**

# Title I Implementation—Update on Recent Evaluation Findings

# Stephanie Stullich 

# Andrew Abrams

# Elizabeth Eisner

# Erica Lee

**U.S. Department of Education**

**Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development**

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

2009

# U.S. Department of Education

# Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development**

Bill Evers

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan Ginsburg

# Director

**Program and Analytic Studies Division**

David Goodwin

# Director

January 2009

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with permission and copyright, 2007, Getty Images.  Authorization to reproduce this report 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, *Title I Implementation—Update on Recent Evaluation Findings*, Washington, D.C.: Author, 2009.

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

· **Mail.**  Write to:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

· **Fax.**Dial 301-470-1244.

· **Telephone**(toll-free).  Dial 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS).  If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN).  Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734.

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

· **Online.**  Order a copy of the report at: www.edpubs.ed.gov.  This report may also be downloaded from the Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.

· **Alternate formats.**  Upon request, this publication is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette.  For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.

**CONTENTS**

List of Exhibitsv

Acknowledgmentsxi

Executive Summaryxiii

I.  Introduction1

A. Technical Notes2

II. Trends in Student Achievement3

A. Student Achievement on State Assessments4

B. Student Achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress10

III. Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems15

A. Development and Implementation of Assessments Required Under *No Child Left Behind*15

B. School and District Identification for Improvement17

C. Adequate Yearly Progress Ratings for Schools and Districts21

D. Communication of School Performance Results25

E. School Improvement Efforts and Assistance for Identified Schools and Districts26

F. Accountability Under Other State Initiatives31

IV. Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services33

A. Eligibility and Participation33

B. Parental Notification37

C. Characteristics of Supplemental Educational Services39

D. Relationship Between Participation in Title I Choice Options and Student Achievement40

E. Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplemental Service Providers42

V. Highly Qualified Teachers and Professional Development43

A. State Implementation of Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements43

B. Teachers’ Highly Qualified Status45

C. Professional Development47

Endnotes51

References57

Appendix A.  Supplemental Exhibits61

Appendix B.  Standard Error Tables95

**EXHIBITS**

**II. Trends in Student Achievement**

1 Percentage of Fourth-Grade Public School Students Performing At or Above the Proficient Level on NAEP and State Assessments in Reading, 20075

2 Proportion of Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above the Proficient Level in Reading and Mathematics on State Assessments in 2006–07 and on NAEP in 20076

3 Percentage of Low-Income Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Reading and Mathematics, 2004–05 to 2006–077

4 Percentage of States Showing an Increase in the Proportion of Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level From 2004–05 to 2006–07, by Student Group8

5 Predicted Percentage of States That Would Reach the Goal of 100 Percent Proficient by     2013–14, for Various Student Groups, If Achievement Trajectories From 2004–05 to 2006–07 Continue Through 2013–149

6 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores for Public School Students by School Grade Level11

7 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Fourth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity12

8 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Eighth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity13

9Percentage of States Showing an Increase From 2003 to 2007 in the Proportion of Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, by Student Group14

**III. Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems**

10 *NCLB* Assessment System Approval Status, as of Jan. 8, 200916

11 Number and Percentage of Title I Schools That Were Identified for Improvement, 1996–97 to 2006–0717

12Number of Identified Title I Schools by Identification Status, 2004–05 to 2006–0718

13 Number and Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement, by State, 2006–0719

14 Distribution of Title I Districts and Distribution of Title I Schools Identified for Improvement, by Number of Identified Schools in the District, 2006–0720

15 Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement in 2004–05 That Were in Various Stages of School Improvement Status in 2006–0721

16 AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress, 2003–04 to      2005–0622

17 AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress in 2004–05, by Stage of School Improvement Status for 2005–0623

18 Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP, by School Poverty and Number of Subgroups in the School, 2005–0624

19 Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP for Individual Student Subgroups, by School Poverty Rate, 2005–0624

20 Timing of State Notification About School Improvement Status, Fall 2004 and Fall 200625

21 Percentage of Elementary Teachers Who Reported Changing the Amount of Instructional Time That They Spent on Various Subjects From 2004–05 to 2006–0727

22 Average Number of Hours Per Week That Public School Teachers of First- Through Fourth-Grade Self-Contained Classrooms Spent on Teaching Each of Four Subjects, Selected Years 1987–88 Through 2003–0428

23 Percentage of Identified Title I Schools That Reported Experiencing Various Types of Interventions Since Identification for Improvement, 2006–0729

24 Percentage of Title I Schools in Corrective Action That Reported Experiencing Various Types of Interventions, 2004–05 and 2006–0730

25 Percentage of Districts Taking Various Actions in Response to Being Identified for Improvement, 2005–0632

**IV. Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services**

26 Number of Students Participating in Title I School Choice and Supplemental Services, 2002–03 to 2005–0634

27 Percentage of Districts Reporting That They Offered Title I School Choice, By School Grade Level, and Percentage of Students in Such Districts, Among Districts Required to Offer School Choice, 2006–0735

28 Parents’ Most Frequently Reported Reasons for Choosing to Participate or Not Participate in Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006–0736

29 District Strategies for Communicating With Parents About Title I School Choice and Supplemental Services Options, 2004–05 and 2006–07 37

30 Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice, as Reported by School Districts,     2004–05 and 2006–07  38

31 Number of State-Approved Supplemental Educational Services Providers, by Provider Type, May 2003 to May 2008.39

32 Achievement Gains for Student Participation in Title I Supplemental Educational Services and School Choice, in Six to Seven Districts, 2002–03 Through 2004–05.41

**V. Teacher Quality and Professional Development**

33 State Cut Scores for Praxis II Assessment of Teacher Content Knowledge in Mathematics44

34 Percentage of Teachers Reporting That They Were Considered Highly Qualified Under *NCLB*, 2006–0746

35 Change in Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on Instructional Strategies for Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 to 2005–0648

36 Comparison of Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on Instructional Strategies Versus In-Depth Study of Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2005–0649

**Appendix A.  Supplemental Exhibits**

A-1 Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Achieving At or Above the Proficient Level on NAEP and State Assessments in Mathematics, 200761

A-2 Proportion of Fourth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading in 2006–07, and Change from 2004–05, for Various Student Subgroups62

A-3 Proportion of Fourth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics in 2006–07, and Change from 2004–05, for Various Student Subgroups63

A-4 Proportion of Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading in 2006–07, and Change from 2004–05, for Various Student Subgroups64

A-5 Proportion of Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics in 2006–07, and Change from 2004–05, for Various Student Subgroups65

A-6 Proportion of Fourth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading in 2006–07, and Change from 2004–05, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups66

A-7 Proportion of Fourth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics in 2006–07, and Change from 2004–05, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups67

A-8 Proportion of Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Reading in 2006–07, and Change from 2004–05, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups68

A-9 Proportion of Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Mathematics in 2006–07, and Change from 2004–05, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups69

A-10 Change in Black-White and Hispanic-White Achievement Gaps in Fourth-Grade Reading: Difference in the Percentage of Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level, 2004–05 to 2006–0770

A-11 Change in Black-White and Hispanic-White Achievement Gaps in Fourth-Grade Mathematics: Difference in the Percentage of Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level, 2004–05 to 2006–0771

A-12 Change in Black-White and Hispanic-White Achievement Gaps in Eighth-Grade Reading: Difference in the Percentage of Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level, 2004–05 to 2006–0772

A-13 Change in Black-White and Hispanic-White Achievement Gaps in Eighth-Grade Mathematics: Difference in the Percentage of Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level, 2004–05 to 2006–0773

A-14 Number of States Showing an Increase in the Proportion of Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students Performing at or Above Their State’s Proficient Level From 2004–05 to 2006–07, by Student Group74

A-15 Predicted Percentage of States That Would Reach the Goal of 100 Percent Proficient Level by  2013–14, for Various Student Groups, if Achievement Trajectories From 2004–05 to 2006–07 Continue Through 2013–1474

A-16 Predicted Percentage of Low-Income Students Who Would Reach Their State’s Proficient Level in Fourth-Grade Reading, if Achievement Trajectories From 2004–05 to 2006–07 Continue Through 2013–1475

A-17 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Fourth Grade for Public School Students by School Poverty Level76

A-18 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Percent Proficient in Fourth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity77

A-19 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Eighth Grade for Public School Students by School Poverty Level78

A-20 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Percent Proficient in Eighth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity79

A-21 State Trends on Main NAEP for Fourth-Grade Reading and Mathematics: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to 200780

A-22 State Trends on Main NAEP for Eighth-Grade Reading and Mathematics: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to 200781

A-23 State Trends on Main NAEP for Fourth-Grade Reading for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to 200782

A-24 State Trends on Main NAEP for Fourth-Grade Mathematics for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to 200783

A-25 State Trends on Main NAEP for Eighth-Grade Reading for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to 200784

A-26 State Trends on Main NAEP for Eighth-Grade Mathematics for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to 200785

A-27 Number of Title I Schools That Were Identified for Improvement, by State, 1998–99 to 2006–0786

A-28 AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress, 2003-04 to 2005-06 (in 26 States With Data Available for All Three Years)87

A-29 Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP for Individual Student Subgroups, by School Percentage of Minority Students, 2005–0688

A-30 Percentage of Elementary Principals Who Reported Changes From 2004–05 to 2006–07 in the Amount of Instructional Time for Third-Grade Students in Various Subject88

A-31 Average Change in Minutes per Week of Instructional Time From 2004–05 to 2006–07 for Third‐Grade Students in Various Subjects, as Reported by Principals88

A-32 Number of Students Participating in Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 to 2006–0789

A-33Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Using the Title I School Choice Option, as a Percentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006–0790

A-34Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services, as a Percentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006–0790

A-35Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Not Using the Title I School Choice Option, as a Percentage of Eligible Parents Who Did Not Participate, in Eight Large Urban Districts,     2006–0791

A-36Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Not Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services, as a Percentage of Eligible Parents Who Did Not Participate, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006–0791

A-37 Achievement Effects of Student Participation in Title I Supplemental Educational Services in Seven Districts92

A-38 Achievement Effects of Student Participation in Title I School Choice in Six Districts92

A-39State Definitions of Highly Qualified Teacher: Use of Praxis II Exams and Cut Scores, September 200793

A-40 Change in Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on In-Depth Study of Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 to 2005–0694

**Appendix B.  Standard Error Tables**

B-1 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores for Public School Students by School Grade Level95

B-2 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Fourth Grade for Public School Students by School Poverty Level96

B-3 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Fourth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity97

B-4 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Eighth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity98

B-5 Percentage of Identified Title I Schools Experiencing Various Types of Interventions Since Identification for Improvement, 2006–0799

B-6 Percentage of Districts Taking Various Actions in Response to Being Identified for Improvement, 2006–07100

B-7 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Using the Title I School Choice Option, as a Percentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2004–05 and 2006–07101

B-8 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services, as a Percentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2004–05 and 2006–07101

B-9 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Not Using the Title I School Choice Option, as a Percentage of Eligible Parents Who Did Not Participate, in Eight Large Urban Districts,     2004–05 and 2006–07102

B-10 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Not Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services, as a Percentage of Eligible Parents Who Did Not Participate, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2004–05 and 2006–07102

B-11 District Strategies for Communicating With Parents About Title I School Choice and Supplemental Services Options, 2004–05 and 2006–07103

B-12 Percentage of Districts That Reported Notifying Parent Notification About the Title I School Choice Option, By Timing of Reported Notification, 2004–05 and 2006–07104

B-13 Percentage of Teachers Reporting That They Were Considered Highly Qualified Under *NCLB*, 2004–05 and 2006–07104

B-14 Percentage of Teachers Participating in Professional Development Focused on Instructional Strategies for Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 and 2005–06105

B-15 Percentage of Teachers Participating in Professional Development Focused on In-Depth Study of Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 and 2005–06105

**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**

This report benefited from the contributions of many individuals and organizations that provided valuable information and advice.  In particular, we would like to acknowledge the teachers, principals, school district staff, and state education agency representatives across the country who took time out of their busy schedules to respond to our surveys, interviews, and requests for information. Without their efforts, this report would not have been possible, and we greatly appreciate their support for our Title I evaluation studies as well as their core work of educating America’s children.

This report was prepared under the leadership and direction provided by Alan Ginsburg, director of the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS); David Goodwin, director of program and analytic studies in PPSS; and Daphne Kaplan, PPSS team leader.

Studies conducted by independent research firms under contract to the U.S. Department of Education provided most of the information presented in this report.  In particular, the research teams for two PPSS evaluation studies deserve credit for designing and carrying out the data collection that provide most of the data in this report:

· National Longitudinal Study of *No Child Left Behind* (NLS-*NCLB*), led by Georges Vernez of the RAND Corporation and Michael Garet and Beatrice Birman of the American Institutes for Research, assisted by Brian Stecher (accountability team leader), Brian Gill (choice), Meredith Ludwig and Meng-Li Song (teacher quality), and Jay Chambers (resource allocation).  Other NLS-*NCLB* team members who provided special assistance for this report include Charles Blankenship, Hiro Hikawa, Irene Lam, Felipe Martinez, Jennifer McCombs, Scott Naftel, Kwang Suk Yoon, and Ron Zimmer.

· Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under *No Child Left Behind* (SSI-*NCLB*), led by Jennifer O’Day and Kerstin Carlson Le Floch of the American Institutes for Research.  Other SSI-*NCLB* team members who provided important assistance for this report are Andrea Cook, Laura Hoard, Lori Nathanson, and James Taylor.

Other researchers who provided useful assistance for this report include Brian Gong of the Center for Assessment, and Rolf Blank, Adam Petermann, Carla Toye, and Andra Williams of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Many Department staff reviewed drafts of this report and provided useful comments and suggestions as well as, in some cases, providing data for the report.  Collette Roney and Joseph McCrary authored earlier versions of the chapter on state assessment and accountability systems.  We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Millicent Bentley-Memon, Kerri Briggs, Matthew Case, Carol Cichowski, William Cordes, Thomas Corwin, Laurette Crum, Kathryn Doherty, Meredith Farace, Arnold Goldstein, Kerry Gruber, Stacy Kreppel, Holly Kuzmich, Milagros Lanauze, Jeannette Lim, Richard Mellman, Doug Mesecar, Abigail Potts, Kelly Rhoads, Kay Rigling, Patrick Rooney, Philip Rosenfelt, Patricia O’Connell Ross, Ross Santy, Todd Stephenson, Zollie Stevenson, Bob Stonehill, Elizabeth Warner, Elizabeth Witt, Christine Wolfe, and Ze’ev Wurman.

While we appreciate the assistance and support of all of the above individuals, any errors in judgment or fact are, of course, the responsibility of the authors. 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Title I program began in 1965 as part of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)*and is intended to help ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state standards.  The *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)*, which went into effect beginning with the 2002–03 school year, strengthened the assessment and accountability provisions of *ESEA*, while also creating new provisions related to parental choice and teacher quality.  These and other changes were intended to increase the quality and effectiveness not only of the Title I program, but also of the entire elementary and secondary education system in raising the achievement of all students, particularly those with the lowest achievement levels.

As part of the *No Child Left Behind Act*, Congress mandated a National Assessment of Title I to evaluate the implementation and impact of the program, and the final report of the National Assessment was released in 2007.  Because additional findings from Title I evaluation studies have become available, this report was prepared to provide a summary of these new findings.  

The report includes new data from the second round of data collection for the two studies that are the main data sources for this report: the National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB*, which surveyed districts, principals, teachers, and parents, and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under *NCLB*, which interviewed state Title I directors and compiled data from state administrative records.  Both studies collected data in 2004–05 and 2006–07.  The National Assessment of Title I final report summarized findings from the 2004–05 data collection, while this report examines the 2006–07 data and reports on change between the two years, and also includes findings from an analysis of student achievement outcomes for Title I school choice and supplemental educational services that was conducted for a small subsample of nine large urban districts.  This new report also includes updated data from consolidated state performance reports, including student achievement on state assessments, school and district identification for improvement, and highly qualified teachers, and additional state-reported data on schools’ AYP and improvement status.

### A.  Trends in Student Achievement

This report examines trends in student achievement for public school students using both state assessment data and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  Student achievement on state assessments represents the primary criterion that the Title I statute applies to measure school success, but these data cannot be aggregated across states to examine national trends, because they vary in both the content and difficulty of test items as well as in the level that is labeled as “proficient.”  The NAEP provides a high-quality assessment that is consistent across states, but is not aligned with individual state content and achievement standards, so it may not precisely measure what students are expected to learn in their states.  This report examines recent trends on state assessments from 2004–05 through 2006–07 in 30 states that had consistent assessments in place over this period and longer-term trends on the main NAEP assessment (1990 to 2007), with a focus on recent trends.

