funds, and the mix of individuals involved in decisions. 

High autonomy 

•	 Interview respondents explained that the school had full control regarding the use of Title I funds and was 

able to use them flexibly to meet school needs. 

•	 On the survey, the principal indicated that “our school largely decides how to use Title I funds with 

minimal input from district staff.”
 

•	 The school controlled between 80 percent and 100 percent of the Title I funds allocated to the school. 

Moderately high autonomy 

•	 Interview respondents reported that the school could make most decisions about how Title I funds will be spent 

but within a set of parameters or specific funding “buckets” imposed by either the state or the district. 

•	 On the survey, the principal reported that “our school works closely with district staff to decide how to use 

Title I funds.” 

•	 The school controlled the majority of Title I funds allocated to the school. 

Moderately low autonomy 

•	 Interview respondents reported that most decisions regarding the use of funds are imposed by the district, 

but the school may have some control over a small amount of funds or about the use of a Title I resource. 

•	 On the survey, the principal reported that “our school provides input to district staff who then decide how 

to use Title I funds on our behalf” or “district staff make almost all decisions on how to use Title I funds, 

but we have some Title I funds we can spend as we choose.” 

•	 The school controlled less than half of the Title I funds allocated to the school. 

No autonomy 

•	 Interview respondents reported that the district makes all decisions about the use of Title I funds. In these 

cases, the school has no knowledge of the decision-making process nor an opportunity to weigh in. 

•	 On the survey, the principal indicated that “district staff make all decisions on how to use Title I funds.” 

•	 The school controlled no Title I funds allocated to the school. 

Respondents from seven (19 percent) of the 35 case study schools described a high level of autonomy, 

including five SWP and two TAP schools. However, school autonomy did not preclude district 

engagement; these principals also described the role the district played in helping to inform or approve 

these decisions. As one SWP school principal explained, all decisions must be data-driven and welljustified in the school’s Title I plan. To support school principals in this process, the district facilitated 

data meetings with schools to identify “milestone scores,” to benchmark the school’s results, and to 

help them identify improvement strategies accordingly. The results of these meetings were used by 

schools to develop their Title I plans. When asked about the extent to which the school had autonomy 

to make decisions about Title I funds, another principal reporting high levels of autonomy stated: 

It’s me and the leadership team here. ... It’s based on us right here. It’s customized to us. 

... [W]e build our improvement plan on what our needs are. If we need to throw money 

at it, we throw money at it. If we need to throw personnel at it, we throw personnel at it. 

44
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

If we need reduced class sizes to make that happen, we do that. If we need to co-teach 

it, we do that. And then we present that to the system level. ... Now [our superintendent] 

... she’s going to break it down with you. And she’ll have a thousand questions, but if 

you’re passionate about what you’re doing and she knows what you’re doing, you’ll be 

able to get the money. 

Although it may be expected that SWP schools are afforded more autonomy than TAP schools, some 

TAP school principals also reported high levels of autonomy. One of these TAP principals described being 

able to change the school’s Title I plan mid-year to bring on a Title I tutor. The newly hired tutor had just 

completed his student teaching at the school and become certified. Based on his work in the school, 

including the rapport he had developed with the students, the principal wanted to reallocate Title I 

funds to pay for a formal position for him at the school. This principal stated “that’s one thing that I will 

say, with our county, and [the Title I coordinator], we are able to adapt and change our plan and our 

budget as needed. So if there’s something that we are made aware of that would be a better choice or a 

better decision. ... [W]e do have that flexibility, which is great.” 

Similarly, another TAP school principal stated: 

I think what works really well is when, regardless with the amount of money, we’re given 

that autonomy of how the funds are being used. We know parental involvement money 

has its restrictions, we play by the rules. But within those rules, there’s enough 

autonomy to do what we need in that moment. And I think that works exceptionally well 

and I like that as opposed to the alternative of someone saying, “Here’s your box of stuff, 

go make it work.” ... I think it’s much harder to get full buy-in for your school 

improvement goals if the team doesn’t get full control over how you get to spend your 

funds on materials and people. 

In schools where principals perceived having no autonomy or moderately low autonomy over Title I 

funds, principals did not necessarily see this as problematic. As one example, an SWP principal who 

reported having no autonomy was asked whether more flexibility or autonomy would be preferred. The 

principal responded, 

As far as me having control? [The superintendent’s] the best. What I feel he’s done is to meet 

the needs of as many kids as we can. I understand. We work with what we have. I’d love to 

have three more reading teachers. But I never question [the superintendent’s decisions]. 

In contrast, an SWP principal reporting moderately low autonomy similarly indicated an appreciation for 

district officials’ knowledge regarding Title I, but felt principals were not provided with the opportunity 

to use Title I in ways that could most benefit their schools given all of the control and restrictions placed 

on them. This principal suggested a need for principals to “have a little more autonomy with some of the 

things that we think will help kids improve. Or teachers improve.” Other principals, including both SWP 

and TAP schools with limited autonomy acknowledged that their districts were communicative about 

Title I and the funding decisions, but they perceived their influence with the district as limited. One TAP 

principal explained, the district met with each of the Title I school principals to share the district’s ideas 

for the use of Title I funds and to provide principals with an opportunity to provide feedback on the 

extent to which the district’s plan intersected with their school’s improvement needs — but noted that 

the district may or may not act on any suggestions made by principals. Another principal expressed a 

similar type of frustration, stating that, although the Title I district coordinator was “excellent,” the lack 

45
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

of autonomy was frustrating because “not all schools have the same needs. ... Just giving us a list of this 

is what you can do, it’s not flexible at all.” 

District and School Responsibilities for Decisions About the Use of 

Title I Funds 

Personnel Involved in Decisions About the Use of Title I Funds 

Even when decisions about the use of Title I funds are devolved to the school level, district staff play a 

role in the use of Title I funds. Indeed, districts are required to ensure that each SWP develop a 

comprehensive schoolwide plan based on a needs assessment of the entire school, that parents are 

appropriately engaged, and that schools comply with supplement not supplant requirements. Thus, we 

might expect Title I principals to report that they share some responsibilities with district administrators 

for decision making, even when they perceive relatively low levels of autonomy. 

Moreover, the law specifies some of the individuals who are to be involved in Title I planning processes 

at the school level to provide input and help inform the decisions about how funds will be used. As 

mentioned previously, Title I requires that a broad range of stakeholders — including parents, school 

staff, and others in the community — be included in developing the comprehensive plan for an SWP. 

In most Title I schools, districts and schools collaborated on decisions regarding the 

use of Title I funds. However, principals of SWP schools were more likely than TAP 

schools to make all or most decisions about the use of Title I funds. 

When asked whether the use of Title I funds was more a school decision, more a district decision, or a 

joint decision shared by the district and school, both SWP and TAP school principals most often reported 

joint decision making. However, principals of SWP schools were more likely to report that they make 

most or all decisions regarding Title I funds (25 percent vs. 12 percent), while TAP school principals were 

more likely to report that the district made the decisions on all Title I funds (24 percent vs. 10 percent) 

(see Exhibit 27). 

46
 
 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 27. Level of school involvement in making decisions about the use of Title I funds, by school 

characteristics, as reported by principals, 2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Among Title I SWP schools, 25 percent reported that school staff make most or all decisions about
 

the use of Title I funds.
 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < . 05, **p < . 01, ***p < . 001.
 

Source: Principal survey, item C.5 (n = 608 SWP and 400 TAP schools). 

47
 
 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

For both SWP and TAP case study schools, district administrators were the most likely 

stakeholder group to be involved in Title I decisions, followed by principals. When 

teachers were involved, their role most often was characterized as minor. 

Consistent with the principal survey reports, in most case study schools, both district administrators and 

principals played a major role in making Title I funding decisions. Other school leaders were often 

involved but were less likely than principals to play a major role. Teachers and parents sometimes 

participated in the decision-making process, but their involvement was typically characterized as minor 

(Exhibit 28). 

Exhibit 28.	 Number of case study schools in which various individuals played a minor, moderate, or 

major role in decisions about how to use Title I funds at the school level, by type of Title I 

program, 2016–17 

Exhibit reads: In the case study sites, interviewees indicated that district administrators had a major role in making 

decisions regarding the use of Title I funds in 20 SWP and seven TAP schools. 

Note: Individuals indicated as having a “major” role are those described as the most actively involved and/or who had the final say in how the 

funds would be used.
 

Source: Interviews with district administrators, principals, and school improvement team members (n = 26 SWP and 9 TAP schools).
 

Nevertheless, principals described processes for gaining input from school staff, teachers, and parents 

on student and school needs and possible uses of funds. In one SWP school, the principal described a 

phased approach to making decisions and involving certain groups of stakeholders at different times. 

The school first held a summer leadership retreat where key staff, including counselors, teachers, 

administrators, student support specialists, and instructional specialists and academic coaches, came 

together to review the school’s data and start outlining Title I needs for the coming year. The 

recommendations resulting from this retreat were then taken to the administrative team, which was 

48
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

tasked with determining how to allocate Title I funds to address the needs. The draft Title I plan and 

budget were then presented back to the school staff for feedback and input. The final phase included 

sharing the “vision” and plan with parents. As the principal explained: 

Once it gets to the parents, it’s more refined, it’s more specific as far as what we’re 

going to do with the money, but it’s still not in stone because parents have that 

opportunity to give us input on what they think. ... We take their suggestions in and 

make some changes and adjustments and then we come up with that final budget and 

send it on in [to the district] for approval. 

Principals of other SWP schools described similar approaches, commonly indicating that they relied on a 

school improvement team of teachers and staff representing different grade levels or departments to 

provide input on Title I planning and budgeting decisions. Often, the principals met regularly with these 

teams throughout the school year to discuss broader school improvement initiatives and goals; Title I 

became a central focus of meetings when decisions needed to be made about modifications to the 

current school year’s plan or planning for the coming school year. 

Among TAP schools, principals could describe shared decision-making approaches at the school level, 

but again with certain stakeholders brought in at certain stages of the process. Most commonly, 

principals and key leadership team members made key decisions initially, which were then shared 

among the larger school staff and then with parents. Staff and parent feedback were considered prior to 

finalizing plans for district submission; however, principal respondents (both SWP and TAP) typically 

described receiving little feedback, particularly from parents. 

Technical Support Provided by Districts to Support Title I Schools 

Title I is a complex program, and as schools seek to implement and comply with its requirements, they 

may need the expertise and support of central office staff who have specialized knowledge and 

experience. Principals assume leadership positions with varying levels of understanding of federal policy 

and may need support as they seek to comply with Title I guidelines and ensure that Title I funds address 

student needs. 

With this in mind, interview and survey data were collected on principals’ perceptions of district 

supports specific to Title I. Principals were asked to describe the types and format of the Title I guidance 

and information they received from their districts, the accessibility and responsiveness of district 

officials to questions, and the usefulness of the supports that districts provided. These data were 

analyzed to classify the 19 case study districts as providing high, moderate, or low levels of support for 

their Title I schools (see Box 2).

12 

12	 These district support analyses were conducted for each of the 19 independent public school districts in which 33 of the 35 case 

study schools were located. These analyses did not include two schools, an independent charter school that operated as its own 

district and a rural one-school district where the principal of the school also played the role of Title I district coordinator. 

49
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Box 2. Level of District Support Related to Title I 

Classifications of district support were derived from school-level interviews, not district administrators’ 

descriptions of their own support. 

Strong district support related to Title I 

•	 Districts with strong support were those in which school-level respondents described meeting at least 

monthly with district staff related to Title I; the district had a designated point person to support Title I 

schools; respondents described a high level of expertise on the part of district staff, specifically related to 

Title I, and respondents explained that district staff answer questions promptly. 

Moderate district support related to Title I 

•	 Districts that provided moderate levels of support were those in which respondents described some 

contact with district officials (e.g., quarterly); if they describe more frequent meetings, they also note 

shortcomings. These districts may have designated Title I staff, but they are not described as having a high 

level of expertise or responsiveness. 

Limited district support related to Title I 

•	 Districts that provided limited support related to Title I were those in which school-level respondents
 

described limited contact (if any) with district officials; they explicitly stated that the district does not 

provide support, or they explained that they could use support but do not receive it.
 

Of the 19 districts in which the case study schools were located, 14 provided high or 

moderate levels of support related to Title I. 

At the lowest levels of support — as was the case in five districts — the central office support included 

slide presentations that staff could access on the district website or short annual meetings in which 

district administrators provided an overview of current Title I requirements. In addition, in districts that 

were rated as providing limited support, respondents either commented directly on the need for 

additional trainings or were hard pressed to recall when specific Title I trainings were offered. For 

example, one principal said, “Maybe when I first was a principal I had some support on Title I, but it was 

a long time ago.... I think someone came and talked to me about Title I, but I don’t really remember.” In 

another school, the Title I budget manager remarked, “The basic information [about Title I] was sent by 

email. I don’t know if the treasurer before me had those trainings. I don’t know what the district 

provides for trainings.” 

Of these 14 districts, eight “high-support” districts provided more robust levels of accessibility and 

support to Title I schools, including in-time assistance and support that Title I principals described as 

valuable. For example, one district employed six “Title I managers,” each of whom provided oversight 

for a set of Title I schools. These managers interacted often with the principals of Title I schools, 

providing assistance not only during the planning process but also throughout the year. One SWP 

principal described interactions with the designated Title I manager as follows: 

I interact with [this person] on anything we have to turn in, updates, questions back and 

forth on paperwork, any activities that we have to do with the community. We 

communicate quite often. ... It is sometimes just an email here and an email there. If I 

needed to have it daily, it would happen. 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Another district provided monthly professional development sessions for Title I principals focused on 

specific topics based on the trends in the data they are observing. A principal in this district praised the 

district for the supports they were providing and the approach they were taking to ensure principals 

were “doing everything the right way.” 

In general, principals in highly supportive districts often expressed appreciation for this support and its 

benefits. As one middle school principal indicated, “We would not have made the gains we made. I am 

confident, that without the support ... from the division and Title I, that we would not be accredited in 

math or social studies.” 

Timing of Title I Decisions 

The timing of the Title I planning and budgeting processes also may be a factor in determining the extent 

to which principals are able to implement Title I interventions in a manner that is coordinated with a 

coherent school improvement approach. If done carefully, the Title I planning process can entail many 

hours of work. Title I nonregulatory guidance encourages school administrators to conduct interviews or 

focus groups with stakeholders to gain their input on the use of Title I funds, analyze data to determine 

the specific needs of eligible students, and align Title I interventions with a comprehensive school 

improvement plan. These activities imply a nonnegligible time allocation and the coordination and 

cooperation of multiple stakeholder groups. The capacity of districts and schools to comply with these 

policy expectations may rest on the duration and timing of the Title I planning and budgeting window 

and when key decisions must be made. To understand the timing of Title I decisions, we examined 

district and principal survey data, case study interview data, and, where applicable, extant documents 

provided by case study districts regarding their Title I budget timelines. 

Both SWP and TAP schools most commonly developed Title I plans in the spring of the prior school year 

(66 percent did so between March and June) and received Title I funds at the beginning of the school 

year. Nationally, principals reported starting work on their Title I plans as early as January and as late as 

August, but most schools (77 percent) received their Title I funds near the beginning of the school year, 

in July, August, or September. 

Principals in SWP schools typically reported having more time than TAP principals 

to develop Title I plans after Title I school allocations for the upcoming school year 

were communicated. 

Principals most commonly reported having less than two months to develop Title I plans after their 

resource levels were known (Exhibit 29), with a higher percentage of TAP schools than SWP schools 

reporting having less than two months to do so (72 percent vs. 50 percent). 

51
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 29. Number of months between when Title I resources are known and when Title I plans are 

due to the district, 2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Seventeen percent of SWP schools had less than one month between learning the amount of Title I 

resources they were to receive and the due date for submitting their spending plans to their district. 

Note: The difference between SWP and TAP schools in the percentage of schools having less than two months between when Title I resources
 

are known and when Title I plans are due to the district (72 percent vs. 50 percent, when combining the first two categories) was statistically
 

significant: p < .05.
 

Source: Principal survey, item C.7 (n = 401 SWP and 162 TAP schools).
 

However, some of the case study schools indicated that starting the decision-making process too early 

could also be a problem. Among the 10 case study schools in which district and/or school respondents 

described this timeline, several respondents expressed concern that this did not allow enough time to 

learn from the current year’s implementation. For example, one Title I district administrator stated, 

One of my real frustrations ... is the timeline for all of this to happen in our district. It drives 

me crazy that school starts in August, you’re implementing your plan, and then come 

around December, we’re asking schools to start revising your plan [for the next year], have 

it ready by March when they haven’t even implemented a full year. I just feel like it sets 

people up to make decisions about what was in their plan without a lot of data. 

This administrator was trying to address this challenge by providing more flexibility to schools in the 

process, requesting that they provide the district with a list of Title I-funded positions they want to 

continue into the following year by March, but specification of the nonpersonnel components of their 

budget could be on a more relaxed schedule. A principal of an SWP school also described a timeline 

challenge from the school perspective: 

When you’re creating [the Title I plan] in March, April, May and you leave for the summer 

and it gets approved in October, that’s a six-month window before you’re actually able to 

spend any funds. And if things have changed over time, you don’t have the ability to go 

backwards and make those modifications to it. So I would say the most frustrating thing 

from a building administrator standpoint is not being able to be fluid or flexible. 

52
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Connections Between Title I-Funded Interventions and School 

Improvement Goals 

Title I SWPs are provided flexibility to serve all students and consolidate Title I funds with those from 

other programs. The policy intent for SWPs is that they will engage in an ongoing continuous 

improvement process and will implement systemic, schoolwide interventions, leading to more effective 

practices for students from low-income families. Furthermore, although schools with Title I TAP 

programs are required to direct Title I-funded resources to only the Title I-eligible students in their 

schools and track those resources accordingly, the extent to which the Title I interventions are 

coordinated with and complement a coherent school improvement approach may be an important 

factor in driving improved outcomes for the targeted students. 

Within this policy context, we examined the extent to which principals of SWP and TAP schools in our 

case study schools were able to articulate connections between Title I interventions and their broader 

school improvement goals. (For a discussion of the analytic approach to classifications on principals’ 

abilities to articulate the connections of Title I interventions and their broader school improvement 

goals, see Box 3.) 

Box 3. Principal’s Ability to Articulate Connections Between Title I Interventions and 

Broader School Improvement Goals in Case Study Schools 

Classifications of principals’ ability to articulate connections between Title I interventions and broader school 

improvement goals are based on case study school principal interview data. 

Explicit connection of Title I interventions with broader school improvement goals 

•	 The principal clearly described performance problems in the school, such as gaps in student learning, 

ineffective instructional practices, or insufficient parent engagement. The principal then articulated how 

the Title I interventions in place for 2016–17 were explicitly aligned with the improvement needs of the 

school (with specific examples) and supported the broader school improvement goals. 

Moderate connection of Title I interventions with broader school improvement goals 

•	 The principal was able to articulate the purpose of the Title I interventions in place for 2016–17 and 

described how at least some of the Title I interventions were connected to and supporting the needs of 

the school and the broader school improvement goals. The principal did not, however, provide specific 

examples of the link between the Title I interventions and the improvement needs and goals of the school 

and/or indicated that some of the Title I interventions did not align with or conflicted with the broader 

approach the school was taking to school improvement. 

Limited connection of Title I interventions with broader school improvement goals 

•	 The principal was unable to clearly articulate how the Title I interventions in place for 2016–17 were 

addressing the improvement needs of the school or how they were connected to and supporting the
 

broader school improvement goals the principal had for the school; and/or the principal explicitly
 

indicated that the Title I interventions did not directly support the needs of the school or were
 

inconsistent with the school’s broader goals.
 

53
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Most SWP and TAP case study school principals articulated at least a moderate 

connection between Title I interventions and their broader school improvement goals. 

Case study principals demonstrated their purposeful use of Title I funds by describing how Title I-funded 

personnel, instructional materials, or other resources and services were addressing the needs of their 

students and how these interventions aligned with broader school improvement goals. Most of the SWP 

and TAP school principals described an explicit connection between their Title I interventions and their 

overall school improvement efforts (Exhibit 30). This finding may not be surprising for SWPs given that 

SWP schools are required to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment to ensure that their Title I 

programming fits within the larger school improvement plan to improve student outcomes schoolwide l. 

Twenty of the 26 SWP school principals were able to articulate explicit (10) or moderate (10) connection 

of Title I interventions to their overall school improvement goals. As one SWP principal explained when 

describing Title I’s connection to the school’s approach to school improvement: 

The Title I funds help pay for some of the remediation programs. They help pay for some 

of the licenses ... even help pay for teacher planning days, the time they need to be 

effective in their planning. ... A lot of my [Title I] funds reinforce all of the work we have 

done at this school, but if I decide that this year we need to focus on a reading strategy, I 

might focus on bringing an outside expert to give everybody training. I do have flexibility 

to manipulate in that direction. 

Exhibit 30.	 Extent to which case study schoolwide program and targeted assistance program 

principals articulated a connection of Title I interventions with their broader 

improvement goals, 2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: In the case study schools, 10 of the 26 SWP school principals articulated an explicit connection of
 

Title I interventions with their broader school improvement goals.
 

Source: Principal interviews in case study schools (n = 26 SWP schools and 9 TAP schools).
 

54
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Similarly, the principal of a charter school with an SWP program described how Title I is coordinated 

with many other programs at the school to provide the teaching and learning experiences necessary to 

“lift [struggling] kids up.” This principal went on to emphasize that the design of Title I had forced the 

school to use the funds strategically within broader school efforts, specifically to identify and address 

the factors that affect student outcomes but may otherwise be overlooked: 

Especially as a charter school, we’re appreciative of added funds from Title I, particularly 

for instruction. ... With the Title I dollars and the level of accountability. ... It makes you 

look at things you might not otherwise look at, it makes you evaluate the data. 

