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. 
iii

CONTENTS 

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

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................................. xi 

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................................xiii 

I. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 

A. Technical Notes .................................................................................................................................................. 2 

II. Trends in Student Achievement...................................................................................................................................... 3 

A. Student Achievement on State Assessments.................................................................................................. 4 

B. Student Achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress ........................................10 

III. Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems .......................................................................15 

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

B. School and District Identification for Improvement..................................................................................17 

C. Adequate Yearly Progress Ratings for Schools and Districts....................................................................21 

D. Communication of School Performance Results........................................................................................25 

E. School Improvement Efforts and Assistance for Identified Schools and Districts ..............................26 

F. Accountability Under Other State Initiatives ...............................................................................................31 

IV. Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services..............................................................................33 

A. Eligibility and Participation.............................................................................................................................33 

B. Parental Notification ........................................................................................................................................37 

C. Characteristics of Supplemental Educational Services ...............................................................................39 

D. Relationship Between Participation in Title I Choice Options and Student Achievement .................40 

E. Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplemental Service Providers...............................................................42

V. Highly Qualified Teachers and Professional Development......................................................................................43 

A. State Implementation of Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements ..........................................................43 

B. Teachers’ Highly Qualified Status ..................................................................................................................45 

C. Professional Development ..............................................................................................................................47 

Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................................51 

References ..............................................................................................................................................................................57 

Appendix A. Supplemental Exhibits ................................................................................................................................61 

Appendix B. Standard Error Tables .................................................................................................................................95 
iv
v

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, 2007................................................................................ 5 

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 2007............................. 6 

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 2006–07................................................ 7 

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 Group.......................................................................................................................................................... 8 

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 2013–14................................................................................................................................... 9 

6 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores 

for Public School Students by School Grade Level .........................................................................................11 

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 Ethnicity.............................................................12

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 Ethnicity.............................................................13

9 Percentage 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 Group ........14 

III. Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems 

10 NCLB Assessment System Approval Status, as of Jan. 8, 2009.....................................................................16 

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

2006–07 ...................................................................................................................................................................17 

12 Number of Identified Title I Schools by Identification Status, 2004–05 to 2006–07 ................................18 

13 Number and Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement, by State, 2006–07 ...............................19 

14 Distribution of Title I Districts and Distribution of Title I Schools Identified for Improvement, 

by Number of Identified Schools in the District, 2006–07 ............................................................................20 

15 Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement in 2004–05 That Were in Various Stages of 

School Improvement Status in 2006–07............................................................................................................21 

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

2005–06 ...................................................................................................................................................................22 

17 AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress in 2004–05, by 

Stage of School Improvement Status for 2005–06...........................................................................................23 

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

School, 2005–06.....................................................................................................................................................24 

19 Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP for Individual Student Subgroups, by School Poverty 

Rate, 2005–06 .........................................................................................................................................................24 

20 Timing of State Notification About School Improvement Status, Fall 2004 and Fall 2006 .....................25 

21 Percentage of Elementary Teachers Who Reported Changing the Amount of Instructional Time 

That They Spent on Various Subjects From 2004–05 to 2006–07................................................................27 

22 Average Number of Hours Per Week That Public School Teachers of First- Through FourthGrade Self-Contained Classrooms Spent on Teaching Each of Four Subjects, Selected Years 

1987–88 Through 2003–04 ..................................................................................................................................28 
vi

23 Percentage of Identified Title I Schools That Reported Experiencing Various Types of 

Interventions Since Identification for Improvement, 2006–07......................................................................29 

24 Percentage of Title I Schools in Corrective Action That Reported Experiencing Various Types 

of Interventions, 2004–05 and 2006–07 ............................................................................................................30 

25 Percentage of Districts Taking Various Actions in Response to Being Identified for 

Improvement, 2005–06.........................................................................................................................................32 

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 2005–06...............................................................................................................................................................34 

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, 2006–07.....................................................................................................................................................35 

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, 

2006–07 ...................................................................................................................................................................36 

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 Mathematics...................44 

34 Percentage of Teachers Reporting That They Were Considered Highly Qualified Under NCLB, 

2006–07 ...................................................................................................................................................................46 

35 Change in Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on Instructional Strategies 

for Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 to 2005–06........................................................................................48 

36 Comparison of Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on Instructional 

Strategies Versus In-Depth Study of Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2005–06 ................................49 

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, 2007 ...........................................................................................................61 

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 Subgroups ....................................62 

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 Subgroups ............................63 

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 Subgroups ....................................64 

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 Subgroups ............................65 

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 Groups........................66 
vii

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 Groups................67 

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 Groups........................68 

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 Groups................69 

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 2006–07 ..............................................................................................................................................70 

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 2006–07 ..............................................................................................................................................71 

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 2006–07 ..............................................................................................................................................72 

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 2006–07 ..............................................................................................................................................73 

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 Group........................................................................................................................................................74 

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 2013–14.................................................................................................................................74 

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 2013–14...................................................................................................................................................75 

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 Level ........................................................76 

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 Ethnicity .................................................................77 

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 Level.........................................................78 

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 Ethnicity .................................................................79 

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 2007..............................80 

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 2007..............................81 

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 2007 ...........................................................................................................................................................82 

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 2007................................................................................................................................................83 

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 2007 ...........................................................................................................................................................84 

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 2007................................................................................................................................................85 

A-27 Number of Title I Schools That Were Identified for Improvement, by State, 1998–99 to 2006–07......86 
viii

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, 2005–06........................................................................................................88 

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 Subject ............................................88 

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 Principals.........................................................88 

A-32 Number of Students Participating in Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational 

Services, 2003–04 to 2006–07..............................................................................................................................89 

A-33 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Using the Title I School Choice Option, as a Percentage 

of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006–07 ...............................................................90 

A-34 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services, 

as a Percentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006–07 ...................................90 

A-35 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, 

2006–07 ...................................................................................................................................................................91 

A-36 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, 2006–07 ..................................................................................................................................................91 

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

Seven Districts........................................................................................................................................................92 

A-38 Achievement Effects of Student Participation in Title I School Choice in Six Districts...........................92 

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

September 2007......................................................................................................................................................93 

A-40 Change in Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on In-Depth Study of 

Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 to 2005–06 ............................................................................94 

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 Level .........................................................................................95 

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 Level ........................................................96 

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 Ethnicity.............................................................97

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 Ethnicity.............................................................98

B-5 Percentage of Identified Title I Schools Experiencing Various Types of Interventions Since 

Identification for Improvement, 2006–07 .........................................................................................................99 

B-6 Percentage of Districts Taking Various Actions in Response to Being Identified for 

Improvement, 2006–07.......................................................................................................................................100 

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 2006–07 .....................................101 

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 2006–07 .........101 

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 2006–07 .........................................................................................................................................102 

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 2006–07 ........................................................................................................................102 
ix

B-11 District Strategies for Communicating With Parents About Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Services Options, 2004–05 and 2006–07................................................................................103 

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 2006–07 ..........................................104 

B-13 Percentage of Teachers Reporting That They Were Considered Highly Qualified Under NCLB, 

2004–05 and 2006–07 .........................................................................................................................................104 

B-14 Percentage of Teachers Participating in Professional Development Focused on Instructional 

Strategies for Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 and 2005–06.................................................................105

B-15 Percentage of Teachers Participating in Professional Development Focused on In-Depth Study 

of Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 and 2005–06...................................................................105
x
xi

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. 
xii
xiii

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. 
xiv

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 highpoverty 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. 
xv

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 fourthgrade 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. 
xvi

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 highpoverty 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 
xvii

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. 
xviii

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. 
xix

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 
xx

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 nonidentified 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). 
1

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.i

 The final report of the National Assessment was 

released in 2007.ii 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 
2

school choice and supplemental services and student achievement in a subsample of nine large 

urban school districts.iii

 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.iv

 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.v In this report, survey data for “highpoverty 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.vi
3

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 readingvii 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. 

Key Evaluation Questions for Student Achievement 

1. Are students whom Title I is intended to benefit (including low-income students, racial and ethnic 

minorities, LEP students, migrant students, and students with disabilities) making progress 

toward meeting state academic achievement standards in reading and mathematics? 