These achievement trend data do not directly address the impact of *NCLB*, because it is difficult to separate the effects of *NCLB* from the effects of other state and local improvement efforts.

***Are students whom Title I is intended to benefit (including low-income students, racial and ethnic minorities, limited English proficient (LEP) students, migrant students, and students with disabilities) making progress toward meeting state academic achievement standards in reading and mathematics?***

**In 30 states that had trend data available from 2004–05 to 2006–07, the percentage of students achieving at or above the state’s proficient level rose for most student groups in a majority of the states.**  For example, state fourth-grade reading assessments show achievement gains for low-income students in 23 out of 27 states (85 percent) that had trend data available for this assessment.  Across all student groups examined, states showed achievement gains in fourth-grade reading in 73 percent of the cases.  Results for fourth-grade mathematics and eighth-grade reading and mathematics show similar patterns.  

**However, none of the 30 states would meet the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2013–14 unless the percentage of students achieving at the proficient level increased at a faster rate.**  For example, of the 27 states with consistent fourth-grade reading assessment data for low-income students, three states (11 percent) would meet the 100 percent goal by 2013–14 for this subgroup if they sustained the same rate of growth that they achieved from 2004–05 to 2006–07.  Looking across eight different student groups (low-income, black, Hispanic, white, LEP, migrant, students with disabilities, and the “all students” group) and four assessments (reading and mathematics in fourth grade and eighth grade), an average of 16 percent of the student groups within the 30 states would be predicted to reach 100 percent proficiency if recent growth rates were to continue.

***Are students, especially disadvantaged students, showing achievement gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress?***

**Recent trends on the main NAEP assessment showed gains for fourth-grade students in reading, mathematics, and science, overall and for minority students and students in high-poverty schools.**For example, from 2002 to 2007, black and Hispanic students each gained five points in fourth-grade reading, compared with a three‐point gain for white students.  In fourth-grade math, black students gained 19 points from 2000 to 2007 and Hispanic students gained 20 points, again greater than the 15‐point gain for white students.  In fourth-grade science, black students gained seven points from 2000 to 2005 and Hispanic students gained 11 points, compared with a three‐point gain for white students.  

Over the longer term, black and Hispanic students showed larger gains in mathematics (35 points and 28 points, respectively, from 1990 to 2007) and reading (12 points and 10 points, respectively, from 1992 to 2007).  

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

***Are achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students closing over time?***

**State assessments and NAEP both provided some indications that achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students may be narrowing.**  For example, on the NAEP fourth-grade reading assessment the black-white achievement gap declined from 29.3 scale score points in 2002 to 26.6 points in 2007, a reduction of 2.7 points.  Black-white achievement gaps also declined in fourth grade math from 2000 to 2007 (by four points) and in fourth-grade science from 2000 to 2005 (by four points).  The Hispanic-white achievement gap for fourth-grade students declined in both math and science (by five points and eight points, respectively) but showed no significant change in reading.

### B.  Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems

***To what extent have states implemented the annual assessments in reading, mathematics, and science that are required under*NCLB*?***

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

*NCLB* did not require science assessments to be in place until 2007–08.  Seven states had science assessments approved prior to May 2008 along with their reading and mathematics assessments; as of December 2008, 11 states had approved science assessments.  

**In 2005–06, two-thirds of the states (36) met the requirement to annually assess 95 percent or more of their students,** including major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, limited English proficient (LEP) students, and low-income students.  The remaining 16 states did not meet the minimum test participation requirement for one or more student subgroups.

***How many schools were identified for improvement under*NCLB*and what were their characteristics?***

**The number of Title I schools that were identified for improvement rose to 10,781 in 2006–07, an 11 percent increase over the 9,694 identified Title I schools in 2005–06.** Twenty percent of all Title I schools were identified in 2006–07, up from 19 percent in 2005–06 and 18 percent in 2004–05.  The number and percentage of schools identified for improvement varied considerably across states: nine states had identified 5 percent or fewer of their Title I schools, while 12 states had identified more than one-third of their Title I schools.

**Most schools that have been identified for improvement are concentrated in a relatively small number of districts.**Two-thirds (67 percent) of all Title I identified schools were located in just 3 percent of all Title I districts; 47 percent of Title I identified schools were located in 122 districts that had 13 or more identified schools, and 16 percent were located in the 15 school districts that had the largest numbers of identified schools.

**Most schools that were identified for improvement in 2004–05 remained in improvement status two years later, in 2006–07.** Nearly three-fourths of identified schools in 2004–05 continued to be identified schools in 2006–07, while 28 percent had exited school improvement status.  About half of the 2004–05 cohort of identified schools had moved into corrective action (25 percent) or restructuring status (22 percent) by 2006–07.  

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

**Schools with high concentrations of poor and minority students were much more likely to be identified than other schools, as were schools located in urban areas.**  Over one-third of high-poverty schools (37 percent) and schools with high percentages of minority students (38 percent) were identified schools in 2006–07, compared with 4 to 5 percent of schools with low concentrations of these students.  Schools in urban areas were more likely to be identified (25 percent) than were suburban and rural schools (12 percent and 9 percent, respectively).  Middle schools were more likely to be identified (22 percent of middle schools) than were high schools (13 percent) or elementary schools (14 percent). 

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

**Principals and teachers were not always aware that their school had been identified as in need of improvement, although principal awareness has improved.** In Title I schools that had been identified for improvement for 2006–07, 13 percent of principals incorrectly reported that their school had not been identified for improvement, an improvement from 22 percent in 2004–05 and 41 percent in 2001–02.  Among teachers in identified Title I schools, 28 percent of elementary teachers and 36 percent of secondary teachers were not aware that their school had been identified for improvement for 2006–07, similar to the percentages for 2004–05 (30 percent and 37 percent, respectively).

***What are the reasons schools did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP)?***

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

***What assistance is provided to districts and schools identified for improvement?  What interventions are implemented in these districts and schools?***

**Schools that were identified for improvement were more likely to report needing and receiving assistance than were non-identified schools.**  For example, 77 percent of identified schools reported needing technical assistance to improve the quality of professional development in 2006–07, compared with 53 percent of non-identified schools.  On average, principals of identified schools reported receiving about eight days of technical assistance in 2005–06, compared with four days reported by principals of non-identified schools.

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

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

The above findings about changes in instructional time present a different picture from those recently reported by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) based on a survey of school districts conducted in 2006–07.  For example, CEP reported that 36 percent of all districts reported reducing instructional time in social studies since *NCLB* took effect in 2002, with an average decrease of 76 minutes per week in districts that reported such reductions.  The CEP survey asked districts about change over a five-year period (2002 to 2007) while the National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB* asked teachers about change over a two-year period (2004-05 to 2006-07).

**Most Title I schools in corrective action status in 2006–07 reported experiencing interventions that *NCLB* defines for such schools.**  The two most common corrective actions were less frequently reported in 2006–07 than in 2004–05:  Title I schools in corrective action status were less likely to report being required to implement new curricula or instructional programs (67 percent in 2006–07 vs. 89 percent in 2004–05) or the appointment of an outside advisor (26 percent vs. 59 percent).  In both years, fewer schools reported extending the length of the school day, restructuring the internal organization of the school, or replacing school staff members relevant to the school’s low performance (21 to 22 percent in 2006–07, with no significant change since 2004-05 for these three actions).  Overall, there was not a statistically significant change in the percentage of corrective action schools that reported experiencing at least one of the corrective actions listed in the law (88 percent in 2006–07 vs. 96 percent in 2004–05).

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

### C.  Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services

***How many students are eligible to participate in Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and how many actually do so?***

**Student eligibility for and participation in both Title I choice options continues to rise.**The number of students eligible for Title I school choice increased from 3.3 million in 2003–04 to 5.5 million in 2006–07, while the number eligible for supplemental educational services increased from 1.9 million to 3.6 million.  Participation in the school choice option increased to 120,000 in 2006–07, up from 65,000 in 2005–06 and 48,000 in 2004–05, while participation in supplemental services rose to 530,000 in 2006–07, up from 498,000 in 2005–06 and 446,000 in 2004–05.  The percentage of eligible students who participated in 2006–07 was 15 percent for supplemental services and 2 percent for school choice.

**Student participation rates varied widely.**In districts required to offer supplemental services in 2005–06, 24 percent reported participation rates of more than 20 percent, while 20 percent reported participation rates between 5 and 20 percent, 25 percent reported at least one student participating but less than 5 percent, and 31 percent reported that no students participated.

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

Districts reported spending an average of $836 per supplemental services participant in 2005–06, 26 percent less than the maximum per-child amount they reported allocating for such services in that year ($1,134).

***How and when do districts inform parents of eligible children about the Title I school choice and supplemental services options?***

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

**Although nearly all districts required to offer school choice and supplemental services reported (in a nationally representative survey) that they notified parents about these options, a survey of eligible parents in eight large urban school districts found that many parents were unaware of these choice options.**In these eight districts, only 20 percent of parents eligible to use the Title I school choice option and 59 percent of those eligible to enroll their child in supplemental services said they had been notified about these options in 2006–07.  However, the eight-district sample was not nationally representative, so findings based on this sample cannot be generalized to the nation.

***What is the relationship between participation in Title I school choice and supplemental services and student achievement?***

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

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

It is important to note that although this study used statistical methods to control for student socioeconomic background, race and ethnicity, and other factors, the quasi-experimental methods used in this study may not fully control for selection bias.  In other words, students who choose may be different from students who do not choose, and these differences may affect the results.

***How are states monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of supplemental service providers?***

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

The most common approaches states had implemented to monitor providers were surveying the districts, parents, or students about provider effectiveness (13 states), using providers’ reports of student enrollment or attendance (13 states), and examining test scores (10 states).  However, as of fall 2006, eight states had not established any monitoring process.

**D.  Teacher Quality and Professional Development**

***How have states implemented the requirements to develop standards and procedures for teachers to demonstrate sufficient content knowledge to be deemed “highly qualified”?***

**States vary considerably in their criteria for teachers to demonstrate content knowledge in the subjects they teach.**  For example, among the 36 states that used the Praxis II Mathematics Content Knowledge assessment to test new teachers’ content knowledge in mathematics, as of November 2007, nine states set their cut scores below the 25th percentile of all scores attained by test takers, while three states set the cut score above the national median.

**For veteran teachers, most states were phasing out the use of HOUSSE (High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation) for most teachers.**In early 2007, eight states indicated that they were discontinuing HOUSSE entirely, and another 11 states were discontinuing HOUSSE except for certain categories of teachers.  However, 30 states reported that, while they were working to discontinue HOUSSE, they had identified specific groups of teachers for whom they anticipated that HOUSSE would be necessary (e.g., for foreign language teachers). 

***How many teachers meet the*NCLB*requirement to be highly qualified?***

**The large majority of teachers across the country have been designated as highly qualified under *NCLB*.** According to state-reported data for 50 states, 92 percent of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers in 2005–06.  Teachers sometimes indicated that they did not know their highly qualified status.  For example, 84 percent of teachers reported in 2006–07 that they were considered highly qualified under *NCLB*, while 14 percent said they did not know their status and 2 percent said they were not highly qualified.  Special education teachers were more likely to report that they were considered not highly qualified under *NCLB* than were general education teachers.

**Among teachers who said they were highly qualified under *NCLB*, those in high-poverty schools had less experience and were less likely to have a degree in the subject that they teach, compared with their peers in low-poverty schools.**  In 2006–07, 14 percent of highly qualified teachers in high-poverty schools had fewer than three years of teaching experience, compared with 8 percent of highly qualified teachers in low-poverty schools.  Similarly, highly qualified secondary mathematics teachers in high-poverty schools were less likely to have a degree in mathematics (32 percent, compared with 50 percent in low-poverty schools).

***To what extent are teachers participating in professional development activities that are sustained, intensive, and focused on instruction?***

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

**Teachers were less likely to report that they participated in professional development focused on in-depth study of reading and mathematics than in training on instructional strategies.**For example, in 2005–06, 67 percent of elementary teachers participated in six or more hours of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading, but only 44 percent participated in six or more hours of in-depth study of topics in reading.

**Both elementary and secondary teachers reported participating in more hours of professional development in reading and mathematics in 2005–06 compared with 2003–04.**  For example, the percentage of elementary teachers who participated in six or more hours of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading rose from 59 percent in 2003–04 to 67 percent in 2005–06, and the percentage who participated for more than 24 hours rose from 20 percent to 26 percent.

Teachers in schools identified for improvement were often more likely to report that they participated in professional development focused on reading and mathematics than were teachers in non-identified schools.  For example, elementary teachers in identified schools were more likely than teachers in non-identified schools to report receiving at least six hours of professional development in instructional strategies for teaching reading (77 percent vs. 67 percent) and mathematics (52 percent vs. 43 percent). 

**I. Introduction**

The Title I program began in 1965 as part of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)* and is intended to help ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state standards.  The *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)*, which went into effect beginning with the 2002–03 school year, strengthened the assessment and accountability provisions of *ESEA*, requiring that states set targets for school and district performance that would lead to the goal of all students achieving proficiency on state reading and mathematics assessments by the 2013–14 school year.  Schools and districts that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward this goal for two consecutive years are identified as needing improvement and are subject to increasing levels of interventions designed to improve their performance and to provide students with additional options. *NCLB* also requires that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified, which the law defines as having a bachelor’s degree and full state certification as well as demonstrating competency, as defined by the state, in each core academic subject that they teach.  

As part of the *No Child Left Behind Act*, Congress mandated a National Assessment of Title I to evaluate the implementation and impact of the program.  The final report of the National Assessment was released in 2007.  Because additional findings from Title I evaluation studies have become available, this report was prepared to provide a summary of these new findings.  

The report includes new data from the second round of data collection for the two studies that are the main data sources for this report: the National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB*, which surveyed districts, principals, teachers, and parents, and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under *NCLB*, which interviewed state Title I directors and compiled data from state administrative records.  Both studies collected data in 2004–05 and 2006–07.  The National Assessment of Title I final report summarized findings from the 2004–05 data collection, while this report examines the 2006–07 data and reports on change between the two years, and also includes an analysis of student achievement outcomes for Title I school choice and supplemental educational services that was conducted in a subsample of nine large urban districts.  This new report also includes updated data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and consolidated state performance reports, including student achievement on state assessments, school and district identification for improvement, and highly qualified teachers, and additional state-reported data on schools’ AYP and improvement status.

The report focuses on providing the most recently available data on Title I implementation and also examines recent trends since the enactment of the *No Child Left Behind Act.*  It**also provides some historical information about long-term trends in participation, funding, and student achievement. Key data sources for this report include the following:  

· **National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB* (NLS-*NCLB*).**  This study examined the implementation of *NCLB* provisions for accountability, teacher quality, Title I school choice and supplemental educational services, and targeting and resource allocation.  The study surveyed districts, principals, classroom teachers, special education teachers, and Title I paraprofessionals in a nationally representative sample of 300 districts and 1,483 schools in the 2004–05 and  2006–07 school years.  The study also surveyed parents in a subsample of eight districts and supplemental service providers in a subsample of 16 districts, in both years.  In addition, the study included a quasi-experimental analysis of the relationship between participation in Title I school choice and supplemental services and student achievement in a subsample of nine large urban school districts.

· **Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under *NCLB* (SSI‐*NCLB*).**  This companion study to the NLS-*NCLB* collected information from all states about their implementation of the accountability, assessment, and teacher quality provisions of the law.  The study surveyed state education staff members responsible for implementing these provisions in 2004–05 and 2006–07.  In addition, the study analyzed extant data relating to state implementation, including state lists of schools and districts that did not make AYP and of those identified as in need of improvement.

· **Consolidated State Performance Reports.**  These annual state reports, required under *NCLB*, provide data on student achievement on state assessments for 2005–06 and earlier years, as well as basic descriptive information such as numbers of schools identified for improvement.

· **National Assessment of Educational Progress.**  The NAEP provides information on overall trends in student achievement on a consistent assessment for populations targeted by Title I.  The main NAEP assessments are conducted in reading and mathematics once every two years at grades 4 and 8.  Assessments at grade 12 and in science and other subjects are also conducted periodically.  

For a more detailed description of these data sources, see the 2007 *National Assessment of Title I Final Report*.

**A.  Technical Notes**

References in the text to differences between groups or over time that are based on sample data only discuss differences that are statistically significant using a significance level of 0.05.  The significance level, or alpha level, reflects the probability that a difference between groups as large as the one observed could arise simply due to sampling variation, if there were no true difference between groups in the population.  A failure to reach this level of statistical significance does not necessarily mean that two groups were the same or that there was no change over time; rather, a lack of statistically significant findings simply means that no reliable conclusion can be drawn from the analyses that were conducted.  The tests were conducted by calculating a *t* value for the difference between a pair of means and comparing that value to a published table of critical values for *t*.  Differences between proportions were tested using a chi-square statistic.  Standard error tables for estimates based on sample data are included in Appendix C.