Despite the greater flexibility SWP Title I schools have in terms of using Title I for schoolwide purposes 

compared with TAP schools, the principals of TAP schools appeared to be as likely as SWP principals to 

connect Title I programming with their broader school efforts to improve student outcomes. The 

majority of TAP principals (six of the nine) described taking an intentional approach to using Title I funds 

to purchase interventions that meet the needs of targeted students while still supporting overall 

improvement goals. As one TAP principal responded when asked how Title I fit in with the strategies 

being implemented at the school to address high-priority improvement goals, “For Title I specifically ... 

we make sure that whatever money we have, it has a purpose.” 

Six of the 26 SWP school principals and one of the nine TAP principals described a limited connection 

between Title I and broader school improvement efforts. For example, one such SWP school principal 

explained that the school’s instructional team struggled to use the majority of their Title I funds in ways 

that best fit with their strategic plans for the school: 

We get frustrated because we do the requisition for our Title I budget. ... [Then] we get 

an email stating that, okay you can’t do that. ... Then we have to spin our wheels trying 

to figure out if this is something that’s going to fall under the official envelope [of] Title I. 

We’ve given away some of the Title I supplies and stuff like that because it just keeps 

stockpiling. That’s not the key to the kids learning. We need some other things in place. 

Other principals who were classified as articulating limited connections described similar challenges. 

One elementary SWP school principal explained that, although they have accumulated plentiful amounts 

of Title I-funded materials over the years, the control afforded to schools has lessened over time, so 

they are no longer able to purchase the materials they believe would facilitate their improvement 

efforts. Another principal indicated that the Title I-funded interventions were useful, but the funding 

overall for Title I was so small that the ability to be strategic in how funds were used to support school 

goals more broadly was limited. This principal stated, “We receive a very small amount of money. It’s 

marked for the same thing every year. There is nothing cutting-edge about how we use it.” 

Within the case study sample, principals’ years of experience at their respective school 

sites did not seem related to their abilities to connect Title I interventions with broader 

school improvement goals. 

Nearly all the principals that were new to their schools (five of the seven) articulated a high connection of 

Title I activities with the school improvement strategies they were prioritizing at their schools. These 

principals appeared to be strategic in identifying their new schools’ greatest teaching and learning needs and 

then using Title I to start filling the observed gaps. One of these first-year principals described, for example, 

55
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

This school is not balanced in best practices. I see a lot of worksheets, a lot of teach[ing] from 

your seats. A lot of it is old-fashioned. ... I’m new here though, so I have to observe now and 

put things in place this year that [we can build on] next year. I’m doing a SWOT analysis — 

our strengths and weaknesses. ... I refuse to put Title I funds towards copy paper. 

At the same time, experienced principals described learning important lessons as they gained 

knowledge and understanding of Title I over time. One experienced SWP principal described a learning 

curve, through which this person was able to use Title I in progressively more strategic ways: 

My first couple years, I’m going to be honest, being a new administrator I was winging it. 

I looked at the old Title I plans and I used that to guide what I was doing. ... It wasn’t 

really data driven. Now we really use data to drive that. 

The ability of principals to make connections between Title I and their school improvement goals may 

also be influenced by the level of district support they receive. Among the 12 school principals who 

described a high level of district support, the majority were able to make explicit (seven) or moderate 

(three) connections between Title I and broader school improvement goals. In comparison, none of the 

nine principals in districts providing low levels of support articulated an explicit connection, although 

five articulated a moderate connection. These findings suggest that district supports for Title I principals 

may play a role in the extent to which Title I funds are used strategically to meet students’ needs, 

particularly when principals may be lacking other sources of information that can guide their Title 

programming. For example, one principal who struggled to connect Title I-funded interventions with 

broader school improvement goals described a lack of information from the district on how Title I funds 

could be used. Similarly, another principal with a low connection rating reported that the district had 

not provided any trainings specific to Title I. 

These data suggest that a leader’s facility to use Title I funds within a coherent educational approach is 

likely driven by a number of important factors, some of which were outside of their direct control. The 

principals who described a limited connection of Title I with broader school improvement goals seemed 

to be similar in the extent to which they felt well-supported by their districts and perceived having 

autonomy in allocating Title I funds to meet their schools’ needs. Indeed, of the 16 principals that could 

articulate a high level of connection between Title I and school goals, 13 experienced a high or 

moderately high level of autonomy. Of the seven principals who could not articulate a connection 

between Title I and school improvement more generally, five experienced low or no autonomy. And as 

discussed next, principals’ own understanding of Title I requirements and how the Title I requirements 

applied to their schools also appear to be related to their connection between Title I and school goals 

(Exhibit 31). 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 31. Extent to which case study principals articulated a connection of Title I interventions with 

their broader school improvement goals, by level of understanding of Title I, 2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: In the case study schools, nine of the 16 principals that articulated explicit connections between
 

Title I interventions and their broader school improvement goals demonstrated a strong understanding of Title I
 

requirements.
 

Sources: Title I school principal interviews; principal survey, items C.1, C.2, and C.8 (n = 35 principals).
 

In general, principals who reported a greater understanding of Title I requirements 

were better able to articulate the connections between their Title I-funded activities and 

their broader school improvement goals. 

Most of the case study school principals, both SWP and TAP school principals, demonstrated at least a 

moderate (12 principals) if not strong (17 principals) understanding of Title I requirements. Fewer 

principals (six; three SWP and three TAP principals) demonstrated a limited understanding of Title I. 

Despite being classified as having limited understanding of Title I, two of the six principals were still able 

to draw explicit connections between the Title I interventions in place at their schools and their broader 

school improvement goals. Three of the six principals with limited understanding of Title I were not able 

to make such connections (one made a moderate connection). (For a discussion of the analytic approach 

to classifying principals based on their understanding of Title I, see Box 4.) 

Although principal knowledge of Title I requirements appears to be somewhat related to principals’ 

abilities to use Title I in ways that connect to broader school improvement goals, the link is not clear. 

The supports districts provide to their Title I school principals also could play a contributing role. 

Principals do not operate in a vacuum, and they often rely on robust district supports to navigate and 

coordinate the myriad federal, state, and local programs and initiatives that apply to their schools. 

57
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Box 4. Principals’ Level of Understanding of Title I Policy in Case Study Schools 

Classifications of principals’ level of understanding of Title I requirements are based on case study school 

principal interview data and principal survey data. 

Strong understanding of Title I policy 

•	 On the survey, the principal reported a strong understanding of Title I requirements generally and how 

they applied to his or her own school. The principal also reported knowledge of how Title I resources and 

funding were allocated to the school, including the portion of Title I funds in the school’s discretion. The 

principal also was able to report the date of the needs assessment as part of the school’s Title I planning 

and budgeting process. 

•	 During the interview, the principal demonstrated knowledge of how Title I resources and funding were
 

allocated to the school, including the amount of funds under the school’s control. The principal also was
 

able to articulate the general intent and purpose of Title I, as well as specific requirements that apply to
 

the school’s programming.
 

Moderate understanding of Title I policy 

•	 On the survey, the principal reported having a general understanding or awareness of Title I requirements 

but not necessarily how they applied to his or her own school. The principal also reported knowledge of 

how Title I resources and funding were allocated to the school but was unaware of the specific amount of 

Title I funds that was under the school’s control. The principal indicated limited involvement or awareness 

of the needs assessment process being used to inform the school’s Title I planning and budgeting process. 

•	 During the interview, the principal demonstrated a familiarity of how Title I resources and funding were 

allocated to the school but was not aware of the amount of funds under the school’s control. The principal 

was able to articulate the general intent and purpose of Title I but was not able to identify or describe any 

of the specific requirements that applied to the principal’s school program. 

Limited understanding of Title I policy 

•	 On the survey, the principal reported being uncertain of Title I requirements and how they applied to his
 

or her own school. The principal also reported being unaware of the specific amount of Title I funds that
 

were under the school’s control. The principal also reported not being involved in or not knowing if a
 

needs assessment was conducted to inform the school’s Title I planning and budgeting process.
 

•	 During the interview, the principal demonstrated limited familiarity of how Title I resources and funding
 

were allocated to the school and was not aware of the amount of funds under the school’s control. The
 

principal was able to articulate the general intent and purpose of Title I but was not able to identify or
 

describe any of the specific requirements that applied to the principal’s school program.
 

Conclusion 

In most SWP schools, district and school administrators collaborated on Title I decisions, and the 

majority of SWP schools controlled over 75 percent of their Title I allocation. Perhaps not surprisingly, 

principals of TAP schools were less engaged in the decision-making process and generally controlled a 

smaller percentage of the Title I funds allocated to their schools. In both SWP and TAP schools in the 

case study sample, most principals were able to make connections between Title I interventions and 

broader school improvement goals, suggesting that Title I often fits into a broader theory of change for 

these schools. However, the data also suggest that some Title I principals lack a comprehensive 

understanding of the Title I policy and how to fit Title I interventions and services within their broader 

school improvement goals, possibly limiting the extent to which the policy objectives are realized to 

their full potential. 

58
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Chapter 5. Title I Flexibility in Schoolwide Programs 

Title I law offers schools that operate SWPs a key flexibility not afforded to schools with TAPs, namely 

the option to consolidate federal, state, and local funds with Title I funds into a single pot to support a 

comprehensive approach to improving its instructional program (ESSA 2015). Schools that consolidate 

funds from Title I and other programs do not need to monitor expenditures of funds by federal program 

nor are they required to meet most of the statutory and regulatory requirements of those programs, so 

long as they meet the intent and purposes of each program. This chapter explores the use of this benefit 

afforded to SWP schools. Specifically, it examines the extent to which SWP schools take advantage of 

the spending flexibilities, how spending patterns compare for SWP schools that consolidated Title I 

funds with funds from other programs and those that did not, and common challenges to consolidating 

Title I funds. 

Consolidation and Coordination of Title I Funds in Schoolwide Programs 

Recent Department guidance suggested that “[b]y making systemic changes that knit together services 

funded from a variety of sources into a comprehensive framework, schools have a better chance of 

increasing the academic achievement of all students” (U.S. Department of Education 2016b). 

Consolidating funds in an SWP is designed to encourage this approach by granting schools greater 

latitude over their available resources. 

Few SWP principals reported that their school consolidated Title I funds with other 

federal, state, and local funds (6 percent), but a larger proportion (52 percent) indicated 

that they coordinated the use of Title I funds with other funds. 

Eight percent of SWP schools reported that they neither consolidated nor coordinated funds from Title I 

and other programs, and notably, 34 percent of principals did not know how to characterize their 

schools’ approach (see Exhibit 32). These findings are largely consistent with those found by the 

National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind more than a decade ago.13 

Looking closer at the subset of SWP schools that consolidated funds shows that these schools are more 

likely to be in rural settings and have more experienced principals. Among SWP schools that 

consolidated Title I funds with funds from other programs, 72 percent were rural, compared with 

24 percent of SWP schools that coordinated funds or kept Title I funds separate. With respect to 

principal experience, 57 percent of SWP schools consolidating funds had principals with at least seven 

years of experience, compared with 23 percent of SWP schools coordinating funds and 20 percent of 

SWP schools neither consolidating nor coordinating funds. 

13 In a nationally representative sample of district administrators conducted in 2004–05, Chambers et al. (2009) found that 

6 percent of districts that operated SWPs consolidated funds from Title I and other programs, while 62 percent coordinated 

strategies between programs. 

59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit 32. Percentage of Title I schoolwide program schools using schoolwide flexibility, as reported 

by principals, 2016–17 

 

Exhibit reads: In Title I SWP schools, 6 percent of principals reported consolidating Title I funds with other
 

categorical funding sources.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.7 (n = 573 SWP schools).
 

Case study SWP principals that reported coordinating the use of Title I funds with other

federal, state, and local funds often described co-funding staff positions or services in 

a way that may have a similar practical result as consolidating the funds. 

Of the 26 case study schools operating a SWP, none provided evidence of consolidating Title I funds with 

funds from other programs, while 10 schools reported coordinating funding streams and 16 reported 

maintaining strict separation of funds. Among the 10 case study schools that reported coordinating 

funds from Title I and other programs, five co-funded specific staff positions, such as support teachers, 

instructional coaches, and classroom teachers. Waxberry Middle School, for example, has a 1.0 FTE 

support teacher, which the principal described as “a multi-funded position,” with “some of [the] funds 

[coming] out of my pot [local funds]” and “some [coming] out of [Title I funds].” The remaining five 

schools otherwise managed funds in concert to support particular initiatives. Fraser Middle School, for 

example, uses multiple funding streams to support student tutoring to prepare for state assessments. 

Scholar Elementary provides four EL teachers, three of whom are funded through Title I and one 

through other funds, but “all working together” to serve EL students. The flexibility of coordinating 

Title I funds with funds from other sources was best summarized by the principal at Ocelot Elementary: 

Sometimes additional funds are given to us for us to use in our programs, remediation, 

planning, etc. It is a very fluid process. I know I can go to our [district] Title I director and, 

if I need anything or have an idea for something, [the director is] willing to participate in 

it. ... When you are [a] SWP, the funds are very fluid. Sometimes you might not even 

notice you are using Title I funds. I have that much flexibility. 

60
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

For the 16 case study schools that maintained separation between funds from Title I and other sources, 

three explanations surfaced. First, principals at some schools described it as a deliberate decision on 

their part. As the principal at Landmark Academy School explained, “I keep the funding streams 

intentionally very separate. From a control standpoint, the more dedicated those Title I funds are, the 

easier it is to keep track and make sure no one is abusing it.” Second, several schools indicated the 

approach was a district choice. The principal at Axel High School, for example, reported that 

I do have my unit budget from the district that I can spend on other things, but Title I is 

just for Title I. You know the rules are different, so our Title I money budget is separate 

from my unit budget from the district. ... When I get my Title I money, this is Title I. I 

have to split a separate budget for it. 

The principal at Swain Elementary, for example, described the approach as “a safeguard” established by 

the district, adding that “I can’t spend this the wrong way and I like that. I don’t want to be on the front 

page of the newspaper.” Third, at a few schools, the decision seemed to reflect a lack of knowledge of 

this type of flexibility afforded to SWPs. After being asked whether they coordinate Title I with other 

funding streams, one principal asked, “Is that allowed? Just curious,” and another principal said, 

“They’re supposed to be siloed, right?” 

The largest perceived challenge to consolidating Title I funds with other sources was 

state accounting rules that require separate accounting for federal programs. 

Nearly half (47 percent) of the district administrators surveyed reported state accounting rules that 

require separate accounting for federal program funds pose a moderate or major challenge to 

consolidating Title I funds with funds from other sources (see Exhibit 33). Other commonly reported 

challenges included a lack of information about how to consolidate funds (37 percent), concern about 

potential audit exceptions (37 percent), district accounting rules requiring separate accounting for 

different funding sources (36 percent), and the need for more training and understanding about 

program (35 percent) and finance issues (33 percent).14 These findings generally mirrored the results of 

prior research, suggesting that SWPs continue to face the same challenges as they did in 2004–05 

(Chambers et al. 2009). 

Respondents in nearly all the districts in which the SWP case study schools reside reported challenges 

related to spending flexibility provisions, which largely related to concerns about potential audits and 

compliance with federal and state regulations. As one principal explained, 

Everybody was just scared of having a bad audit finding, and it turned into a big 

compliance exercise as opposed to an exercise of saying, “How can we optimally use 

these funds to meet the unique needs of our students?” 

14 District administrators could choose more than one item, so percentages do not total to 100 percent. 

61
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

One case study district had, in fact, undergone a recent monitoring process, in which federal monitors 

reportedly offered conflicting opinions on the appropriateness of using Title I to fund a pull-out 

interventionist to support EL students and low achievers at one of their SWP schools. According to the 

district budget officer, 

One auditor said this was fine, another said I couldn’t do that. So I had to reverse his pay 

and pay him through another pot of money, which hurt. ... I guess how I’d done 

something, one didn’t like it, one said it was ok. 

Exhibit 33. Percentage of districts reporting moderate or major challenges to consolidating 

Title I funds with funds from other sources in Title I school programs, 2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit reads: Nine percent of districts reported that state accounting rules requiring separate accounting for 

federal program funds were a major challenge to consolidating Title I funds with funds from other sources. 

Note: Bars may not sum to total due to rounding error. 

Source: District survey, item C.3 (n = 185 districts). 

Finally, one case study district had participated in a state-level pilot on consolidating Title I funds with 

funds from other federal sources several years ago, which did not go well according to respondents. As 

the district budget officer recounted: 

[A]t the end, Title II still wanted you to be able to tell specifically what did Title II do in 

there. And it was time-consuming journal entries: “Can you put it in here? Can you do 

the journal entries, post them at the end of the month, and send it out?” Because they 

said they lost their identity, but no... [they still wanted us to be able to identify Title II 

funds]. ... [W]hen you’re a small district, you’ve got enough to do; you’re wearing a lot of 

hats. It’s not like I have six accountants to run and do all of this stuff for me. 

62
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Conclusion 

As was found in a previous study more than a decade ago, few SWPs consolidate Title I funds with funds 

from other sources, as the law explicitly allows them to do. However, SWP principals more often 

reported coordinating the use of Title I funds with other federal, state, and local funds, and case study 

principals who did this often described co-funding staff positions or services in a way that may have a 

similar practical result as consolidating the funds. Perceived barriers to consolidating funds include 

concerns about state accounting rules, fear of potential audit exceptions, and lack of information and 

training about how to consolidate funds. The Department’s recently released guidance on how Title I 

schools can leverage federal funds in an SWP to support school reform (U.S. Department of Education 

2016b) may help to provide principals and districts with greater clarity about this issue. 

63
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Conclusion
 

For more than 50 years, the Title I program has sought to improve the prospects of students who are 

struggling academically by providing additional funding for their schools to support educational services 

that will improve their outcomes. Under the law, SWPs benefit from additional flexibility, intended to 

foster an ongoing, dynamic continuous improvement process coupled with systemic, schoolwide 

interventions. By combining nationally representative surveys with on-site case study data, this study 

examined SWP and TAP schools’ decision-making processes surrounding Title I resource allocation, the 

patterns of Title I spending on staff and nonpersonnel resources in both types of schools, and the 

services that SWP and TAP schools provided to students. 

Overall, this study detected some notable differences between SWPs and TAPs. Consistent with the 

intent that SWP schools use federal funds in a comprehensive, schoolwide manner, these schools were 

more likely to use Title I funds for a broader array of staff position types and services than TAP schools. 

For example, SWP schools were more than three times as likely as TAPs to use Title I funds for 

instructional coaches, parent liaisons, and technology support staff, and EL specialists. Indeed, while a 

majority of TAP schools dedicated their Title I personnel expenditures exclusively to hiring teachers, 

SWP schools more commonly used these funds for a combination of staffing types. 

SWPs tended to report having greater control over their use of Title I funds than did TAP schools, 

controlling a larger percentage of their Title I funds, and including a wider range of stakeholders in 

decision making. In most SWP and TAP schools, districts and schools collaborated on decisions regarding 

the use of Title I funds — however, SWP principals were more likely to report higher levels of autonomy 

in making decisions about the use of Title I funds. In the case study schools, most SWP and TAP 

principals articulated at least a moderate connection between Title I interventions and their broader 

school improvement goals, but those principals who reported a greater understanding of Title I 

requirements were better able to articulate the connections between Title I activities and school goals. 

Although the survey data suggest that most Title I funds are used for supplemental instruction in reading 

and mathematics, the case study data provide examples of other, more innovative types of uses, 

particularly in SWPs, such as counseling services, interventions to improve school climate, summer 

bridge programs, and academic enrichment activities — all of which are permitted under Title I. 

However, most Title I schools, whether SWP or TAP, reported continuing to use Title I funds in the same 

ways that they had in previous years, with relatively few making significant changes. The examples 

provided by some of the case study schools suggest that other Title I schools have an open opportunity 

to leverage the flexibility under Title I to implement innovative strategies that might better meet the 

varied needs of their students. 

65
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

References
 

Atrostic, B. K., Nancy Bates, Geraldine Burt, and Adriana Silberstein. 2001. “Nonresponse in U.S. 

Government Household Surveys: Consistent Measures, Recent Trends and New Insights.” 

Journal of Official Statistics 17 (2): 209–26. 

Baker, Bruce. 2014. “Evaluating the Recession’s Impact on State School Finance Systems.” Education 

Policy Analysis Archives 22 (91). Accessed August 24, 2017. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n91.2014. 

Berends, Mark, Sheila Kirby, Scott Naftel, Christopher McKelvey, Sue Stockly, R. J. Briggs, JoAn Chun, 

Gina Schuyler, Brian Gill, and Jodi Heilbrunn. 2002. “NAS Designs and Academic Achievement.” 

In Facing the Challenges of Whole School Reform: New American Schools After a Decade, edited 

by Mark Berends, Susan Bodilly, and Sheila Kirby, 123–141. Santa Monica: RAND Education. 

Betts, Julian, Kim Reuben, and Anne Danenberg. 2000. Equal Resources, Equal Outcomes? The 

Distribution of School Resources and Student Achievement in California. San Francisco: Public 

Policy Institute of California. Accessed August 24, 2017. 

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_200JBR.pdf. 

Birman, Beatrice, Martin Orland, Richard Jung, Ronald Anson, Gilbert Garcia, Mary Moore, Janie 

Funkhouser, Donna Morrison, Brenda Turnbull, and Elizabeth Reisner. 1987. The Current 

Operation of the Chapter 1 Program: Final Report from the National Assessment of Chapter 1. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED289935.pdf. 

Borman, Geoffrey, and Gina Hewes. 2002. “The Long-Term Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of ‘Success for 

All.’” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 (4): 243–66. 

Borman, Geoffrey, Gina Hewes, Laura Overman, and Shelly Brown. 2003. “Comprehensive School 

Reform and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research 73 (2): 125–230. 