2. Are students, especially disadvantaged students, showing achievement gains on the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress? 

3. Are achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students closing over time?
4

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 2002–03viii

and for 36 states for the period from 2002–03 to 2004–05.ix 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.x

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).xi 
5

29

13

90

70

52

55

58

65

53

54

88

88

79

83

85

58

80

85

85

83

63

46

73

78

73

75

69

78

78

88

81

81

90

68

77

78

80

80

82

85

86

86

71

87

80

70

68

69

72

79

56

39

36

14

19

20

23

24

24

24

26

26

27

27

28

28

28

29

29

49

43

41

41

41

40

38

37

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

35

35

35

34

34

34

34

33

33

32

32

32

31

30

29

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

District of Columbia

Mississippi

Louisiana

California

New Mexico

Nevada

Arizona

South Carolina

Haw aii

Oklahoma

Texas

Oregon

West Virginia

Georgia

Arkansas

Alaska

Alabama

North Carolina

Tennessee

Rhode Island

Missouri

Illinois

Michigan

Kentucky

Indiana

Florida

Delaw are

Utah

South Dakota

Idaho

North Dakota

Nebraska

New York 

Wyoming

Washington

Iow a

Ohio

Wisconsin

Kansas

Maine

Colorado

Maryland

Minnesota

Virginia

Montana

Pennsylvania

Vermont

Connecticut

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Massachusetts

State Assessment: % Proficient

NAEP: % Proficient

Exhibit 1

Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students Achieving At or Above the Proficient Level

on NAEP and State Assessments in Reading, 2007

Exhibit reads: In Massachusetts, 50 percent of fourth-grade students scored at or above the proficient level 

on the state reading assessment in 2007 and 44 percent scored at or above the proficient level on the NAEP. 

Sources: Consolidated State Performance Reports; National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=50 states and the District 

of Columbia). 
6

Exhibit 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 2007

 State Assessments in 2006–07 NAEP in 2007 

 Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics 

 4th Grade 8th Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade 

Nation 32 29 39 31 

Alabama 85 72 78 66 29 21 26 18 

Alaska 80 79 76 69 29 27 38 32 

Arizona 65 63 74 61 24 24 31 26 

Arkansas 58 63 65 48 29 25 37 24 

California 52 42 57 34 23 21 30 24 

Colorado 86 87 91 76 36 35 41 37 

Connecticut 69 75 80 79 41 37 45 35 

Delaware 78 78 75 61 34 31 40 31 

District of Columbia 13 17 17 14 14 12 14 8 

Florida 69 49 69 63 34 28 40 27 

Georgia 85 89 79 82 28 26 32 25 

Hawaii 54 60 48 26 26 20 33 21 

Idaho 81 86 82 72 35 32 40 34 

Illinois 73 81 84 80 32 30 36 31 

Indiana 75 68 75 71 33 31 46 35 

Iowa 80 73 81 75 36 36 43 35 

Kansas 85 81 86 72 36 35 51 40 

Kentucky 73 64 60 49 33 28 31 27 

Louisiana 70 59 64 56 20 19 24 19 

Maine 85 65 61 51 36 37 42 34 

Maryland 86 69 86 57 36 33 40 37 

Massachusetts 56 75 48 45 49 43 58 51 

Michigan 78 72 77 71 32 28 37 29 

Minnesota 71 64 68 57 37 37 51 43 

Mississippi 90 52 81 54 19 17 21 14 

Missouri 46 43 45 42 32 31 38 30 

Montana 80 79 68 60 39 39 44 38 

Nebraska 90 91 91 89 35 35 38 35 

Nevada 58 57 64 53 24 22 30 23 

New Hampshire 72 66 66 57 41 37 52 38 

New Jersey 79 72 84 68 43 39 52 40 

New Mexico 55 56 46 30 24 17 24 17 

New York 68 57 80 59 36 32 43 30 

North Carolina 85 88 68 65 29 28 41 34 

North Dakota 81 76 80 67 35 32 46 41 

Ohio 80 80 76 72 36 36 46 35 

Oklahoma 88 78 81 76 27 26 33 21 

Oregon 79 68 71 70 28 34 35 35 

Pennsylvania 70 74 77 67 40 36 47 38 

Rhode Island 63 58 54 47 31 27 34 28 

South Carolina 53 35 53 28 26 25 36 32 

South Dakota 88 78 78 72 34 37 41 39 

Texas 88 92 89 88 27 26 29 23 

Tennessee 83 88 85 72 30 28 40 35 

Utah 78 81 74 77 34 30 39 32 

Vermont 68 65 64 60 41 42 49 41 

Virginia 87 80 81 77 38 34 42 37 

Washington 78 67 59 51 36 34 44 36 

West Virginia 83 80 79 71 28 23 33 19 

Wisconsin 82 84 77 75 36 33 47 37 

Wyoming 77 71 87 61 36 33 44 36 

# of states where 

8th grade is lower 

than 4th grade 

32 

(Median -3) 

49 

(Median -8) 

41 

(Median -2) 

50 

(Median -7) 

Sources: Consolidated State Performance Reports; National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=50 states and the 

District of Columbia).
7

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. 

Exhibit 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 2006–07

Grade 4 Grade 8 

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics 

 2006–07 Change From 

2004–05 2006–07 Change From 

2004–05 2006–07 Change From 

2004–05 2006–07 Change From 

2004–05 

Alabama 78 2 70 6 61 4 56 12 

Alaska 69 6 65 9 68 7 46 3 

Arizona 51 3 63 6 47 1 34 14 

Arkansas 47 7 55 16 52 8 21 3 

California 37 4 46 7 26 3 59 2 

Colorado 75 -1 84 3 75 1 49 4 

Florida 57 -5 58 5 35 6 73 17 

Georgia 70 5 

Illinois 71 14 55 1 

Indiana 63 4 64 4 52 2 59 1 

Iowa 67 1 69 1 56 1 46 1 

Louisiana 62 3 55 0 49 7 35 6 

Maryland 76 8 76 15 50 4 43 2 

Massachusetts 31 5 27 8 39 -5 43 -4 

Mississippi 86 1 75 3 66 18 39 5 

Montana 70 6 55 11 43 9 44 18 

New Jersey 63 -3 71 6 50 2 20 6 

New Mexico 46 3 38 7 47 5 

North Carolina 79 6 81 2 53 3 

North Dakota 69 5 69 -1 64 6 49 7 

Oklahoma 84 7 75 9 69 8 68 9 

Pennsylvania 56 13 15 4 

South Carolina 39 17 39 13 20 5 56 6 

South Dakota 80 3 65 -5 65 -1 81 2 

Tennessee 82 2 84 4 88 8 63 13 

Texas 77 6 80 6 82 7 66 6 

Utah 67 1 64 0 

Washington 66 -2 42 -2 55 5 

West Virginia 76 2 72 5 72 1 61 2 

Wisconsin 68 2 62 8 70 2 56 12 

Median 68 3 65 6 56 5 53 5 

# of states with 

achievement 

gains 

23 out of 27 states 22 out of 27 states 25 out of 27 states 26 out of 27 states 

Exhibit reads: The proportion of low-income students performing at or above Alabama’s proficient level 

in fourth-grade reading was 78 percent in 2006–07, an increase of 2 percentage points over 2004–05. 

Overall, states that had consistent assessments during this period showed increases in the percent proficient 

on fourth-grade reading assessments in 23 out of 27 states. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (for 30 states).
8

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).xii

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 

Exhibit 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 Group 

Grade 4 Grade 8 

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics 

Low-income 85% 81% 93% 96% 

Black 70% 81% 78% 93% 

Hispanic 74% 81% 81% 85% 

White 70% 85% 74% 85% 

LEP 74% 89% 67% 63% 

Migrant 57% 81% 80% 70% 

Students with disabilities 76% 84% 76% 84% 

“All students” group 74% 78% 74% 89% 

Average proportion of student 

groups with achievement gains 73% 83% 78% 84% 

Exhibit reads: The proportion of low-income students performing at or above states’ proficient levels in 

fourth-grade reading increased from 2004–05 to 2006–07 in 85 percent of the states that had consistent trend 

data available. 