Analyses of data on student achievement on state assessments, percentages of schools and districts identified for improvement, and reasons that schools did not make adequate yearly progress were based on the full population of schools as reported by each state.  

The report frequently examines differences between high and low-poverty schools based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.  In this report, survey data for “high-poverty schools” included schools where at least 75 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and “low-poverty schools” included schools where fewer than 35 percent were eligible for such lunches.  For NAEP analyses, “high-poverty schools” included schools where 76–100 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and “low-poverty schools” were defined as those with 0–25 percent eligible for subsidized lunches.

**II. Trends in Student Achievement**

This chapter examines trends in student achievement for public school students using both state assessment data and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  Student achievement on state assessments represents the primary criterion that the Title I statute applies to measure school success, but these data cannot be aggregated across states to examine national trends or used to make comparisons among states.  Because each state has developed its own standards, assessments, and definitions of student proficiency, the content and rigor of these assessments are not comparable across states.  In addition, many states have revised their assessment systems in recent years, so they often do not have the trend data needed to assess student progress.  The NAEP provides a high-quality assessment that is consistent across states, but it may not be aligned with individual state content and achievement standards, so it may not precisely measure what students are expected to learn in their states.  This report draws on both types of assessments to examine the most complete available information about the recent progress of our schools in raising student achievement.

This report examines trends on the main NAEP assessment from the early 1990s through 2007, with a focus on the most recent period from 2000 to 2007, in order to show trends in NAEP results during the early years of *NCLB* implementation.  For state assessments, we examine recent trends from 2004–05 through 2006–07) in 30 states that had consistent assessments in place over this period.  The report focuses on presenting achievement trends for fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics assessments, although some 12th-grade assessment results are examined as well.  We also show trends in science achievement on the main NAEP.  Science achievement trends are not presented for state assessments, because few states have consistent longitudinal data on state science assessments and science assessments results are not collected through the annual Consolidated State Performance Reports (science assessments were not required under *NCLB* until 2007–08).  

It should be noted that the achievement trend data presented in this chapter do not directly address the impact of *NCLB*, because it is difficult to separate the effects of *NCLB* from the effects of other state and local improvement efforts.

### A.  Student Achievement on State Assessments

This report examines student achievement trends for fourth-grade and eighth-grade reading and mathematics from 2004–05 to 2006–07 for 30 states that had consistent state standards and assessments in place during this period.  Previous National Assessment of Title I reports found similar patterns in student achievement trends on state assessments for 23 states for the period from 2000–01 to 2002–03 and for 36 states for the period from 2002–03 to 2004–05.  These analyses of state assessment data have focused on these relatively short time periods because few states have trend data on a consistent state assessment available for a longer period.

**While state assessments may be useful for examining change in achievement within a state, they may not be used to make comparisons across states.**  State assessments differ in the content and the difficulty of test items, as well as in the level that is labeled as proficient, so states with higher percentages of students at the proficient level are not necessarily higher performing in an absolute sense.  For example, states that have similar proportions of students scoring at the proficient level on the NAEP may vary considerably in the percentage of students achieving proficiency on the state assessment (see Exhibit 1).  

In addition, caution should be used when examining change over time in the proportion of students performing at or above each state’s proficiency level.  The data come from the Consolidated State Performance Reports submitted by each state and cannot speak to the reasons for observed losses or gains over time within each state.  Observed losses or gains could reflect a number of things, including changes in the assessment system, population changes, or changes in the proficiency of a stable population.

**Exhibit 1 should not be viewed as recommending that state proficiency levels should match NAEP proficiency levels.**  NAEP achievement levels are still being used on a trial basis.  There continue to be concerns about the procedures used to set the achievement levels, and the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics has not determined that they are “reasonable, valid, and informative to the public.” NAEP and current state assessments were established at different times to meet different purposes, and there is no one “right” level that should be defined as proficient.  Under *NCLB*, each state has the responsibility to establish standards and assessments and to define a proficient level that all students are expected to reach by 2013–14.  In contrast, when the NAEP proficiency levels were created about 18 years ago, there was no expectation that all students must reach the NAEP proficient level by a particular date.  Assessment systems vary tremendously, both between NAEP and state systems, as well as across states, and similar-sounding terms may not be comparable.

**In most states, eighth-grade students were less likely to reach the proficient level than were fourth-grade students, on both state assessments and NAEP, particularly in mathematics.**  On state assessments, eighth-graders were less likely than fourth-graders to reach their state’s proficient level in 2006-07 in 32 states in reading and 48 states and the District of Columbia in mathematics.  On average, the percentage of eighth-graders performing at or above the proficient level was 3 percentage points lower than for fourth-grade students in reading and 8 percentage points lower in mathematics (based on the median difference between the two grade levels).  NAEP data similarly showed a lower percentage of students reaching the NAEP proficient level in eighth grade than in fourth grade (see Exhibit 2). 

**Student achievement on state assessments, as measured by the percent of students performing at the proficient level, rose from 2004–05 to 2006–07 for most student groups in a majority of states that had consistent assessment data available for both years.**  For example, states showed gains in fourth-grade reading for low-income students in 23 out of 27 states (85 percent) (see Exhibit 3).  Similarly, low-income students also showed gains in fourth-grade mathematics, and in eighth-grade reading and mathematics, in most of the states with consistent assessment data available.  

State assessment trends for black and Hispanic students, LEP students, migrant students, and students with disabilities also showed similar patterns (see Exhibit 4; for state-by-state results, see Exhibits A-2 through A‐10 in Appendix A).  On average, 79 percent of the states showed achievement gains from 2004–05 to 2006–07 for each group.

**State assessment trends from 2004–05 to 2006–07 showed reductions in the achievement gaps between minority students and white students in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics.**  In fourth-grade reading, 11 out of 25 states with available data showed a reduction in the black-white achievement gap in the percentage of students scoring at or above their state’s proficient level (see Exhibit A-10).  On average, the black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading in these states declined from 23 percentage points in 2004-05 to 21 in 2006-07.  Similar results were found for fourth-grade mathematics and eighth-grade reading and math, as well as for Hispanic-white achievement gaps (see Exhibits A-10 and A-11).

*NCLB* has established the goal of not just steady achievement growth, but also the expectation for all tested students to reach proficiency on state assessments in reading and mathematics by the 2013–14 school year.  To examine whether the recent growth rates for student achievement would be sufficient to bring all students to their state’s proficient level by 2013–14, we calculated the average annual change in each state’s percent proficient based on the change between 2004–05 to 2006–07, and determined the percent proficient that would be attained by 2013–14 if the state continued to progress at that rate.  Exhibit 5 summarizes the number of states that would be predicted to meet the 100 percent goal for eight different student groups.  (Exhibit A-17 shows these calculations for the low-income subgroup.)

**Based on data for 30 states, most would not meet the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2013–14 unless the percentage of students achieving at the proficient level increases at a faster rate.** For example, among the 27 states that had consistent fourth-grade reading assessment data for low-income students, three states (11 percent) would meet the 100 percent goal by 2013–14 for this subgroup if they sustained the same rate of growth that they achieved from 2004–05 to 2006–07 (see Exhibit 5).  

**Looking across eight different student categories (low-income, black, Hispanic, white, LEP, migrant, students with disabilities, and the “all students” group), an average of 16 percent of these student groups within the 30 states would reach 100 percent proficiency in fourth-grade reading if recent growth rates were to remain steady** (see Exhibit 5).  Across the four assessments included in this analysis (reading and mathematics in fourth grade and eighth grade), the percentage of student groups predicted to reach 100 percent proficiency in this analysis (16 percent, based on achievement trajectories from 2004–05 to 2006–07) is lower than was found in previous National Assessment of Title I reports that were based on earlier state assessment trends (26 percent based on achievement trends from 2002–03 to 2004–05 in 36 states and 33 percent based on achievement trends from 2000–01 to 2002–03 in 21 states).

Although a number of states were predicted to reach the 100 percent proficient target for one or more student group-assessment combinations, based on the assumption of a steady growth rate in their percent proficient, no state was predicted to reach 100 percent proficient for all student groups and assessments included in this analysis.  Six of the 30 states examined would not reach the 100 percent goal for any of the student groups or assessments examined.

Most state AYP targets are not based on an expectation of steady achievement growth rates over the full period from 2006–07 to 2013–14.  States vary in the types of growth trajectories they have used to set their AYP targets, and over half (28) are planning for achievement growth rates to accelerate as 2013–14 approaches.  Based on recent achievement trajectories, such acceleration will be necessary if states are to meet the goal of 100 percent proficient by 2013–14.

### B. Student Achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

This report examines short-term trends for public school students on the main NAEP.  The discussion below examines both recent trends, in order to show trends in NAEP results during the early years of *NCLB* implementation, as well as longer-term trends since the early 1990s.  Recent trends are examined for the period from 2002 to 2007 for reading, 2000 to 2007 for mathematics, and 2000 to 2005 for science.

It is important to reiterate that these NAEP achievement trends do not directly address the impact of *NCLB*.  The timing of NAEP test administrations do not provide, in most cases, a snapshot of student performance just prior to *NCLB* implementation, which began in the 2002–03 school year; for example, reading and math assessments were administered in 2000 and 2003 but not 2002, except for the fourth-grade reading assessment.  More importantly, simple trend analyses such as these cannot separate the effects of *NCLB* from the effects of other state and local improvement efforts, demographic changes, and other factors that may affect student achievement trends.

**Recent NAEP trends show gains for fourth-grade public school students in reading, mathematics, and science, but trends for middle and high school students were mixed** (see Exhibit 6).  At the fourth-grade level, average scale scores rose in reading from 217 in 2002 to 220 in 2007, in mathematics from 224 in 2000 to 239 in 2007, and in science from 145 in 2000 to 149 in 2005.  At the eighth-grade level, mathematics scores also showed an increase, from 272 in 2000 to 280 in 2007, but the average science score was unchanged and the average reading score declined slightly, from 263 in 2002 to 261 in 2007.  At the 12th-grade level, the most recent reading and science assessments, in 2005, showed no change from the preceding assessments (2002 for reading and 2000 for science).  Recent trend data for 12th-grade mathematics are not available, because the most recent NAEP 12th-grade mathematics assessment (for 2005) is based on a new framework and the data are not comparable with previous years.  

Over the complete period during which the main NAEP assessment was administered, scores increased significantly in mathematics and reading for fourth- and eighth-grade students and in science for fourth-grade students, but decreased significantly for 12th-graders in all three subjects.

**Recent NAEP trends by race and ethnicity showed gains in fourth-grade reading, mathematics, and science that were larger for black and Hispanic students than for white students** (see Exhibit 7).  From 2002 to 2007, black and Hispanic students each gained five points in fourth-grade reading, compared with a three‐point gain for white students over the same period.  In fourth-grade math, black students gained 19 points from 2000 to 2007 and Hispanic students gained 20 points, again greater than the 15‐point gain for white students. In fourth-grade science, black students gained seven points from 2000 to 2005 and Hispanic students gained 11 points, compared with a three‐point gain for white students.  

Over the longer term, fourth-grade mathematics scores showed even larger gains from 1990 to 2007 for all three racial-ethnic groups shown in this chart: black students gained 35 points, Hispanic students gained 28 points, and white students gained 29 points.  In fourth-grade reading, the 15-year trend from 1992 to 2007 also showed larger gains for black, Hispanic, and white students (12 points, 10 points, and seven points, respectively).  In fourth-grade science, the nine-year gains from 1996 to 2005 were about the same as the gains from 2000 to 2005 (because the average scores showed little change from 1996 to 2000).

Looking at the achievement gap between white and minority students, the recent trends in fourth-grade NAEP scores discussed above reflect statistically significant reductions in the black-white achievement gaps in reading, math, and science, as well as reductions in the Hispanic-white achievement gaps in math and science.  For example, the black-white achievement gap in fourth-grade reading declined from 29.3 scale score points in 2002 to 26.6 points in 2007, a reduction of 2.7 points.  Black-white achievement gaps also declined in fourth-grade math from 2000 to 2007 (by four points) and in fourth-grade science from 2000 to 2005 (by four points).  The Hispanic-white achievement gap for fourth-grade students declined in both math and science (by five points and eight points, respectively) but showed no significant change in reading.  Over the longer term, since the 1990s, there was a significant reduction in black-white achievement gaps in all three subjects, but no significant change in achievement gaps for Hispanic students.

The gains for each racial or ethnic subgroup shown in Exhibit 7 tended to be larger than the average gain for all fourth-grade students shown in Exhibit 6.  This is due in part to changes in the composition of the student population during this time period; white students, who had higher average achievement, accounted for a declining percentage of assessed students over the period examined here.  In reading, for example, the percentage of assessed fourth-grade students who were white declined from 72 percent in 1992 to 56 percent in 2007, while the percentage who were Hispanic rose from 7 percent to 20 percent.

**At the eighth-grade level, black and Hispanic students showed recent gains in math but not in reading or science** (see Exhibit 8).  In mathematics, black students gained 12 points from 2000 to 2007 and Hispanic students gained 16 points, compared with a seven-point gain for white students.  In reading and science, however, there was no statistically significant change in average scale scores for any of these three groups over this period (since 2002 for reading and since 2000 for science). 

Over the longer term, since the early 1990s, black and Hispanic students showed significant gains in reading and mathematics that were similar to the gains for white students.  In reading, black and Hispanic students each gained six points from 1992 to 2007, compared with a five-point gain for white students.  In mathematics, black students gained 23 points from 1990 to 2007 and Hispanic students gained 19 points, compared with a 21-point gain for white students.  Black students also showed a small increase in science scores since 1996 (a three-point gain), but science scores for Hispanic and white students did not change significantly.

**Recent trends in achievement gaps on the eighth-grade NAEP show reductions in the black-white and Hispanic-white gaps in mathematics but not in reading or science.  Over the longer term since the 1990s, changes in eighth-grade achievement gaps for black and Hispanic students were not statistically significant in any of these three subjects.**  On the fourth-grade mathematics assessment, the black-white achievement gap declined from 30 points in 2000 to 26 points in 2007, and the Hispanic-white gap declined from 26 points to 21 points.  However, there was no statistically significant change in eighth-grade achievement gaps in reading from 2002 to 2007 or in science from 2000 to 2005.  We also examined achievement gaps over the full period that the Main NAEP has been administered (since 1992 for reading, 1990 for mathematics, and 1996 for science); these longer-term trends showed no significant change in black-white and Hispanic-white achievement gaps.

**Most states showed an increase in the percentage of students performing at or above the proficient level on NAEP, but the increases were smaller in reading than in mathematics.**  Looking at the “all students” group, 39 out of 51 jurisdictions (76 percent) showed an increase from 2003 to 2007 in the percentage of students reaching the proficient level in fourth-grade reading, while 50 out of 51 jurisdictions (98 percent) showed an increase for fourth-grade mathematics (see Exhibit 9).  The median increase was 2 percentage points in reading and 8 percentage points in mathematics (see Exhibit A-21).  State-by-state trends are provided in Exhibits A-21 through A-26 in Appendix A.

**III.  Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems**

The intent of *NCLB* is to improve achievement for all students by requiring states to establish assessment and accountability systems that hold all schools, including Title I schools and non–Title I schools, to the same academic standards.  Under Title I, states must administer assessments that are aligned with challenging content and academic achievement standards.  By 2005-06, all states were expected to assess all students in grades 3–8 and once in grades 10–12 in reading and mathematics.  By 2007-08, states were expected to administer annual science assessments at least once in grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12.  States must annually determine whether schools and districts are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of all students reaching the proficient level on state reading and mathematics assessments by 2013–14—including students from low-income families and each major racial and ethnic group, students with disabilities, and limited English proficient (LEP) students.  

Schools and districts become identified for improvement when they miss AYP for two consecutive years, and states and districts are expected to provide technical assistance to help schools improve their performance.  District also must provide each student at identified Title I schools the option to transfer to a non-identified school in the district.  If the school misses AYP again after being identified, the district must also give students from low-income families the option to receive supplemental educational services (e.g., tutoring) from state-approved providers.  If such schools miss AYP for a second time after identification, districts must take at least one of a series of corrective actions at the school, such as requiring a new curriculum or replacing school staff members.  If a school does not make AYP after one year of corrective action, *NCLB* calls for major restructuring of the school, beginning with a year of planning for restructuring followed by actual restructuring the next year if the school misses AYP for a sixth year.  Identified schools and districts exit improvement status when they make AYP for two consecutive years.