Brick, J. Michael, and Douglas Williams. 2013. “Explaining Rising Nonresponse Rates in Cross-Sectional 

Surveys.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 645: 36–59. 

Chambers, Jay, Irene Lam, Kanya Mahitivanichcha, Phil Esra, Larisa Shambaugh, and Stephanie Stullich. 

2009. State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VI—Targeting and 

Uses of Federal Education Funds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Accessed 

August 24, 2017. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504207.pdf. 

Chambers, Jay, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Campen, and Stephanie 

Stullich. 2000. Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. 

67
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Commission on Chapter 1. 1992. Making Schools Work for Children in Poverty. Washington, DC: Council 

of Chief State School Officers. Accessed August 24, 2017. 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED362618.pdf. 

Cochran, William G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

de Leeuw, Edith, and Wim de Heer. 2002. “Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: A Longitudinal and 

International Comparison.” In Survey Nonresponse, edited by Robert M. Groves, Don A. Dillman, 

John L. Entinge, and Roderick J. A. Little, 41–54. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, 

Pub. L. No. 114-95, 129 Stat. 1802, codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. 

Junge, Melissa, and Sheara Krvaric. 2016. Using Federal Education Formula Funds for School Turnaround 

Initiatives: Opportunities for State Education Agencies. San Francisco: WestEd, the Center on 

School Turnaround. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://centeronschoolturnaround.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/CST_Using_Fed_Funds_Final2.pdf. 

Kolenikov, Stanislav. 2014. “Calibrating Survey Data Using Iterative Proportional Fitting (Raking).” The 

Stata Journal 14 (1): 22–59. 

Mac Iver, Martha, and Elizabeth Kemper. 2002. “The Impact of Direct Instruction on Elementary 

Students’ Reading Achievement in an Urban School District.” Journal of Education for Students 

Placed at Risk 7 (2): 197–220. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2017. “Public School Expenditures.” In The Condition of 

Education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Accessed 

August 24, 2017. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425, 2002. 

Rao, J. N. K., H. O. Hartley, and W. G. Cochran. 1962. “On a Simple Procedure of Unequal Probability 

Sampling Without Replacement.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 24 (2): 482–91. 

Singh, Avinash C., and Cong Ye. 2016. “Randomly Split Zones for Samples of Size One as Reserve 

Replicates and Random Replacements for Nonrespondents.” Proceedings of the American 

Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, 3752–62. Accessed April 11, 2018. 

http://ww2.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2016f.html. 

Sturgis, Patrick, Patten Smith, and Graham Hughes. 2006. A Study of Suitable Methods for Raising 

Response Rates in School Surveys. Nottingham, England: DfES Publications. 

U.S. Department of Education. 2015. “Purpose.” In Programs: Improving Basic Programs Operated by 

Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A). Accessed August 24, 2017. 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html. 

68
 
 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

U.S. Department of Education. 2016a. Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Summary and Background Information. 

Accessed August 24, 2017. 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/summary/17summary.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education. 2016b. Supporting School Reform by Leveraging Federal Funds in a 

Schoolwide Program: Non-regulatory Guidance. Accessed August 24, 2017. 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essaswpguidance9192016.pdf. 

Wang, Margaret, and Kenneth Wong, eds. 1997. Implementing School Reform: Practice and Policy 

Imperatives. Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and 

Education. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433391.pdf. 

Wong, Kenneth, and Margaret Wang, eds. 1994. Rethinking Policy for At-Risk Students. Berkeley: McCutchan. 

69
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Appendix A. Data Collection Technical Appendix 

The purpose of this study was to examine how SWPs and TAPs compare in using Title I resources to 

improve academic outcomes, particularly for low-achieving students, and the complex interplay among 

school decision making, use of funds, and implementation of educational practices. The study included 

three main data collection activities: (1) surveys of nationally representative samples of school district 

administrators and principals; (2) site visits to a set of 35 case study schools that involved in-person and 

telephone interviews with Title I district officials and school staff involved in Title I administration; and 

(3) extant data collection and analysis. This appendix describes the various data sources, the procedures 

for sampling and collecting these data, and the analysis methods used to address the research questions. 

School District Administrator and Principal Surveys 

Sample Frame, Sampling Design and Methods, and Sample Selection 

Sample Frame. The target school population included schools that received Title I funding in either the 

current school year (2016–17) or the previous school year (2015–16), and the target district population 

included districts that had at least one school receiving Title I funding in either the current or prior school 

year. The sampling frame was constructed from the 2013–14 CCD Public Elementary/Secondary School 

Universe File, which was the most recent school list available at the time of sampling. CCD includes the 

NCES school ID number, the state school ID number, the name of the school, the name and ID number of 

the agency that operates the school, contact and physical location information, school type, operational 

status, locale code, grades offered, school level, students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 

student totals and detail (by grade, race/ethnicity, and gender). The file also contains flags indicating 

whether a school is Title I eligible, schoolwide Title I eligible, a magnet school, or a charter school plus other 

school characteristics. 

Because a school’s Title I status can change from one year to another, the more recent Title I status data 

from EDFacts 2014–15 was used to identify the target population.15 The following schools were 

excluded from the sampling frame: schools with no reported student enrollment, those located outside 

of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, schools without a Title I program, those with a school type 

classification other than regular or vocational school (e.g., special education schools, alternative schools, 

or “other” schools), juvenile facilities or correctional centers, and virtual schools. Among the 53,843 

schools that remained in the final list frame, 41,861 (78 percent) were SWP schools and 11,982 (22 

percent) were TAP schools. The 53,843 schools were located in 14,824 districts. Exhibit A1 shows the 

sample frame exclusions. 

15 Note that the 2014–15 CCD was not available at the time of sampling but became available after data collection was 

completed and thus was used for weighting. Therefore, although the sampling frame was constructed based on the 2013–14 

CCD, the final weights were calibrated to the totals from the list constructed using the 2014–15 CCD and EDFacts 2014–15 

data. Furthermore, because the list frame was constructed using data prior to the reference years for the study (i.e., 2015–16 

and 2016–17), it is possible that some schools that were not noted as Title I eligible in EDFacts 2014–15 were omitted from 

the frame but later became Title I eligible in 2015–16 or 2016–17. 

71
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit A1. Sample frame exclusions 

Number of schools 

Original sample frame 102,815 

Schools removed from sample frame 48,972 

Schools with zero enrollment 6,508 

Schools outside the 50 states and the District of Columbia 1,539 

Non-Title I schools 39,289 

Special education schools, other or alternative schools or reportable programs 1,543 

Juvenile facilities or correction centers 3 

Virtual schools 90 

Final sample frame 53,843 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2013–14. 

The nationally representative sample selected for the study included 404 districts and 1,421 schools. The 

sample design (discussed in the Sampling Methods section) allowed for replacements for nonresponding 

districts or schools. Twenty-seven very large districts (with student enrollment greater than 100,000 

each) were selected with certainty to guarantee their representation in the study; these certainty 

districts do not have replacement districts. 

Sampling Design. The study employed a two-stage sampling design. The district sample was selected 

first, and a subsample of schools was selected from the selected districts. Because the study intended to 

compare SWP and TAP schools, comparable sample sizes were desired for the SWP school group and the 

TAP school group, which meant a higher sampling rate was needed for the TAP group because of the 

lower proportion of TAP schools in the study frame (22 percent, compared with 78 percent of SWP 

schools). The study also planned to make comparisons across school poverty levels, measured by the 

percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Therefore, the information about 

program type and school poverty level was used to stratify the frame to control for sample sizes in 

subgroups and improve efficiency of the sample. However, because districts can have both SWP schools 

and TAP schools and schools at different poverty levels, districts were classified according to both 

program type and poverty level, among all schools within the district. 

To assist in the control of sample sizes by school program type and poverty level, two district-level 

variables were created. The first variable for district program type had three categories: (1) a district 

with SWP schools only, (2) a district with TAP schools only, and (3) a district with both types of schools. 

The second variable for district poverty levels used the overall percentage of students eligible free or 

reduced-price lunch in the district and had three categories: less than 35 percent, 35 percent to 

74 percent, and 75 percent or higher. A stratification variable was created using these two variables 

(district program type and district poverty level), and, as shown in Exhibit A2, yielded three times three 

or nine stratification cells. 

72
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit A2. Number and percentage of districts in the study frame, allocated sample size, and 

sampling rate by stratum 

Study frame Sample Sampling District 

Stratum program type District poverty level Count Percentage Count Percentage rate 

Total 14,824 100 404 100 3 

11 SWP only Low (<35%) 510 3 10 2 2 

12 SWP only Medium (35% to <75%) 5,572 38 56 14 1 

13 SWP only High (75% or more) 2,253 15 68 17 3 

21 TAP only Low (<35%) 3,081 21 123 30 4 

22 TAP only Medium (35% to <75%) 2,105 14 63 16 3 

23 TAP only High (75% or more) 252 2 25 6 10 

31 SWP and TAP Low (<35%) 271 2 14 3 5 

32 SWP and TAP Medium (35% to <75%) 665 4 33 8 5 

33 SWP and TAP High (75% or more) 115 1 12 3 10 

Notes: Detail may not sum to total because of rounding.
 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2013–14.
 

Because the populations varied in number across program type and poverty level, it was necessary to 

sample the different subpopulations with different rates to achieve balanced sample sizes in the 

subgroups. Smaller subpopulations (districts with only TAP schools and those with both SWP and TAP 

schools) were sampled at higher rates. The overall sampling rates were 2 percent for districts with SWP 

schools only, 4 percent for districts with TAP schools only, and 6 percent for districts with both types of 

schools. The overall sampling rate was 4 percent for districts at a low poverty level (less than 35 percent 

of the enrollment eligible for free or reduced-price lunch), 2 percent for districts at a medium poverty 

level (not less than 35 percent but lower than 75 percent of the enrollment eligible for free or reducedprice lunch), and 4 percent for districts at a high poverty level (not less than 75 percent of the 

enrollment eligible for free or reduced-price lunch). 

Sampling Methods. The sample was selected using a hybrid systematic sampling (SS) approach and a 

random split zone (RSZ) approach, which enabled the study to yield the benefits of each. The SS 

approach, which samples units from the sorted sampling list frame with a random starting point and a 

fixed interval, is a common practice in surveys such as the School Survey on Crime and Safety and the 

National Teacher and Principal Survey. However, response rates have been declining in surveys in recent 

decades (Atrostic et al. 2001; Brick and Williams 2013; de Leeuw and de Heer 2002; Sturgis, Smith, and 

Hughes 2006), and maintaining adequate response rates for districts and schools can be difficult. 

Therefore, the RSZ approach (Singh and Ye 2016) was incorporated as the sampling approach for schools 

in this study primarily because the method provides greater flexibility than traditional sampling methods 

in cases where the response rates are lower than expected. 

The RSZ method is based on a new application of the well-known and popular method of random groups 

(Cochran 1977; Rao, Hartley, and Cochran 1962) to a simplified technique for drawing an approximate 

probability proportional to size sample. It provides a random replacement strategy for ensuring unbiased 

estimation and is based on the idea of reserve samples of size one. Using the RSZ method, the initial 

sample released has the same size as the target completes. Random replicates for each sampled unit are 

73
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

selected among similar units belonging to the same group. Thus, each case in the resulting sample of 

completes belongs to a different group and guarantees the representativeness of the sample. Forming 

groups at random as in the RSZ method helps obtain simple unbiased variance estimates. Specifically, RSZ 

first sorts the population as in SS and then creates zones by partitioning the sorted units, where the 

number of zones is set equal to half the desired respondent sample size. Next, each zone is randomly split 

into random groups, and a unit along with its replicates is randomly drawn with a replacement from each 

group. Individual random replicate units can be released only when the originally sampled unit is 

determined to be nonresponsive. Therefore, the release of replicates can be managed individually for each 

ineligible or nonresponding unit instead of releasing the overall inflated sample. 

For this study, zones were defined by dividing the sorted frame list based on implicit stratification variables: 

district urbanicity, the concentration of non-Hispanic white students, district enrollment size, and ZIP code; 

each zone was randomly split into groups into two groups with one sample unit being selected in each group 

(one case is selected as the initial sample case with others randomly selected as the replicate units). 

Sample Selection. In sampling the districts, the RSZ method was used as follows.16 The district list was 

sorted by district urbanicity, the concentration of non-Hispanic white students, district enrollment size, 

and ZIP code (so districts were geographically ordered). Approximately equal-size zones were defined 

along the sorted list so that within each zone the district characteristics were similar. Approximately equalsize random groups were defined within each zone, and one district was selected from each group, which 

means the number of groups was equal to district sample size (i.e., 404 groups were created). Each zone 

included two groups, which is the minimum requirement for variance estimation without collapsing the 

zones.17 Within each group, one district was randomly selected with probability proportional to size. The 

measure of size was the average number of SWP schools and TAP schools within each district. 

Sequentially, replacement districts were selected and labeled in each group in case the original district in 

the group did not participate for any reason and had to be replaced to meet the targets. 

After district selection, schools in the sampled districts were stratified by school program type. The RSZ 

method was used as follows. The school list was sorted by school level, urbanicity, the concentration of 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, the concentration of non-Hispanic white students, 

enrollment size, and ZIP code. Approximately equal-size zones were defined along the sorted list so that 

within each zone, the school characteristics were similar, and the zones were randomly split into groups. 

Within each group, one school was randomly selected. Replacement schools were available. The 

number of schools of each type to be selected in each sampled district was up to four in noncertainty 

districts and up to 12 (5 percent) of the schools in certainty districts.18 

The distribution of the 14,824 districts in the study population and the 404 sampled districts is shown in 

Exhibit A3. Because of differential sampling rates in different strata, the unweighted distribution of the 

sample districts differs from the population, but because the weighted estimates are unbiased, the 

weighted distribution looks similar to the population, with some degree of sampling variation. Exhibit A3 

shows the distribution of districts in the study frame by district program type, school level, urbanicity, 

16 Certainty districts were not included in these procedures because certainty districts do not have associated replacement districts. 

17 A few zones had three groups because sometimes the district sample size within a stratum was an odd number. For example, 

if the sample size for a certain stratum was 11, then 11 approximately equal groups were needed within the stratum, which 

led to five zones defined in the stratum, with four randomly split into two groups and one split into three groups. 

18 If the noncertainty district has no more than four SWP schools, all schools were selected; if it has more than four SWP 

schools, four were selected. The same principle applied for the TAP schools. More schools were sampled in the certainty 

districts to include a more representative sample of schools for these self-representing districts. 

74
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

enrollment size, the percentage students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and the percentage of 

non-Hispanic white students. Overall, the weighted estimates are within an acceptable range, with the 

largest difference between the sample estimate and the population proportion being 5 percentage 

points for the percentage of rural districts. 

Exhibit A3. Characteristics of sampling frame and sample for school district survey 

District sampling frame District sample Unweighted Weighted 

characteristics Count Percentage characteristics Count percentage percentage 

District program type District program type 

Title I SWP only 8,335 56 Title I SWP only 134 33 57 

TAP only 5,438 37 TAP only 211 52 36 

Both 1,051 7 Both 59 15 7 

At least one school in: At least one school in: 

Primary 13,011 88 Primary 365 90 88 

Middle 4,771 32 Middle 182 45 33 

High 3,353 23 High 130 32 22 

Other 1,405 9 Other 67 17 13 

Urbanicitya Urbanicity 

Urban 2,125 14 Urban 79 20 14 

Suburban 3,360 23 Suburban 117 29 22 

Town 2,520 17 Town 52 13 14 

Rural 6,819 46 Rural 156 39 51 

Total student enrollment Total student enrollment 

25,000 or more 300 2 25,000 or more 48 12 2 

5,000 to 24,999 1,658 11 5,000 to 24,999 54 13 10 

1,000 to 4,999 5,236 35 1,000 to 4,999 122 30 39 

Less than 1,000 7,630 51 Less than 1,000 180 45 49 

Percentage of students eligible Percentage of students eligible 

for free or reduced-price lunch for free or reduced-price lunch 

75% or more 2,620 18 75% or more 105 26 18 

35% to less than 75% 8,342 56 35% to less than 75% 152 38 56 

Less than 35% 3,862 26 Less than 35% 147 36 26 

Percentage of non- Percentage of nonHispanic white students Hispanic white students 

Less than 50% 4,125 28 Less than 50% 145 36 26 

50% or more 10,699 72 50% or more 259 64 74 

a This is the only variable taken from the 2013–14 CCD Local Education Agency Universe File; all other variables are from the 2013–14 CCD
 

Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe File.
 

Notes: Detail may not sum to total because of rounding or being not mutually exclusive (e.g., the second district characteristic).
 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2013–14 (N = 14,824 districts in sampling frame; n = 404 districts in selected sample).
 

75
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

The distribution of the 53,843 schools in the study population and the 1,421 sampled schools in the 

404 selected districts is shown in Exhibit A4.19 Again, because of differential sampling rates at both the 

district and school levels, the unweighted distribution of the sample schools looks different from the 

population; but because the weighted estimates are unbiased, the weighted distribution looks similar to 

the population with some degree of sampling variations. Exhibit A4 shows the distribution of schools in 

the study frame by Title I school type (SWP vs. TAP), urbanicity, school level, enrollment size, the 

percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and the percentage of non-Hispanic 

white students. Overall, the weighted estimates are within an acceptable range, with the largest 

difference between the sample estimate and the population proportion being 3 percentage points for 

the percentage of suburban schools and the percentage of medium poverty level schools. 

Data Collection and Data Processing 

Data Collection. Nationally representative, quantitative survey data were collected from district Title I 

coordinators and principals in Title I SWP and TAP schools from November 2016 through April 2017. The 

primary mode of data collection was a Web survey; hard-copy surveys also were sent to nonrespondents, 

and data entered into the Web survey upon receipt by AIR. Completion times for each survey were 

estimated as follows: the district survey, 90 minutes; the school survey, 60 minutes. The targeted 

respondent for the district survey was the individual with the most knowledge about district Title I 

implementation; the targeted respondent for the school survey was the school principal. 

Outreach to districts and schools followed a prescribed sequence. First, districts and schools were 

notified about the study with a letter sent directly from the Department. One week later, AIR sent 

districts and schools a letter by regular mail that included the survey Web address and log-in credentials. 

Three days later, AIR sent the survey invitation by email to maximize the impact of this first 

communication from AIR. The notification and survey invitations were staggered such that districts were 

contacted and made aware of the schools sampled for the study prior to any contact attempts with 

principals. Between mid-November 2016 and mid-March 2017, AIR sent seven email reminders to 

districts and six reminders to schools. At the end of March, the Department sent one more email to both 

districts to encourage response. Starting in mid-January through mid-March, five rounds of telephone 

reminder calls were made to each nonresponding district and school. Finally, hard-copies of the surveys 

were sent to the nonresponding districts directly from the Department in early February and to 

nonresponding schools in January and March. The last reminder email sent by AIR and the last round of 

telephone calls prioritized efforts to reach schools that had started but had not yet completed the 

survey. Survey data collection closed in early April 2017. 

Data Processing. Survey data were processed and cleaned in preparation for analysis. This included 

reviewing each survey item for internal consistency, consistency between related items, and patterns of 

nonresponse. Missing data also were reviewed to identify whether the respondent purposely did not 

answer a question or whether the missing data resulted from a skip pattern in the questionnaire. 

19 The final sample size was based upon a power analysis conducted during the proposal phase of this project, which showed 

that the expected number of valid responses received from a sample of 1,410 schools in 470 districts, there would be a 

standard of error on the typical dichotomous survey item of no more than 1.4 percentage points. The corresponding minimal 

detectable difference in response between SWP and TAP schools was calculated to be 9.2 percentage points. 

76
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit A4. Characteristics of sampling frame and sample for principal survey 

Unweighted Weighted 

School characteristics Count Percentage School characteristics Count percentage percentage 

School program type School program type 

Title I SWP 41,861 78 Title I SWP 823 58 77 

TAP 11,982 22 TAP 598 42 23 

School level School level 

Primary 38,207 71 Primary 1,002 71 71 

Middle 8,239 15 Middle 215 15 14 

High 5,390 10 High 149 10 10 

Other 2,007 4 Other 55 4 5 

Urbanicity Urbanicity 

Urban 16,185 30 Urban 399 28 30 

Suburban 14,707 27 Suburban 509 36 30 

Town 7,541 14 Town 151 11 12 

Rural 15,410 29 Rural 362 25 28 

Total student enrollment Total student enrollment 

1,000 or more 3,063 6 1,000 or more 92 6 4 

500 to 999 18,988 35 500 to 999 529 37 37 

300 to 499 17,861 33 300 to 499 409 29 33 

Less than 300 13,931 26 Less than 300 391 28 27 

Percentage of students eligible Percentage of students eligible 

for free or reduced-price luncha for free or reduced-price lunch 

75% or more 21,543 40 75% or more 554 39 43 

35% to 74% 25,532 47 35% to 74% 571 40 44 

Less than 35% 6,768 13 Less than 35% 296 21 13 

Percentage of non- Percentage of nonHispanic white studentsb Hispanic white students 

Less than 50% 28,294 53 Less than 50% 762 54 52 

50% or more 25,549 47 50% or more 659 46 48 

a About 1 percent of the schools do not report data on free or reduced-price lunch. For schools without free or reduced-price lunch data, this 

information was imputed using the closest donor — the school with the closest values on the sorting variables (school level, locale, state,
 

percentage of non-Hispanic white students, and enrollment) to those of the imputed school. Imputed data are used for the percentage of 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch shown in the table.
 b Less than 0.3 percent of the schools do not report data on race or ethnicity. For schools without race or ethnicity data, this information was
 

imputed using the closest donor — the school with the closest values on the sorting variables (school level, locale, state, the percentage of
 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and enrollment) to those of the imputed school. Imputed data are used for the percentage of
 

non-Hispanic white students shown in the table.
 