Note: The average proportions shown in the last row represent the number of student groups across states that showed an increase in 

the percent proficient measure divided by the total number of student groups across all states included in the analysis. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (n=30 states; n sizes for individual cells are provided in Appendix Exhibit A-14).
9

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.

Exhibit 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 2013–14 

Grade 4 Grade 8 

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics 

Low-income 11% 15% 19% 11% 

Black 7% 11% 19% 19% 

Hispanic 15% 22% 19% 11% 

White 19% 30% 19% 11% 

Limited English proficient 26% 22% 15% 7% 

Migrant 19% 24% 20% 15% 

Students with disabilities 16% 12% 24% 12% 

“All students” group 11% 22% 15% 11% 

Average proportion of student 

groups predicted to reach 100% 15% 20% 18% 12% 

Exhibit reads: For low-income students, 11 percent of the states with available data would reach the 

state’s proficient level on the fourth-grade reading assessment, if their rate of change from 2004–05 to 

2006–07 were to continue through 2013–14. 

Notes: To calculate the predicted percent proficient in 2013–14, we multiplied the annualized percentage-point change from 

2002–03 to 2006–07 by the number of years remaining to 2013–14 (seven years), and added that figure to the percent proficient 

in 2006–07. It should be noted that this method assumes no variation in the rate of change. The average shown at the bottom of 

each column is based on summing the numerators and denominators reflected in the eight cells of that column, and dividing the 

total of the numerators by the total of the denominators (see Exhibit A-15). Across all four assessment types in this table, 16 

percent of the subgroups were predicted to reach the 100 percent proficient goal by 2013–14. 

Source: Consolidated state performance reports (n=30 states). 
10

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.xiii 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.xiv 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 fourthgrade 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 fourthgrade students, but decreased significantly for 12th-graders in all three subjects. 
11

Exhibit 6 

Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: 

Average Scale Scores for Public School Students by School Grade Level 

Reading

285

260 261

217 220

286 290 289 285

258 257 261 263 261

212 215 213 211 217 216

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007

12th Grade

8th Grade

4th Grade

* *

* * * *

* * * * * * *

Mathematics

239

280

237 234

224 222 219 212

278 269 272 276

262 267

300 303

294 297

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

12th Grade

8th Grade

4th Grade

*

*

* * * * * *

* * * *

* *

Science

146

145

150

147 148 148

149

145 145

140

150

160

1996 2000 2005

12th Grade

8th Grade

4th Grade

*

*

*

* Indicates that the score is significantly different from the most 

recent score (2007 for 4th- and 8th-grade reading and 

mathematics, 2005 for science and 12th-grade reading, and 2002 

for 12th-grade mathematics) (p<.05). 

Note: The NAEP science assessment is scaled differently from the 

reading and mathematics assessments. For the first Main NAEP 

science assessment (in 1996), the mean scale score for each tested 

grade was set at 150, resulting in some overlap between the scale 

score trend lines in subsequent years (unlike the reading and math 

scales, where mean scale scores are higher for 12th and 8th grade 

than for 4th grade). For 4th grade, the average scale score in 

science rose from 145 in 1996 and 2000 to 149 in 2005. For 12th 

grade, the average scale score declined from 150 in 1996 to 145 in 

2000 and 2005. 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP.

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. 
12

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 

Exhibit 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 Ethnicity 

223 223 227 228 230

192 188

199 199 201 204

192 189

197 199 203

227 223 222

186

194

198

184

191

160

180

200

220

240

260

1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007

White

Black

*

*

*

* *

*

*

* * *

Hispanic

*

* *

* * *

* * *

* *

Reading

231 233

243 246 248

207 207

221 225 227

198

203

216 220 222

219

227

201 199

192

187

160

180

200

220

240

260

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

White

Hispanic

Black

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Mathematics

157 158 161

122 121

132

119 121

128

100

120

140

160

180

1996 2000 2005

White

Black

Hispanic

* *

* *

* *

Science

* Indicates that the score is significantly different from the most 

recent score (2007 for reading and mathematics and 2005 for 

science) (p<.05). 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP. 
13

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.xv

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). 

Exhibit 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 Ethnicity 

268 270 269 270

245 244 245 246

244 242 244

271

265 265

241

238 239

242 244

236 235

220

240

260

280

300

1992 1994 1998 20022003 2005 2007

White

Black

*

*

*

*

*

Hispanic

*

*

*

*

*

Reading

279 283

287 288 290

249 252

258 261 264

239

243

252 254

259

269

276

247 245

236 236

220

240

260

280

300

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

White

Hispanic

Black

*

*

* *

*

*

*

* * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Mathematics

158 159 159

126 125 127

120 120 123

100

120

140

160

180

1996 2000 2005

White

*

Hispanic

Black

Science

* Indicates that the score is significantly different from the most 

recent score (2007 for reading and mathematics and 2005 for 

science) (p<.05). 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP. 
14

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 blackwhite 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. 

Exhibit 9 

Percentage 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 Group 

Grade 4 Grade 8 

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics 

Black 57% 93% 41% 85% 

Hispanic 56% 93% 46% 81% 

White 60% 98% 32% 86% 

“All students” group 76% 98% 55% 92% 

Average proportion of student 

groups with achievement gains 65% 96% 44% 87% 

Exhibit reads: The proportion of black students performing at or above the NAEP proficient level in 

fourth-grade reading increased from 2003 to 2007 in 57 percent of the states that participated in the NAEP 

assessment in both years. 

Notes: The average proportions shown in the last row represent the number of student groups across states that showed an increase 

in the percent proficient measure divided by the total number of student groups across all states included in the analysis. 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=37 to 51 jurisdictions, including the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia); n sizes for individual cells are provided in Appendix Exhibits A-21 through A-26).
15

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. 

Key Evaluation Questions for Assessment and Accountability Systems 

1. To what extent have states implemented the annual assessments in reading, mathematics, science, 

and English language proficiency that are required under NCLB? 

2. How many schools and districts have been identified for improvement under NCLB and what are 

their characteristics? 

3. What are the reasons schools do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP)? 

4. What assistance is provided to districts and schools identified for improvement? What 

interventions are implemented in these districts and schools?

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).xvi 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.xvii 
16

Exhibit 10 

NCLB State Assessment Approval Status, as of Jan. 8, 2009 

 Number of States States 

Full Approval 39 

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, 

Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin 

Approval Pending 13 

California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nebraska, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Texas, 

Vermont, Wyoming 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-nine states have received Department approval indicating that their reading and 

mathematics assessments met all statutory and regulatory requirements under NCLB.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico). 

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.xviii 

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.xix

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 
17

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).xx 

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.xxiii 

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.xxiv

Exhibit 11

Number and Percentage of Title I Schools That Were 

Identified for Improvement, 1996–97 to 2006–07

7,456

8,457

9,417

6,219 6,675

8,608

7,503

8,609

9,694

10,781

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

1996-

97

1997-

98

1998-

99

1999-

00

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

16% 16%

20% 18% 18%

19%

13%

20%

12%

N/A

18%

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 10,781 Title I schools had been identified for 

improvement based on test scores for 2005–06 and earlier years; identified 

schools represented 20 percent of all Title I schools in that year. 

Notes: The first year that schools were identified for improvement based in part on 

NCLB AYP definitions was 2003–04, based on assessments administered in 2002–03. 