### A.  Development of Assessments Required Under No Child Left Behind

**During the 2006–07 school year, all states administered assessments intended to meet *NCLB* requirements for reading and mathematics.  As of Jan. 8, 2009, 39 state assessment systems had been approved by the Department, through a peer review process, as meeting all *NCLB* testing requirements for reading and mathematics**(see Exhibit 10).  For the remaining states, the evidence submitted indicated that one or more fundamental components were missing or did not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements, and reviews of their state assessment systems are continuing.  

Further peer reviews will be done as evidence becomes available.  Some of the “approval pending” states will enter into compliance agreements with the Department because the evidence indicated that it will take more than a year for the state to meet the assessment requirements, and the state has submitted a detailed plan of action for coming into compliance.  Challenges states commonly faced in implementing assessment systems that are fully compliant included the development of alternate assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, aligning assessments to state academic content standards, and documenting the technical quality of their assessment systems.

Although *NCLB* did not require science assessments to be in place until 2007–08, seven states had science assessments approved prior to May 2008, along with their reading and mathematics assessments.  As of December 2008, a total of 11 states have approved science assessments. 

**As of 2005–06, most states were meeting the requirement to annually assess at least 95 percent of all students,** including students from all major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and students from low-income families.  However, 16 states did not meet the minimum test participation requirement for one or more student subgroups.  Seven states assessed fewer than 95 percent of one or more minority student groups (black, Hispanic, or Native American), eight states did not meet the test participation requirement for students with disabilities, and 11 states did not meet the test participation requirement for LEP students.  The number of states falling short of the 95 percent participation requirement in 2005–06 was about the same as in 2004–05 (16 vs. 15).  

**All states have implemented alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.**The 39 state assessment systems approved by the Department as of Jan. 8, 2009 include such alternate assessments.  For about half of all states, reasons their assessment systems have not yet been approved included major issues related to their implementation of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards.

**Nearly all states had implemented English language proficiency (ELP) assessments as of the 2006–07 school year.**  Although many states had some type of proficiency test for limited English proficient (LEP) students prior to *NCLB*, these tests were generally designed for placement purposes rather than to measure progress in acquiring language proficiency.  Most states have implemented new ELP assessments in recent years; 46 states implemented their current ELP assessment during or after 2004–05.  As of 2006–07, all but one state had an ELP assessment in place, and the remaining state planned to implement its ELP assessment in 2007–08. State directors anticipated making only small revisions to update or align their ELP assessments.  Almost half (23) of the states developed their ELP assessment in collaboration with multi-state consortia.  Other approaches were adopting an ELP assessment from an out-of-state source (five states), adapting an assessment from an out-of-state source (nine states), and developing an assessment specifically for or by the state (13 states).  

### B.  School and District Identification for Improvement

**States identified a total of 13,103 schools for improvement, or 15 percent of the nation’s schools, in 2006–07 (based on test scores for 2005–06 and earlier years).**  Title I schools accounted for 82 percent of all identified schools, and the 10,781 identified Title I schools represented 20 percent of all Title I schools.   

The 10,781 Title I schools identified for improvement in 2006–07 represented about 1,000 more than the number in 2005–06 (9,694), an 11 percent increase, following a smaller increase the previous year (see Exhibit 11).  Overall, 9.0 million students attended schools identified for improvement in 2006–07, up from 7.3 million in 2004–05.  There was considerable change in which schools were identified: 31 percent of the Title I identified schools in 2006–07 had not been identified the previous year, and 12 percent of Title I identified schools in 2005–06 were no longer identified in 2006–07.

**Almost half of Title I schools identified for improvement were in the more advanced stages of identification status.**Forty-six percent of all identified Title I schools in 2006–07 were in either corrective action or restructuring, up from 33 percent in 2005–06 and 23 percent in 2004–05. The number of Title I schools in corrective action, more than doubled from 1,223 in  2005–06 to 2,663 in 2006–07 (25 percent of identified Title I schools), while the number in restructuring status rose from 1,683 to 2,270 (21 percent of identified Title I schools) (see Exhibit 12). 

**The number and percentage of schools identified for improvement varied considerably across states** (see Exhibit 13).  States differ in not only their size and total number of schools, but also in the content and rigor of their assessments and academic achievement standards as well as other features of their accountability systems. As a result, variation across states in the numbers and percentages of identified schools likely reflects differences in state accountability systems as well as differences in student achievement; states with more identified schools are not necessarily lower performing than states with fewer identified schools.  Still, nine states had identified only 5 percent or fewer of their Title I schools, while 12 states had identified more than one-third of their Title I schools in 2006–07.  Similarly, the numbers of Title I schools in corrective action or restructuring status varied by state, from fewer than five in several states to more than 200 in a few states.   

**Non–Title I schools accounted for 18 percent of all schools that were identified for improvement in 2006–07.**  In eleven states, non–Title I schools accounted for more than half of the identified schools in those states.  Twenty-four states reported that they identified non–Title I schools for improvement in 2006–07 (reporting a total of 2,322 non–Title I identified schools). Fewer states had assigned non–Title I schools to corrective action status (18) or restructuring status (16). Overall, states had placed about 550 non–Title I schools in corrective action or restructuring. Few states required the *NCLB* consequences of public school choice and supplemental educational services in non–Title I schools that were identified for improvement (three states).

**Most schools identified for improvement were concentrated in a relatively small number of districts** (see Exhibit 14).  In 2006–07, only 2,618 districts (19 percent of all Title I districts) had one or more Title I schools identified for improvement in 2006–07, and 71 percent of these (1,871 districts) had only one or two such schools.  Nearly half (47 percent) of all Title I identified schools were located in 122 districts that had 13 or more schools identified for improvement, and 19 percent were located in the 15 school districts that had the largest numbers of identified schools.  Schools in restructuring status were particularly likely to be concentrated in a small set of districts; the 15 districts with the most Title I schools in restructuring status accounted for 37 percent of all Title I schools in restructuring status.

**Middle schools were more likely to be identified for improvement than were elementary schools or high schools.**  Twenty-two percent of middle schools were identified schools in 2006–07, compared with 14 percent of high schools and 13 percent of elementary schools.  However, because elementary schools account for a majority of all schools, they accounted for a larger total number of identified schools (6,701) compared with middle schools (3,573) and high schools (2,363). 

**Schools with high concentrations of poor and minority students were much more likely to be identified for improvement than were other schools.**  Over one-third of high-poverty schools (38 percent) and schools with high concentrations of minority students (38 percent) were identified schools in 2006–07, compared with 4 to 5 percent of schools with low concentrations of these students.  Schools in urban areas were more likely to be identified (25 percent) than were suburban and rural schools (12 percent and 9 percent, respectively).  Schools with high concentrations of LEP students and schools in large districts also were identified at higher rates than other schools. 

Minority students and students from low-income families were more likely to attend schools identified for improvement than were other students.  For example, 29 percent of African-American students, 32 percent of Hispanic students, and 22 percent of Native American students attended schools identified for improvement in 2006–07, compared with 9 percent of white students.  Similarly, 26 percent of students from low-income families attended schools identified for improvement, compared with 18 percent of all students. 

Most schools that were identified for improvement for 2004–05 remained in improvement status two years later (in 2006–07), and most of these schools had progressed to more advanced stages of improvement status.  Nearly three-fourths (72 percent) of the schools identified for 2004–05 continued to be identified schools in 2006–07, while 28 percent had exited school improvement status (see Exhibit 15).  About half of the 2004–05 cohort of identified schools had moved into either corrective action (25 percent) or restructuring status (22 percent) by 2006–07; the remaining schools were designated as in Year 1 or Year 2 of school improvement status (8 percent and 17 percent, respectively).  Two-thirds (66 percent) of the schools in corrective action in 2004–05 had moved into restructuring status by 2006–07.  Over three-fourths (78 percent) of the schools in restructuring status in 2004–05 were still in restructuring status in 2006–07.  Nearly all (93 percent) of the schools that were not identified for improvement in 2004–05 continued to be non-identified schools in 2006–07.

**Although only 13 percent of districts were identified for improvement in 2006–07, these districts accounted for 40 percent of the nation’s students.**  A total of 1,728 districts in 47 states were identified for improvement in 2006–07.  Among the identified districts, 381 districts in 26 states were identified for corrective action, a six-fold increase over 2005–06.  One-fourth (25 percent) of identified districts in 2006–07 (431 districts) contained no schools identified for improvement.

**C.  Adequate Yearly Progress Ratings for Schools and Districts**

**Nearly three-quarters of all schools (73 percent) and districts (71 percent) met all applicable AYP targets in 2005–06 testing.**  Of those schools that missed AYP, 63 percent missed reading achievement targets, 56 percent missed mathematics targets, and 42 percent missed achievement targets in both reading and mathematics.  Ten percent made AYP for both reading and mathematics achievement but missed AYP for another indicator, i.e., test participation rate or the “other academic indicator,” which for high schools is graduation rate and for other schools is usually attendance rate.  High schools and middle schools were more likely to miss AYP in 2005–06 (34 percent and 41 percent, respectively) than were elementary schools (19 percent).  Forty percent of high schools missed AYP for graduation rate (40 percent), while 14 percent of elementary schools missed AYP for their other academic indicator.

**The percentage of schools that missed AYP varied greatly among states, ranging from 5 to 86 percent of schools in a state.**  The number of schools missing AYP (24,049) based on 2005–06 testing was nearly double the number of schools identified for improvement for 2006–07 (13,103).  

**Schools most commonly missed AYP for the achievement of all students or for a combination of AYP targets.**  Based on data from 43 states, among schools that missed AYP in 2005–06, 35 percent did not meet achievement targets for the “all students” group in reading, mathematics, or both (see Exhibit 16).  An additional 20 percent of these schools missed AYP for the achievement of two or more subgroups although they made AYP for the all students group.  About one-fourth (24 percent) missed AYP solely due to the achievement of a single subgroup, most commonly students with disabilities (14 percent); smaller percentages of schools missed AYP solely due to the achievement of LEP students (4 percent), low-income students (4 percent), or a single racial or ethnic subgroup (3 percent).  Similarly, few schools missed AYP solely due to the “other academic indicator” (6 percent) or low test participation rates (4 percent).  The patterns were relatively consistent across the three years for which these data are available (2003–04 to 2005–06).  A different number of states and schools were included in the analyses for different years, but the patterns are also consistent when the analysis is restricted to include only the 26 states with data available for all three years (see Exhibit A-28 in Appendix A). 

**Schools in corrective action or restructuring status were more likely than other schools to miss AYP for the “all students” group or for the achievement of two or more subgroups.**  In 2006–07, 56 percent of corrective action schools and 63 percent of schools in restructuring status had missed AYP for the “all students” group (based on 2005–06 assessments), compared with 37 percent of schools that had been identified for improvement for the first time and 26 percent of schools that had missed AYP but were not identified for improvement.  Conversely, 13 percent of schools in corrective action and restructuring status had missed AYP for the achievement of a single subgroup, compared with 28 percent of non-identified schools that had missed AYP for this reason (see Exhibit 17). 

**A large majority of students from most racial and ethnic groups attended schools held accountable for the performance of their subgroups.***NCLB* permits states to establish minimum *n* sizes for the number of students in a particular subgroup that must be present in the school to include the subgroup in the school’s AYP calculations.  These *n* sizes range from a low of 1 in North Dakota to a high of 50 in California, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; most states used a minimum *n* size of 30 to 40 students.** Across 41 states with available data for the 2005–06 testing year, looking at students in grades that are to be tested under the *NCLB* requirements, 97 percent of white students were in schools in which AYP was calculated for their subgroup, as were 85 percent of African-American students and 83 percent of Hispanic students.  However, only about half of Asian and Native American students were in schools in which AYP was calculated for these subgroups (55 percent and 47 percent, respectively).  Nationally, an estimated 2.6 million students had their racial or ethnic subgroup excluded from AYP subgroup calculations at the school level, based on the current state minimum *n* sizes, although they were included in AYP calculations for the school as a whole and in AYP subgroup calculations at the district level when minimum *n* sizes were met at those levels.  In contrast, an estimated 22.5 million students (90 percent of students in tested grades) were included in school-level racial and ethnic subgroup calculations.

In schools in which AYP was calculated for students with disabilities, LEP students, or African-American students, more than one-quarter did not make AYP for those subgroups in 2005–06 testing.  For example, in schools for which AYP was calculated for students with disabilities, 43 percent of these schools missed AYP for that subgroup.  Schools with LEP and African-American subgroups missed AYP for those subgroups in 30 and 25 percent of the cases, respectively.  Schools with subgroups of students from low-income families and Hispanic students were somewhat less likely to miss AYP for those subgroups (18 to 20 percent).  Schools were less likely to miss AYP due to low achievement of white students (3 percent), Asian students (2 percent), or Native American students (8 percent).

**Schools that were held accountable for more subgroups were less likely to make AYP.**  Among schools for which AYP was calculated for six or more subgroups in 2005–06, 43 percent did not make AYP, compared with 7 percent of schools for which AYP was calculated based on only one subgroup (see Exhibit 18). 

Looking at individual student subgroups, each subgroup was more likely to miss making AYP when it was in a school with a higher poverty level or a higher concentration of minority students.  For example, the African-American subgroup missed AYP in 2005–06 in 11 percent of low-poverty schools but 34 percent of high-poverty schools (see Exhibit 19).  Similarly, the students with disabilities subgroup missed AYP in 32 percent of low-poverty schools but 61 percent of high-poverty schools.  Each student subgroup was also more likely to miss AYP if it was in a minority-isolated school (see Exhibit A-29 in Appendix A).

**D.  Communication of School Performance Results**

**Over half of all states (27) notified schools of the final determinations on their school improvement status for 2006–07 (based on 2005–06 testing) before September 2006.**Forty-four states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provided preliminary results by that time, a 42 percent increase from fall 2004.  Twelve states did not notify schools of their final designation for 2006–07 until November 2006 or later—roughly half the number as in previous years—and only one state did not release preliminary data until November 2006 or later (see Exhibit 20).  In short, the timing of notification about school improvement status has improved over previous years, but some states continue to provide this notification well after the start of the school year. 

**Principals and teachers were not always aware that their school had been identified as in need of improvement, although principal awareness has improved.** In Title I schools that had been identified for improvement for 2006–07, 13 percent of principals incorrectly reported that their school had not been identified for improvement, an improvement from 22 percent in 2004–05 and 41 percent in 2001–02.  Among teachers in identified Title I schools, 28 percent of elementary teachers and 36 percent of secondary teachers were not aware that their school had been identified for improvement for 2006–07, similar to the percentages for 2004–05 (30 percent and 37 percent, respectively).

**Parents in a sample of eight urban school districts frequently did not know whether their child’s school had been identified as low-performing.**  A survey of parents conducted in the eight districts during the 2006–07 school year explained that a federal law called the *No Child Left Behind Act* required states to name the schools that are low-performing each year, and asked if the parent knew whether their child’s school was on the state’s list of low-performing schools.  Less than one-fifth (19 percent) of the parents of students in identified schools correctly said the school was on the state’s list of low-performing schools; 13 percent said their school was not on the list of low-performing schools, but most (68 percent) said they were not sure.  Parents in non-identified schools were more likely to accurately report that their school was not on a list of low-performing schools (43 percent), but a substantial minority (35 percent) was not sure.

**However, parents of students in identified schools were significantly less likely than other parents to express satisfaction with their child’s school.**  In the same survey in eight districts, only 59 percent of parents in identified schools said they would give their child’s school an A or B, compared with 83 percent of parents in non-identified schools, and 9 percent said they would give the school a D or F, compared with 4 percent of parents in non-identified schools.  Parents also gave identified schools lower ratings on a number of specific factors such as educational quality, their child’s current teacher, school safety, and discipline. 

**E.  School Improvement Efforts and Assistance for Identified Schools and Districts**

In 2006–07, all states had established systems of support for school improvement as required by *NCLB*.   Most reported providing some level of support to all identified schools, while others targeted support to a subset of identified schools.  The most common support mechanisms used by states were two of those mandated by *NCLB*: school support teams and distinguished teachers or principals.  Fifteen states reported that support teams were the primary form of support, while in 14 other states, school improvement specialists took on this responsibility.  In five states, support for identified schools was relatively limited, consisting of statewide meetings or simply the provision of information about available resources and grants.  

**Identified schools were much more likely to report needing and receiving assistance in a variety of specific areas compared with non-identified schools.** For example, in 2006–07, 77 percent of identified schools reported needing technical assistance to improve the quality of professional development, compared with 53 percent of non-identified schools.  Similarly, 72 percent of identified schools reported needing assistance to get parents more engaged in their child’s education, compared with 46 percent of non-identified schools.  Although many districts with identified schools provided a variety of assistance to both identified and non-identified schools, schools identified for improvement tended to report a higher intensity of support than other schools.  For the 2005–06 school year, identified schools reported receiving about eight days of technical assistance, on average, compared with four days for non-identified schools.  Forty-two percent of identified schools reported receiving six or more days of technical assistance, 27 percent received at least 11 days of assistance, and 11 percent said they received more than 25 days of assistance.