Notes: Detail may not sum to total because of rounding or being not mutually exclusive [i.e., the incidence of schools by grade level (primary, 

middle, high and other)].
 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2013–14 (N = 53,843 schools in sampling frame; n = 1,421 schools in selected sample.).
 

77
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

A small number of data edits were implemented as part of our data processing.20 These edits took the 

form of enforcing logical relationships between variables based on skip patterns, editing data that was 

outside the expected range, and ensuring that counts (e.g., student counts) were consistent across 

items and that subgroup counts summed to totals. 

For example, if a respondent navigated backward through the survey and responded to items that they 

were originally skipped out of as a result of a skip pattern, then we revised these erroneous responses 

that were inconsistent with the skip pattern filter item response. We also edited a small number of 

records if the respondent provided a response that was out of the expected range (e.g., reported 

student and teacher attendance rates that were improbably low). The Improbable responses in these 

cases were replaced with missing values. For survey items that asked for detailed counts (e.g., total 

student enrollment and enrollment by student subgroups), we reviewed to make sure there were no 

inconsistencies or improper values provided. For example, we applied three types of edits to the 

responses on the items asking about student counts by race/ethnicity (principal survey item A3a to A3g): 

1)	 Imputing blanks to zero: If any subitem (A3a to A3g) was blank but other subitems contained 

valid data, then the blank subitem was set to zero. 

2)	 Computing counts from percentages: If the respondent entered a percentage (rather than a 

count) for any student subgroup, then the count was computed by multiplying the percentage 

by the total student count in survey item A1. 

3)	 Ensuring that sum of students by race/ethnicity equals total student count: If the sum of 

students by race/ethnicity (A3a to A3g) did not equal the total student count in A1, then we 

adjusted each subgroup count (A3a to A3g) up or down proportionately using the ratio of the 

sum of A3a to A3g to A1. Using this method, the counts of students by subgroup in A3 sums to 

the total student count in A1. 

Finally, responses marked as “Other-Specify” were reviewed to determine which text responses could 

be coded into one of the provided response options. Fully complete surveys were differentiated from 

partially complete surveys by a disposition code. 

Final Dispositions and Response Rates 

The RSZ method included replacement districts and schools in case the originally sampled unit did not 

participate for some reason and had to be replaced to meet targets. Nine replacement districts were 

added to the 404 districts, resulting in 413 released districts. Twenty-two schools were associated with 

the nine replacement districts and were added to the school sample of 1,421, and an additional 10 

replacement schools were added, resulting in 1,453 released schools. 

20 On both the district and principal surveys, over half of the variables had no edits to their content. Among variables that had 

at least one record edited for content, the median number of edits was two. On the district survey, the most frequently 

edited variable was the A4 series, where A4a through A4g had between 2 percent and 7 percent of records edited. These 

edits typically reflected minor discrepancies between the sum of the A4 race/ethnicity counts and the total student count 

reported in A2; in such cases, the enrollments by race/ethnicity were increased or decreased proportionately so that the sum 

of the details in A4 equaled the total in A2. On the principal survey, the most frequently edited variable was A8, where A8a 

through A8e had between 8 percent and 9 percent of records edited. The edits for this item consisted of correcting 

respondent entry errors such as entering counts of teachers rather than percentages; in such cases, the data were edited to 

reflect the percentage of the total. 

78
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

From the released districts and schools, we ultimately obtained responses that we deemed “complete” 

from 310 districts and 1,042 schools. The definition of a survey as complete versus incomplete will vary 

depending on the length and complexity of a survey. After careful consideration and evaluation of the 

survey content, the study team determined that if 65 percent or more of the survey items produced 

valid responses, this would constitute a sufficient amount of usable data to warrant inclusion in the 

analyses. The 65 percent threshold meant that a principal survey needed to provide usable data for 41 

or more of the 63 items and a district survey needed to provide usable data for 30 or more of the 46 

items. Among those surveys that were deemed “complete,” most fell well above the threshold; among 

the surveys deemed partial and incomplete, most fell far below the threshold. No data from the 

incomplete surveys were included in the data used for analysis. 

A small percentage of the released districts and schools were later deemed ineligible for inclusion in the 

sampling frame. To be eligible for the surveys, a school had to have received Title I funding in either the 

2015–16 or the 2016–17 academic year and a district had to have at least one such school. Districts that 

were closed or included only online schools were ineligible for the survey. Schools that had closed, 

merged with another school, or served only prekindergarten students were not eligible. 

Exhibits A5 and A6 provide more detailed information on the final disposition for each released district 

and school. 

Exhibit A5. Final case disposition for district administrator survey sample 

Final case disposition Count 

Total districts released 413 

Total eligible districts 407 

Survey completed (65% or more of the items answered) 310 

Survey partially completed (less than 65% of the items answered) 35 

Survey not started 62 

Total ineligible districts 6 

District closed 4 

District includes only virtual schools 1 

Only sampled school within district determined to be outside the district’s jurisdiction 1 

Exhibit A6. Final case disposition for school principal survey sample 

Final case disposition Count 

Total schools released 1,453 

Total eligible schools 1,381 

Completed survey (65% or more of the items answered) 1,042 

Partially completed survey (less than 65% of the items answered) 73 

Survey not started 266 

Total ineligible schools 72 

Non-Title I school 44 

School closed 16 

School merged 4 

School outside sampled district’s jurisdiction 2 

School serves prekindergarten only 2 

79
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Response rates for the two surveys were similar: 76 percent for the district survey and 75 percent for 

the school survey. Response rates were calculated using response rate 1 from the American Association 

for Public Opinion Research: dividing the number of completes by the number of all eligible sample 

cases (310 out of 407 eligible districts and 1,042 out of 1,381 eligible schools). 

By chance, the nationally representative sample of Title I schools included 14 schools that were also part 

of the case study sample. Although the principal survey was administered to all case study schools (to 

support the case study analyses), the above response rates, as well as the survey results presented in 

this report, are based just on the responses of the randomly sampled schools. 

Weighting, Nonresponse, and Adjustments 

Base Weights. Weights were created for analysis so that a weighted response sample was unbiased. The 

district and school weights reflected the sample design by taking into account the stratification and 

included adjustments for differential response rates among different subgroups. Within each group in 

each zone in each stratum, the district selection probabilities were calculated as follows: 

nnii × MMDDDDiiii DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDiiii = ∑ii∈ii MMDDDDiiii

where nnii (i.e., a sample size of 1) is the assigned sample size for group i, and MMDDDDiiii is the measure of 

size (as defined earlier) of district j in group i. The district base weight is the reciprocal of the district 

selection probabilities: 

DDDDDDDDDDDDiiii = 1/DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDiiii

Within each district in the sample, the school selection probabilities were calculated as follows: 

nniiiiii DDSSSSDDDDDDDDiiiiii = NNiiiiii

where nniiiiii is the sample size (up to four as discussed earlier) for school level k in district j in group i and 

NNiiiiii is the number of schools in school level k in district j in group i. The school base weight is the 

district base weight times the reciprocal of the school selection probability: 

1

DDSSSSDDDDiiiiii = DDDDDDDDDDDDiiii ∗ DDSSSSDDDDDDDDiiiiii

Nonresponse Bias Analysis, Nonresponse, and Raking Adjustments 

Nonresponse occurred in both the district survey and the school survey. The two types of potential 

nonresponses are unit nonresponse and item nonresponse. Unit nonresponse refers to the fact that not 

all sampled units responded to the survey, whereas item nonresponse occurs when units that 

responded to the survey did not provide responses to some items. Only unit response is evaluated here; 

no adjustments were made to account for item nonresponse. Hereafter, the term nonresponse 

represents unit nonresponse. 

Nonresponse can be dangerous to the accuracy of survey estimates if any difference in the outcome 

variable exists between respondents and nonrespondents. This can cause a systematic deviation of a 

80
 
 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

survey estimate from the population value. This systematic deviation is called nonresponse bias, which 

can be measured as follows: 

...

where B is the nonresponse bias, ... is the mean estimate for the respondents, ... is the mean estimate 

for the nonrespondents, nnnnrr is the number of nonrespondents, and nn is the total number of sampled 

units. In other words, nonresponse bias may occur if the outcome variables correlate with response 

propensity (i.e., the likelihood of response) because the formula suggests that nonresponse bias is a 

function of nonresponse rate and the difference between respondents and nonrespondents. 

However, because information on the outcome variables was not available for nonrespondents, other 

information on the sampling frame (specifically, the sample design variables) was used to assess the 

nonresponse bias. The sample design variables (see details in the Sampling section) included variables 

on the sampling frame that were considered informative about the uniqueness of the units, and none of 

them showed a big difference (all were not greater than 4 percentage points) in distributions between 

the released sample and the response sample except districts with an enrollment less than 1,000, which 

have an 8 percentage point difference. The nonresponse adjusting factors were created through raking 

adjustments. Because there is virtually no harm in including all variables in the weighting adjustments, 

all design variables were included in raking adjustments. Raking was used instead of nonresponse cell 

weighting because raking can include more variables in the weighting process, whereas nonresponse 

cells can quickly become too small as more variables are added. 

The raking adjustment procedure uses an iterative algorithm to revise the nonresponse adjusting 

factors, such that the sum of the nonresponse adjusting factors matched the totals for the original 

sample. Raking was performed using the Stata package ipfraking (Kolenikov 2014). 

The district nonresponse adjusted weights (DDDDDDDDNNDDiiii) were calculated as the district base weight 

(DDDDDDDDDDDDiiii) times the district nonresponse adjusting factor (DDNNDDDDDDiiii): 

DDDDDDDDNNDDiiii = DDDDDDDDDDDDiiii × DDNNDDDDDDiiii

Similarly, the school nonresponse adjusted weights (DDSSSSNNDDiiii) were calculated as the school base 

weight (DDSSSSDDDDiiii) times the school nonresponse adjusting factor (DDNNDDDDDDiiii): 

DDSSSSNNDDiiii = DDSSSSDDDDiiii × DDNNDDDDDDiiii. 

81
 
 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit A7 shows the distribution of districts in the released sample and the responding sample by Title I 

school type (SWP vs. TAP), urbanicity, school level, enrollment size, the percentage of students eligible 

for free or reduced-price lunch, and the percentage of non-Hispanic white students. The differences, 

although in general not large, between the released sample proportions and the responding sample 

proportions were eliminated by the nonresponse adjustments. 

Exhibit A7. Characteristics of released sample and response sample for school district survey 

Percentage Percentage Adjusted percentage 

District characteristics (released sample) (response sample) (response sample) 

Title I program type 

SWP schools only 33 33 33 

TAP schools only 52 51 52 

Both SWP and TAP schools 15 17 15 

At least one school in: 

Primary 90 93 90 

Middle 45 49 45 

High 32 33 32 

Other 16 15 16 

Urbanicity 

Urban 19 17 19 

Suburban 29 30 29 

Town 13 14 13 

Rural 39 39 39 

Total student enrollment 

25,000 or more 12 13 12 

5,000 to 24,999 14 16 14 

1,000 to 4,999 31 34 31 

Less than 1,000 43 37 43 

Percentage of students eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch 

75% or more 26 22 26 

35% to less than 75% 38 40 38 

Less than 35% 37 38 37 

Percentage of non-Hispanic white students 

Less than 50% 35 33 35 

50% or more 65 67 65 

Notes: A total of 413 districts were released, and 310 of them responded. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding or being not
 

mutually exclusive (e.g., the second district characteristic).
 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2013–14.
 

82
 
 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit A8 shows the distribution of schools in the released sample and response sample by Title I school 

type (SWP vs. TAP), urbanicity, school level, enrollment size, the percentage of students eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunch, and percentage of non-Hispanic white students. Similarly, the differences, also 

in general not large, between the released school sample proportions and the responding school sample 

proportions were eliminated by the nonresponse adjustments. 

Exhibit A8. Characteristics of released sample and response sample for principal survey: School level 

School characteristics 

Percentage 

(released sample) 

Percentage 

(response sample) 

Adjusted percentage 

(response sample) 

Title I program type 

SWP 

TAP 

60 

40 

60 

40 

60 

40 

School level 

Primary 

Middle 

High 

Other 

71 

15 

10 

4 

73 

15 

9 

3 

71 

15 

10 

4 

Urbanicity 

Urban 

Suburban 

Town 

Rural 

29 

36 

10 

25 

26 

37 

11 

26 

29 

36 

10 

25 

Total student enrollment 

1,000 or more 

500 to 999 

300 to 499 

Less than 300 

7 

37 

29 

27 

6 

39 

29 

26 

7 

37 

29 

27 

Percentage of students eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunch 

75% or more 

35% to 74% 

Less than 35% 

40 

41 

20 

38 

42 

20 

40 

41 

20 

Percentage of non-Hispanic white students 

Less than 50% 

50% or more 

54 

46 

51 

49 

54 

46 

Notes: A total of 1,453 schools were released, and 1,042 of them responded. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding or being not
 

mutually exclusive (e.g., the second district characteristic).
 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2013–14.
 

83
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

As discussed in the Sampling Design section, because newer data about the student population were 

available at the time of weighting, the nonresponse adjusted district and school weights were calibrated to 

the totals from the list constructed using the 2014–15 CCD and the EDFacts 2014–15 data. This calibration 

also was conducted through the raking adjustment procedure discussed earlier but used the population 

totals from the new data as the control totals. Exhibit A9 shows the distribution of districts and schools in 

the recent population and the response sample adjusted through raking by various district and school 

characteristics. As expected, the distributions are exactly the same or within 1 percentage point. 

Exhibit A9. National survey sampling frame and response sample: District level and school level 

Percentage Percentage 

Percentage (recent Percentage (recent 

(weighted population (weighted population 

District characteristics sample) data) School characteristics sample) data) 

Title I program type Title I program type 

SWP schools only 56 56 SWP 78 78 

TAP schools only 37 37 TAP 22 22 

Both SWP and TAP schools 7 7 

At least one school in: School level 

Primary 15 15 Primary 71 71 

Middle 22 22 Middle 15 15 

High 17 17 High 10 10 

Other 46 46 Other 4 4 

Urbanicity1 Urbanicity 

Urban 15 15 Urban 30 30 

Suburban 22 22 Suburban 27 27 

Town 17 17 Town 14 14 

Rural 46 46 Rural 29 29 

Total student enrollment Total student enrollment 

25,000 or more 2 2 1,000 or more 6 6 

5,000 to 24,999 11 11 500 to 999 35 35 

1,000 to 4,999 35 35 300 to 499 33 33 

Less than 1,000 52 52 Less than 300 26 26 

Percentage of students Percentage of students 

eligible for free or eligible for free or 

reduced-price luncha reduced-price luncha 

75% or more 17 17 75% or more 39 39 

35% to 74% 56 56 35% to 74% 48 48 

Less than 35% 26 26 Less than 35% 13 13 

Percentage of non- Percentage of nonHispanic white students Hispanic white students 

Less than 50% 35 35 Less than 50% 53 54 

50% or more 65 65 50% or more 47 46 

a This is the only variable taken from the 2014–15 CCD Local Education Agency Universe File; all other variables are from the 2014–15 CCD 

Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe File. 

Notes: The district and school weights were calibrated to the totals from the list constructed using the 2014–15 CCD because the data 

contained information that was closer to the data collection window and the data were available only at the time of weighting. Detail may not 

sum to total because of rounding or being not mutually exclusive (e.g., the second district characteristic). 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Public Elementary/Secondary 

School Universe Survey, 2014–15 (n = 310 districts and 1,042 schools). 

84
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Case Studies 

Sample Frame and Selection 

The primary sampling frame for the case study school sites included Title I SWP and TAP schools. The 

study team selected a purposive sample of 35 schools nested within five states (California, Georgia, 

Michigan, New York, and Virginia) using a two-step sampling approach. 

First, the five states were selected from among those states that have a sufficiently large pool of SWP 

and TAP schools that met the school-level criteria and were clustered within districts with schools of the 

same school level and opposite Title I program type. We also sought to balance the state sample across 

geographic regions. 

More specifically, states were required to have (1) at least 28 SWP and 12 TAP schools that met the 

school-level criteria and (2) at least 15 SWP and 15 TAP schools that met the school-level criteria and 

were clustered within districts that had schools of the same school level and opposite Title I program 

(e.g., SWP elementary schools with TAP elementary schools). There were three school-level criteria. To 

be considered for the case study sample, a school had to: (1) be identified as an elementary, middle, or 

high school; (2) have at least 40 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; and 

(3) have data available on urbanicity and accountability status. 

Next, we used an iterative process aimed at balancing school level, urbanicity, school accountability 

status, school size, and student demographics, while limiting (for cost reasons) the total number of 

districts represented in the sample, to select the final sample of case study schools from the five states. 

Although the case study sample is not designed to be nationally representative of all Title I schools, 

these schools were selected to vary on observable state, district, and school characteristics. 

Data Collection 

At each school case study site, research staff conducted interviews with up to 10 respondents: 

• District Title I coordinator 

• District budget official (if different from the Title I coordinator) 

• School principal 

• School budget official (if different from the principal) 

• Up to five school improvement team members, excluding the principal (conducted as a focus group) 

• Title I teacher 

Most of the interviews were done in person. When necessary, the study team also conducted follow-up 

telephone interviews to obtain missing information. The study team conducted a total of 154 interviews 

and focus groups. The protocols used for these interviews and focus groups can be found in Appendix C. 

In addition, as noted in the section above on survey methods, the same principal survey that was 

conducted in the nationally representative sample of Title I schools was also administered to all case 

study schools, for use in the case study analyses. 

85
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Data Analysis 

As previously noted, this study consists of three data sources — surveys of district and school 

administrators, extant data collection, and on-site interviews — all of which contributed to the case 

studies. Our approach to the case study analyses was purposefully integrated, leveraging all data 

sources to enhance our understanding of each school site as a whole and detect patterns across schools 

with different characteristics and contexts. 

Phase I: Preliminary data capture. The first phase of analysis consisted of initial site-specific data 

aggregation. This phase was completed based on the data collected through the case study site visits 

alone. Site visitors completed the preliminary data capture using Microsoft OneNote, a flexible platform 

that enables site visitors to capture audio, enter interview notes, and later to code data. The purpose of 

the preliminary data capture was to systematically record the details of the site visit while they were still 

vivid. This platform facilitated future analyses, ensured that site visitors communicated key features of 

the site visit to other study team members, highlighted unanticipated issues, and noted gaps in data 

collection that would require follow-up. The preliminary data capture template asked site visitors to 

report case information pertaining to five topics: (1) Title I decision-making, (2) use of Title I funds, 

(3) challenges related to Title I, (4) coordination of funds, and (5) general awareness of Title I. 

Site visitors were encouraged to complete all preliminary data capture activities while on-site but were 

required to finalize the preliminary data capture within two weeks of each site visit. After site visitors 

completed the preliminary data capture entry, members of the senior leadership team reviewed the 

entire entry. If reviewers identified inconsistencies or responses that seemed biased or incomplete, the 

reviewers required site visitors to revise them. 

Phase II: Coding. Guided by our conceptual framework, we constructed a preliminary draft code list in 

spring 2017 based on: (1) key components of the conceptual framework, (2) regulatory requirements of 

Title I schools, and (3) topics that were mentioned by respondents and described in the preliminary data 

capture. Subsequent to determining the overall approach to coding and drafting the initial code list, we 

piloted the codes with a subset of qualitative data to determine whether the set of codes covered the 

topics reflected in the data, whether they were of an appropriate grain size, and whether the definitions 

in the codebook were clear. See Appendix E for the full list of codes and their definitions. 

To ensure that our data were coded consistently and reliably, the coding stage involved a multistep 

process that included training, assessments of interrater agreement, frequent debriefing, and review of 

coded data by senior staff. To train staff for the coding process and to assess interrater agreement, two 

senior staff independently coded several pages of an interview transcript. These senior staff then 

discussed and reconciled the few discrepancies in their application of codes and used this coded 

transcript as a “key” against which other staff coding would be judged. The entire team was required to 

code the same interview, which then anchored the coding training. 

Analysts then coded the transcripts for every interview and focus group. The unit of coding was a 

segment of text reflecting a given construct. In some cases, this consisted of one or two sentences, in 

other cases, one or two paragraphs. Analysts were trained to capture comparable segments of text for 

each coded passage, including enough adjacent text to enable a researcher to understand the data 

when a coded passage was retrieved from an interview or focus group. Prior to their use in the next 

stage of analysis, all coded data were reviewed by other analysts. Where inconsistencies were identified, 

the project director communicated with the analyst to make the required revisions. 

86
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Phase III: Within-case analyses. In Phase II, the study team integrated data from the interviews, focus 

groups, and surveys to produce school-level classification rubrics (e.g., high, medium, and low ratings on 

key constructs) and developed case narratives that integrated data in a way that provided a holistic 

understanding of exemplar school cases. A subset of cases that illustrate key aspects of variation among 

the sites can be found in Appendix D. The school-level classification rubrics were used to document and 

facilitate understanding of school-level processes in each site, particularly topics that were of primary 

interest and aligned with the study’s key constructs. The topics selected were those that were conducive 

to generating school-level classifications. The study team identified the appropriate data sources and 

decision rules for assigning a school a specific rating. Overall, the school-level classifications enabled us to 

more accurately describe variation within the set of case study schools as a whole to identify exemplars 

or outliers within the set of schools and describe associations among contextual variables. 

Phase IV: Cross-case analyses. Finally, through a cross-case analysis, the team assessed the prevalence 

of practices across sites, conducted cross-tabulations to detect associations among variables, and 

identified exemplars that communicate Title I practices to policymakers. These activities enabled the 

research team to explore and examine themes and patterns across sites with similar characteristics. 

Although the survey data provided nationally representative findings about key practices in Title I schools 

that could be disaggregated by key variables of interest (e.g., SWP vs. TAP schools), the case study data 

enabled us to examine associations among variables that could not be measured in the survey. 