However, schools are identified when they miss AYP for two consecutive years, and 

2004–05 was the first year that included schools identified because they missed NCLB

AYP targets for two consecutive years. Data for 2002–03 are not available due to a 

change in reporting requirements that was implemented beginning with the 2002–03 

Consolidated State Performance Report.xxi 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (based on data reported by 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).xxii 
18

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.xxv 

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).xxvi

Exhibit 12

Number of Identified Title I Schools by Identification Status, 

2004–05 to 2006–07

7,157

977 1,199

6,068

1,223

1,683

5,848

2,663

2,270

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Year 1 or Year 2 Corrective Action Restructuring

2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 

Exhibit reads: The number of Title I schools in the first or second 

year of school improvement status declined from 7,157 in 2004–05 

to 5,848 in 2006–07. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (based on data reported by 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
19

Exhibit 13 

Number and Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement, by State, 2006–07

All Schools 

(Title I and Non–Title I) Title I Schools Title I Schools by Improvement Status 

Restructuring 

Number 

Percent 

of All 

Schools 

Number 

Percent 

of Title I 

Schools 

Year 1 Year 2 Corrective 

Action Plan Implement

Total 13,103 15% 10,781 20% 3,520 2,321 2,663 999 1,271 

Alabama 459 34% 289 33% 209 54 3 5 18 

Alaska 229 46% 113 41% 12 24 35 30 12 

Arizona 161 9% 161 14% 75 24 36 12 14 

Arkansas 209 18% 209 25% 69 63 54 19 4 

California 2,240 23% 2,240 37% 719 339 482 343 357 

Colorado 112 7% 112 17% 36 25 21 16 14 

Connecticut 162 17% 110 23% 23 17 63 1 6 

Delaware 34 18% 7 7% 2 1 3 0 1 

District of Columbia 103 53% 103 53% 17 53 33 0 0 

Florida 1,004 31% 1,004 72% 128 302 544 30 0 

Georgia 380 19% 175 15% 51 34 23 19 48 

Hawaii 174 61% 143 71% 38 14 38 3 50 

Idaho 282 45% 98 26% 77 9 12 0 0 

Illinois 581 16% 575 24% 82 85 93 177 138 

Indiana 157 8% 157 20% 99 25 18 6 9 

Iowa 18 1% 11 2% 4 3 4 0 0 

Kansas 25 2% 25 4% 12 8 3 2 0 

Kentucky 158 13% 158 19% 69 27 56 1 5 

Louisiana 87 7% 72 8% 32 33 3 4 0 

Maine 166 32% 20 5% 9 3 4 0 0 

Maryland 181 13% 96 25% 20 13 15 2 46 

Massachusetts 613 35% 455 45% 203 73 129 24 26 

Michigan 403 14% 154 8% 21 34 46 16 37 

Minnesota 63 5% 63 7% 23 27 10 3 0 

Mississippi 57 7% 57 9% 23 21 12 0 1 

Missouri 105 5% 105 10% 24 64 17 0 0 

Montana 52 11% 52 8% 5 11 4 1 31 

Nebraska 1 <1% 1 <1% 0 0 0 1 0 

Nevada 70 12% 70 52% 25 18 18 9 0 

New Hampshire 88 19% 34 14% 17 15 2 0 0 

New Jersey 424 19% 424 34% 147 112 100 16 49 

New Mexico 346 43% 262 45% 106 62 29 17 48 

New York 513 12% 513 17% 110 93 67 77 166 

North Carolina 299 13% 299 26% 160 65 59 10 2 

North Dakota 19 5% 19 6% 0 0 3 2 14 

Ohio 704 18% 472 22% 252 92 76 19 33 

Oklahoma 37 2% 37 3% 10 12 10 3 2 

Oregon 44 3% 44 7% 20 14 9 0 1 

Pennsylvania 455 15% 176 10% 45 24 29 15 63 

Puerto Rico 837 53% 799 100% 184 207 316 62 30 

Rhode Island 61 20% 24 17% 1 10 9 2 2 

South Carolina 187 17% 187 37% 53 28 69 27 10 

South Dakota 45 6% 45 13% 10 14 7 12 2 

Tennessee 171 11% 70 8% 17 23 10 1 19 

Texas 291 4% 291 5% 186 70 33 2 0 

Utah 10 1% 10 4% 5 4 0 0 1 

Vermont 23 7% 15 7% 1 2 2 0 0 

Virginia 62 4% 62 8% 17 29 12 2 2 

Washington 100 5% 100 11% 47 15 26 4 8 

West Virginia 23 3% 23 6% 7 9 6 0 1 

Wisconsin 50 2% 33 3% 15 6 7 4 1 

Wyoming 28 8% 7 4% 3 1 3 0 0 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports and Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality 

Under NCLB (based on data reported by 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
20

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.xxvii

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).xxviii 

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. xxix

Exhibit 14

Distribution of Title I Districts and Distribution of Title I Schools Identified 

for Improvement, by Number of Identified Schools in the District, 2006–07

81% 20%

47%

13%

10%

20%

6% 2%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Title I Districts % of Title I Schools

Identified for

Improvement

13 or more identified schools

5–12 identified schools

2–4 identified schools

1 identified school

No identified schools

Exhibit reads: Districts with 13 or more Title I schools identified 

for improvement accounted for 1 percent of all Title I districts and 

47 percent of all identified Title I schools. 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under 

NCLB (based on data reported by 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
21

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. 

Exhibit 15 

Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement in 2004–05 That Were in 

Various Stages of School Improvement Status in 2006–07

School Improvement Status in 2006–07 

School Improvement 

Status in 2004–05 n 

No Longer 

Identified for 

Improvement 

Year 1 of 

Improvement 

Status 

Year 2 of 

Improvement 

Status 

Corrective 

Action 

Restructuring 

(Year 1) 

Restructuring 

(Year 2) 

All Schools Identified 

for Improvement 9,767 28% 8% 17% 25% 10% 12% 

Year 1 of School 

Improvement Status 5,895 29% 12% 25% 34% 1% 1% 

Year 2 of School 

Improvement Status 1,454 23% 2% 10% 23% 42% 0% 

Corrective Action 911 20% 2% 2% 11% 23% 43% 

Restructuring 1,069 19% 1% 1% 0% 7% 71% 

Exhibit reads: Of the schools that were identified for improvement for 2004–05, 28 percent were no 

longer identified for improvement in 2006–07. 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (based on data reported by the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).

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.xxx

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.
22

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).xxxi 

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 onefourth (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), lowincome 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).xxxii 

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). 

Exhibit 16

AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make

Adequate Yearly Progress, 2003–04 to 2005–06

11%

6%

4% 4%

6%

18%

19%

20%

33%

43%

35%

13% 9%

7%

4%

23%

24% 21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Achievement of "all students" group

Achievement of two or more

subgroups but made AYP for "all

students" group

Achievement of a single subgroup

only

Other academic indicator only

Test participation only

Other combinations of targets

AYP Targets Missed:

Exhibit reads: In 2003–04 testing, 33 percent of schools that 

missed AYP missed for the achievement of the “all students” 

group in reading, mathematics, or both.

Notes: Schools included in the “Achievement of ‘All Students’ Group” and the 

"Achievement of Two or More Subgroups" segments of the graph may have also missed 

AYP for test participation or the other academic indicator. However, schools included 

in the "Achievement of a Single Subgroup Only" segment are those that missed AYP 

for that factor alone and did not miss any other AYP targets. 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality 

Under NCLB (based on data reported by 33 states for 15,731 schools that missed 

AYP in 2003–04, by 39 states for 19,474 schools in 2004–05, and by 43 states for 

20,463 schools in 2005–06). 
23

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.xxxiii

In schools in which AYP was calculated for students with disabilities, LEP students, or AfricanAmerican 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).xxxiv

Exhibit 17

AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make AYP in 2005–06,

by Stage of School Improvement Status for 2006–07

21%

9% 9%

13% 13%

20%

20% 21%

22% 15%

26%

37% 39%

56% 63%

16%

26%

28%

27% 19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Not Identified Year 1 Year 2 Corrective

Action

Restructuring

Achievement of "all students"

group

Achievement of two or more

subgroups but made AYP for

"all students" group

Achievement of a single

subgroup only

Other combinations of targets

AYP Targets Missed:

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, among schools that were not identified for improvement and did not make 

adequate yearly progress, 26 percent missed AYP for the achievement of the “all students” group. 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (n=89,474 schools, based on data 

reported by 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
24

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).xxxv 

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). 

Exhibit 19 

Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP for Individual Student Subgroups, 

By School Poverty Rate, 2005–06

Less Than 

35% Poverty 

35–50% 

Poverty 

50–75% 

Poverty 

75% or More 

Poverty 

African-American 11% 22% 31% 34% 

Asian 2% 8% 17% 25% 

Hispanic 8% 17% 23% 32% 

Native American 7% 14% 23% 43% 

White 1% 2% 5% 12% 

Low-income students 12% 17% 22% 31% 

Students with disabilities 32% 45% 50% 61% 

LEP students 13% 26% 38% 49% 

Exhibit reads: In 2005–06, among low-poverty schools for which AYP was 

calculated for African-American students, 11 percent missed AYP for that subgroup.