**The most common improvement strategies reported by identified schools as a “major focus” were using achievement data to inform instruction (88 percent) and providing additional instruction to low-achieving students (77 percent).**  Other common strategies included aligning curricula and instruction with standards and assessments (81 percent), new instructional approaches or curricula in reading and mathematics (66 percent and 64 percent, respectively), and increasing the intensity, focus, and effectiveness of professional development (63 percent).  Eighty-three percent of identified schools also reported developing a school improvement plan.  Though many non-identified schools reported similar school improvement strategies, they were less likely to report a major focus on any one of these activities.

**Most elementary teachers reported no change from 2004–05 to 2006–07 in the amount of instructional time that they spent on various subjects, based on a survey administered by the National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB*.**  About one-fifth of the teachers reported increasing the amount of time they spent on reading (22 percent) and mathematics (18 percent); few reported a decrease in time spent on these two subjects (3 to 4 percent) (see Exhibit 21).  Twelve percent reported decreasing the amount of instructional time for science and social studies instruction, while 5 to 6 percent reported an increase; 82 to 83 percent reported no change in instructional time for these two subjects.  Ninety percent of elementary teachers reported no change in time spent on art and music, 6 percent reported a decrease, and 4 percent reported an increase.  Principal reports on this issue yielded similar findings (see Exhibit A‐30 in Appendix A).  Differences by school improvement status, poverty rate, and other school characteristics were in most cases not statistically significant.  

On average, elementary teachers reported in 2006–07 that they spent 10.0 hours per week on reading instruction, 5.8 hours on math, 2.5 hours on science, 2.5 hours on social studies and history, 1.6 hours per week on art and music, 1.6 hours on physical education and health, and 1.9 hours on other subjects.  When asked about changes in instructional time from 2004–05 to 2006–07, elementary teachers reported average increases in reading and math instructional time of 21 minutes and 10 minutes, respectively, and decreases in other subjects ranging from 1 to 5 minutes per week (-3 minutes for science, -5 minutes for social studies and history, and -1 minute for art and music).  

**Over a longer and earlier period, from 1987–88 to 2003–04, teacher survey results from the Schools and Staffing Survey indicate that elementary teachers had increased instructional time on reading and mathematics and decreased the amount of time spent on science and social studies during this period.** Specifically, classroom teachers in grades 1 through 4 reported spending 11.6 hours per week on reading instruction in 2003–04, compared with 10.9 hours in 1999–2000 and 11.0 hours in 1987–88.  The amount of instructional time that these teachers reported spending on mathematics in 2003–04 (5.4 hours) was less than in 1999–2000 (5.7 hours) but greater than in 1990–91 and 1987–88 (4.9 hours).  Conversely, these teachers reported spending 2.3 hours per week on science instruction and 2.5 hours on social studies instruction in 2003–04, compared with 2.6 hours and 2.9 hours, respectively, in 1999–2000 (see Exhibit 22).  Translated into minutes, the increase in reading from 1999–2000 to 2003–04 amounted to 42 minutes per week, while the decreases in math, science, and social studies amounted to 18 minutes, 18 minutes, and 24 minutes per week, respectively.  

The above findings about changes in instructional time present a different picture from those recently reported by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) based on a survey of school districts conducted in 2006–07.  CEP reported that 36 percent of all districts reported reducing instructional time in social studies since *NCLB* took effect in 2002, 28 percent reported reductions in science, and 16 percent reported reductions in art and music.  The average reported weekly decreases amounted to 76 minutes, 75 minutes, and 57 minutes, respectively, in districts that reported such reductions.  The CEP findings are based on a survey of district administrators, while the above findings from the NLS-*NCLB* study are based on teacher reports; the CEP survey asked about change over a five-year period (2002 to 2007) while the NLS-*NCLB* asked about change over a two-year period (2004–05 to 2006–07).  Because teachers are the ones who actually provide the instruction, their reports may be more reliable on this issue than the reports of district administrators.  In addition, while from a policy perspective it may be preferable to report on change over a longer period (i.e., five years rather than two years), survey respondents may be less able to report accurately on a survey question about change in instructional practices over a longer time period, particularly if asked to aggregate estimated changes in instructional time across all teachers in the district.

**Title I schools that were identified for improvement reported experiencing a wide variety of interventions that *NCLB* designates for these schools.**Most—but not all—reported the actions that are required for all identified Title I schools: notifying parents about the school’s improvement status, developing a school improvement plan, and offering students the option to transfer to a higher-performing school (see Exhibit 23).  In the first year of improvement status, only 71 percent of Title I schools offered students the option to transfer to a non-identified school, but that percentage was higher for schools in later stages of improvement status (80 percent of schools in the second year of improvement status, 85 percent of schools in corrective action, and 91 percent of schools in restructuring status).  The additional parental choice option required in schools in the second year of improvement status—providing low-income students with the opportunity to receive supplemental educational services from a state-approved provider—was reported by more than 92 percent of those schools, and was also reported by over half (53 percent) of schools in the *first* year of improvement status, when it was not required.

**Most Title I schools in corrective action status in 2006–07 reported experiencing the interventions that *NCLB* defines for schools in this stage of improvement status.**  Eighty-eight percent of Title I schools in corrective action reported at least one of the seven interventions listed in the law.  The most common by far was implementing a new research-based curricula or instructional programs (67 percent), followed by having an outside expert appointed to advise the school (26 percent).  Slightly more than one-fifth of the schools reported extending the length of the school day (22 percent), restructuring the internal organization of the school (21 percent), or replacing school staff members relevant to the school’s low performance (21 percent).  Several of the corrective actions were less

frequently reported in 2006–07 than in 2004–05; for example, Title I schools in corrective action status were less likely to be required to implement new curricula or instructional programs (67 percent vs. 89 percent) or the appointment of an outside advisor (26 percent vs. 59 percent).  Overall, however, there was not a statistically significant change in the percentage of corrective action schools that reported experiencing at least one of the required corrective actions (see Exhibit 24).

**Few Title I schools in restructuring status in 2006–07 reported experiencing any of the specific interventions listed in the law for this stage of improvement status.**  However, the law also permits districts to make “any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance,” so schools in restructuring status could experience another kind of restructuring intervention that is not listed in the law.  In addition, the law allows for schools in restructuring status to first spend a year planning for restructuring and then implement the restructuring the following year (if the school misses AYP again for a sixth year); about half of the schools in restructuring status appeared to be in the first year of this status and thus not yet actually required to be implementing any restructuring actions.

**The most frequently reported restructuring intervention was replacement of all or most of the school staff (12 percent in 2006–07).**  Very small percentages of schools in restructuring status reported state take-over of the school (3 percent), reopening the school as a public charter school (1 percent), or contracting with a private entity to manage the school (1 percent).

**Schools in restructuring status frequently reported experiencing actions that *NCLB* specifies for the “corrective action” stage of school improvement.**  The most common “corrective actions” reported by schools in restructuring status were implementing a new research-based curriculum or instructional program (81 percent) and appointment of an outside expert to advise the school (53 percent). Other corrective actions reported by schools in restructuring status included restructuring the internal organization of the school (39 percent), extending the length of the school day (44 percent) or year (16 percent), and replacing school staff members relevant to the school’s low performance (30 percent). Replacement of the principal, although not specifically listed in the law as a corrective action or restructuring strategy, was reported by 40 percent of schools in restructuring status, compared with 29 percent of schools in corrective action and 13 percent of schools in Year 1 of school improvement status.  

Many of the interventions labeled as “corrective actions” under *NCLB* were also implemented in schools in earlier stages of improvement status.  For example, 60 percent of Title I schools in their second year of improvement were required to implement new research-based curricula or instructional programs, a figure not much different from that for schools in corrective action (67 percent).

State officials noted that certain corrective actions and restructuring strategies were sometimes precluded by state laws (and *ESEA* requires that the corrective action and restructuring options that are implemented must be consistent with state law).  Most commonly, state education agencies were barred from taking over schools (15 states), entering into a contract with a private entity (eight states), replacing school staff (seven states), and re-opening a school as a public charter school (seven states).  Even where not prohibited by state law, some state officials expressed reluctance to use the state takeover strategy, and others noted that replacing staff could prove difficult because of collective bargaining agreements or union presence.

**Districts took multiple actions in response to being identified for improvement, most commonly offering or requiring specific professional development for teachers** (91 percent of identified districts) (see Exhibit 25).  Other actions frequently taken by identified districts included increased monitoring of instruction and student performance at school sites (85 percent), offering or requiring specific professional development for principals (70 percent), and reallocating fiscal resources to target specific needs (64 percent).  In most cases, the percentage of districts reporting a particular action in response to being identified increased from 2004–05 to 2006–07, sometimes more than doubling.  For example, 36 percent reported hiring a consultant to advise the district on effective strategies in 2006–07, up from 11 percent in 2004–05.  However, identified districts were less likely to report distributing test preparation materials to their schools in 2006–07 than in 2004–05 (49 percent vs. 67 percent).   

**F.  Accountability Under Other State Initiatives**

**About half of the states have implemented accountability requirements that differ from what is required under *NCLB***(27 states in 2006–07, up slightly from 24 states in 2004–05).  These state requirements used designations of school performance that differed somewhat from those of *NCLB* or reported their results in different ways.  For example, some used letter grades that were based on criteria other than AYP, others identified “high-improving” schools, and so forth.  Fourteen states used different measures of student achievement (for example, tests in subjects not required under *NCLB*).  A continuing difference was that many of these states (15) relied on growth measures to track progress toward accountability targets instead of an absolute target (i.e., percentage of students reaching the state’s proficient level) as in *NCLB*.  (Seven of the 15 states that used growth measures for their non-*NCLB* accountability systems were also approved for the Department’s growth model pilot project, but the growth measures they reported using in fall 2006 for their non-*NCLB* accountability system are generally quite different from the growth models approved under the pilot project.  The most common difference is that the non-*NCLB* growth measures do not have a 100 percent proficiency requirement by 2014, which means that growth may be significant in a state system but not acceptable under *NCLB* because it is not sufficient to reach universal proficiency in the specified timeframe.)

**States’ *NCLB* accountability systems and other state or district accountability initiatives did not commonly generate conflicting designations of high- and low-performing schools, according to principal reports for 2006–07.**  As was the case in 2004–05, few schools identified as low-performing under *NCLB* were identified as high-performing under their state or district accountability system, or vice versa.  Among principals who said their school was identified for improvement under *NCLB*, only 2 percent reported that their school had been designated as high-performing under a state or district accountability initiative.  Conversely, among principals who said their school was not identified for improvement under Title I, only 3 percent reported that their school had been designated as low-performing under a state or district accountability initiative.  (In a similar analysis in Florida, Peterson (2006) found a high degree of inconsistency between schools’ AYP status under *NCLB* and their accountability designations under the state’s “A+” accountability system.  The NLS-*NCLB* data discussed above also indicated that Florida schools often receive conflicting accountability designations under *NCLB* and the state’s A+ system; however, across the entire NLS-*NCLB* sample, there were few cases in which principals reported receiving conflicting designations in other states.)  

Principals who said they operated under state or district accountability initiatives, as well as under *NCLB*, gave mixed reports about the benefits and drawbacks of multiple approaches to accountability.   While nearly two-thirds of these principals (65 percent) said that the multiple initiatives gave them a more complete picture of their school’s effectiveness, 37 percent said they resulted in staff confusion about targets for student achievement.

### IV. School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services

In Title I schools that have been identified as in need of improvement, *NCLB* provides parents with new options for their children, including the option to transfer to another public school or to receive supplemental educational services (most commonly, after-school tutoring).  Districts are required to offer students the option to transfer to another school in the first year that a school is identified for improvement.  All students in the school are eligible for this option, and the district must provide transportation for participating students.  Supplemental educational services are not required until an identified school misses AYP again (for a third time), and only students from low-income families are eligible to receive the services; the district is not required to provide transportation.

States must develop criteria for approving supplemental service providers, as well as monitoring the performance of participating providers.  Districts must notify parents of their school choice and supplemental service options and disseminate information about school performance and provider qualifications and effectiveness that parents need to make informed decisions.  Each district that must offer these options must allocate an amount equal to 20 percent (or more) of its Title I, Part A, allocation to provide supplemental services and transportation for students using the school choice option, unless a lesser amount is needed to satisfy all requests.  In addition, each such district must make available, for each child receiving supplemental services, an amount equal to the district’s Title I, Part A, allocation per low-income student, unless the actual cost of such services is less than that amount.  

### A.  Eligibility and Participation

**The number of students eligible for the two Title I choice options rose considerably from 2003–04 to 2006–07.**  The number eligible for Title I school choice increased from 3.3 million to 5.5 million, while the number eligible for supplemental services increased from 1.9 million to 3.6 million.  More students are eligible for the choice option because it applies to all identified schools and all students in those schools are eligible, whereas the supplemental services option only applies to identified schools that have missed AYP for three or more years and only students from low-income families are eligible.  

**Although more students were eligible to participate in the Title I school choice option, a larger number actually participated in the supplemental educational services option.**  The number of students receiving supplemental educational services in 2006–07 (530,000) was four times as large as the number participating in the school choice option (120,000) in that year (see Exhibit 26).

**Student participation rates varied widely across states and school districts.** Based on state-reported data for 2006–07, participation rates in the school choice option ranged from 0 to 6 percent across the states, while participation rates for supplemental services ranged from 0 to 47 percent.  In districts that were required to offer the school choice option in 2005–06, 57 percent reported that they had no students participating that year, while 31 percent reported participation of between 0.01 to 2.0 percent of eligible students, and 12 percent reported participation rates of more than 2.0 percent.  In districts required to offer supplemental services in 2005–06, 31 percent reported that they had no students participating; one-quarter reported participation rates of less than 5 percent, 21 percent reported participation rates between 5 and 20 percent, and 24 percent reported participation rates higher than 20 percent. 

**Student participation in the supplemental services option more than doubled from 2003–04 to 2006–07**, rising from 244,000 to 530,000 participants.  During the same period, the number of students participating in the Title I school choice option nearly quadrupled from 32,000 to 120,000 participants (see Exhibit 26).  Participation rates for supplemental services increased from 14 percent in 2003–04 to 19 percent in 2004–05 and then declined to 14 percent in 2006–07.  Although the number of participants rose in 2006–07, the increase did not keep pace with the rise in the number of eligible students.  Participation rates for school choice rose from 1.0 percent in 2003–04 to 2.2 percent in 2006–07.

**Districts were required to offer school choice in 17 percent of all Title I schools and were required to offer supplemental services in 10 percent of Title I schools.**  The two options were more likely to be required in high-poverty Title I schools (34 percent and 23 percent, respectively) and were rarely required in low-poverty schools (5 percent and 2 percent, respectively).

**Most districts required to offer Title I school choice reported doing so at the elementary level but were less likely to do so in middle and high schools.  Most districts not offering school choice did not have any non-identified schools at the relevant grade level.**In 2006–07, 67 percent of districts with elementary schools identified for improvement reported that they offered the school choice option at the elementary level, compared with 41 percent at the middle school level (an increase from 20 percent in 2004–05) and 22 percent at the high school level (see Exhibit 27).  About half of districts required to offer school choice at the middle school level, and about two-thirds at the high school level, did not have any non-identified schools at that grade level (which can occur when there is only one school per grade level or when there are multiple schools but all have been identified for improvement).  

**Districts that did offer choice continued to account for a majority of students who were eligible for the school choice option, suggesting that districts offering school choice tended to be large.**Districts that were subject to the school choice requirement but did not have any non-identified schools available accounted for a small percentage of students (at the high school level, for example, they represented 58 percent of districts required to offer choice but only 14 percent of students in such districts), indicating that these districts tended to be small.****

**All districts required to offer supplemental services reported that there was at least one state-approved supplemental service provider available to serve their students.**  The supply of approved providers has grown considerably since the early years of *NCLB* implementation.  Nationwide, states reported approving a total of 3,234 supplemental service providers as of May 2007, more than three times as many as had been approved four years earlier, in May 2003, when the number was 997.

**District expenditures on Title I choice options doubled from 2003–04 to 2005–06, based on district survey responses.**  Total spending on Title I supplemental educational services was estimated at $375 million for 2005–06, up from $192 million in 2003–04.  Spending on transportation for Title I school choice participants was estimated at $56 million for 2005–06,  compared with $24 million in 2003–04.  The percentage increase in spending on these two Title I choice options (133 percent for school choice and 95 percent for supplemental services) was roughly comparable to the percentage increase in participation over the same two-year period (103 percent and 104 percent, respectively).