Extant Data 

Prior to the interviews with school and district officials, the study team sent a request for documents 

(RFD) to the Title I director or other appropriate official at each case study district and the principal of 

each sampled school. These RFDs requested two types of extant data for use in the case studies: 

(1) complete school budgets, together with any related budget narratives; and (2) descriptive 

documents related to Title I spending and planning at both the district and school levels, including Title I 

school improvement plans, spending plans for Title I, funding applications, minutes from budget 

planning meetings, other documents describing the Title I planning process, and any other related 

documents. Budgets and budget narratives were requested for each sampled school for the current and 

previous year (two years total) so that we could better understand patterns of spending over time and 

limit the risk of year-specific anomalies distorting the analysis findings. We also requested a chart of 

accounts from each school’s district21 to aid in coding budgets and student enrollment in each budget 

year to calculate expenditures per pupil. 

To reduce the burden on district or school sites, the RFD clarified that schools could deliver the 

requested data and documents in whatever format was most convenient for the school; the RFD also 

included instructions for providing this information through upload to a secure website. Prior to sites 

gathering materials, the research team arranged for a short discussion with the appropriate staff 

member at each district and school to review the RFD and answer any questions. 

Extant documents, such as school improvement plans, were coded using a similar process as was used for 

analysis of interview data. First, documents were uploaded into OneNote and stored in the same “notebook” 

file as interview data from the same case study site. Site visitors then coded these documents following the 

same set of codes used for the interview data (see the mixed-method codebook in Appendix F). For example, 

21	 Although chart of accounts documents often are available from state education agency websites, each district may have 

unique accounting coding conventions, so it is best to obtain such documents directly from districts. 

87
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

a section in a school’s Title I plan describing its goals for parent engagement would be coded with the same 

code as would an interview passage where the respondent describes the school’s parent engagement 

activities. A list of the committee members who contributed to the Title I plan would be coded with the same 

code as an interview response regarding who was involved in the planning process. 

To analyze the budget data collected, we systematically coded each Title I line item in school budgets 

based on accompanying budget narratives and each line item’s indicated account codes, using each 

district’s chart of accounts for reference. We then created a comprehensive database using Microsoft 

Excel, in which we merged budget files from all case study schools, for two years. In this database, each 

line represented a planned expenditure from a single school. 

To examine which educational interventions and services were supported with Title I funds in the case 

study SWPs and TAPs, we developed a set of cross-cutting codes for the purposes of expenditure (e.g., 

teacher salaries, instructional materials, consultants providing training), based loosely on object codes 

associated with each budget line item and customized to reflect their purpose (e.g., substitutes for general 

coverage vs. substitutes to allow teachers to attend training). The list of codes was developed based on 

information from interviews, codes used for interview analyses, survey items, and strategies described 

in budget narratives. Each budget line item was coded according to this set of codes so that patterns of 

planned expenditures for SWPs and TAPs could be described. 

Disclosure Review 

Responses to the surveys and case studies were used to summarize the findings in an aggregate manner 

(across groups or sites) or provide examples of program implementation in a manner that did not 

associate responses with a specific site or individual. No district, school, or staff member is named in the 

reporting of these data. In preparation for analysis, we also removed all identifiers from the survey data 

file. The study team might refer to the generic title of an individual (e.g., district administrator or 

principal) when reporting results, but neither the site name nor the individual name is used. All efforts 

were made to keep the description of the site general enough so that the reader would never be able to 

determine the identity of the site. In addition, responses to each item in the survey were reviewed for 

potential disclosure risk and suppressed as necessary. 

88
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Appendix B. Additional Exhibits 

Exhibit B1. Ranges of Title I allocations as a percentage of total school budgets, in case study schools, 

2016–17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The presented ranges are based on 22 of the 35 case study schools that provided both total school budgets and Title I budgets. 

Source: Case study schools’ extant budget data (n = 22 schools). 

Exhibit B2. Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff by position type in schoolwide and 

targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

Percentage of Title I Percentage of Title I 

Staff type staff in SWP schools staff in TAP schools 

Teachers*** 41.1 66.6 

Paraprofessionals** 29.4 20.3 

Instructional coaches* 13.9 5.8 

Parent and community liaison*** 3.3 0.8 

EL specialists 2.3 0.9 

Technology support staff 1.1 0.3 

Administrative staff 1.0 1.9 

Curriculum coordinators 0.6 0.2 

Assessment coordinators 0.2 0.1 

Data analysts 0.2 0.1 

Other* 7.0 3.0 

n	 520 

Note: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff are not included in this analysis. The “All other” category includes English 

learner specialists, curriculum coordinators, assessment coordinators, data analysts, administrative staff, technology support staff, and those 

categorized as “other” on the survey. The unlabeled bar segment for parent and community liaisons at TAP schools represents less than 

1 percent of TAP schools. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between SWP and TAP schools: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. 

Source: Principal survey, item D.2. 

89
 

336 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit B3. Common combinations of staff positions paid for with Title I in schoolwide and targeted 

assistance programs, by Title I allocation size, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

Perce

Small 

nt of SWP schools 

Medium Large 

Perce

Small 

nt of TAP schools 

Medium Large 

Only teachers 

Only paraprofessionals 

One or more other staff type 

Teachers and paraprofessionals 

Teachers and one or more other staff type 

Paraprofessionals and one or more other staff type 

Teachers, paraprofessionals, and one or more 

other staff type 

31.7 

2.7 

21.8 

13.7 

4.2 

2.8 

23.1 

18.8 

0.8 

14.7 

20.0 

7.7 

17.9 

20.1 

9.7 

0.7 

3.9 

14.5 

17.5 

16.5 

37.1 

58.2 

5.1 

5.9 

12.2 

4.3 

2.7 

11.6 

59.9 

2.7 

5.2 

17.1 

9.3 

1.2 

4.5 

44.2 

3.3 

0.0 

21.3 

5.4 

2.4 

23.4 

n 52 92 148 109 78 35 

Note: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff are not included in this analysis. Small allocations were defined as less than 

$83,500, medium allocations as $83,500–$187,500, and large allocations as more than $187,500. These ranges were constructed to have 

similar numbers of total schools within each allocation size category. SWP averages are based on 52 schools with small allocations, 92 schools 

with medium allocations, and 148 schools with large allocations. TAP averages are based on 109 schools with small allocations, 78 schools with 

medium allocations, and 35 schools with large allocations. Statistical significance tests were not conducted for this comparison of SWP and TAP 

schools conditional on allocation size. 

Source: Principal survey, item D.2; District survey, item D.4. 

Exhibit B4. Distribution of full-time equivalent Title I staff supporting different services in schoolwide 

and targeted assistance programs, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

Percentage of Title I Percentage of Title I 

Staff Type staff in SWP schools staff in TAP schools 

English\language arts instruction 39 47 

Math instruction 19 20 

Extended time 9 7 

Data support 9 7 

Parent involvement 7 6 

Other subject instruction** 6 2 

EL support 4 6 

Special education support 3 3 

Technology support 3 2 

n 392 221 

Note: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff supporting services are not included in this analysis. The “All other” category 

includes English learner support, special education support, and technology support. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference
 

between SWP and TAP schools: **p < .01.
 

Source: Principal survey, item D.3.
 

90
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Exhibit B5. Common combinations of services supported by Title I staff in schoolwide and targeted 

assistance programs, by Title I allocation size, as reported by principals, 2015–16 

Percent

Small 

age of SWP schools 

Medium Large 

Percent

Small 

age of TAP schools 

Medium Large 

Reading only 

Math only 

One or more other service 

Reading and math 

Reading and one or more other service 

Math and one or more other service 

Reading, math, and one or more other service 

6.2 

3.8 

6.0 

15.6 

28.4 

3.6 

36.5 

9.9 

0.0 

5.8 

13.8 

19.7 

0.5 

50.3 

9.0 

0.2 

5.3 

8.3 

20.4 

1.1 

55.6 

22.9 

3.1 

4.9 

33.9 

16.7 

1.3 

17.2 

31.4 

0.0 

6.3 

12.9 

22.1 

3.0 

24.2 

23.2 

0.0 

18.8 

11.6 

4.1 

0.0 

42.3 

n 39 75 121 72 56 21 

Notes: Schools that did not report using Title I funds for FTE staff supporting services are not included in this analysis. Small Title I allocations 

were defined as less than $83,500, medium allocations as $83,500–$187,500, and large allocations as more than $187,500. These ranges were 

constructed to have similar numbers of total schools within each allocation size category. SWP averages are based on 39 schools with small 

allocations, 75 schools with medium allocations, and 121 schools with large allocations. TAP averages are based on 72 schools with small 

allocations, 56 schools with medium allocations, and 21 schools with large allocations. Statistical significance tests were not conducted for this 

comparison of SWP and TAP schools conditional on allocation size. 

Source: Principal survey, item D.3; District survey, item D.4. 

91
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Appendix C. Data Collection Instruments 

District Survey, 2016–17 School Year 

A. District Characteristics 

A.1.	 Since September 2011, how many different people have served as Superintendent (or acting 

Superintendent) in your district? 

Please provide a number in the box below. 

Number of Superintendents since September 2011 

A.2.	 Around the first of October 2016, how many of the students enrolled in your district were: 

Please provide a number for each row. If “0”, select the box “None”. 

Number of Students 

a. Students in grades K-12 and ungraded levels  None 

b. Students in public preschool programs  None 

c. TOTAL number of students 

A.3.	 Of all the students enrolled in grades K-12 in your district around the first of October 2016, how many 

were: 

Please provide a number for each row. If “0”, select the box “None”. Students can be counted in more than 

one category. 

Number of Students 

a. Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch?  None 

 Check here if any 

schools are 

implementing the 

Community Eligibility 

Provision (CEP). 

b. Students with individualized education plans 

(IEPs)? 

 None 

c. English language learners (ELLs)?  None 

d. Migrant students (students who move from school 

to school because they are children of migrant 

agricultural workers, including migratory dairy 

workers and migratory fishers)? 

 None 

93
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

A.4.	 Of all the students enrolled in grades K-12 in your district around the first of October 2016, how many 

were: 

Please provide a number in each row. If “0”, select the box “None”.
 

Please only include each student in one category below so none are double-counted.
 

Number of Students 

1. Race/Ethnicity 

a. Hispanic or Latino, of any race?  None 

b. American Indian or Alaska Native, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

c. Asian, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

d. Black or African American, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

f. White, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

g. Two or More Races, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

h. TOTAL number of students (sum of items A4a through A4g above) 

A.5. What is the total number of schools in each of the following categories in your district? 

Please provide a number in each row. If “0”, select the box “None”. 

Total Number of Schools 

a. Title I Schoolwide Programs  None 

b. Title I Targeted Assistance Programs  None 

c. Non-Title I schools  None 

d. TOTAL of all schools in the district (sum of items A5a, A5b and A5c 

above) 

94
 
Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

B. District Context and Interventions 

B.1. To what extent do each of the following represent a districtwide challenge? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Not a 

challenge 

Minor 

challenge 

Moderate 

challenge 

Serious 

challenge 

a. Frequent changes in 

state policy or reform 

priorities 

1 2 3 4 

b. Frequent changes in 

district policy or 

reform priorities 

1 2 3 4 

c. Changes in district 

leadership 1 2 3 4 

d. High rate of teacher 

turnover 

1 2 3 4 

e. Shortage of qualified 

teachers 1 2 3 4 

f. Shortage of substitute 

teachers 1 2 3 4 

g. Inadequate school 

facilities 1 2 3 4 

h. Inadequate 

technology 

infrastructure 

1 2 3 4 

i. State and federal 

programs that come 

and go frequently 

1 2 3 4 

j. Paperwork associated 

with state and federal 

programs 

1 2 3 4 

k. Resistance from 

teachers for new 

initiatives 

1 2 3 4 

l. School safety 1 2 3 4 

95
 
 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

B.2.	 In the current school year (2016-17), please indicate the extent to which your district is focusing on the 

following efforts to help improve student outcomes. 

Please select one answer in each row. 

District is... 

Not 

a focus 

Minor 

focus 

Moderate 

focus 

Major 

focus 

a. Using student achievement data to 

inform instruction and school 

improvement 

1 2 3 4 

b. Aligning curriculum and instruction 

with standards and/or assessments 1 2 3 4 

c. Implementing new instructional 

approaches or curricula in 

reading/language arts/English 

1 2 3 4 

d. Implementing new instructional 

approaches or curricula in 

mathematics 

1 2 3 4 

e. Reducing class size 1 2 3 4 

f. Providing additional supports to lowachieving students 1 2 3 4 

g. Expanding the use of technology 1 2 3 4 

h. Increasing instructional time for all 

students (e.g., by lengthening the 

school day or year, shortening recess) 

1 2 3 4 

i. Providing extended-time instructional 

programs (e.g., before-school, afterschool or weekend instructional 

programs) 

1 2 3 4 

j. Implementing strategies for increasing 

parents’ involvement in their children’s 

education 

1 2 3 4 

k. Increasing the intensity, focus, and 

effectiveness of professional 

development 

1 2 3 4 

l. Coordinating with other public 

agencies to provide health and social 

services for students 

1 2 3 4 

96
 
Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

B.3. In about what month were Title I budgets made for the current school year (2016-17). 

Please enter month as a number (e.g., January = 01). If you have not been involved in this process, select “I 

don’t know.” 

Enter Month 

a. When did schools in your district usually begin working on their Title I plans for 

the current school year? 

 I don’t know 

b. When did the central district office release information on the Title I-funded 

personnel and non-personnel they provided to schools? 

 I don’t know 

c. When were school-controlled (discretionary) Title I budgets for the current 

school year made available to schools by the central district office? 

 I don’t know 

d. When were final Title I plans for schools due? 

 I don’t know 

e. When were final budget plans for schools due? 

 I don’t know 

97
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

C. Title I Decision-Making in Your District 

The next set of questions asks about the use of financial resources in your district, specifically with regard to 

Title I programs. 

C.0.	 Does your district have only schoolwide programs, only targeted assistance programs, or both 

schoolwide and targeted assistance programs? 

Please select one answer. 

 Only schoolwide programs  Go to Question C1 

 Only targeted assistance programs  Go to Question C4, located in the middle of page 8 

 Both schoolwide and targeted assistance programs  Go to Question C2, below 

C.1. Please read the following definitions about Coordination or Consolidation of funding. Then 

select one of the following statements most accurately reflects how Title I Schoolwide 

Programs in your district use Title I funds and funds from other sources? 

•	 Coordination of funding is when Title I funding is strategically used in conjunction with funding 

from other federal, state or local sources to best serve students, but records are maintained 

showing how the Title I dollars were spent on eligible students. 

•	 Consolidation of funding is when Title I funds are pooled together with funding from other 

federal, state or local sources to best serve students, and dollars do not have to be tracked to 

eligible Title I students. 

Please select one answer 

 Most schoolwide programs coordinate funds from Title I with funds from other federal, state, 

and local sources.  Go to Question C3 on page 8 

 Most schoolwide programs consolidate funds from Title I and other sources into a single pot of 

funds that is used to support activities under the schoolwide program.  Go to Question C3 on 

page 8 

C.2. Please read the following definitions about Coordination or Consolidation of funding. Then select 

one of the following statements most accurately reflects how Title I Schoolwide Programs in your 

district use Title I funds and funds from other sources? 

•	 Coordination of funding is when Title I funding is strategically used in conjunction with funding from 

other federal, state or local sources to best serve students, but records are maintained showing how 

the Title I dollars were spent on eligible students. 

•	 Consolidation of funding is when Title I funds are pooled together with funding from other federal, 

state or local sources to best serve students, and dollars do not have to be tracked to eligible Title I 

students. 

Please select one answer 

 Most schoolwide programs coordinate funds from Title I with funds from other federal, state, and 

local sources. 

 Most schoolwide programs consolidate funds from Title I and other sources into a single pot of 

funds that is used to support activities under the schoolwide program. 

 Most schoolwide programs use Title I funds more flexibly than targeted assistance programs but do 

not consolidate funds from other programs. 

 Most schoolwide programs use Title I funds in a similar manner as targeted assistance programs. 

98
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

C.3.	 Please indicate the extent to which any of the following are challenges to consolidating Title I funds with 

funds from other sources in Title I Schoolwide Programs in your district? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Type of Challenge 

Not a 

challenge 

Minor 

challenge 

Moderate 

challenge 

Major 

challenge 

a. State accounting rules require 

separate accounting for federal 

program funds 

1 2 3 4 

b. District accounting rules require 

separate accounting for federal 

program funds 

1 2 3 4 

c. Concern about potential audit 

exceptions 1 2 3 4 

d. Lack of information about how to 

consolidate funds 1 2 3 4 

e. Reluctance associated with sharing 

resources and/or funding across 

programs 

1 2 3 4 

f. Need for more training and 

understanding of programmatic issues 

by district finance staff 

1 2 3 4 

g. Need for more training and 

understanding of finance issues by 

district program staff 

1 2 3 4 

h. Other (please specify below): 

1 2 3 4 

C.4.	 Please choose the response that best describes how your district made Title I allocations to schools 

for the 2016-17 school year: 

Please select one answer 

 Placed schools in rank order by poverty within each grade span 

 Served schools without regard to grade span 

 Used feeder patterns to determine eligibility for secondary schools 

 Applied 125% minimum per-child allocation rule 

 Other (please specify below): 

99
 
Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

C.5.	 Which of the following poverty measures are used by your district for Title I school allocations? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No 

a. Children eligible for free and reduced-price lunches 1 2 

b. Children eligible for free lunches only 1 2 

c. Children in families receiving assistance under the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 1 2 

d. Children in families receiving assistance under the state 

program funded under Title IV Part A of the Social 

Security Act - “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” 

(TANF) 

1 2 

e. Children eligible to receive medical assistance under the 

Medicaid program 1 2 

f. Other (please specify below): 

1 2 

C.6. How much influence does the district or school (school committee, principal, and/or individual 

teachers) have on the following decisions or activities? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Mostly a district 

decision 

Mostly a school 

decision 

Decision evenly 

shared between 

district and school 

a. Hiring new teachers 1 2 3 

b. Selecting textbooks 1 2 3 

c. Selecting professional development 

activities for teachers 1 2 3 

d. Developing a school improvement 

plan or action plan 1 2 3 

e. Planning school budgets 1 2 3 

f. Planning use of Title I funds 1 2 3 

100
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

C.7.	 To what extent are each of the following groups of people involved in making decisions about how 

Title I funds are used in your district? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

No 

involvement 

Limited 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement 

Substantial 

involvement 

Not 

applicable 

a. District Title I 

administrators 1 2 3 4 5 

b. District fiscal 

administrators (other 

than Title I) 

1 2 3 4 5 

c. District curriculum or 

instructional 

administrators 

1 2 3 4 5 

d. Superintendent 1 2 3 4 5 

e. School board 1 2 3 4 5 

f. Principals and other 

school administrators 1 2 3 4 5 

g. Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 

h. Parents and other 

community members 1 2 3 4 5 

101
 
 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D. Use of Title I Funds 

D.1.	 Please use the table below to report how Title I funding was spent in the previous school year (2015-16) 

for your district. 

Please enter the dollar amount to the nearest $500. For example $100,500.
 

If there are no dollars to report, please enter $0.
 

Be sure not to double count the dollars entered in a, b, and c, below.
 

Amount in 

Dollars 

a. Title I dollars spent by the district on resources for public schools and Title I 

dollars provided to individual public schools to use at their discretion 

b. Title I dollars used for services for private school students 

c. Title I dollars retained for spending on central district office resources 

d. TOTAL Title I dollars in previous school year (2015-16). Sum of D1a, D1b, and 

D1c 

D.2. Please use the table below to report how district Title I spending on school-level 

resources and dollars provided to individual public schools were spent in the previous
 

school year (2015-16).
 

Please enter the dollar amount to the nearest $500. For example $100,500.
 

If there are no dollars to report, please enter $0.
 

 

Amount in 

Dollars 

a. Title I dollars spent by the district on personnel used at schools 

b. Title I dollars spent by the district on non-personnel at schools 

c. Title I dollars provided to individual public schools to use at their discretion 

d. TOTAL Title I dollars spent by the district on schools 

Sum of D2a, D2b and D2c should equal amount in row a. of question D.1 above 

102
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D.3. Please use the table below to provide additional detail on the Title I dollars retained for spending at 

the central district office in the previous school year (2015-16). For your reference, the total dollars 

retained for spending at the central district office has been filled from row c in question D.1 on the 

previous page. 

Please enter the dollar amount to the nearest $500. For example $100,500. If there are no dollars to report, 

please enter $0. 

Amount in Dollars 

TOTAL DOLLARS RETAINED FOR SPENDING AT THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE 

Enter total from Question D.1.c on page 11 here 

PERSONNEL 

TOTAL DOLLARS – PERSONNEL SPENDING 

Enter total from Questions D.3.a through D.3.k from below here 

Administration 

Instruction and Instructional Support 

Coordination 

a. Curriculum Development 

b. Student Assessment 

c. Extracurricular Activities 

d. English Learner Program 

e. Special Education Program 

Pupil Support Coordination 

f. Student Health Services 

g. Psychology and Therapy 

Services 

h. Guidance and Counseling 

Services 

i. Social Work Services 

Professional Development Services and 

Coordination j. Professional Development 

Other (please specify below) 

k. Other 

NON-PERSONNEL 

TOTAL DOLLARS – NON-PERSONNEL SPENDING 

Enter total from Questions D.3.l through D.3.o below here 

l. Professional Development 

m. Supplies and Materials 

n. Technology Hardware and Software 

o. Other (please specify below) 

103
 
 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

For the next three questions, please refer to the list of school(s) provided in the letter that accompanied this 

survey. 