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (n=81,836 

schools, based on data reported by 47 states).

Exhibit 18

Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP,

by Number of Subgroups in the School, 2005-06

43%

51%

48%

37%

20%

7%

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

1 subgroup

2 subgroups

3 subgroups

4 subgroups

5 subgroups

6-8 subgroups

Exhibit reads: In 2005–06, among schools for which AYP was 

calculated for only one subgroup, only 7 percent missed AYP, while 

56 percent of schools that were held accountable for the achievement of 

six or seven subgroups missed AYP. 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under 

NCLB (n=69,966 schools, based on data reported by 46 states).
25

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).xxxvi 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).xxxvii

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 lowperforming schools; 13 percent said their school was not on the list of low-performing schools, but most 

Exhibit 20 

Timing of State Notification About School Improvement Status, Fall 2004 and Fall 2006

Preliminary Notification

6

14

31

1

5

46

0 10 20 30 40 50

November or

later

SeptemberOctober

Before

September

Fall 2006

Fall 2004

Number of States

21

15

15

12

13

27

0 10 20 30 40 50

November or

later

SeptemberOctober

Before

September

Fall 2006

Fall 2004

Number of States

Final Notification

Exhibit reads: In 2006, 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported releasing 

preliminary data on whether schools were identified for improvement before September, up from 31 

states in 2004. 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (n for 2004 = 50 states and the 

District of Columbia; n for 2006 = 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
26

(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.xxxviii

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.xxxix 

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.xl 

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.xli

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.xlii

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 
27

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.xliii 

Exhibit 21 

Percentage of Elementary Teachers Who Reported Changing the Amount of 

Instructional Time That They Spent on Various Subjects From 2004–05 to 2006–07

 Increase in Time No Change Decrease in Time 

Reading/English/language arts 22% 76% 3% 

Mathematics 18% 78% 4% 

Science 6% 82% 12% 

Social studies/history 5% 83% 12% 

Art/music 4% 90% 6% 

Physical education/health 5% 89% 6% 

Other 6% 89% 5% 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=3,043 elementary teachers). 

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.xliv 
28

Exhibit 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 2003–04

1987–88 1990–91 1993–94 1999–2000 2003–04 

English/reading/language arts 11.0 10.5 10.9 10.9 11.6 

Mathematics 4.9 4.9 5.3 5.7 5.4 

Science 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.3 

Social Studies 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.5 

Total of four subjects 21.1 21.0 22.1 22.1 21.8 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (1987–88 through 2003–04).

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).xlv 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 higherperforming 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 
29

Exhibit 23 

Percentage of Identified Title I Schools That Reported Experiencing Various Types of 

Interventions Since Identification for Improvement, 2006–07

Percent of 

Schools in 

Year 1 of 

Improvement 

(n=102) 

Percent of 

Schools in 

Year 2 of 

Improvement 

(n=63) 

Percent of 

Schools in 

Corrective 

Action 

(n=99) 

Percent of 

Schools in 

Restructuring 

(n=163) 

Actions Required for All Identified Title I Schools

Parents were notified of schools’ improvement 

status 

94% 100% 100% 96% 

District or state developed a joint improvement plan 

with the school 

83% 96% 94% 86% 

Students were offered the option to transfer to a 

higher-performing school, with transportation 

provided 

71% 80% 85% 91% 

Actions Required for Identified Title I Schools That Miss AYP After Identification

Eligible students were offered supplemental 

educational services from a state-approved provider 

53% 92% 100% 94% 

Corrective Actions

Implemented a new research-based curriculum or 

instructional program 

54% 60% 67% 81% 

Significantly decreased management authority at 

the school level 

4% 17% 1% 13% 

Appointed outside expert to advise the school 34% 35% 26% 53% 

Extended length of school day 15% 26% 22% 44% 

Extended length of school year 6% 7% 9% 16% 

Restructured internal organization of the school 10% 12% 21% 39% 

Replaced school staff members relevant to school’s 

low performance 

4% 11% 21% 30% 

Replaced the principal * 13% 24% 29% 40% 

Restructuring Interventions **

Reopened the school as a public charter school 2% 7% 0% 1% 

Entered into a contract with a private entity to 

manage the school 

2% 1% 0% 1% 

Operation of school turned over to state 2% 2% 0% 3% 

Replaced all or most of the school staff 5% 11% 4% 12% 

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 94 percent of Title I schools in their first year of being identified for 

improvement reported that parents had been notified of the school’s improvement status. 

* Replacing the principal is not specifically mentioned in the law as an intervention for schools in corrective action, but the principal 

may be thought of as the staff person who is most responsible for the school’s performance, so replacing the principal was included as 

a separate item on the survey. 

** In addition to the specific restructuring interventions shown here, the law also allows schools in restructuring status 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.” 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Principal Survey. 
30

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).xlvi

Exhibit 24 

Percentage of Title I Schools Identified for Corrective Action That Reported 

Experiencing Various Types of Interventions, 2004–05 and 2006–07

2004–05 

(n=74) 

2006–07 

(n=99) 

Implemented a new research-based curriculum or instructional program 89% 67%* 

Appointed outside expert to advise the school 59% 26%* 

Extended length of school day 45% 22% 

Extended length of school year 35% 9%* 

Restructured internal organization of the school 21% 21% 

Significantly decreased management authority at the school level 27% 1%* 

Replaced school staff members relevant to school’s low performance 7% 21% 

Any of the above 96% 88% 

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 67 percent of Title I schools identified for corrective action reported that 

they had been required to implement a new research-based curriculum or instructional program, down 

from 89 percent in 2004–05. 

* Indicates significance at the 5 percent level. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Principal Survey. 

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).xlvii

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 
31

(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.xlviii 

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).xlix 

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.l

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).li 

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.lii) 
32

Exhibit 25 

Percentage of Districts Taking Various Actions in Response to 

Being Identified for Improvement, 2004–05 and 2006–07

2004–05 2006–07 

Offered or required specific professional development for teachers 80% 91% 

Increased district monitoring of instruction and student performance at school sites 61% 85% 

Offered or required specific professional development for principals 59% 70% 

Reallocated fiscal resources to target specific needs (e.g., particular groups of students, 

subjects, or schools) 

51% 64% 

Developed or revised district content standards 24% 39% 

Distributed test preparation materials to some or all schools 67% 49% 

Implemented a districtwide curriculum in reading 39% 40% 

Hired a consultant to advise district administrators on effective strategies 11% 36% 

Implemented a districtwide curriculum in mathematics 17% 32% 

Reorganized the district office staff to increase efficiency or focus on instruction 23% 29% 

Changed the budget allocation formula for schools 10% 21% 

Implemented new personnel procedures for hiring or assigning principals and teachers 8% 23% 

Created smaller schools, or schools-within-schools 11% 12% 

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 91 percent of identified districts reported that they had offered or required 

specific professional development for teachers in response to being identified for improvement. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, District Survey (n=75 districts in 2004–05, 95 districts in 2006–07). 

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 lowperforming 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.liii) 

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.liv
33

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),lv 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. 

Key Evaluation Questions for School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services 

1. How many students are eligible to participate in the Title I school choice and supplemental services 

options, and how many actually do so? What are the characteristics of participating students? 

2. How and when do districts inform parents of eligible children about the Title I school choice and 

supplemental services options? 

3. What are the characteristics of the supplemental services that students receive? 

4. What is the relationship between participation in Title I school choice and supplemental services and 

student achievement? 

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

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.lvi 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. 
34

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).lvii

Student participation 

rates varied widely 

across states and school 

districts. Based on statereported 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.lviii 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; onequarter 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.lix 

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.lx

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).lxi

Exhibit 26

Number of Students Participating in Title I School Choice and 

Supplemental Educational Services, 2003–04 to 2006–07

48,000 32,000

244,000

446,000

65,000

498,000

120,000

530,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

School Choice Supplemental Services

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 

Exhibit reads: The number of students participating in Title I school 

choice rose from 32,000 in 2003–04 to 120,000 in 2006–07. 