The average maximum amount that districts reported allocating for supplemental services decreased from $1,434 per pupil in 2004–05 to $1,134 in 2005–06, while the total number of participants increased from roughly 446,000 to 530,000.  Districts reported spending an average of $836 per student enrolled in supplemental services in 2005–06, about 26 percent less than the maximum per-child amount they reported allocating for such services in that year ($1,134).  

The National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB*, in addition to surveying a nationally representative sample of districts and schools, also surveyed a total of 1,867 responding parents in a subsample of eight large urban school districts.  Because the sample of eight districts was not nationally representative, findings based on this sample cannot be generalized to the nation.

**Parent survey results in eight urban districts indicate that the parents’ main reasons for participating in either the school choice or supplemental services option was to better meet the educational needs of their child.**  Among parents who transferred their child to a new school, most parents used the choice option because they thought the quality of teaching at the new school was better (62 percent) and the previous school was not meeting their child’s needs (62 percent).  Additionally, 47 percent of parents thought their child’s new school was safer (see Exhibit 28).  

Among parents who chose to participate in supplemental services, 53 percent said they participated because tutoring was free and 51 percent participated because tutoring was offered in subjects in which their child needed extra help.

In 2006–07, parents who were notified of the school choice option chose not to transfer because they were satisfied with the teaching at their child’s school (63 percent) and because their child’s school was easy to get to (60 percent).  Two years prior, 75 percent of parents kept their children in their current school because of its location and less than half (47 percent) were satisfied with the quality of teaching at the current school.  In 2006–07, almost half (46 percent) of parents did not enroll their child in supplemental services because they did not believe their child needed help.  In 2004–05, 28 percent of parents listed that as a reason.  Similarly, in 2006–07, 35 percent of parents said they did not enroll their child in supplemental services because tutoring was not offered at a convenient time, compared to 47 percent in 2004–05.  

### B.  Parental Notification

**Districts that were required to offer Title I school choice and supplemental services in identified schools most frequently reported notifying parents about their choice options through written notification materials in English (99 percent and 91 percent, respectively), but they also used other strategies to communicate with parents**(see Exhibit 29).  Over half of the districts provided written notification in at least one language other than English, held individual meetings with interested parents, and included notices in district or school newsletters.  Between the 2004–05 and 2005–06 school years, districts increased the number and types of communication strategies that they used for communicating with parents.  For example, the percent of districts that worked with a local community partner to facilitate communication almost doubled, from 10 percent to 17 percent for school choice and from 16 percent to 33 percent for supplemental services. Similar to findings from 2004–05, large districts in 2005–06 were more likely to use each type of notification strategy.  

**However, despite these communication efforts, a survey of eligible parents in eight urban school districts found that many were unaware of their Title I choice options and did not think they had been notified about them.**  Among parents with a child eligible for the Title I school choice option, only 20 percent said they had received notification about this option from the school district, while 59 percent of parents with a child eligible for supplemental services said they had been notified.  Among parents whom the district had identified as having a child actually participating in Title I supplemental services, 81 percent said they had been notified and 15 percent said they had not been notified about this option.

**In addition, the timing of parental notification was often too late for parents to choose a new school before the start of the school year, though there was improvement from 2004–05.**  Based on a nationally representative survey of districts, 43 percent of affected districts notified parents about the school choice option before the beginning of the 2006–07 school year, an increase from 29 percent in 2004–05 (see Exhibit 30).  Another 15 percent notified parents at the beginning of the school year, which would have given parents very little time to make important decisions about which school their child should attend.  The remaining 42 percent of districts notified parents after the school year had already started; in these districts, notification occurred, on average, five weeks after the start of the school year.  Among districts required to offer Title I school choice, 42 percent notified parents of eligible students before the start of the school year. 

One reason for the delay in notifying parents about their choice options may be that some states did not provide final determinations about schools’ AYP and identification status until late in the summer or, in some cases, after the school year had begun.  States have improved on their timing of providing determination about schools’ AYP and identification status: while only seven states provided districts with preliminary school identification results before August in 2004–05, 24 states provided districts with that information in 2006–07.  Twenty-two states provided preliminary results in August, and six provided preliminary results later than August—a slight increase from the 20 states that provided results after August in 2004–05.  Final results continue to often come after August.

**Districts that notified parents about the school choice option before the first day of school had higher participation rates than districts that notified parents on or after the first day of school.**  In 2006–07, in districts where parents were notified about school choice options before the start of the school year, 1.4 percent of eligible students participated.  In contrast, in the districts that did not notify eligible parents until after school started, the participation rate was only 0.1 percent.  This result is consistent with the result of parent survey data, which show that in a sample of eight urban districts, parents who took advantage of the school choice option were substantially more likely to say they had been informed before the start of the school year (62 percent) than were parents who kept their children in identified schools (26 percent).

**Teachers sometimes played a significant role in communicating with parents about the Title I choice options, particularly the supplemental services option.**  Among parents choosing to participate in one of these options in eight urban school districts, 11 percent of school choice participants said that a reason for transferring their child to a non-identified school was that the child’s previous teacher thought he or she should move, and 53 percent of parents choosing supplemental services said that their child’s teacher thought the child needed the extra help.  In schools in which students were eligible to receive supplemental services, 40 percent of teachers reported talking with parents about supplemental services.  Among teachers who knew that some of their own students were eligible for the services, 54 percent said that they encouraged parents to apply, and 29 percent said that they advised parents on choosing a particular provider.

### C. Characteristics of Supplemental Educational Services 

**Most participating students received supplemental educational services from a private provider.** In 2005–06, private providers served 76 percent of participating students, up from 58 percent in 2003–04.  During the same period, the share of participants served by school districts and public schools declined from 34 percent to 13 percent.  In 2005–06, 39 percent of student participants were served by national for-profit companies, while 10 percent were served by other for-profit companies, 7 percent by community-based organizations, and 1 percent by faith-based organizations.  Colleges and universities served 1 percent of student participants.  

**The total number of state-approved providers tripled from May 2003 to May 2008, with most of the growth occurring among private providers.** The number of approved providers rose from 1,024 in May 2003 to 3,050 in May 2008 after reaching a high of 3,234 providers in May 2007 (see Exhibit 31). Private non-profit and for-profit organizations accounted for 86 percent of approved providers in 2007, up from 60 percent of all providers in 2003; the number of private providers rose from 618 in 2003 to 2,688 in 2008.  School districts and public schools accounted for 10 percent of providers in 2008, down from 33 percent five years earlier; their numbers initially increased, from 329 in 2003 to 471 in 2005, and then declined to 291 in 2008.  Other types of providers such as colleges, universities, and community-based organizations accounted for 2 percent of approved providers in 2008 (71 providers).  A growing number and percentage of faith-based organizations have obtained state approval, rising from 18 providers (2 percent of all providers) in 2003 to 201 (7 percent) in 2008; however, faith-based providers serve a small percentage of students (less than 1 percent in 2005–06). 

**Based on a survey of supplemental service providers in 16 geographically diverse districts, participating students attended an average of 45 hours per year in those districts in 2005–06,** which is about one-third the amount of instructional time provided in the typical after-school program (134 hours).  The providers reported an average of about five hours of services per week, similar to the amount reported by parents of participating students in a sample of eight urban districts.  School districts tended to report a lower intensity of services than did the providers or parents.  About half (48 percent) of districts said that participating students received one to two hours per week of services, and an additional one-third (25 percent) said students received three hours per week; 27 percent said students received four or more hours per week.  Provider reports indicated that students attended, on average, 76 percent of the sessions.

**In the 16 districts, providers grew in the size of their staffs from 2004–05 to 2006–07, while the experience level of their staff declined somewhat.**In 2006-07, the average-size provider in these districts had 79 staff, more than twice as many as in 2004–05 (36).  One in three providers had 50 or more staff in 2006–07, up from 15 percent in 2004–05.  Average years of staff tutoring experience for these providers declined from nearly 10 years to seven years between 2004–05 and 2006–07, and the percentage of staff with three or fewer years of experience increased from 10 to 20 percent over the two years.  At the same time, these providers became less likely to rely on full-time teachers from the district in which they operated (declining from 58 percent to 38 percent) or to employ teachers who tutor some of the same students whom they also teach in their regular classrooms (declining from 19 percent to 10 percent). 

**Services were provided both through one-on-one tutoring and through group instruction.**  Over half of the providers in the 16 districts said that students were often or always served one-on-one or in small groups (53 percent and 37 percent, respectively), while 26 percent said services were often or always provided in large groups.  Thirty-three percent said their services were always one-on-one, while 20 percent said services were always provided in small groups and 11 percent said services were always in large groups.

### D. Relationship Between Participation in Title I Choice Options and Student Achievement

The National Longitudinal Study of *NCLB* included the collection of student-level state assessment data in nine large urban school districts in order to examine the relationship between participation in the Title I school choice and supplemental educational services options and student achievement.  The nine districts were selected based on availability of the necessary longitudinal individual student achievement data and sufficient numbers of students participating in the Title I school choice and supplemental services options, to enable sampling of about 100 students in each district who were participating in the Title I school choice option and an additional 100 students who were receiving Title I supplemental services.  Due to data limitations in some of the districts, the final analysis included a smaller number of districts: seven districts for the supplemental services analysis, and six districts for the school choice analysis.  The analysis used a quasi-experimental fixed-effects model that compared the achievement trajectories of individual students before and after participating with those of nonparticipating students. 

**Across the sample of seven districts, student participants in supplemental educational services experienced gains in achievement in both reading and mathematics that were greater than the gains for nonparticipating students.**  On average, the effect sizes measured were 0.08 of a standard deviation unit in both reading and math for students that participated in supplemental services during one school year and 0.15 to 0.17 for students that received supplemental services during two or more years (see Exhibit 32).  African-American students, Hispanic students, and students with disabilities all showed positive achievement effects from participating in supplemental educational services.  Looking at the districts individually, positive effects were found in five of the seven districts; the remaining two districts had relatively small sample sizes (see Exhibit A-37 in Appendix A).  

To interpret the magnitude of these achievement gains, three potential benchmarks may be referred to:  the gain in student achievement of an additional year of learning, the size of the achievement gap between minority and white students, or the gains obtained by other education interventions such as class size reduction or comprehensive school reform.  Compared with these benchmarks, the reading and math gains from participating in Title I supplemental educational services during one school year can be interpreted as: a) approximately equivalent to 1.7 to 2.4 months of additional classroom instruction for a fourth-grade student and 2.5 to 2.7 months of additional classroom instruction for a seventh-grade student; b) a one-tenth to one-seventh decrease in the gap between minority and white students; or c) a small effect relative to class size reduction but equivalent to the lower-bound of effects of comprehensive school reform or of out-of-school programs.

**For Title I school choice, the study did not find a statistically significant relationship between participation and student achievement.**Across six districts with a sufficient sample of participating students, participation in Title I school choice was not associated with a statistically significant effect on achievement, overall or after multiple years in the chosen school, with the exception of students with disabilities, who showed a negative effect in mathematics (see Exhibit 31; for individual district results, see Exhibit A-38 in Appendix A).  However, sample sizes for the school choice analysis were substantially smaller, due to the relatively small number of participants, which reduced the power of the analysis to detect effects and suggests that caution is warranted in interpreting these results.  

**It is important to note that although this study used statistical methods to control for student socioeconomic background, race and ethnicity, and other factors, the quasi-experimental methods used in this study may not fully control for selection bias.** In other words, students who choose may be different from students who do not choose, and these differences may affect the results.  A study that randomly assigns students to participate in supplemental services and school choice would provide stronger evidence about the effects of these options on student achievement.

### E. Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplemental Service Providers

**States reported that they are working to develop and implement systems for monitoring the performance of supplemental service providers, but as of early 2007, eight states had not established any monitoring processes and 24 states had not finalized their monitoring processes.**  In 2006–07, the most common approaches states had implemented to monitor providers were surveying the districts, parents, or students about provider effectiveness (13 states), using providers’ reports of student enrollment or attendance (13 states), and examining test scores (10 states).  In 2004–05, the most common monitoring process was surveying the districts about provider effectiveness (25 states).  However, in 2006–07 only eight states reported that monitoring was a task that was left to the discretion of school districts.

As of fall 2006, 33 states had started an evaluation of supplemental service providers and another 10 states anticipated starting evaluations later in the 2006–07 school year. In 18 states, the state education agency was, or will be, conducting the evaluation, while 22 states had hired an external evaluator to conduct the evaluation. One state was using both approaches and one had not yet decided on its approach. Thirty-three states planned to evaluate provider effectiveness by examining student achievement on state assessments for participating students and 12 of these states planned to use a matched control group.  Twenty-two states planned to use provider-developed tests.  Additionally, 27 states collected data on client satisfaction (primarily students and parents), six had a measure of student attendance, and five used school grades as evaluation data.  Twenty-four states had a policy for withdrawing approval from providers and 13 states had exercised this power.  Slightly over 80 providers had been removed from approved lists, with the majority in two states.  

**Although the law assigns the responsibility for monitoring providers to states, not districts, a survey of supplemental service providers operating in 16 school districts found that the providers reported more frequent monitoring by districts than by states.**  For example, almost half (49 percent) of the providers said that district staff observed supplemental service sessions at least a few times a year, compared with only 24 percent that experienced this frequency of observations by state staff.  Similarly, the providers reported more frequent monitoring from districts than from states in a variety of other ways, including tracking of state achievement test scores of participating students; tracking of grades, grade promotion, and graduation rates; meeting with provider organizations to discuss implementation; and reviewing reports of student attendance rates.  

### V. Highly Qualified Teachers and Professional Development

Ensuring that every child is taught by a teacher with strong content knowledge is one of the central goals of the *No Child Left Behind Act*.  *NCLB* requires all teachers of core academic subjects to be highly qualified, which the law defines as having: (1) a bachelor’s degree; (2) full state certification; and (3) demonstrated competency, as defined by the state, in each core academic subject that they teach.  To demonstrate subject-matter competency, the law requires new elementary teachers to pass a rigorous state test; new secondary teachers must either pass a subject-matter test or have a college major (or course work equivalent), advanced degree, or advanced certification in the subject(s) they plan to teach.  For veteran teachers, the law allows each state to create its own high objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) to measure subject-matter competency.  Teachers were required to meet these requirements by the end of the 2006–07 school year.  

*NCLB* makes professional development a key strategy for improving teachers’ skills and effectiveness.  For example, Title I schools that have been identified for improvement must reserve 10 percent of their Title I allocations for professional development.  The quality of that professional development is critically important if it is to have the intended effect of improving instruction and student learning.

### A.  State Implementation of Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements

While two of the *NCLB* teacher quality requirements are fixed (a bachelor’s degree and full state certification), states have considerable latitude in the standards and procedures they may establish for teachers to demonstrate competency in the subjects they teach.  States may consider a wide variety of measures of teacher qualifications, including college major or course-taking, professional development, years of teaching experience, scores in licensure examinations, and other factors.  However, research on the impact of specific measures of teacher qualifications on student achievement has often found mixed results, and states must make decisions about how to implement the highly qualified teacher provisions without a strong evidentiary basis for many of the requirements they are likely to put in place.

For example, some research suggests that teachers who have strong preparation in the subjects they teach are more effective than teachers without strong subject-area preparation.  However, the research studies with consistent findings on this have generally been limited to studies of high school math and science teachers.  These studies have found that high school math and science teachers with a major in these subjects are more likely to produce higher levels of student achievement than are teachers of math and science who lack a major in the these subjects.  At the elementary level, one study found that elementary teachers with a degree in math or English were not more likely to produce better achievement outcomes for their elementary students (compared with teachers who did not have a degree in math or English).  With respect to licensure exams, several research studies have found that teachers with higher scores on some of the Praxis II exams are somewhat more likely to produce higher achievement outcomes for students.  However, research has not found this relationship between teacher scores and student achievement to hold true for each of the different Praxis II exams.  More rigorous research is needed on the relationship between specific measures of teacher qualifications and teacher effectiveness in the classroom.

**To meet the requirement to test new teachers’ content knowledge, most states used the Praxis II subject assessments developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS).**  Based on an analysis of the ETS Web site and state Web sites in November of 2007, 40 states used one or more of the various Praxis II examinations, including 30 that used the Praxis II exams alone and 10 that used the Praxis II exams as well as other exams.  Twelve states did not use the Praxis II exams but used other exams, such as tests developed for use in specific states (e.g., the Massachusetts Test for Educator Licensure). 