D.4. We would like more information about how Title I funding allocated to individual public Title I schools in 

your district was spent in the previous school year (2015-16). If more than five schools in your district were 

sampled for this study, we have taken a random sample and provided the sampled school names in the 

letter that accompanied this survey. For each school listed, please provide the respective Title I spending in 

dollars. 

Please enter the dollar amount to the nearest $500. For example $10,500. If there are no dollars to report, 

please enter $0. 

Enter the names of the schools that are listed on the second page of letter you received. If you are unable to 

locate this information, please contact the AIR Help Desk by email at swp-tapstudy@air.org or by phone at 

1-866-261-2295 and choose Option 7. 

Schools 

Column 1 

Name of 

School 1 

Column 2 

Name of 

School 2 

Column 3 

Name of 

School 3 

Column 4 

Name of 

School 4 

Column 5 

Name of 

School 5 

Enter the school 

names found in 

letter here 

a. TOTAL Title I allocation for 

this school (sum of D4b, 

D4c, and D4d below) 

$ $ $ $ $ 

b. Title I funding spent by the 

district on personnel in this 

school 

$ $ $ $ $ 

c. Title I funding spent by the 

district on non-personnel 

in this school 

$ $ $ $ $ 

d. Title I funding provided 

directly to this school for 

discretionary purchases of 

personnel and nonpersonnel resources 

$ $ $ $ $ 

104
 
Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D.5. For each school listed below, what was the total number of Title I-funded Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTEs) 

in the following personnel categories for the previous school year (2015-16)? 

Please enter the FTE amount to the nearest 0.1. For example 0.5 FTE. If there are no FTEs to report, please 

enter 0. 

Personnel 

Number of FTEs STAFF in each School Listed 

Column 1 

Name of 

School 1 

Column 2 

Name of 

School 2 

Column 3 

Name of 

School 3 

Column 4 

Name of 

School 4 

Column 5 

Name of 

School 5 

Enter the school 

names found in 

letter here 

Administration 

a. School Administrators 

Instruction and Instructional Support 

b. Classroom Teachers 

c. Paraprofessionals 

d. Substitute Teachers 

e. Extracurricular Activity 

Coordinators 

f. Library and Media 

Specialists 

g. English Learner 

Specialists 

h. Special Education 

Specialists 

Pupil Support 

i. Parent and Community 

Liaisons 

j. Nurses and Health 

Workers 

k. Psychologists and 

Therapists 

l. Guidance Counselors 

m. Social Workers 

n. Other 

105
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D.6. In the previous school year (2015-16), what was the total amount of Title I dollars spent on the 

following non-personnel expenditure categories by the district at each school listed below? For 

your reference, the total non-personnel dollars for each school has been filled from row c in 

question D.4 on page 13. 

Please enter the dollar amount to the nearest $500. For example $10,500. If there are no dollars to report, 

please enter $0. 

Non-Personnel 

SCHOOLS 

Column 1 

Name of 

School 1 

Column 2 

Name of 

School 2 

Column 3 

Name of 

School 3 

Column 4 

Name of 

School 4 

Column 5 

Name of 

School 5 

Enter the school 

names found in 

letter here 

TOTAL FROM D4c 

Now, enter the total from 

D4c, page 13, Columns 1-5 in 

corresponding Columns 1-5 

here 

TOTAL FOR D6 

For each Column, sum rows 

D6a through D6f and enter 

total here. 

This total should match the 

amount you entered in the 

row above for D4c 

a. Professional Development $ $ $ $ $ 

b. Textbooks $ $ $ $ $ 

c. Supplies and Materials $ $ $ $ $ 

d. Technology Hardware and 

Software $ $ $ $ $ 

e. Other Contracted Services 

(not included in other 

categories) 

$ $ $ $ $ 

f. Resources for Parent 

Engagement $ $ $ $ $ 

106
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

E. Your Professional Development and Background 

E.1. Including the current school year (2016-17), how long have you worked as a district-level Title 

I administrator, district-level administrator, and/or school-level administrator? 

YEARS MONTHS 

a. 

b. 

c. 

Total amount of time as a district-level Title I administrator 

Total amount of time as a district-level administrator 

Total amount of time as a school-level administrator 

| | | 

| | | 

| | | 

| | | 

| | | 

| | | 

E.2. In your role as a district Title I administrator, have you participated in any training regarding 

Title I policies and regulations? 

Please select one answer. 

 Yes, I participated in training on issues related to Title I 

If yes, in what year did you participate in the Year participated 

training? 

 No, I did not participate in any training related to Title I 

107
 
 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

E.3. During the previous school year (2015-16) or the current school year (2016-17, including the 

summer of 2016):
 

In Column A, did your district need technical assistance from an outside source (e.g., the state 

Department of Education) to do any of the following?
 

In Column B, regardless of need, did you receive technical assistance in these areas?
 

In Column C, if technical assistance was received, was the assistance sufficient to meet your needs? 

In each row, indicate whether the specified type of assistance was needed, received, and if received, if it was 

sufficient to meet your needs. 

District received 

technical assistance 

intended to... 

Column A 

Needed? 

Column B 

Received? 

Column C 

Sufficient? 

No Yes No Yes 

If yes, 

then go to 

Column C 

No Yes 

a. Support Title I schools 

conducting needs 

assessments or setting 

goals 

1 2 1 2 1 2 

b. Provide assistance to 

Title I schools to develop 

strategic plans and 

corresponding budgets 

1 2 1 2 1 2 

c. Monitor progress of 

Title I schools towards 

meeting their goals 

1 2 1 2 1 2 

d. Improve understanding 

of how Title I and other 

revenues could be used 

more flexibly through 

coordination or 

commingling of funding 

sources 

1 2 1 2 1 2 

e. Analyze and revise the 

district’s budget to use 

resources more 

effectively 

1 2 1 2 1 2 

108
 
Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

F. Request for District Title I Allocation Data 

As part of this study on Title I schoolwide and targeted assistance programs, we are requesting information 

about your district’s within-district allocation of Title I funds for each school in the 2016-17 school year. 

Please provide a list of all schools in the district (including non-Title I schools) that includes 

the following seven data items for each school: 

1.	 School name 

2.	 National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) and/or state identification code 

3.	 Grade span 

4.	 Type of Title I program (targeted assistance, schoolwide program, or non-Title I school) 

5.	 Amount of Title I funds allocated to the school 

6.	 Number of low-income students (used for determining Title I school eligibility and allocations) 

7.	 Total number of students (used for determining school poverty rate for Title I allocation purposes) 

Data Format: Please provide the data in a machine-readable electronic format (e.g., Excel spreadsheet or 

other type of spreadsheet, or ASCII (text) format, etc.). 

How to Submit the Data: You may submit the data file one of two ways. Please select the option that is most 

convenient. 

 Use AIR’s secure FTP website located here: site located here: https://www.TitleOneSWPTAPStudy.org. 

 I will MAIL a disk containing the file(s) to the following physical address: 

Katelyn Lee
 

American Institutes for Research
 

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
 

Washington, D.C. 20007
 

109
 
Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

G. Share your thoughts about Title I 

G.1. Is there is anything else you would like to tell us about the use of Title I funds in your district? Please 

enter your comments below. 

Thank you for completing the survey. We very much appreciate your time! 

110
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Principal Survey, 2016–17 School Year
 

A. School Characteristics 

A.1	 Around the first of October 2016, what was the total number of students enrolled in grades K-12 in your 

school? Please provide a number in the box below. 

Number of students 

A.2	 Of all the students enrolled in grades K-12 in your school around the first of October 2016, how 

many were...: Please provide a number for each row. If “0”, mark (X) “None”. Students can be counted 

in more than one category. 

Number of Students 

a. Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch?  None 

b. Students with individualized education plans (IEPs)?  None 

c. English language learners (ELLs)?  None 

d. 

Migrant students (students who move from school to school because 

they are children of migrant agricultural workers, including migratory 

dairy workers and migratory fishers)? 

 None 

A.3	 Of all the students enrolled in grades K-12 in your school around the first of October 2016, how 

many were...: 

Please provide a number in each row. If “0”, mark (X) “None”.
 

Please only include each student in one category below so none are double-counted.
 

Number of Students 

Race/Ethnicity 

a. Hispanic or Latino, of any race?  None 

b. American Indian or Alaska Native, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

c. Asian, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

d. Black or African American, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

f. White, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

g. Two or More Races, not Hispanic or Latino?  None 

h. TOTAL number of students 

111
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

A.4	 In the previous school year (2015-16), what was your school’s attendance rate for: 

Enter a percent. 

Attendance Rate 

(Percent) 

a. Students % 

b. Teachers % 

A.5 Has your school been identified with a federal or state accountability designation for the current 

school year (2016-17)? Please mark (X) Yes or No in each row. 

Yes No 

Federal Accountability Designations 

a. Priority school 1 0 

b. Focus school 1 0 

c. Reward school 1 0 

State Accountability Designations 

a. High-performing - received a reward or designation for high level of 

performance or improvement 

1 0 

b. Expected performance - achieved expected performance, no special 

designation 

1 0 

c. Low-performing - identified as a result of low performance or decline in 

performance 

1 0 

A.6	 How many full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers taught in your school during the previous school year 

(2015-16)? 

Please enter the FTE amount to the nearest 0.1. For example 1⁄2 FTE as 0.5.
 

Number of FTE teachers
 

A.7	 How many full-time equivalent teachers (FTEs) were newly hired into your school this school year (2016-17)? 

Please enter the FTE amount to the nearest 0.1. For example 1⁄2 FTE as 0.5.
 

Number of FTE teachers
 

112
 
 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

A.8	 Please estimate the percentage of teachers currently in your school with the following years of teaching 

experience. 

Enter a percent below. 

Percentage of 

teachers in the school 

a. No teaching experience (first year teachers) % 

b. 1-5 years of teaching experience % 

c. 6-10 years of teaching experience % 

d. 11-20 years of teaching experience % 

e. 21 or more years of teaching experience % 

TOTAL 100% 

113
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

B. School Context and Interventions 

B.1	 In the current school year (2016-17), please indicate the extent to which your school is focusing on the 

following strategies in its improvement efforts. 

Please mark (X) one answer in each row. 

School is... 

Not 

a focus 

Minor 

focus 

Moderate 

focus 

Major 

focus 

a. Using student achievement data to inform 

instruction and school improvement 1 2 3 4 

b. Aligning curriculum and instruction with standards 

and/or assessments 1 2 3 4 

c. Implementing new instructional approaches or 

curricula in reading/language arts/English 1 2 3 4 

d. Implementing new instructional approaches or 

curricula in mathematics 1 2 3 4 

e. Providing additional instruction to low-achieving 

students 1 2 3 4 

f. Restructuring the school day to teach core content 

areas in greater depth (e.g., establishing a literacy 

block) 

1 2 3 4 

g. Increasing instructional time for all students (e.g., by 

lengthening the school day or year, shortening 

recess) 

1 2 3 4 

h. Providing extended-time instructional programs 

(e.g., before-school, after-school, or weekend 

instructional programs) 

1 2 3 4 

i. Implementing strategies for increasing parents’ 

involvement in their children’s education 1 2 3 4 

j. Increasing the intensity, focus, and effectiveness of 

professional development 1 2 3 4 

B.2 Thinking about the current school year (2016-17), what do you consider to be the most promising 

strategies your school is implementing to support improved student outcomes? 

Strategies 

a. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

b. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

c. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

114
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

B.3	 Please indicate if you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with each of the following 

statements about your school environment. 

Please mark (X) one answer for each row. 

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly 

Agree 

a. Once we start a new program, we follow up to 

make sure that it’s working. 1 2 3 4 

b. I worry that we are adopting too many different 

programs and practices in this school. 1 2 3 4 

c. This school generally chooses only those school 

improvement opportunities that fit with our 

improvement goals and strategies. 

1 2 3 4 

B.4 To what extent is each of the following issues currently a challenge for your school? 

Please mark (X) one answer in each row. 

Type of Challenge 

Not a 

challenge 

Minor 

challenge 

Moderate 

challenge 

Major 

challenge 

a. Large class size and/or case load 1 2 3 4 

b. Lack of safety in or around the school 1 2 3 4 

c. Inadequate or substandard facilities 1 2 3 4 

d. Inadequate supports for the lowestachieving students 1 2 3 4 

e. Too few textbooks and other instructional 

materials 1 2 3 4 

f. Textbooks and instructional materials that 

are not aligned with state standards 1 2 3 4 

g. Poor student discipline 1 2 3 4 

h. Insufficient parent involvement 1 2 3 4 

i. Low and/or erratic student attendance 1 2 3 4 

j. Insufficient access to technology 1 2 3 4 

k. Frequent changes in district policy and 

reform priorities 1 2 3 4 

l. Changes in district leadership 1 2 3 4 

m. High rate of teacher turnover 1 2 3 4 

n. Shortages of qualified teachers 1 2 3 4 

o. Other (please specify): 1 2 3 4 

115
 
 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

B.5 To what extent have you used student assessment results to...: 

Please mark (X) one answer in each row. 

Did not use 

in this way 

Used 

minimally 

Used 

moderately 

Used 

extensively 

a. Identify and correct gaps in the curriculum 

for all students? 1 2 3 4 

b. Recommend tutoring or other educational 

services for students? 1 2 3 4 

c. Plan professional development activities for 

teachers? 1 2 3 4 

d. Develop or revise our school improvement 

plan or strategic plan? 1 2 3 4 

e. Allocate financial resources? 1 2 3 4 

B.6	 Please indicate if you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with each of the following 

statements. 

Please mark (X) one answer in each row. 

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly 

Agree 

a. When district officials make a commitment 

to our school, they always follow through. 1 2 3 4 

b. Administrators in my district have expertise 

and skills that are relevant for our school. 1 2 3 4 

c. District officials send mixed messages about 

district policies. 1 2 3 4 

d. District officials express genuine concern 

about the challenges our school faces. 1 2 3 4 

e. I have sufficient support from the district for 

trying new things in my school. 1 2 3 4 

116
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

C. Decision-Making in Your School 

C.1	 Please indicate if you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with each of the following 

statements. 

Please mark (X) one answer in each row. 

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly 

Agree 

a. I understand how resources (personnel and nonpersonnel) and funding are allocated to my school. 

1 2 3 4 

b. I have input regarding how the dollars in my 

school budget are spent. 

1 2 3 4 

c. I have sufficient autonomy to implement an 

instructional program that meets the needs of the 

students in my school. 

1 2 3 4 

d. I have the resources (personnel and nonpersonnel) I need to try new things in my school. 

1 2 3 4 

C.2 In this section we would like to gauge your level of familiarity with the following aspects of Title I. For 

each of the following statements, please indicate your overall knowledge about Title I funding. 

Please mark (X) one answer in each row. 

I’m really 

not sure 

I have a 

general idea, 

but I am not 

clear on the 

details 

I have a good 

understanding 

of this, and I 

can explain it 

to others 

a. How Title I funding levels are determined across 

schools within my district 1 2 3 

b. Title I regulations and how they apply to my 

school 1 2 3 

c. The overall purpose of providing Title I funds to 

schools 1 2 3 

C2a. Please select the statement that indicates the school year(s) in which your school received Title I funds. 

Please mark (X) only one answer. 

 We received Title I funds in 2015-16 but not in 2016-17 Go to D1 

 We received Title I funds in both 2015-16 and 2016-17 Go to C3 

 We received Title I funds in only 2016-17	 Go to C3 

C.3	 Which statement would best characterize your school’s use of Title I funds over the past three school years? 

Please mark (X) only one answer. 

 We have not changed how we use our Title I funding over the past three years. 

 We have made minor adjustments on how we use our Title I funding over the past three years. 

 We have significantly revised how we use our Title I funding over the last three years. 

 Not applicable – we have received Title I funds for less than three years. 

117
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

C.4	 How frequently do you make revisions to your Title I spending during a given school year? 

Please mark (X) only one answer. 

 We revisit our Title I budget more than two times during the school year and may make changes to our 

Title I spending. 

 We revisit our Title I budget once or twice during the school year and may make changes to our Title I 

spending. 

 We make ad hoc, as-needed adjustments to our Title I spending during the school year. 

 I am not involved in decisions regarding the use of Title I funds. 

 We do not make any changes to our Title I spending during the school year. 

C.5	 Which statement would best characterize your school’s involvement in making decisions about the use of 

Title I funds? 

Please mark (X) only one answer. 

 District staff make all decisions on how to use Title I funds. 

 District staff make almost all decisions on how to use Title I funds, but we have some Title I funds we 

can spend as we choose. 

 Our school provides input to district staff who then decide how to use Title I funds on our behalf. 

 Our school works closely with district staff to decide how to use Title I funds. 

 Our school largely decides how to use Title I funds with minimal input from district staff. 

C.6	 How much influence do the district or school have on the following decisions or activities? 

Please mark (X) one answer in each row. 

Mostly a 

district 

decision 

Mostly a school 

decision 

Decision evenly 

shared 

between 

district and 

school 

a. Hiring new teachers 1 2 3 

b. Selecting curricula 1 2 3 

c. Selecting professional development activities 

for teachers 1 2 3 

d. Developing a school improvement plan or 

strategic plan 1 2 3 

e. Planning your school’s budget 1 2 3 

f. Planning your school’s use of Title I funds 1 2 3 

118
 
 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

C.7	 Now we would like to know in what month decisions about Title I budget plans were made for the current 

school year (2016-17). 

Please enter month as a number (e.g., January = 01). If you have not been involved in this process, mark (X) I 

don’t know”. 

Select Month 

a. When does your school usually begin work on 

the Title I plan for the next school year? 

 I don’t know, I haven’t been 

involved in this process. 

b. When do you find out about all of the Title I 

resources (funds and personnel) provided to 

your school? 

 I don’t know, I haven’t been 

involved in this process. 

c. When do you find out about the amount of 

Title I funds that you can control 

(discretionary) at the school level? 

 I don’t know, I haven’t been 

involved in this process. 

d. When is your final school-level Title I plan 

due? 

 I don’t know, I haven’t been 

involved in this process. 

e. When do you receive the Title I funds that 

you can control at the school level? 

 I don’t know, I haven’t been 

involved in this process. 

C.8	 In what month does your school usually conduct a needs assessment to inform your Title I planning for 

next school year? 

Please enter month as a number (e.g., January = 01). If you have not been involved in this process, mark (X) 

“I don’t know.” If your school does not conduct a needs assessment for this purpose, please mark (X) “Our 

school does not conduct a needs assessment for this purpose.”. 

Select Month 

 

 I don’t know, I haven’t been involved in this process. 

 Our school does not conduct a needs assessment for this purpose.  GO TO D1 

C.9	 To what extent are each of the following individuals involved in conducting the needs assessment for Title 

I planning? 

Please mark (X) one answer in each row. 

No 

involvement 

Limited 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement 

Substantial 

involvement 

a. School administrators 1 2 3 4 

b. District administrators 1 2 3 4 

c. Teachers 1 2 3 4 

d. Instructional Coaches 1 2 3 4 

e. Parents 1 2 3 4 

f. Community Members 1 2 3 4 

g. Students 1 2 3 4 

h. Other (please specify): 

1 2 3 4 

119
 
 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D. Use of Title I Funds 

For this section, it will be helpful if you can refer to your school’s budget (including Title I) and staffing plan. 

D.1	 For the previous school year (2015-16) what was the school-controlled portion of the Title I allocation for 

your school? 

The school-controlled portion includes those Title I dollars directly provided by the district to your school to 

be used at your discretion to provide services under a schoolwide or targeted assistance Title I program. 

$ School-controlled portion of the Title I allocation for school year 2015-16 

 I don’t know 

 Not applicable, our school did not receive Title I Funds in school year 2015-16.  GO TO D.6 

D.2	 For the previous school year (2015-16), how many full-time equivalent (FTE) certificated and other staff in 

each of the following categories were funded by Title I (either from your school-controlled portion or 

directly provided by the district)? 

•	 Certificated staff are employed in positions that require a professional education certificate/credentials 

that are registered with the local district employer. 

•	 Other staff are employed in positions that do not require certification. 

Please enter the FTE amount to the nearest 0.1. For example if a teacher works 1⁄2 time enter 0.5. If “0”, mark 

(X) “None”. 

Full time Equivalent (FTE) Staff 

Certificated Other Staff 

a. Teachers 

 None  None 

b. Paraprofessionals (e.g., teacher aides, instructional 

assistants)  None  None 

c. Instructional coaches 

 None  None 

d. English Language Learner (ELL) specialists  None  None 

e. Curriculum coordinators 

 None  None 

f. Assessment coordinators 

 None  None 

g. Data analysts  None  None 

h. Administrative staff (e.g., principals, assistant principals)  None  None 

i. Technology support staff  None  None 

j. Parent, family, or community coordinator or liaisons  None  None 

k. Other (please specify): 

 None  None 

120
 
 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D.3	 For the previous school year (2015-16), please indicate in Column A if any of the Title I-funded certificated 

and/or other staff you listed in D2 were used to implement various improvement efforts. 

Then, in Column B, please indicate where appropriate how many of the certificated and other FTEs were 

used in each improvement effort. 

•	 Certificated staff are employed in positions that require a professional education certificate/credentials 

that are registered with the local district employer. 

•	 Other staff are employed in positions that do not require certification. 

If there is 1.0 FTE of a staff member whose effort is spent on more than one improvement effort, enter the 

appropriate fractions of their time in the different strategies. For example, if a teacher spends half of their 

time on reading curricula and half of their time on math curricula, then enter 0.5 in the Certificated Staff 

column for each of these improvement efforts. 

Column A Column B 

Were Title I funds used to support certificated and/or 

other staff in implementing any of the following 

improvement efforts? 

For this improvement effort, how many 

full time equivalent (FTE) certificated 

and/or other staff were supported by 

your Title I funds? 

Improvement Efforts 

Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Personnel 

Resources 

Certificated Staff Other Staff 

If Yes then go to Column B, otherwise go to the next 

row. 