Note: For 2006–07, the U.S. Department of Education changed its guidance and 

instructed states to include all students who transferred from a school identified for 

improvement to a non-identified school, regardless of whether students transferred 

under Title I school choice or another choice option. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
35

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).lxii 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.lxiii 

All districts required to offer supplemental services reported that there was at least one stateapproved 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.lxiv

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 

Exhibit 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, 2006-07

94%

22%

41%

67%

14%

17%

58%

48%

26%

9%

11%

69%

73%

4%

6%

17%

20%

5%

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

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools

District offers Title I

school choice at this

grade level

District is not offering

Title I school choice

because all schools

at this grade level

were identified for

improvement.

District is not offering

Title I school choice

for other reasons

Percent of Districts

Percent of Students

Exhibit reads: Among districts that were required to offer school choice at 

the elementary level in 2006–07, 67 percent reported that they were offering 

school choice; these districts accounted for 94 percent of all students in 

districts required to offer school choice at the elementary level. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, District Survey (n=108 districts with 

identified elementary schools, 114 with identified middle schools, and 54 with identified high 

schools). Data on whether all of a district’s schools at a particular grade level were identified 

for improvement are from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher 

Quality Under NCLB.
36

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).lxv 

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).lxvi 

Exhibit 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, 2006–07

Most Common Reasons for Participating Most Common Reasons for Not Participating 

The quality of teaching at the new 

school is better. 

62% I was satisfied with the quality of 

teaching at my child’s school. 

School 63% 

Choice 

My child’s old school was not meeting 

his/her needs. 

62% My child’s school is located in a 

place that is easy to get to. 

60% 

Supplemental Tutoring is free. 53% My child doesn’t need help. 46% 

Educational 

Services 

There is tutoring in the subject area(s) 

in which my child needs extra help. 

51% Tutoring is given at times that are 

not good for my family. 

35% 

Exhibit reads: In a sample of eight urban districts, 62 percent of parents participating in the school 

choice option said the reason was that the quality of teaching at the new school was better. Among 

eligible parents who did not participate, 63 percent said the reason was that they were satisfied with the 

quality of teaching at their child’s school. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=125 to 452 parents; see Appendix Exhibits A-33 to A-36).

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.lxvii

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 
37

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.lxviii 

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.lxix 

Exhibit 29 

District Strategies for Communicating With Parents About 

Title I School Choice and Supplemental Service Options, 2004–05 and 2006–07 

School Choice Supplemental Services 

2004–05 2006–07 2004–05 2006–07 

Written notification in English 68% 99% 94% 91% 

Written notification in language(s) other than 

English 

47% 59% 53% 67% 

Individual meetings with interested parents 52% 61% 78% 63% 

Notices in district or school newsletters 40% 53% 64% 50% 

Enrollment fairs or open houses 19% 22% 51% 63% 

Working with a local community partner 10% 17% 16% 33% 

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 99 percent of districts reported sending written notification in 

English about children’s school choice options, compared with 68 percent in 2004–05. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, District Survey (2004–05, n=156 districts for school choice and 109 

districts for supplemental services; 2006–07, n=156 districts for school choice and 129 districts for supplemental 

services).

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.lxx
38

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. lxxi 

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.lxxii

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).lxxiii

49%

21%

29%

42%

15%

43%

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

After the start of

the school year

At the start of the

school year

Before the start of

the school year 2006–07

2004–05

Exhibit 30

Timing of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice,

As Reported by School Districts, 2004–05 and 2006–07

Percent of Districts

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 43 percent of school districts required 

to offer Title I school choice reported notifying parents about this 

option before the start of the school year, up from 29 percent in 

2004–05. 

 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, District Survey (2004–05, n=181 

districts; 2006–07, n=132 districts).
39

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.lxxiv

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.lxxv 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.lxxvi 

The total number of stateapproved 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. 

Exhibit 31

Number of State-Approved Supplemental Educational 

Service Providers, by Provider Type, May 2003 to May 2008

329

471 444 363 291

2,087 2,647 2,796 2,688

77 112 176 77 75 71

464

618

1,314

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

May

2003

May

2004

May

2005

May

2006

May

2007

May

2008

Private Providers

School Districts

and Public Schools

Other

3,234

329

471 444 363 291

2,087 2,647 2,796 2,688

77 112 176 77 75 71

464

618

1,314

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

May

2003

May

2004

May

2005

May

2006

May

2007

May

2008

Private Providers

School Districts

and Public Schools

Other

3,234 3,168 3,050

1,024

2,734

1,890

Exhibit reads: In May 2003, there were a total of 1,024 providers 

approved by states to provide supplemental educational services, 

including 618 private providers, 329 school districts and public schools, 

and 77 other types of providers (such as colleges and community-based 

organizations). 

 

Source: Policy and Program Studies Service review of state-approved provider lists 

posted on state education agency Web sites.
40

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 faithbased 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).lxxvii 

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,lxxviii

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.lxxix

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).lxxx 

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.lxxxi

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 
41

trajectories of individual students before and after participating with those of nonparticipating 

students.lxxxii 

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). 

Exhibit 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 

Supplemental Services 

(in Seven Districts) 

School Choice 

(in Six Districts) 

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics 

Overall effect .09* .08* -.02 -.01 

First-year effect .08* .08* -.02 -.02 

Effect of two or more years .18* .15* -.05 -.03 

Effects for African-American students .10* .12* .02 -.03 

Effects for Hispanic students .10* .09* -.03 -.02 

Effects for students with disabilities .05. .17* -.29* -.13 

Exhibit reads: Students participating in Title I supplemental educational services in seven 

districts had, on average, a statistically significant math achievement gain of 0.09 of a standard 

deviation above the overall district mean. 

* Indicates significance at the 5 percent level. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Analysis of Title I Choice Options in Nine Urban Districts. The sample 

included 47,599 to 48,499 students for the supplemental services analysis and 2,754 to 3,184 students for the school 

choice analysis.

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.lxxxiii

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, 
42

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.lxxxiv

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.lxxxv 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.lxxxvi 

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.lxxxvii 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.lxxxviii 
43

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.lxxxix 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. 

Key Evaluation Questions for Highly Qualified Teachers and Professional Development 

1. How have states implemented the requirements to define highly qualified teachers and develop a 

high objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE)? 

2. How many teachers meet the NCLB requirement to be highly qualified? How does this vary across 

states, schools, and types of teachers? What strategies are districts using to recruit and retain highly 

qualified teachers? 

3. To what extent are teachers participating in professional development activities that are sustained, 

intensive, and focused on instruction? 

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.xc At the elementary level, one study found that 
44

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).xci 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.xcii However, research has not found this relationship between 

teacher scores and student achievement to hold true for each of the different Praxis II exams.xciii 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).xciv 

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 A39). 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.xcv 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).xcvi In contrast, three states set their cut scores 

above the national median.

Exhibit 33

State Cut Scores for Praxis II Assessment of

Teacher Content Knowledge in Mathematics

100

120

140

160

180

200

Arkansas

Idaho

Mississippi

South Dakota

Minnesota

KentuckyAlabama

Maine

New Hampshire

Louisiana

South Carolina

Nevada

West Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Hawaii

Indiana

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Connecticut

Kansas

Missouri

New Jersey

Oregon

Utah

North Dakota

Ohio

D.C.

Delaware

Maryland

Vermont

Alaska

Virginia

Colorado

75th percentile (158)

50th percentile (144)

25th percentile (128)

Exhibit reads: State-level cut scores on the Praxis II: Mathematics Content 

Knowledge assessment vary considerably; nine states set their cut scores below 

the score that reflects the 25th percentile of all test takers between October 2004 

and July 2007, while three states set their cut scores above the 50th percentile. 