States varied considerably in the qualifying scores they used on Praxis II subject assessments for initial teacher certification and for determining whether teachers are highly qualified under *NCLB* (see Exhibits 33 and A-39).  States set different qualifying scores (often called cut scores or passing scores) for reasons involving each state’s individual context and challenges.  Each state assembles a panel of experts that reviews the test and recommends a cut score to the state licensing board or state department of education.  As of November 2007, 22 of the 36 states that used the Praxis II Mathematics Content Knowledge exam set their cut scores below the national median and nine states set theirs below the 25th percentile (ranging from the 12th to the 24th percentile).  In contrast, three states set their cut scores above the national median.

**For veteran teachers, all states offered a HOUSSE option as of 2006–07, but all but two states were phasing out the use of HOUSSE for most teachers.**  Because HOUSSE only applies to veteran teachers, it therefore became somewhat irrelevant after highly qualified determinations were made for these teachers (but teachers who were designated as highly qualified under HOUSSE still retain that status).  In September 2006, Secretary Spellings clarified that although states were encouraged to discontinue use of the HOUSSE provisions, they could continue to use HOUSSE for three specific groups of teachers, including “secondary school teachers teaching multiple subjects in eligible rural districts who were highly qualified in one subject at the time of hire; special education teachers teaching multiple subjects who were highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire; and teachers from other countries teaching here on a temporary basis.”  

In early 2007, eight states indicated that they were discontinuing HOUSSE entirely, and another 11 states were discontinuing HOUSSE except for the allowable categories of teachers.  However, 29 states reported that while they were working to discontinue HOUSSE, they had identified additional, very specific groups of teachers for whom they anticipated that HOUSSE would be necessary.  For example, under *NCLB*, teachers of foreign languages are required to demonstrate subject matter competency, and one way in which teachers can do so it by passing a test of teacher knowledge.  In Latin, however, one state asserted that there was no appropriate test of teacher knowledge, so that state planned to continue to use HOUSSE for Latin teachers.

**As of September 2007, the most common type of HOUSSE option allowed teachers to accumulate a state-determined number of points to earn a highly qualified status** (39 states).  Most states allowed points to be earned retroactively for such things as successful completion of certain college courses (39 states), other professional development (39), years of teaching experience (37), receiving teaching awards or honors (25 states), and publishing articles or making presentations at conferences (26 states).  Twenty-seven states allowed teachers to earn 45 to 50 percent of their HOUSSE points for a specified number of years of prior teaching experience in their subject areas; the law states that HOUSSE procedures can take into consideration but cannot be primarily based on the time the teacher has been teaching in the academic subject.  

Ten states allowed teachers to demonstrate subject knowledge by choosing from a list of possible activities (i.e., a menu of options) offered by the state and by meeting the criteria for the chosen activity.  Five states considered evidence of improved student achievement.  Other state HOUSSE systems included performance evaluations (five states), the state’s teacher certification systems (two states), and a log or record of professional development activities that a teacher had taken in his or her content area (one state).

### B.  Teachers’ Highly Qualified Status

**The large majority of teachers across the country have been designated as highly qualified under *NCLB*.**  According to state-reported data for 50 states and the District of Columbia, 94 percent of elementary and secondary classes were taught by highly qualified teachers in 2006–07, up from 87 percent in 2003–04.  Most states (42) reported that the large majority (90 percent or more) of classes were taught by highly qualified teachers; only two states and the District of Columbia reported that this percentage was below 75 percent.

**Compared with the state-reported data, teacher reports provided somewhat lower estimates of the percentage of teachers who were highly qualified; however, teachers sometimes indicated they did not know their highly qualified status.**For example, 84 percent of regular classroom teachers reported in 2006–07 that they were considered highly qualified under *NCLB*, up from 74 percent in 2004–05.  The percentage of teachers who did not know their status declined from 23 percent to 14 percent.  Only 2 percent of these teachers said in 2006–07 that they were not highly qualified, down slightly from 4 percent in 2004–05 (see Exhibit 34).  

High school teachers were the least likely to report that they were highly qualified; 78 percent of high school English and mathematics teachers reported that they were highly qualified, compared with 87 percent of middle school English and mathematics teachers.  High school teachers were also less likely to know their highly qualified status: 19 percent of high school English and mathematics teachers reported that they did not know their highly qualified status, compared with 10 percent of middle school English and mathematics teachers.

**Special education teachers were less likely than general education teachers to report that they were highly qualified, but the gap between general education teachers and special education teachers narrowed from 2004–05 to 2006–07.**  In 2006–07, 72 percent of special education teachers reported that they were highly qualified, up from 52 percent in 2004–05, and the difference between special education teachers and general education teachers declined from a 22 percentage point difference in 2004–05 to 12 percentage points in 2006–07.  However, special education teachers of English and mathematics at the high school level were much less likely to report that they were highly qualified than were their special education colleagues at the middle school level or their general education colleagues at the high school level.  Only 56 percent of high school English and mathematics special education teachers reported that they were highly qualified, compared with 71 percent of middle school English and mathematics special education teachers.  

**Among teachers who said they were highly qualified under *NCLB* in 2006–07, those in high-poverty schools had less experience and were less likely to have a degree in the subject that they teach compared with their peers in low-poverty schools.**  For example, in 2006–07, 14 percent of highly qualified teachers in high-poverty schools had fewer than three years of teaching experience, compared with 8 percent of highly qualified teachers in low-poverty schools.  Similarly, highly qualified secondary mathematics and English teachers in high-poverty schools were less likely to have a degree in the field that they teach.  Specifically, mathematics teachers with a major in mathematics accounted for 32 percent of highly qualified mathematics teachers in high-poverty schools and 50 percent in low-poverty schools, while English teachers with a major in English accounted for 43 percent of highly qualified English teachers in high-poverty schools and 63 percent in low-poverty schools.****

### C.  Professional Development

**Research indicates that professional development that places a strong emphasis on academic content, and on how students learn specific content, is associated with gains in student achievement.**  Research also indicates that teachers reported that professional development enhanced their knowledge and skills when it was sustained and intensive; connected to state standards and to teachers’ goals or other learning experiences; involved teams of teachers from the same grade levels, departments, or schools; and allowed teachers to observe and practice the skills and techniques being introduced or to actively engage in conversations about teaching and learning.

Although there is no hard evidence on the minimum number of contact hours or duration necessary for professional development to have an impact on teaching practice and student achievement, researchers argue that professional development is more likely to have an impact if it involves many contact hours over a long time period. For example, in the Closing the Reading Gap study of reading interventions, teachers participating in the interventions received an average of 70 hours of training in the intervention over the course of the school year, including an initial week of intensive introduction to the program, an additional 24 hours during a seven-week period at the beginning of the year when teachers practiced their assigned method with students in their schools, and about 14 hours of supervision during the intervention phase.  These interventions were found to be effective in raising reading achievement for third-grade students (but not fifth-graders); it is not known whether the interventions would have been equally effective with a smaller amount of teacher training.

**At the elementary level, teachers reported more hours of professional development in reading and mathematics than on other professional development topics.**Over the course of the 2005–06 school year and summer, elementary teachers reported participating in an average of 20 hours of professional development on instructional strategies for teaching reading, 10 hours on instructional strategies for mathematics, and six hours on other academic subjects.  These teachers also reported spending 12 hours on in-depth study of topics in reading and six hours on in-depth study of topics in mathematics, but it is not known to what extent teachers may have reported some of the same professional development experiences as both “instructional strategies” and “in-depth study.”  Elementary teachers also reported spending eight hours on professional development on analyzing student achievement data, eight hours on preparing students to take the annual state assessment, and seven hours on use of technology.

Across all topics and types of professional development, both formal and informal, elementary teachers reported participating for a total of 97 hours during the 2005–06 school year and summer; middle and high school teachers reported a slightly larger number of professional development hours (106 and 102 hours, respectively).

**Although most teachers reported that they participated in some professional development that focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading or mathematics, relatively few participated for an extended period of time.**  For example, 79 percent of elementary teachers participated in at least one hour of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching mathematics during the 2005–06 school year and summer, but only 44 percent participated for six or more hours and only 11 percent participated for more than 24 hours.  In reading, 92 percent of elementary teachers participated in at least one hour of professional development focused on instructional strategies for reading, 67 percent participated for six or more hours, and 26 percent participated for more than 24 hours (see Exhibit 35).

**Teachers were less likely to report that they participated in professional development focused on in-depth study of reading and mathematics than they were in training in instructional strategies.**Only 14 percent of elementary teachers and 16 percent of secondary English teachers participated in in-depth study of topics in reading or English for more than 24 hours during the 2005–06 school year and summer; fewer than half participated for six or more hours.  In addition, nearly half of all general elementary teachers (47 percent) and over one-third of secondary mathematics teachers (38 percent) did not participate in any professional development focused on the in‐depth study of mathematics.

**Both elementary and secondary teachers reported participating in more hours of professional development in reading and mathematics in 2005–06 compared with 2003–04.**For example, the percentage of elementary teachers who participated in six or more hours of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading rose from 59 percent in 2003–04 to 68 percent in 2005–06, and the percentage who participated for more than 24 hours rose from 20 percent to 26 percent (see Exhibit 36).  Similarly, the percentage of secondary mathematics teachers who participated in more than 24 hours of professional development focused on instructional strategies for mathematics increased from 16 percent to 22 percent.  Teachers were less likely in 2005–06 to report that they did not participate in any professional development in mathematics (21 percent of elementary teachers and 13 percent of secondary mathematics teachers, down from 29 percent and 23 percent, respectively, in 2003–04).

**Teachers in schools identified for improvement were often more likely to report that they participated in professional development focused on reading and mathematics than were teachers in non-identified schools.**  For example, elementary teachers in identified schools were more likely than teachers in non-identified schools to report receiving at least six hours of professional development in instructional strategies for reading (77 percent vs. 67 percent) and mathematics (52 percent vs. 43 percent).   Statistically significant differences between teachers in identified and non-identified schools were also found for high school teachers in instructional strategies for reading and math and for elementary and middle school teachers’ in-depth study of reading and mathematics.

**ENDNOTES**

**REFERENCES**

American Institutes for Research and Education Industry Association (2005). *The Promise and Challenge of Supplemental Educational Services: The Providers’ Perspective*.  Washington, D.C.: Joint authors.

Center on Education Policy (2006).  *From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the*No Child Left Behind Act.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

Clotfelter, Charles, Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob Vigdor, “Teacher Quality and Minority Achievement Gaps” (October 2004).  Working Paper Series, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University. 

Cohen, David K., Milbrey W. McLaughlin, and Heather C. Hill (1998). *Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California*(RR-39).**Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Goldhaber, Dan (2006). “Everyone’s Doing It, But What Does Teacher Testing Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness?” University of Washington and the Urban Institute, Draft Paper, April 2006.

Goldhaber, Dan (2005). “Teacher Licensure Tests and Student Achievement: Is Teacher Testing An Effective Policy?” University of Washington and the Urban Institute, Draft paper, March 29, 2005.  

Goldhaber, Dan, and Dominic Brewer (2000). “Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement.” *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis*, 22(2), 129–145.

Grigg, Wendy S., Patricia L. Donahue, and Gloria S. Dion (2007).  *The Nation’s Report Card: 12th-Grade Reading and Mathematics 2005*(NCES 2007-468).  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Grigg, Wendy S., Mary A. Lauko, and Debra M. Brockway (2006).  *The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2005*(NCES 2007-466).  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Kennedy, Mary (1998). *Research Monograph No. 13: Form and Substance in Inservice Teacher Education*. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin.  

Lee, Jihyun, Wendy S. Grigg, and Patricia L. Donahue (2007).  *The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007*(NCES 2007-496).  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Lee, Jihyun, Wendy S. Grigg, and Gloria S. Dion (2007).  *The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2007*(NCES 2007-494).  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Monk, David H., and Jennifer A. King (1994). “Multilevel teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science:  The role of teacher subject‐matter preparation,” in R.G. Ehrenberg, *Contemporary policy issues:  Choices and consequences in education* (pp. 29–58). Ithaca, N.Y.:  ILR Press.

Morton, Beth A., and Ben Dalton (2007).  *Stats in Brief: Changes in Instructional Hours in Four Subjects by Public School Teachers of Grades 1 Through 4* (NCES 2007-305).  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Novak, John R. and Bruce Fuller (2003).  *Penalizing Diverse Schools?*  Policy Brief 03-04.  Berkeley, Calif.: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Perie, Marianne, Rebecca Moran, and Anthony D. Lutkus (2005).  *NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics*(NCES 2005-464).  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Peterson, Paul E. (2006).  “The A+ Plan.”  In Paul E. Peterson (ed.), *Reforming Education in Florida: A Study Prepared by the Koret Task Force on K–12 Education*.  Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution.

Rowan, Brian, F.S. Chiang, and Robert J. Miller (1997). “Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement,” *Sociology of Education*,**70, 256–284.

Rowan, Brian, Richard Correnti, and Robert J. Miller (2002). “What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the *Prospects* study of elementary schools.” *Teachers College Record*, 104(8), 1,525–1,567.

Seastrom, Marilyn, Kerry Gruber, Robin Henke, Daniel McGrath, and Benjamin Cohen (2004).  *Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching: 1987–88 to 1999–2000* (NCES 2002-603).  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2006).  *National Assessment of Title I Interim Report: Volume I: Implementation of Title I*, by Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, Joseph McCrary, and Collette Roney. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2007).  *National Assessment of Title I Final Report: Volume I: Implementation of Title I*, by Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, and Joseph McCrary.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2007).  *National Assessment of Title I Final Report, Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap, Findings From a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers*, by Joseph Torgeson, Allen Schirm, Laura Castner, Sonya Vartivarian, Wendy Mansfield, David Myers, Fran Stancavage, Donna Durno, Rosanne Javorsky, and Cinthia Haan.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service (2005). *Case Studies of Supplemental Services Under the*No Child Left Behind Act*: Findings From 2003–04*, by Leslie M. Anderson and Katrina G. Laguarda. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service (2007). *State and Local Implementation of the*No Child Left Behind Act*, Volume I—Title I School Choice, Supplemental Education Services, and Student Achievement*, by Ron Zimmer, Brian Gill, Paula Razquin, Kevin Booker, and J.R. Lockwood III.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service (2007).  *State and Local Implementation of the*No Child Left Behind Act*, Volume II—Teacher Quality Under*NCLB*: Interim Report*, by Beatrice Birman, Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, Amy Klekotka, Meredith Ludwig, James Taylor, Kirk Walters, Andrew Wayne, and Kwang-Suk Yoon.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service (2007).  *State and Local Implementation of the*No Child Left Behind Act*, Volume III—Accountability Under*NCLB*: Interim Report*, by Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, Felipe Martinez, Jennifer O’Day, Brian Stecher, and James Taylor.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service (2007).  *State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 2003–04:  Final Summary Report*, by Elizabeth Dabney.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service (2007).  *State Education Indicators With a Focus on Title I: 2003–04*, by Andra Williams, Rolf K. Blank, and Carla Toye. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service (1999). *Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I*.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service (1999).  *Designing Effective Professional Development: Lessons From the Eisenhower Professional Development Program*, by Michael S. Garet, Beatrice F. Birman, Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Rebecca Herman, and Kwang Suk Yoon.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service (2001). *High Standards for All Students: A Report from the National Assessment of Title I on Progress and Challenges Since the 1994 Reauthorization*.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning, Planning and Evaluation Service (1993). *Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New Directions*.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

**APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS**

**APPENDIX B: STANDARD ERROR TABLES**

# In the following tables, standard errors are provided in parentheses after each estimate.

� EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s ���

I. Introduction

� Section 1501 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act.  Reports from previous National Assessments of Title I include: 1) U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service (2001), High Standards for All Students: A Report from the National Assessment of Title I on Progress and Challenges Since the 1994 Reauthorization; 2) U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service (1999), Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I;  3) U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning, Planning and Evaluation Service (1993), Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New Directions. 

� U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2007).  National Assessment of Title I Final Report: Volume I: Implementation of Title I, by Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, and Joseph McCrary.  Washington, D.C.: Author.  

� The National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind was conducted by the RAND Corporation in collaboration with the American Institutes for Research and the National Opinion Research Center.  Response rates for 2006–07 were 99 percent for the school district survey, 94 percent for the principal survey, 86 percent for the teacher surveys, 91 percent for the Title I paraprofessional survey, 63 percent for the parent survey, and 79 percent for the supplemental service provider survey.  

� The Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind was conducted by the American Institutes for Research in collaboration with the Council of Chief State School Officers and REDA International.  Interviews were completed for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

� Eligibility for the free and reduced-price lunch program included students who live in households with income up to 185 percent of the federal poverty threshold.  U.S. Department of Agriculture (2004). Child nutrition programs: Income eligibility guidelines. Federal Register, 69(60), 16226–16229. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from � HYPERLINK "http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEGs04-05.pdf" ��www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEGs04-05.pdf�.