Enter the FTE amount to the nearest 0.1. If 

“0”, select the box “None.” 

a. Instructional approaches or curricula in 

reading/language arts/English 

 Yes 

 No  None  None 

b. Instructional approaches or curricula in 

mathematics 

 Yes 

 No  None  None 

c. Instructional approaches or curricula in 

other subjects 

 Yes 

 No  None  None 

d. Extended-time instructional programs (e.g., 

before-school, after-school, or weekend 

instructional programs) 

 Yes 

 No  None  None 

e. Strategies for increasing parental 

involvement in children’s education 

 Yes 

 No  None  None 

f. Supports for English language learners 

(ELLs) 

 Yes 

 No  None  None 

g. Supports for students with disabilities  Yes 

 No  None  None 

h. Support for use of data to inform 

instruction and school improvement 

 Yes 

 No  None  None 

i. Support for use of technology  Yes 

 No  None  None 

121
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D.4	 For the previous school year (2015-16), please think about all of the non-personnel resources at your 

school supported by Title I funds (either from your school-controlled portion or provided by the district). 

Please indicate the approximate amount spent in 2015-16 across the categories listed below. 

Enter $ amount to the nearest $500. For example, $10,500. If $0 or none, mark (X) “None”. If you do 

not know the amount mark (X) “Don’t know”. 

Total Amount 

a. Professional development 

 None 

 Don’t know 

b. Materials 

 None 

 Don’t know 

c. Licenses / fees  None 

 Don’t know 

d. All other 

 None 

 Don’t know 

TOTAL non-personnel spending 

122
 
-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D.5	 Please think about the spending on the non-personnel resources you listed in D.4 (totaling [D4e]) and 

indicate in Column A if any of this spending was used to support different improvement efforts. 

Then, indicate in Column B where appropriate how much of the Title I allocation was used for each 

improvement effort. 

Column A 

Did you use Title I funds to support 

any of the following improvement 

efforts? 

Improvement Efforts 

Column B 

For each of the non personnel resource categories, how much 

of the Title I funds (totaling [D4e])) were used for this 

improvement effort? 

Non Personnel Resources 

Professional 

development 

(totaling [D4a]) 

Materials 

(totaling [D4b]) 

Licenses / fees 

(totaling [D4c]) 

Other 

(totaling [D4d]) 

If Yes then go to Column B, 

otherwise go to the next row. 

Enter $ amount to the nearest $500. For example, $10,500. 

If “0”, mark (X) “None”. 

a. Instructional 

approaches or 

curricula in reading/ 

language arts/English 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

b. Instructional 

approaches or curricula 

in mathematics 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

c. Instructional 

approaches or curricula 

in other subjects 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

d. Extended-time 

instructional programs 

(e.g., before-school, 

after-school, or 

weekend instructional 

programs) 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

e. Strategies for 

increasing parents’ 

involvement in their 

children’s education 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

f. Supports for English 

language learners (ELLs) 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

g. Supports for students 

with disabilities 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

h. Support for use of 

data to inform 

instruction and 

school improvement 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

i. Support for use of 

technology 

 Yes 

 No  None  None  None  None 

123
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

D.6	 For the current school year (2016-17), is your school designated a schoolwide Title I school or a targeted 

assistance Title I school? 

Mark (X) one 

 Our school is a schoolwide Title I school Go to D.7 

 Our school is a targeted assistance Title I school Go to E.1 

 Not applicable, our school did not receive Title I funds in 2016-17 Go to D.7 

D.7	 Which one of the following statements most accurately reflects your understanding of the composition of 

funding used to support your school’s Title I Schoolwide Program? 

Mark (X) one 

 The funds used to support my school’s program include Title I funding that is coordinated with other 

federal, state, and local funding sources. 

 The funds used to support my school’s program include Title I dollars that are consolidated with 

dollars from other federal, state, and local funding sources to form a single funding pool. 

 The funds used to support my school’s program include Title I dollars that are neither coordinated nor 

consolidated with other federal, state, and local funding sources. 

 I don’t know. 

124
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

E. Your Professional Development and Background 

E.1	 Considering your own professional development, please indicate in Column A how many hours of 

professional development you received in each of the following areas during the previous school year 

(2015-16, including summer 2016). Include only workshops, coursework, and conferences sponsored by 

your school, district, or state. Then, for each area you attended, please indicate in Column B if the 

professional development was useful or not. 

Please enter total number of hours in each row. If none, please write “0” hours and go to the next row. 

Area of Professional Development 

Column A 

Number of Hours 

Column B 

Was this professional 

development useful? 

a. Reading/language arts/English 

 Yes 

 No 

b. Mathematics 

 Yes 

 No 

c. Other academic subjects (e.g., science, social studies, 

foreign language) 

 Yes 

 No 

d. Instructional strategies for English Language Learners 

(ELLs) 

 Yes 

 No 

e. Instructional strategies for students with individualized 

education programs (IEPs) 

 Yes 

 No 

f. Analyzing and interpreting student achievement data 

 Yes 

 No 

g. Use of educational technology 

 Yes 

 No 

h. School management or governance 

 Yes 

 No 

i. Title I planning and budgeting 

 Yes 

 No 

E.2 Including the current school year (2016-17), how many years have you been employed as a principal of 

this or any other school? 

Please count the current school year as one full year. 

Number of years across all schools 

E.3 How long have you been principal of this school? 

Please count the current school year as one full year. 

Number of years in this school 

E.4	 How many years of teaching experience do you have? 

Number of years 

125
 
Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

F. Share Your Thoughts About Title I Funds 

F.1 Is there is anything else you would like to tell us about the use of Title I funds in your school? Please enter 

your comments below. 

Thank you for completing the survey. We very much appreciate your time. 

126
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

District Budget Officer Interview Protocol 

District Context and Respondent Role 

1.	 How would you describe your district to someone who has never been here before, including its 

strengths and weaknesses? 

2.	 Can you tell me about your position in the district and the role you play with regard to Title I schools? 

Use of Title I Funds and Decision-Making Process 

3.	 Are you familiar with the specific services or strategies your district is implementing this year? If yes, 

could you describe these to me? 

4.	 Are there specific services or strategies your district would like Title I schools to focus on this year? 

5.	 Which of the case study schools have schoolwide Title I programs? Which of the schools have 

targeted assistance programs? 

6.	 How does your district determine the amount of discretionary funds that will be allocated to SWP 

and TAP schools? 

7.	 Next, could you please walk me through the planning and budgeting process for Title I, from when it 

begins to when key decisions are made? 

8.	 How would you describe the involvement of district, school, and non-school personnel in the 

planning and decision-making process for the use of Title I funds? 

9.	 To what extent does the Title I budgeting process rely on data? 

10. Overall, how would you describe the level of autonomy that schools have in determining how to 

spend their Title I budgets? 

11. From a budget perspective, are there any advantages that you see to a school having a schoolwide 

Title I program versus a targeted assistance program? Are there any disadvantages? 

Commingling and Coordination of Funds 

12. Could you tell me about how Title I funds are used in conjunction with any other federal, state or 

local funds to support improvement strategies? 

13. Are there any differences between how SWP and TAP schools in your district use Title I funds to 

support their improvement efforts? 

14. How clear or unclear are the regulations regarding the use of Title I funds, in your opinion? 

15. Have you experienced any challenges related to using Title I funds or trying to commingle or 

coordinate Title I and other funds? If yes, please describe. 

State and District Support for Title I Schools 

16. Could you describe what kinds of guidance or regulation documents for using Title I funds the 

district provides to schools? 

17. Please describe any technical assistance or professional development your district has provided to 

the Title I schools about Title I specially. 

18. Have you experienced any challenges related to helping schools understand the requirements for 

use of Title I funds? 

19. Does your district conduct any monitoring of your school’s use of Title I funds? 

127
 
 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Conclusion 

20. Is there anything else you would like to share about the implementation of Title I programs in your district? 

128
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

District Title I Coordinator Interview Protocol 

District Context and Respondent Role 

1.	 How would you describe your district to someone who has never been here before, including its 

strengths and weaknesses? 

2.	 I understand your district has [X] schoolwide and [X] targeted assistance schools. Has that changed 

over the past three years? 

Efforts to Improve Student Outcomes 

3.	 Generally speaking, what do you think are the most important needs of your district’s Title I schools 

in terms of improving student outcomes? 

4.	 Could you describe any specific services or strategies your district uses in its Title I schools? Are 

there different services or strategies in SWP and TAP schools? 

5.	 Can you tell me why these highly-prioritized strategies, were selected as a focus? 

6.	 Can you talk to me about how all of these strategies fit together? 

7.	 How do these efforts to improve student outcomes in Title I schools fit in with your district’s overall 

approach to school improvement? 

8.	 Have you experienced any challenges in implementing any the strategies we discussed? 

Use of Title I Funds and Decision-Making Process 

9.	 First, I’d like to talk about the Title I funds retained at the central office. In 2015–16, I understand 

that [$X,XXX] in Title I funds that were used for personnel (pull from survey data). Is this correct? 

10. Focusing on the personnel first, could you please describe who these personnel are and how they 

support Title I schools? 

11. Next, I’d like to learn more about the Title I funds that the district used for materials and supplies. I 

understand that [$X,XXX] in Title I funds were used for this purpose (pull from survey data). Is that 

correct? 

12. Can you please describe how they support your Title I schools’ efforts to improve student outcomes? 

13. I understand that, in 2015–16, Title I schools were given discretion over [X] percent (pull from 

survey data) of the funds allocated to the school. Is this correct? 

14. How does your district determine the amount of discretionary funds that will be allocated to SWP 

and TAP schools? 

15. Now could you walk me through the Title I planning and budgeting process, from when it begins to 

when key decisions are made? 

16. How would you describe the involvement of district-level and school-level officials and staff in this process? 

17. How would you describe the involvement of parents or community members in the Title I 

planning process? 

18. To what extent does the Title I planning process rely on data? 

19. For the 2015–16 school year, what did the data tell you about the needs of your district and its 

Title I schools 

20. How much flexibility do schools have in preparing their Title I program plan overall? 

21. Are there any specific strategies or services that Title I schools are mandated to provide under 

district policy? 

22. Have you experienced any challenges in the Title I planning or decision-making process? 

129
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Commingling and Coordination of Funds 

23. Could you tell me about how Title I funds are used in conjunction with any other federal, state or 

local funds to support improvement strategies? 

24. Are there any differences in how SWP and TAP take different approaches in terms of commingling/ 

coordinating Title I funds? 

25. Have you experienced any challenges related to helping schools understand the requirements for 

use of Title I funds? If yes, please describe. 

State and District Support for Title I Program Facilitation 

26. Please describe any technical assistance or professional development you have received from the 

state related to supporting Title I schools in your district. 

27. Please describe any technical assistance or professional development your district has provided to 

Title I schools about Title I specially. 

28. Please describe any monitoring activities your district conducts of Title I schools. 

Conclusion 

29. Is there anything else you would like to share about the implementation of Title I programs in your district? 

130
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Principal Interview Protocol 

District Context and Respondent Role 

1.	 How would you describe your school to someone who has never been here before, including your 

school’s strengths and challenges? 

2.	 How would you describe the surrounding community and the neighborhoods that your students live in? 

3.	 It is my understanding that your school is designated as a [list possible designations based on state 

accountability system] (pull from survey data) for the 2016–17 school year. Is this correct? 

Efforts to Improve Student Outcomes 

4.	 Generally speaking, what do you think are the most important needs of your district’s Title I schools 

in terms of improving student outcomes? 

5.	 Could you describe the key services or strategies your school is implementing to improve student 

outcomes? 

6.	 Why did your school prioritize... [list the efforts that the respondent described as a priority]? 

7.	 Do all of these strategies fit together? If so how? 

8.	 Thinking about the services and strategies we’ve just discussed, how does Title I support these efforts? 

Use of Title I Funds and Decision-Making Process 

9.	 Do you know the amount of your school’s total Title I allocation for 2015–16? 

10. I understand that this total amount includes a portion of funds that the district controls and a 

portion of funds that you can use at your discretion (see survey data). Is this correct? 

11. Are you aware of the amount of funds controlled by the district? If yes, how are you informed of 

this amount? 

12. Are you familiar with what the district-controlled funds are used for? 

13. I understand your district allocated [X] funds for your school to use at your discretion (pull from 

survey data). Is this correct? 

14. I understand [X] staff in your school are supported by Title I funding this school year (pull from 

survey data). Is this correct? 

15. Could you please describe the roles and activities of each of these personnel? 

16. I understand that Title I funds are used to fund other types of resources or services to support your 

improvement efforts (pull from survey data). Can you please describe what these types of supports are? 

17. Next, could you please walk me through the planning and budgeting process for Title I, from when it 

begins to when key decisions are made for the use of funds? 

18. How would you describe the involvement of district staff, school staff, and parents or community 

members in this process? 

19. To what extent does the Title I planning process rely on data? 

20. For the 2015–16 school year, what did the data tell you about the needs of your school? 

21. In your experience, what do you think works well about the current decision-making process? What 

challenges have you encountered? 

131
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Commingling and Coordination of Funds 

22. At your school, could you describe how Title I funds are used together with funds from other 

sources to support your efforts to improve student outcomes (for example, are Title I funds 

coordinated or commingled with other federal, state, or local funds)? 

23. Have you experienced any challenges related to using Title I funds, or trying to coordinate or 

commingle Title I and other funds? 

State and District Support for Title I 

24. Please describe any technical assistance or professional development you have received from the 

state on Title I? 

25. Please describe any technical assistance or professional development you have received from the 

district on Title I. 

26. Are there any other supports from the state or the district that would be helpful? If yes, on what topics? 

27. Does your district conduct any monitoring of your school’s use of Title I funds? 

Conclusion 

28. Is there anything else you would like to share about your school’s Title I program? 

132
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

School Budget Officer Interview Protocol 

District Context and Respondent Role 

1.	 How would you describe your school to someone who has never been here before, including your 

school’s strengths and challenges? 

2.	 Can you tell me about your position at the school and the role you play with regard to its Title I program? 

3.	 Just to confirm, your school has a [TAP or SWP]. Is this correct? 

Use of Title I Funds and Decision-Making Process 

4.	 Are you familiar with the specific services or strategies your school is implementing to improve 

student outcomes? If yes, could you describe these? 

5.	 Could you briefly describe how Title I funds support the services and strategies we just discussed? 

6.	 Do you know the amount of your total Title I allocation for 2015–16? 

7.	 I understand that this total amount includes a portion of funds that the district controls and a 

portion of funds that you can use at your discretion (see survey data). Is this correct? 

8.	 Are you aware of the amount of funds controlled by the district? If yes, how are you informed of 

this amount? 

9.	 I understand your district allocated [X] funds for your school to use at your discretion (pull from 

survey data). Is this correct? 

10. I understand [X] staff in your school are supported by Title I funding this school year (pull from 

survey data). Is this correct? 

11. Could you please describe the roles and activities of each of these personnel and how Title I funds 

are used to support their work? 

12. I understand that Title I funds are used to fund other types of resources or services to support your 

improvement efforts (pull from survey data). Can you please describe what these types of nonpersonnel supports are and how Title I was used to fund them? 

13. Next, could you please walk me through the planning and budgeting process for Title I, from when it 

begins to when key decisions are made for the use of funds? 

14. How would you describe the involvement of district, school, and non-school personnel in the 

planning and decision-making process for the use of Title I funds at your school? 

15. To what extent does the Title I budgeting process rely on data? 

16. Overall, how would you describe the flexibility you have at the school level to make decisions about 

how Title I funds will be spent? 

Commingling and Coordination of Funds 

17. At your school, could you describe how Title I funds are used together with funds from other 

sources to support your efforts to improve student outcomes? 

18. How clear or unclear are the regulations regarding the use of Title I funds, in your opinion? Can you 

give me some examples? 

19. Have you experienced any challenges specifically related to trying to merge, consolidate, or 

commingle Title I funds with other funds? 

133
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

State and District Support for Title I Schools 

20. What guidance or training, if any, has the state and district provided about using Title I funds? 

21. Have you been involved in any district monitoring activities related to your school’s use of Title I funds? 

Conclusion 

22. Is there anything else you would like to share about the implementation of the Title I program in 

your school or district? 

134
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

School Improvement Team Focus Group Protocol (SWP Schools) 

District Context and Respondent Role 

1.	 How would you describe your school to someone who has never been here before, including your 

school’s strengths and challenges? 

2.	 How would you describe the surrounding community and the neighborhoods that your students live in? 

Efforts to Improve Student Outcomes 

3.	 Please describe your role(s) at the school relating to school improvement. 

4.	 Generally speaking, what do you think your school needs to improve student performance? 

5.	 Could you describe the specific services or strategies your school is implementing to improve 

student outcomes? 

6.	 Why did your school prioritize... [list the efforts that the respondent described as a priority]? 

7.	 Can you talk to me about how all of these strategies fit together? 

8.	 Thinking about the services and strategies we’ve just discussed, how does Title I support these efforts? 

Use of Title I Funds and Decision-Making Process 

9.	 Please describe your role and the role of the improvement team in the Title I planning and decisionmaking process. 

10. How would you describe the level of autonomy that the district affords you in the Title I planning 

and decision making process? 

11. To what extent does the Title I planning process for your school rely on data? 

12. For the 2015-16 school year, what did the data tell you about the needs of your school? 

13. I understand [X] staff in your school are supported by Title I funding this school year (pull from 

survey data). Is this correct? 

14. Could you please describe the roles and activities of each of these personnel? 

15. I understand that Title I funds are used to fund other types of resources or services to support your 

improvement efforts (pull from survey data). Can you please describe what these types of nonpersonnel supports are? 

Commingling and Coordination of Funds 

16. Are you aware of the extent to which Title I funds are used together with funds from other sources 

to support your efforts to improve student outcomes? 

17. Are you aware of any challenges that your school has faced related to using Title I funds, or trying to 

coordinate or commingle Title I and other funds? 

State and District Support for Title I Schools 

18. Please describe any technical assistance or professional development you have received from the 

state or district on Title I. 

Conclusion 

19. Is there anything else you would like to share about your school’s Title I program? 

135
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Teacher Interview Protocol (SWP and TAP Schools) 

Roles and Responsibilities 

1.	 Are you designated as a Title I teacher or staff member in your school? 

2.	 Are you familiar with how Title I is used to support your position at this school? 

3.	 Are there any materials or supplies that are considered Title I materials specifically? 

Decision-Making Process 

4.	 Overall, how would you describe your involvement in making decisions about how Title I funds will 

be spent? For example, are you involved in decisions about what specific interventions, supports, 

and services will be funded by Title I? 

Teacher/Staff Activities 

5.	 First, can you tell me about how much of your time is spent providing academic instruction to 

students? What does this time typically look like? 

6.	 About how much of your time is spent on counseling students or providing other social-emotional 

support to students? Can you describe what this time typically looks? 

7.	 About how much of your time is spent working with parents and families? Can you describe what 

this time typically looks like? 

Conclusion 

8.	 Have you previously worked as a Title I teacher in another Title I school in this district or another 

district? If so, did that school have a TAP or SWP? How is your experience with Title I at this school 

different or similar? 

9.	 Is there anything else you would like to share about your school’s Title I program? 

136
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Appendix D. Case Study Narratives
 

Case Study Narrative: Landmark Academy 

School Context and History 

Landmark Academy is a relatively new charter school that operates under the purview of a public school 

district. Approximately 500 students are enrolled, with two classrooms per grade (currently 

kindergarten through grade 7) and a cap of approximately 60 students per grade. As the school 

continues to grow, administrators will add grades until it becomes a K–12 school. The school is focused 

on a “traditional” education, which includes direct instruction, the Core Knowledge curriculum, 

instruction of Latin, and grammar. The school also has a focus on developing children’s civic virtue and 

moral character. To provide increased learning opportunities, the school day is an hour longer than the 

state average. 

Located in a midsized city district, the school is in a low-income neighborhood with many homes in a 

state of disrepair. The school draws its student population from all over the district because admission is 

determined through an open lottery process that encompasses the entire district. Additionally, the 

district provides transportation to the charter school. Current student enrollment statistics show that 

approximately 75 percent of the students receive free or reduced-price lunch and about 80 percent are 

of a minority background. 

Upon entering the building, site visitors experienced a calm atmosphere. There seemed to be a strong 

rapport and working relationship among administrators and teachers. Several teachers commended the 

quality of their colleagues both as teachers and people. Several interviewees also stressed the strength 

of the leadership team. Indeed, the principal appears to be an organized, thoughtful, and collaborative 

leader with a long-term vision for the school, shaped in part by his previous experience working with atrisk youth. Although some staff reported that they are still going through some growing pains, the 

school appears to be thriving: For the 2017–18 school year, they anticipate approximately 1,500 

applications for 60 spots. 

With regard to Title I, 2016–17 was the first year that Landmark Academy operated a schoolwide 

program; previously the school had received Title I funds for one year and operated a targeted 

assistance program. Interestingly, the principal opted to not receive Title I funds during the school’s first 

year of operation because he thought the school was "too new" and would not be in a position to 

determine the most effective use of the funds. 

Use of Title I Funds 

Title I funds pay for the salary and benefits for one academic support teacher. The teacher provides 

support to students in all grades during an intervention block called the “Spartan hour.” At this time, a 

classroom of students is divided among four teachers who provide intensive academic intervention to a 

small group of students based on their needs. 

The school wanted and had the funds to support two Title I teachers, but because of reported 

constraints associated with hiring a highly qualified teacher (they could not find a teacher with the 

appropriate college major), administrators decided to fund just one teacher and to use the Title I funds 

137
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

that would have paid for a second teacher to instead provide a variety of nonpersonnel resources such 

as graphing calculators, support materials for parents, and student supplies such as backpacks. 