Note: Praxis scores may vary from a minimum of 100 to a maximum of 200. 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB

(n=33 states and the District of Columbia). 
45

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.”xcvii 

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.xcviii 

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).xcix

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.c
46

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 

teachersci 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.cii

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.ciii 

Among teachers who said they were highly qualified under NCLB in 2006–07, those in highpoverty 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, 

Exhibit 34

Percentage of Teachers Reporting That They Are Considered 

Highly Qualified Under NCLB, 2004–05 and 2006–07

52%

72%

23%

14%

13%

10%

74%

84%

29%

15%

4% 2% 4% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004–05 2006–07 2004–05 2006–07

Do Not Need

to Meet

Requirements 

Not Highly

Qualified

Don't Know

Highly

Qualified 

General Education Teachers Special Education Teachers

Exhibit reads: The percentage of general education teachers 

reporting that they were considered highly qualified under NCLB

rose from 74 percent in 2004–05 to 84 percent in 2006–07. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=7,473 to 7,674 

general education teachers and 1,137 to 1,158 special education teachers; see Appendix 

Exhibit B-14).
47

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 lowpoverty 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.civ 

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.cv 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.cvi

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.cvii 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.cviii

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 
48

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).cix

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 indepth 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.cx

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).cxi

Exhibit 35 

Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on 

Instructional Strategies and In-Depth Study of Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2005–06

Elementary Teachers

8%

21% 28%

47% 24%

35% 28%

28%

19%

33% 30%

41%

14% 6% 11%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reading Math Reading Math

More

Than 24

Hours 

6 to 24

Hours

1 to 5

hours

None

Instructional Strategies In-Depth Study

Secondary English and Mathematics Teachers

9% 13%

27%

25% 38%

29%

28%

28%

19%

40%

29%

37%

26% 22% 16% 15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

English Math English Math

More

Than 24

Hours 

6 to 24

Hours

1 to 5

hours

None

Instructional Strategies In-Depth Study

Exhibit reads: In 2005–06, 26 percent of elementary teachers reported participating in more than 24 

hours of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=3,980 to 4,047 elementary teachers, 1,776 to 1,790 secondary 

English teachers, and 1,694 to 1,699 secondary mathematics teachers; see Appendix Exhibits B-15 and B-16).
49

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.cxii

Exhibit 36 

Change in Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on 

Instructional Strategies for Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 to 2005–06

Elementary Teachers

10% 8%

29% 21%

31%

24%

37%

35%

33%

41%

26%

39%

9% 11%

26% 20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003–04 2005–06 2003–04 2005–06

More

Than 24

Hours 

6 to 24

Hours

1 to 5

hours

None

Reading Mathematics

Secondary English and Mathematics Teachers

12% 9%

23% 13%

30%

25%

31%

29%

37%

40%

36% 30%

16% 22% 26% 22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003–04 2005–06 2003–04 2005–06

More

Than 24

Hours 

6 to 24

Hours

1 to 5

hours

None

English Mathematics

Exhibit reads: In 2005–06, 26 percent of elementary teachers reported participating in more than 24 

hours of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading, compared 

with 20 percent in 2003–04. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Teacher Survey (n=3,994 to 4,047 elementary teachers, 1,740 to 1,790 secondary 

English teachers, and 1,580 to 1,699 secondary mathematics teachers; see Appendix Exhibit B-15). 
50
51

ENDNOTES 

 

I. Introduction 

i

 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. ii 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. iii 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. 

iv 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. v 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 

www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEGs04-05.pdf. vi 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. vii 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 

viii 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. ix 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. x 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. xi A report conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Northwest Evaluation Association found, “Eighthgrade 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 
52

 Institute. 

xii 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. 

xiii 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. xiv 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. xv 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 

xvi 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. 

xvii 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. 

www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/index.html, accessed Jan. 8, 2009. 
53

 xviii 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. 

xix 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. 

www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/index.html, accessed Jan. 8, 2009. xx Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xxi 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. 

xxii 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. 

xxiii Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind, based on data from 

the Consolidated State Performance Reports. xxiv Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xxv Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xxvi Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xxvii 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. xxviii 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. xxix Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xxx 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. xxxi Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xxxii 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. xxxiii 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. xxxiv Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xxxv 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 

xxxvi Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xxxvii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. xxxviii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. xxxix National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. xl Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. 
54

 xli National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. xlii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. xliii 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. xliv 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. 

xlv Center on Education Policy (2008), Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects, 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

xlvi National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. xlvii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. xlviii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. xlix National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. l

 Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. li National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lii 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. liii 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. liv National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. 

IV. Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services 

lv 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. 

lvi U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Reports. lvii U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Reports. lviii U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Reports. lix National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lx U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Reports. lxi National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxiii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxiv 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. lxv National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxvi National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. 
55

 lxvii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxviii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxix National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxx National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxi National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxiii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxiv National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxv National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxvi National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxvii Policy and Program Studies Service, review of State Education Agency Web sites. lxxviii 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). lxxix National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxx National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxxi National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxxii 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. lxxxiii 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. lxxxiv Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. lxxxv Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. lxxxvi Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. lxxxvii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. lxxxviii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. 

V. Teacher Quality and Professional Development 

lxxxix 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. xc 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. xci 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. 

xcii 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. xciii 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. 
56

 xciv Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. xcv Personal communication on Nov. 29, 2005 with Rick Tannenbaum, director of assessment design and scoring, 

Educational Testing Service. 

xcvi 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. xcvii U.S. Department of Education (Sept. 5, 2006) Letter to Chief State School Officers. Available at: 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/060905.html (retrieved February 2007). xcviii Section 9101(23)(C) of the No Child Left Behind Act. xcix Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. c Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind. ci 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. 

cii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. ciii 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. civ National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. cv 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. 

cvi 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. cvii 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. cviii 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. cix National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. cx National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. cxi National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. cxii National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind. 
57

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. 
58

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—
59

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. 
60
61

APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS 

14

54

30

66

56

76

53

88

34

82

61

49

47

71

59

80

77

51

65

70

71

72

72

75

79

89

51

61

57

75

76

77

57

60

67

72

68

72

60

67

45

38

36

21

24

30

31

32

8

14

17

18

19

19

21

23

23

24

25

26

27

27

28

29

30

31

32

32

34

34

34

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

36

37

37

37

37

38

38

39

40

40

41

41

43

51

26

63

28

72

71

48

42

61

69

57

0 20 40 60 80 100

District of Columbia

Mississippi

New Mexico

Alabama

Louisiana

West Virginia

Hawaii

Oklahoma

Nevada

Texas

California

Arkansas

Georgia

Arizona

Kentucky

Florida

Rhode Island

Michigan

Missouri

New York 

Delaware

Illinois

South Carolina

Alaska

Utah

Maine

North Carolina

Idaho

Oregon

Indiana

Ohio

Tennessee

Iowa

Connecticut

Nebraska

Washington

Wyoming

Maryland

Wisconsin

Colorado

Virginia

New Hampshire

Montana

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

New Jersey

Kansas

Vermont

North Dakota

Minnesota

Massachusetts

State Assessment: % Proficient

NAEP: % Proficient

Exhibit A-1

Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Achieving At or Above the Proficient Level

on NAEP and State Assessments in Mathematics, 2007

Sources: Consolidated State Performance Reports; National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP. 
62

Exhibit 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 Subgroups

All Students LEP Migrant Disabilities 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Alabama 85 2 67 -2 72 3 46 3 

Alaska 80 3 53 4 63 13 48 2 

Arizona 65 2 21 1 39 0 34 1 

Arkansas 58 7 36 4 39 -3 36 26 

California 52 4 35 6 26 4 27 5 

Colorado 86 -1 66 -2 62 -5 54 -1 

Florida 69 -3 47 -5 43 -5 42 -2 

Indiana 75 2 58 12 41 2 48 8 

Iowa 80 0 52 5 57 -38 42 2 

Louisiana 70 2 67 0 60 6 36 -1 

Maryland 86 5 69 15 67 10 

Massachusetts 56 6 17 3 19 1 

Mississippi 90 1 83 5 79 2 59 -3 

Montana 80 5 38 10 48 7 

New Jersey 79 -2 37 -9 49 1 

New Mexico 55 3 29 -3 24 4 

North Carolina 85 3 73 17 75 10 59 6 

North Dakota 81 5 50 18 70 24 71 14 

Oklahoma 88 5 75 13 66 -6 

South Carolina 53 18 38 21 27 10 21 7 

South Dakota 88 0 63 31 78 -9 71 -10 

Tennessee 88 1 53 6 61 19 69 7 

Texas 83 4 70 1 69 5 76 5 

Utah 78 0 55 7 52 7 47 0 

Washington 78 -2 38 -8 55 4 57 13 

West Virginia 83 1 67 -13 

Wisconsin 82 1 55 1 40 -10 52 6 

Median 80 2 53 4 54 1 48 4 

# of states with 

achievement gains 20 out of 27 states 20 out of 27 states 12 out of 21 states 19 out of 25 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports.
63