� The two different definitions of “low-poverty schools” reflect different practices used in different data sources.  Title I program evaluations conducted by the U.S. Department of Education have historically defined “low-poverty schools” as schools with fewer than 35 percent of their students eligible for free and reduced-price lunches; this group included 14 percent of all Title I schools in 2004–05.  For NAEP, schools were asked to report whether their percentage of free and reduced-price lunch eligible students was within one of four specified ranges, including the 0–25 percent group; thus, the NAEP data cannot be tabulated using different poverty thresholds.

� For simplicity, the term “reading” is used throughout this report to refer to the set of subjects that may be variously known as reading, English, or language arts.

II. Trends in Student Achievement

� U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2006).  National Assessment of Title I Interim Report, Volume I: Implementation of Title I, by Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, Joseph McCrary, and Collette Roney.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

� U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2007).  National Assessment of Title I Final Report, Volume I: Implementation of Title I, by Stephanie Stullich, Elizabeth Eisner, and Joseph McCrary.  Washington, D.C.: Author.

� Similar analyses in previous reports conducted under the National Assessment of Title I used a combination of data from three elementary grades (grades 3, 4, and 5) and three middle school grades (grades 6, 7, and 8), because some states did not have fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics assessments in all three years used in those analyses.  The current report, however, was able to use assessment data for a single elementary grade (grade 4) and a single middle school grade (grade 8), because by the 2004–05 school year, a greater number of states had begun administering reading and mathematics assessments in grades 4 and 8 as they moved toward meeting the NCLB requirement to administer reading and mathematics assessments in each grade from 3 through 8 by 2005–06.

� A report conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Northwest Evaluation Association found, “Eighth-grade tests are sharply harder to pass in most states than those in earlier grades (even after taking into account obvious differences in subject-matter complexity and children’s academic development).”  See John Cronin, Michael Dahlin, Deborah Adkins, and G. Gage Kingsbury (2007), The Proficiency Illusion, Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

� As discussed on page 4, there are a number of validity issues involved with examining patterns in state assessment results, including differences across states and over time in the content and difficulty of state assessments.  The National Assessment of Educational Progress provides a superior instrument for examining changes in achievement over time and progress in closing achievement gaps, because it is consistent across states and over time, in contrast with state assessments, which do not provide a consistent measure across states and which frequently provide limited trend data within states due to changes in assessment content, proficiency standards, inclusion policies, and other aspects of the state assessment system.  At the same time, the NAEP is not aligned with individual state content and achievement standards, and state assessments represent the primary criterion that the Title I legislation applies to measure school success.  Consequently, this report examines achievement gains and changes in achievement gaps using both NAEP and state assessments.

� The most recent NAEP data for reading were published in Jihyun Lee, Wendy S. Grigg, and Patricia L. Donahue (2007), The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.  The most recent NAEP data for mathematics were published in Jihyun Lee, Wendy S. Grigg, and Gloria S. Dion (2007), The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2007 (NCES 2007-494), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.  The most recent NAEP data for science were published in Wendy S. Grigg, Mary A. Lauko, and Debra M. Brockway (2006), The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2005 (NCES 2007-466), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

� State participation in NAEP was not required prior to NCLB and, as a result, NAEP results for years prior to 2003 are based on a subset of the states.  For example, for the fourth-grade NAEP reading assessment, 39 states participated in 1998 and 44 states participated in 2002, compared with 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2003.  Also, NAEP changed its approach to testing accommodations for students with disabilities and LEP students during the period examined in this report.  Before 1996, no testing accommodations were provided to such students participating in NAEP assessments.  Beginning in 1996 for the mathematics assessment and 1998 for the reading assessment, the Main NAEP was administered to two reporting samples—accommodations permitted and accommodations not permitted.  Beginning in 2002 for reading and 2003 for mathematics, NAEP administered the Main NAEP test with accommodations permitted as its only administration procedure.  For this National Assessment of Title I report, Main NAEP results are reported with no accommodations up through 1994 and with accommodations permitted thereafter. 

� For the NAEP fourth-grade reading assessment, the percentages of assessed students who were in the three largest race and ethnicity categories were:

White (72 percent in 1992 and 56 percent in 2007);

Hispanic (7 percent in 1992 and 20 percent in 2007); and

Black (18 percent in 1992 and 17 percent in 2007).

See Table A-6 in Jihyun Lee, Wendy S. Grigg, and Patricia L. Donahue (2007), The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.  

III. Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems

� For each state review, the Department convened a panel of about three peer reviewers who were selected from a pool of experts with assessment-related experience in the areas of psychometrics, test administration, special education, and language assessment (mostly active or retired state or district assessment directors).  Reviews of states’ initial submissions of evidence began during the 2004–05 school year, and each state submitted documentation to the Department to demonstrate that their statewide assessment systems met the requirements outlined in Department guidance in seven areas: academic content standards, academic achievement standards, full statewide assessment system, technical quality, alignment, inclusion, and reporting.  The panel members individually reviewed the state’s evidence submission and independently evaluated the state’s evidence using the NCLB peer review guidance.  The peer reviewers then met as a team to discuss the evidence, provide feedback on the state’s evidence submission, and prepare a report for each state that summarized the feedback.  Department staff facilitated the team meetings.  Based on the peer review comments, Department staff prepared a memorandum with a recommended approval status for each state, which was then reviewed by the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education and by policy and program staff to make a final decision.  Following each review, states that did not adequately address all requirements were sent a letter outlining the additional evidence they needed to submit to meet requirements.  Additional reviews were scheduled as needed and are continuing.

� U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Decision Letters on State Final Assessment Systems Under Title I of ESEA as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. � HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/index.html" ��www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/index.html�, accessed Jan. 8, 2009.

� Ten states have approved science assessments in three grade spans: Arizona, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.  West Virginia has received approval for its general science assessment but not its alternate science assessment.

� U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Decision Letters on State Final Assessment Systems Under Title I of ESEA as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. � HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/index.html" ��www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/index.html�, accessed Jan. 8, 2009.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Schools that were identified for improvement under the previous law (IASA) were required to begin NCLB improvement interventions in 2002–03.  The 2002–03 Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) directed states to provide a list of Title I schools identified for improvement for the 2003–04 school year based on state assessment data from the 2002–03 school year.  For previous years, the directions were less specific and states may have followed different practices for the defining the year for which they reported data.  In this report, the number of identified schools from the 2002–03 CSPR is reported as “schools identified for the 2003–04 school year.” Prior to that year, this report uses the CSPR year as the data year; for example, the number of identified schools from the 2001–02 CSPR is reported as the number identified for 2001–02.

� The total numbers of identified schools in each year differ from totals in summary reports on the State Consolidated Performance Reports because the CSPR reports also include data reported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (in addition to data reported by the states).  The number of identified Title I schools for 2004–05 differ from the official data in the State Consolidated Performance Reports because Michigan and Oregon indicated that their CSPR submissions included non–Title I schools. 

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind, based on data from the Consolidated State Performance Reports.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� The 15 districts with the most Title I schools in corrective action status accounted for 21 percent of all Title I schools in corrective action.  Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Another 503 identified schools were of other types.  The sum across levels is somewhat less than the total number of identified schools reported earlier due to some missing data on school grade level.   Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. 

� Under NCLB, schools and districts are held accountable for AYP targets only when they have at least a minimum number of students in the subgroup categories.  Because district-level AYP calculations include students from all schools, districts may meet the minimum subgroup sizes for certain groups of students even if none of their schools do.  If such groups do not make AYP at the district level while not counted at the school level, the result will be that districts may be identified for improvement when none of their schools are.  Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Looking at a consistent set of 29 states for which data were available for both 2003–04 and 2004–05, the percentage of schools missing AYP for the all students group declined to 29 percent in 2004–05 from 35 percent in 2003–04, while fewer schools missed AYP solely due to the achievement of a single subgroup (21 percent vs. 23 percent), test participation rates (4 percent vs. 7 percent), or the other academic indicator (4 percent vs. 7 percent).  A larger percentage of schools missed AYP for the achievement of two or more subgroups in 2004–05 (27 percent vs. 17 percent).  Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Data for calculating percentages for limited English proficient students and students with disabilities were not available.  Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� This analysis builds on the work of John Novak and Bruce Fuller (2003), Penalizing Diverse Schools?  Policy Brief 03-04, Berkeley, Calif.: Policy Analysis for California Education.  State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Vol. III: Accountability 

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.  

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� For example, teachers in schools identified for improvement were more likely to report reducing instructional time for art and music than were teachers in non-identified schools (11 percent vs. 6 percent), but for other subjects there were no significant differences between identified and non-identified schools.  National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� Beth A. Morton and Ben Dalton (2007), Stats in Brief: Changes in Instructional Hours in Four Subjects by Public School Teachers of Grades 1 Through 4 (NCES 2007-305).  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

� Center on Education Policy (2008), Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects, Washington, D.C.: Author.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� The states that reported using growth measures in non-NCLB accountability systems in fall 2006 and also have been approved for the growth model pilot program are: Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio.  Additional states that reported using growth measures in non-NCLB accountability systems are: California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

� In the Peterson (2006) study, 66 percent of Florida schools received an A or B under the state’s “A+” accountability system but 77 percent did not make AYP under NCLB, indicating that accountability designations under the state’s A+ system were often inconsistent with NCLB accountability designations.  We examined this issue for the 45 Florida schools in the NLS-NCLB sample for which we had principal responses to the survey question about NCLB and state accountability designations. Thirteen (29 percent) of these sample schools reported conflicting accountability designations; for 10 out of 29 schools identified for improvement under NCLB (according to principal reports), the principal said the school was considered high-performing under the state accountability system, and three out of 16 principals of non-identified schools said they were considered low-performing under the state system. Looking at school accountability designations as reported by the state of Florida yielded similar findings.  Among the 39 sample schools in Florida that were identified for improvement, a majority (21) received a grade of C or D under the state’s A+ accountability system, but 7 received an A and 9 received a B.  For the 18 Florida schools not identified for improvement under NCLB, 13 received an A, 2 received a B, and 3 received a C or D.  So, schools that were identified under NCLB tend to get lower ratings under the state’s A+ system compared with schools that were not identified under NCLB, but there was a sizeable amount of inconsistency between the two accountability systems.  However, across the entire NLS-NCLB sample, there were few cases where principals reported receiving conflicting designations.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

IV. Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services

� As of 2007–08, 19 school districts in four states (Alaska, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia) are participating in a pilot project allowing them to switch the order of the two Title I choice options, i.e., to offer supplemental services in schools in Year 1 of improvement status and defer offering school choice until a school is in Year 2 of improvement status.

� U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Reports.

� U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Reports.

� U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Reports.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Reports.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� Policy and Program Studies Service reviews of State Education Agency Web sites, conducted by Westat for May 2003 through May 2005 and conducted by the Urban Institute for May 2006 and May 2007.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� Policy and Program Studies Service, review of State Education Agency Web sites.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.  This finding is consistent with other research.  Case studies in nine districts estimated an average of 60 hours of instruction per year in those districts in 2003–04 (Leslie M. Anderson and Katrina G. Laguarda, 2005, Case Studies of Supplemental Services Under the No Child Left Behind Act: Findings From 2003–04, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service).  Similarly, another survey of 216 supplemental service providers found that one-quarter of respondents offered 31–45 instructional hours per school year, one-quarter offered 46–60 hours, and one-quarter offered more than 60 hours (American Institutes for Research and Education Industry Association, 2005, The Promise and Challenge of Supplemental Educational Services: The Providers’ Perspective). 

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� For more information on the methodology for this study, see U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service (2007), State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I—Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement, by Ron Zimmer, Brian Gill, Paul Razquin, Kevin Booker, and J.R. Lockwood III, Washington, DC: Author.

� For more information on the interpretation of effect sizes found in this study, see Georges Vernez and Ron Zimmer (2007), Interpreting the Effects of Title I Supplemental Educational Services, available at www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/implementation/achievementanalysis-sizes.doc.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

V. Teacher Quality and Professional Development

� NCLB specifies the core academic subjects to be English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.  Section 9101(11) of the No Child Left Behind Act.

� Dan Goldhaber and Dominic Brewer (2000), “Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129–145; David H. Monk and Jennifer A. King (1994), “Multilevel teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science:  The role of teacher subject�matter preparation,” in R.G. Ehrenberg, Contemporary policy issues:  Choices and consequences in education (pp. 29–58), Ithaca, N.Y.:  ILR Press; Brian Rowan, F.S. Chiang, and Robert J. Miller (1997), “Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement,”Sociology of Education, 70, 256–284.

� Brian Rowan, Richard Correnti, and Robert J. Miller (2002), “What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools,” Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567.

� Charles Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob Vigdor, “Teacher Quality and Minority Achievement Gaps,” Working Paper Series, October 2004, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University. Dan Goldhaber, “Teacher Licensure Tests and Student Achievement: Is Teacher Testing An Effective Policy?” University of Washington and the Urban Institute, Draft paper, March 29, 2005.  Dan Goldhaber, “Everyone’s Doing It, But What Does Teacher Testing Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness?” University of Washington and the Urban Institute, Draft Paper, April 2006. 

� Dan Goldhaber, “Everyone’s Doing It, But What Does Teacher Testing Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness?” University of Washington and the Urban Institute, Draft Paper, April 2006.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Personal communication on Nov. 29, 2005 with Rick Tannenbaum, director of assessment design and scoring, Educational Testing Service.

� Educational Testing Service, unpublished data provided on Sept. 7, 2007.  The national median scores were based on scores of all individuals who took these tests from Oct. 1, 2004, to July 31, 2007.

� U.S. Department of Education (Sept. 5, 2006) Letter to Chief State School Officers. Available at: � HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/060905.html" ��http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/060905.html� (retrieved February 2007).

� Section 9101(23)(C) of the No Child Left Behind Act.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

� Teacher survey data used in this report are from the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, which is not representative of all teachers; the study sampled elementary classroom teachers, secondary English teachers, and secondary math teachers in a nationally representative sample of schools.  For simplicity, we use the term “teachers” to refer to these data.  The study also surveyed a sample of special education teachers (both elementary and secondary), and data for these teachers are reported separately.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� Similarly, 38 percent of middle school English teachers reported they had a major in English, compared with 81 percent of high school English teachers.  Marilyn Seastrom, Kerry Gruber, Robin Henke, Daniel McGrath, and Benjamin Cohen (2004), Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching: 1987–88 to 1999–2000 (NCES 2002-603), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.  The sample for this survey included 56,354 teachers, with a response rate of 83 percent.  More information on the methodology for this study can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SASS/methods9900.asp.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� Mary Kennedy (1998). Research Monograph No. 13: Form and Substance in Inservice Teacher Education. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin.  David K. Cohen, Milbrey W. McLaughlin, and Heather C. Hill (1998). Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California (RR-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

� Michael S. Garet, Beatrice F. Birman, Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Rebecca Herman, and Kwang Suk Yoon (1999). Designing Effective Professional Development: Lessons From the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service.

� Michael S. Garet, Beatrice F. Birman, Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Rebecca Herman, and Kwang Suk Yoon (1999).  Designing Effective Professional Development: Lessons From the Eisenhower Professional Development Program.  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service.

� Joseph Torgeson, Allen Schirm, Laura Castner, Sonya Vartivarian, Wendy Mansfield, David Myers, Fran Stancavage, Donna Durno, Rosanne Javorsky, and Cinthia Haan (2007).  National Assessment of Title I Final Report, Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap, Findings From a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers.  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

� National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind.

PAGE  

# _1290947158.ppt

# _1292942121.ppt

# _1292953158.ppt

# _1292955863.ppt

# _1293283779.ppt

# _1293283861.ppt

# _1292957520.ppt

# _1292957548.ppt

# _1292955557.ppt

# _1292955847.ppt

# _1292955475.ppt

# _1292943020.ppt

# _1292952025.ppt

# _1292942992.ppt

# _1292942254.ppt

# _1290947606.ppt

# _1290947656.ppt

# _1292923820.ppt

# _1292923926.ppt

# _1292924007.ppt

# _1292923878.ppt

# _1290947687.ppt

# _1290947711.ppt

# _1292922099.ppt

# _1290947700.ppt

# _1290947670.ppt

# _1290947631.ppt

# _1290947645.ppt

# _1290947618.ppt

# _1290947379.ppt

# _1290947398.ppt

# _1290947172.ppt

# _1290947278.ppt

# _1290947074.ppt

# _1290947108.ppt

# _1290947146.ppt

# _1290947090.ppt

# _1290946696.ppt

# _1290946704.ppt

# _1290934575.ppt

# _1290946689.ppt

# _1290941550.ppt

# _1286870595.ppt

# _1286875870.ppt

# _1188811696