When asked about commingling of funds, the principal said “We’re supposed to do silos aren’t we? ... I 

keep the funding streams intentionally very separate. From a control standpoint, the more dedicated 

those Title I funds are the easier it is to keep track of and make sure no one is abusing it.” 

Title I Decision-Making and Autonomy 

Staff at Landmark Academy reported being aware of the amount of their Title I allocation and clearly 

articulated how these funds were being used by the school. Staff consistently reported that decisions 

about the use of these Title I funds were made collectively within the school but with firm district 

guidance. As the principal explained, when they were transitioning to an SWP, 

We had a gentleman who came from the state who worked with parents and 

administration who helped us write our plan. We looked at our data and everyone 

agreed on what we needed and then we spent the money. That group included two to 

three parents who had students who were in the targeted assistance program. Then 

myself, the charter board, a couple parents, and teachers were involved too, we did 

some research and looked particularly at remediation strategies. In practice, the 

problem was here is your Title I allocation and here is what you can buy with it, but we 

would write up and propose what we wanted but that wouldn’t really fit in the 

guidelines. So I actually had to go down to the district and have them sit with me and tell 

me exactly what was and wasn’t allowed. 

In some ways, the school has a high level of autonomy because the district technically enables the 

school to determine how to use all of the Title I funds allocated to the school. However, the school 

principal and staff report that some of this autonomy is limited due to the amount of paperwork and 

compliance-oriented activities associated with Title I decision making. This appears to diminish the 

perception of autonomy at the school level. Nonetheless, the district does not impose specific strategies 

or activities on the school — for example, the school has no obligation to hire staff through Title I. 

District Supports Related to Title I 

District support to Title I schools is anchored by six Title I coordinators, each of whom works with 

approximately six Title I schools. Throughout the year, Title I coordinators provide direct support to the 

schools, to ensure expenditures and spending plans are appropriate, that the school is complying with 

programmatic requirements including parent notifications and reporting paperwork. The school’s Title I 

budget director explained of the Title I coordinator, “She is very reach-able. I interact with her 

sometimes daily. I interact with her on anything we have to turn in, updates, questions back and forth 

on paperwork, any activities that we have to do with the community. ... A lot of it is around paperwork.” 

In addition, the district provides monthly professional development meetings for principals of Title I 

schools and provides an annual “waste, fraud, and abuse” training to all faculty in Title I schools. 

Perceived Benefits and Challenges Associated With Title I Funding 

Overall, the respondents at Landmark Academy had a strong understanding of Title I funding and uses. 

They understood the distinctions between TAPs and SWPs, they knew how Title I funds were used in the 

138
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

school, and they were aware of the challenges of hiring a highly qualified teacher to meet Title I 

guidelines. Still, they had some misconceptions about the use of funds; there were areas on which they 

would have liked to spend Title I funds but they had the impression it was not allowed (e.g., socialemotional supports). They were highly aware of the burdens associated with Title I (and even 

considered rejecting Title I funds) but acknowledged that they needed the funding. As the dean of 

students explained, 

I think it would be helpful to encourage schools to use funds for social emotional and if 

we had known we could spend money on a counselor that would have been really useful 

for us. I love the mission of Title I, but the amount of funding doesn’t accomplish that. 

It’s very noble, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the school budget. It’s not an 

equalizer, but it’s a beautiful idea. 

Another member of the school leadership team described the challenges of hiring a Title I teacher who 

met the “highly qualified” requirements: 

The problem was that with Title I, there were incredibly specific requirements for what 

was needed, to the point where, if someone had a literature degree but not an English 

degree, you can’t let them teach reading, which made it extremely difficult to staff. So 

what ended up happening was we had a series of substitutes coming in for months, but 

none of them could actually help kids. Not a long-term substitute, because we tried to do 

that, but they had to be certified in a certain way. ... 

In particular, the principal was distressed by the paperwork and volume of documentation required of 

both the district and state. He tried to put a positive spin, acknowledging that such bureaucratic 

procedures were probably necessary, but that “the redundancy is maddening, because the time we 

spend doing that we can’t spend teaching the kids.” The school leader and staff reported that they 

considered rejecting the Title I funds, concluding that they could probably raise an equal sum of money 

through private fundraising. However, as the principal explained, “[W]e were worried we wouldn’t be 

considered a Title I school anymore,” which would limit other benefits the school received. For example, 

the school principal was concerned that they would not be able to offer teachers to obtain loan 

forgiveness as part of being in a Title I school. Additionally, the availability of free universal breakfast 

and lunch is important to supporting their students’ needs. 

139
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Case Study Narrative: Sugarwoods Elementary 

School Context and History 

Sugarwoods is K–5 elementary housed in an historic but well-maintained three-story brick facility built in 

1930. The building has some unique architectural details, including stained-glass windows and a 

fireplace. It is surrounded by a residential neighborhood of apartments and modest single-family homes. 

Ninety-six percent of its 700 students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, which is the highest 

concentration of poverty in any of the midsized, urban district’s schools. Sugarwoods, like the city more 

broadly, has also experienced an influx of refugees and other immigrants. Most of its students are from 

immigrant families of diverse language backgrounds. 

Sugarwoods can aptly be described as a successful turnaround school, and staff attribute this success to 

strategies that were supported by decisions school leaders made in allocating Title I schoolwide 

resources. A few years ago, Sugarwoods was considered a candidate for school closure. In 2010, it was 

the lowest performing school in the district and was ranked in the 10th percentile on the state ranking 

list. Under the leadership of a new principal, school performance turned around quickly; the next year, 

they were in the 40th percentile on the same state ranking. Their average improvement through 2013 

was 10 percentage points in reading, 15 percentage points in writing, and 10 percentage points in math 

on the state test. 

Staff attribute much of this success to their Title I-supported home-grown Sugarwoods Literacy 

Intervention and parent engagement initiatives. In SLI, paraprofessionals are trained by teachers to push 

into classrooms to form small groups. With this training and a consistent diagnostic and instructional 

approach, staff suggested that they were able to build a seamless co-teaching model that has been 

fundamental in building a common vision throughout the school. In 2016–17, the former principal was 

appointed as director of school improvement the entire district, and a first-year principal was appointed 

to the position. 

The school improvement team members described Sugarwoods as a destination school for teachers and 

report a strong sense of collegiality and positive rapport across the school. They cited low staff turnover, 

longevity, and frequent collaboration through the literacy co-teaching model. Instructional program 

coherence was also indicated by their conscious effort to use consistent terms and techniques through 

the grades. 

Teachers also reported a high level of parental engagement and support. With Title I resources, they 

launched an effort to engage immigrant families and communicate with them in languages other than 

English. Several staff members spoke about the extensive efforts they have made to identify ways that 

parents can be involved and supportive of their child’s schooling, even if the parents themselves have a 

limited formal education or do not speak English. Parent involvement was a personal mission for some 

of the school improvement team teachers who found themselves in similar circumstances when they 

were growing up. The school appears to be a tight-knit community both within the staff community as 

well as between staff and parents. 

140
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Use of Title I Funds 

Sugarwoods Elementary is and has always been an SWP — indeed, nearly all Title I schools in the district 

operate SWPs. Sugarwoods uses these resources to hire three FTE paraprofessionals and one FTE Title I 

teacher who is dedicated to the literacy program. 

The school has much discretion, both from the district and the teacher union, to use the funds for the 

literacy program. Recently, however, the teacher’s union decided to limit using paraprofessionals in the 

classroom as the union saw this practice spreading across schools in the district. There are still 

paraprofessionals in the schools, but the schools no longer can use these Title I funds to replace 

paraprofessionals who leave. 

Sugarwoods uses its Title I funds for a community liaison staff member (parent outreach) and a new 

half-time science teacher who pushes into the classrooms. The school improvement team described that 

data play a key role in annually identifying areas of need. In fact, data charts were on the walls across 

the staff break room. Staff described looking at the data each year to think through their Title I 

resources and noted how they decided to use these funds to hire a half-time science intervention 

teacher because students’ results on the revised state science assessments were weak. 

Title I Decision-Making and Autonomy 

Within the constraints of union rules that limit the hiring of paraprofessionals and federal regulations (as 

interpreted by state and district staff), the district gives their schools considerable discretion about how 

they use Title I funds. For instance, while some districts centralize personnel and other Title I budget 

decisions, the district allows schools to decide whether to hire personnel with their funds, and even 

whom to hire. District staff provide oversight and structure to the work and may require certain practices. 

For example, they require Title I interventionists to co-teach at least one hour per day, a district best 

practice that began in their special education division. The Title I director works closely with the director 

of school improvement, and together they conduct school walkthroughs and offer feedback. 

At Sugarwoods, the school improvement team reported that they used an extensive and collaborative 

decision-making process. Their choices were informed not only by reviewing student data but also by 

surveying teachers about needs. They reported getting feedback from parents as well. The principal 

reported making final decisions based on this advice. 

District Supports Related to Title I 

The district staff reported retaining 8 to 9 percent of Title I funds set aside at the district level. The 

district uses these resources to provide before school and afterschool programs, employ technology 

coaches for the schools, and offer professional development to school staff. 

Perceived Benefits and Challenges Associated With Title I 

The school leader and staff reported many benefits and few challenges associated with Title I funding 

and requirements. Indeed, teachers credited Title I funding for enabling them to dedicate resources to 

do critical work in turning the school around and hiring staff for important areas of need (e.g., science, 

parent engagement). 

141
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

One reported challenge was the “supplement not supplant” provision, which meant that they could not 

provide professional development to new teachers on initiatives if the district had done so in the past. 

Another modest challenge was associated with the timing of the budget (e.g., completing a budget 

before the end of the school year in June). 

142
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Appendix E. Mixed-Method Codebook
 

Construct/code 

District survey 

evidence 

Principal 

survey 

evidence 

District 

interview 

evidence 

School interview 

evidence 

Potential extant 

data evidence 

Operational definition 

and examples 

Study 

question(s) 

Title I-funded QD2a, QD3, QD2, QD3 Budget Budget officer Documentation Data that describe the Q1 

interventions and QDb, QD5 officer interview Q10, Q11 of Title I types of personnel 

services: Personnel interview Q3, 

Q4 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview Q9, 

Q10 

SWP principal 

interview Q14, Q15 

TAP principal 

interview Q14, Q15 

School improvement 

team focus group 

Q13, Q14 

Teacher interview 

Q1, Q2, Q5, Q6, Q7 

interventions 

that focus on 

funding (partially 

or fully) 

personnel who 

provide services 

or supports to 

improve student 

outcomes 

interventions being 

supported by Title I 

funds, including their 

roles and responsibilities 

related to Title I 

Title I-funded QD2b, QD3, QD4 Budget Budget officer Documentation Data that describe the 

interventions and D4c, QD6, D7 officer interview Q12 of Title I types of nonpersonnel 

services: Materials, 

programs, and 

resources 

interview Q3, 

Q4 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview 

Q11, Q12 

SWP principal 

interview Q16 

TAP principal 

interview Q16 

School improvement 

team focus group 

Q15 

Teacher interview Q3 

interventions 

that focus on 

funding (partially 

or fully) 

nonpersonnel 

supports 

(instructional 

materials and 

programs, other 

interventions supported 

by Title I funds, including 

in- and out-of-school 

instructional materials, 

programs, resources, or 

other interventions 

resources, inand out-ofschool supports, 

family 

engagement 

supports) 

143
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Principal District 

District survey survey interview School interview Potential extant Operational definition Study 

Construct/code evidence evidence evidence evidence data evidence and examples question(s) 

Targeted students QD5 QD3, QD4 Title I Budget officer Documentation Data that describe which Q1 

coordinator interview Q11, Q12 of which students are targeted for 

interview 

Q10, Q12 

SWP principal 

interview Q15, Q16 

TAP principal 

interview Q15, Q16 

School improvement 

team focus group 

Q14, Q15 

Teacher interview Q5 

students are 

targeted for 

certain 

personnel and 

nonpersonnel 

interventions 

(e.g., English 

learners, lowperforming 

specific Title I-funded 

personnel or 

nonpersonnel 

interventions or services 

students, 

students with 

disabilities, 

certain grade 

levels) 

Programmatic QB2 QB1, QB2 Title I Budget officer Documentation Data that describe the Q1 

coherence coordinator interview Q4, Q5 of alignment degree to which the 

interview Q4, 

Q5, Q6, Q7 

SWP principal 

interview Q5, Q6, Q7, 

Q8 

TAP principal 

interview Q6, Q7, Q8 

School improvement 

team focus group Q5, 

Q6, Q7, Q8 

between school 

goals and 

interventions 

policies of a school reflect 

consistent goals, the 

strategies employed are 

clearly designed to foster 

achievement of these 

goals, and the barriers 

and detractors from the 

goals and strategies are 

systematically removed 

144
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Construct/code 

District survey 

evidence 

Principal 

survey 

evidence 

District 

interview 

evidence 

School interview 

evidence 

Potential extant 

data evidence 

Operational definition 

and examples 

Study 

question(s) 

Timing of Title I 

planning 

QB3 QC7, QC8 Budget 

officer 

interview Q6, 

Q7 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview 

Budget officer 

interview Q13 

SWP principal 

interview Q17 

TAP principal 

interview Q17 

Documentation 

of Title I 

planning and 

funds 

disbursement 

timeline 

Data on the timeline and 

sequence of the Title I 

budgeting process, 

including the timeliness 

of disbursement of funds 

Q2 

Q14, Q15 

Stakeholder 

involvement in 

decision making 

QC6, QC7 QC6 Budget 

officer 

interview Q8 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview 

Q16, Q17 

Budget officer 

interview Q14 

SWP principal 

interview Q18 

TAP principal 

interview Q18 

School improvement 

team focus group Q9, 

Q10 

Documentation 

of stakeholder 

participation in 

Title I planning 

activities 

Data describing districtand school-level 

stakeholder involvement 

and influence in the Title I 

planning and decisionmaking process. This code 

also includes data on 

parent involvement and 

influence. 

Q2 

Teacher interview Q4 

Data use for Title I 

decision making 

QC4, QC5 QC8 Budget 

officer 

interview Q9 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview 

Q14, Q18, 

Q19 

Budget officer 

interview Q15 

SWP principal 

interview Q19, Q20 

TAP principal 

interview Q19, Q20 

School improvement 

team focus group 

Q11, Q12 

Documentation 

showing 

alignment of 

results of data 

and selection of 

interventions 

Data describing the types 

of data that are used to 

make decisions about the 

use of Title I funds. These 

could include, for 

example, a school needs 

assessment, student 

achievement data, 

research on 

best/promising practices 

in the field, teacher 

evaluation results, and so 

Q2 

on. 

145
 
 

 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Principal District 

District survey survey interview School interview Potential extant Operational definition Study 

Construct/code evidence evidence evidence evidence data evidence and examples question(s) 

Title I Program	 QA1, QA2, Budget 

Context	 QA3, QA4, officer 

QA5, QA6, interview Q1 

QA7, QB4, 

QE2, QE3, 

QE4 

Budget officer	 State policy, context, and NA 

interview Q1, Q3	 support for Title I 

SWP principal	 districts, including any 

interview Q1, Q2, Q3,	 Title I policies or supports 

Q4	 that affect district and 

school-level decisions and TAP principal implementation of Title I. interview Q1, Q2, Q3, District policy, context, Q4 

and support for Title I School improvement schools, including district team focus group Q1, policies that guide Title I Q2, Q4 implementation and 

programming, resource 

allocation, and the format 

and perceived quality of 

guidance and supports 

districts provide to Title I 

school principals. General 

school context, including 

noted strengths, but also 

challenges or “areas for 

improvement” that are 

identified by study 

participants as being new 

or ongoing sources of 

difficulty related to 

improving student 

outcomes. 

146
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Construct/code 

District survey 

evidence 

Principal 

survey 

evidence 

District 

interview 

evidence 

School interview 

evidence 

Potential extant 

data evidence 

Operational definition 

and examples 

Study 

question(s) 

Principal awareness QC1, QC2, SWP principal Data describing the Q2 

of Title I QC3, QD1, interview Q9, Q11, extent to which the 

QD7 Q12, Q13 principal has a 

TAP principal 

interview Q9, Q10, 

Q11, Q12, Q13 

sophisticated, moderate, 

or limited understanding 

of the rules and 

regulations regarding the 

use of Title I funds 

School leadership QB3, QB5, Budget officer Information related to NA 

for Title I QC4 interview Q2 aspects of the school 

SWP principal 

interview Q9, Q11, 

Q12, Q13, Q20 

TAP principal 

interview Q9, Q10, 

Q11, Q12, Q13, Q20 

School improvement 

team focus group Q3 

principal’s leadership, 

including style, changes 

to leadership, 

effectiveness of 

leadership, and 

perception of leadership. 

This code will help define 

the extent to which 

principals are strategic or 

distributive leaders. 

147
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Principal District 

District survey survey interview School interview Potential extant Operational definition Study 

Construct/code evidence evidence evidence evidence data evidence and examples question(s) 

State policy context QE3 QE1 Budget SWP principal Documentation Data that describe the Q1, Q2, Q3 

and support officer interview Q25, Q27 of state state’s orientation to Title 

interview 

Q14 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview 

Q26 

TAP principal 

interview Q25, Q27 

School improvement 

team focus group 

Q18 

websites, 

resources, or 

other documents 

that provide 

guidance to 

school leaders in 

the rules and 

I (compliance versus 

strategic support for 

improved outcomes), as 

well as the resources and 

support for school 

leaders in using Title I 

funds (e.g., guidance 

regulations for documents, formal 

using Title I trainings). This code also 

funds includes data on any 

monitoring activities 

conducted by the state, 

as well as any state or 

other processes that 

facilitate the coordination 

of Title I planning 

documents with other 

federal funds. 

148
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Principal District 

District survey survey interview School interview Potential extant Operational definition Study 

Construct/code evidence evidence evidence evidence data evidence and examples question(s) 

District policy QA1, QA2, QB6, QE1 Budget Budget officer Documentation Data that describe the Q1, Q2, Q3 

context and support QA3, QA4, officer interview Q6, Q16, of district general context and 

QA5, QB1, interview Q1, Q20, Q21 characteristics/ characteristics of the 

QE1, QE2 Q2, Q5, Q14, 

Q16, Q17, 

SWP principal 

interview Q26, Q27, 

demographics, 

as well as 

district, as well as the 

district’s orientation to 

Q19 Q28 websites, Title I (compliance versus 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview Q1, 

Q2, Q3, Q8, 

Q27, Q28 

TAP principal 

interview Q26, Q27, 

Q28 

School improvement 

team focus group 

Q18 

resources, or 

other documents 

that provide 

guidance to 

school leaders in 

the rules and 

regulations for 

strategic support for 

improved outcomes). This 

code also addresses the 

resources and support for 

school leaders in using 

Title I funds (e.g., 

guidance documents, 

using Title I formal trainings). This 

funds code also includes data 

on any monitoring 

activities conducted by 

the district, as well as any 

district-level processes 

that facilitate the 

coordination of Title I 

planning documents with 

other funds. 

149
 
 

 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Principal District 

District survey survey interview School interview Potential extant Operational definition Study 

Construct/code evidence evidence evidence evidence data evidence and examples question(s) 

School-level QD2c, QD4d QC1d, C5 Title I Budget officer District Title I Data indicating the level Q2 

autonomy coordinator interview Q7, Q8, Q9, planning of school autonomy in 

interview Q16 templates use of funds, including 

Q13, Q20, 

Q21 

SWP principal 

interview Q13, Q21 

TAP principal 

interview Q13, Q21 

School improvement 

team focus group 

Q10 

the proportion of funds 

schools are given to use 

at their discretion, 

specificity of the Title I 

planning templates, and 

extent to which schools 

have flexibility in 

selecting interventions 

versus having specific 

interventions mandated 

by the district. 

Consolidation/ QC1, QC2 QD7 Budget Budget officer Title I budget Data indicating the extent Q3 

coordination of officer interview Q17 to which SWP schools are 

funds interview 

Q12, Q13 

SWP principal 

interview Q23 

consolidating or 

coordinating funds in 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview 

Q23, Q24 

TAP principal 

interview Q23 

School improvement 

team focus group 

ways not allowed in TAP 

schools to improve 

student outcomes 

Q16 

Innovative practices Budget Budget officer Title I budget Data indicating innovative Q3d 

regarding use of officer interview Q17 practices in how SWP 

funds interview 

Q12, Q13 

SWP principal 

interview Q23 

schools are consolidating 

or coordinating funds in 

Title I ways not allowed in TAP 

coordinator schools to improve 

interview student outcomes 

Q23, Q24 

150
 
 

 

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report 

Construct/code 

District survey 

evidence 

Principal 

survey 

evidence 

District 

interview 

evidence 

School interview 

evidence 

Potential extant 

data evidence 

Operational definition 

and examples 

Study 

question(s) 

Perceived 

challenges specific 

to Title I 

QC3 Budget 

officer 

interview 

Q15, Q18 

Title I 

coordinator 

interview 

Q22, Q25 

Budget officer 

interview Q19 

SWP principal 

interview Q22, Q24 

TAP principal 

interview Q22, Q24 

School improvement 

focus group Q17 

NA Data indicating any 

factors that challenge any 

aspect of implementation 

of Title I and its 

effectiveness in 

supporting improved 

student outcomes, 

including challenges 

related to providing 

interventions and 

services, and the use of 

funds. (e.g., lack of 

training/guidance in 

Title I, insufficient school 

autonomy, planning 

timeline constraints, 

school/staff capacity, 

state/district policy, 

contextual factors) 

NA 

Perceived benefits 

of Title I 

Budget 

officer 

interview 

Q11 

SWP principal 

interview Q8, Q22 

TAP principal 

interview Q8, Q22 

School improvement 

team focus group Q8 

Teacher interview Q8 

Perceived benefits of Title 

I for improving student 

outcomes 

NA 

151
 
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

www.ed.gov