Exhibit 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 Subgroups

All Students LEP Migrant Disabilities 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Alabama 78 4 66 7 71 10 42 6 

Alaska 76 7 52 7 61 14 46 6 

Arizona 74 5 39 5 51 -4 43 6 

Arkansas 65 15 45 8 48 7 47 33 

California 57 7 48 8 41 8 32 7 

Colorado 91 1 80 3 78 1 66 5 

Florida 69 5 55 6 54 7 46 6 

Georgia 79 3 61 7 68 9 52 3 

Indiana 75 2 62 8 48 0 54 6 

Iowa 81 0 56 3 58 -38 50 2 

Louisiana 64 0 67 -6 58 2 36 -2 

Maryland 86 10 70 18 63 14 

Massachusetts 48 7 18 4 17 2 

Mississippi 81 2 82 8 77 10 53 -2 

Montana 68 12 32 14 36 5 

New Jersey 84 4 54 3 62 7 

New Mexico 46 7 25 1 22 6 

North Dakota 80 0 52 11 66 9 69 9 

Oklahoma 81 6 71 14 68 1 

South Carolina 53 13 43 19 31 -1 25 9 

South Dakota 78 -5 47 21 76 1 53 -20 

Tennessee 89 2 75 6 77 10 64 9 

Texas 85 4 74 1 75 5 80 5 

Utah 74 -1 54 2 48 1 46 -2 

Washington 59 -2 18 -7 30 2 32 3 

West Virginia 79 4 76 -6 

Wisconsin 77 6 60 13 54 11 53 10 

Median 77 4 55 7 54 2 47 6 

# of states with 

achievement gains 21 out of 27 states 24 out of 27 states 17 out of 21 states 21 out of 25 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports.
64

Exhibit 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 Subgroups

All Students LEP Migrant Disabilities 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Alabama 72 3 36 -1 55 7 36 14 

Alaska 79 3 52 6 58 1 52 15 

Arizona 63 1 11 -5 36 1 11 -9 

Arkansas 63 6 32 6 39 5 32 25 

California 42 3 18 1 21 4 18 5 

Colorado 87 0 66 -2 56 -3 66 13 

Florida 49 5 17 4 23 4 17 -1 

Illinois 81 9 51 6 67 13 51 19 

Indiana 68 1 50 9 29 5 50 27 

Iowa 73 1 31 7 33 -61 31 4 

Louisiana 59 5 51 6 48 5 51 35 

Maryland 69 2 23 2 23 -8 

Mississippi 52 -5 26 -6 36 -14 26 9 

Montana 79 16 28 13 28 6 

Nevada 57 6 9 -3 9 -5 

New Jersey 72 0 16 -4 16 -13 

New Mexico 56 5 27 -5 27 12 

North Carolina 88 0 66 14 63 5 66 7 

North Dakota 76 4 45 17 45 6 

Oklahoma 78 5 46 6 62 23 

Pennsylvania 74 11 23 6 33 8 23 3 

South Carolina 35 6 17 12 4 -15 17 11 

South Dakota 78 -1 43 23 58 2 43 4 

Tennessee 92 5 58 21 57 32 58 1 

Texas 88 5 53 0 76 10 53 -17 

West Virginia 80 0 66 -15 

Wisconsin 84 0 56 6 51 7 56 12 

Median 73 3 36 6 36 3 32 6 

# of states with 

achievement gains 20 out of 27 states 18 out of 27 states 16 out of 21 states 19 out of 25 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
65

 

Exhibit 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 Subgroups

All Students LEP Migrant Disabilities 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Alabama 66 4 49 1 59 10 26 4 

Alaska 69 7 44 10 53 6 29 4 

Arizona 61 3 18 -3 39 5 22 7 

Arkansas 48 15 24 9 30 13 28 25 

California 34 3 19 2 21 5 13 3 

Colorado 76 1 55 1 48 -3 33 -2 

Florida 63 4 35 1 45 9 28 3 

Georgia 82 13 59 17 63 14 49 16 

Indiana 71 0 58 8 38 6 36 5 

Iowa 75 1 43 6 49 -45 31 0 

Louisiana 56 0 51 -4 48 -3 22 1 

Maryland 57 5 29 -3 27 6 

Massachusetts 54 1 43 -7 43 -17 12 -3 

Mississippi 59 -3 11 -9 16 -11 

Montana 53 4 13 -4 12 1 

New Jersey 68 6 26 1 30 8 

New Mexico 30 6 9 0 7 1 

North Dakota 67 2 33 13 44 10 

Oklahoma 76 7 56 8 66 15 

Pennsylvania 67 5 31 3 36 6 28 6 

South Carolina 28 5 17 9 11 -8 5 2 

South Dakota 72 4 38 24 48 3 29 3 

Tennessee 88 1 59 -5 72 0 54 3 

Texas 72 10 43 8 61 16 72 14 

Utah 77 4 41 -1 51 10 40 9 

West Virginia 71 1 63 -13 

Wisconsin 75 2 52 10 49 7 37 7 

Median 67 4 41 1 44 4 28 3 

# of states with 

achievement gains 24 out of 27 states 17 out of 27 states 14 out of 21 states 21 out of 25 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
66

Exhibit 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 Groups

Black Hispanic White 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Alabama 76 1 73 0 90 2 

Alaska 76 3 75 1 89 2 

Arizona 55 3 52 5 80 1 

Arkansas 37 7 44 2 67 7 

California 39 4 38 5 71 4 

Colorado 76 -2 73 -2 93 1 

Florida 51 -5 62 -4 80 -1 

Indiana 58 6 58 3 79 2 

Iowa 57 0 62 3 83 1 

Louisiana 58 3 70 0 79 0 

Maryland 78 8 81 8 93 3 

Massachusetts 31 4 28 6 63 7 

Mississippi 86 2 87 3 94 -1 

Montana 79 0 72 9 83 4 

New Jersey 62 -3 67 -3 87 -1 

New Mexico 48 3 49 4 71 1 

North Carolina 76 4 77 6 92 2 

North Dakota 71 7 71 5 84 5 

Oklahoma 80 10 80 8 91 3 

South Carolina 37 16 40 15 66 19 

South Dakota 75 0 75 -2 92 0 

Tennessee 79 2 79 8 92 0 

Texas 75 6 78 5 91 3 

Utah 61 0 57 4 83 0 

Washington 66 -3 61 0 82 -2 

West Virginia 77 4 74 1 83 1 

Wisconsin 61 1 64 2 87 1 

Median 66 3 70 3 83 1 

# of states with 

achievement gains 19 out of 27 states 20 out of 27 states 19 out of 27 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
67

Exhibit 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 Groups

Black Hispanic White 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Alabama 67 5 69 8 85 4 

Alaska 68 10 72 10 84 6 

Arizona 63 7 64 7 86 3 

Arkansas 42 14 54 12 74 16 

California 41 8 47 8 70 6 

Colorado 81 3 83 2 95 1 

Florida 52 7 66 6 78 3 

Georgia 68 4 74 7 87 2 

Indiana 55 3 60 -1 79 2 

Iowa 58 0 64 2 84 1 

Louisiana 48 -1 66 -4 78 0 

Maryland 77 15 81 12 93 6 

Massachusetts 22 5 24 8 54 8 

Mississippi 73 4 83 3 90 1 

Montana 55 10 58 10 71 11 

New Jersey 67 7 74 4 91 3 

New Mexico 38 8 40 7 62 6 

North Dakota 63 7 72 3 84 2 

Oklahoma 67 13 74 8 85 4 

South Carolina 33 11 42 12 67 14 

South Dakota 58 -1 59 -3 83 -5 

Tennessee 81 5 87 7 93 2 

Texas 76 7 81 5 92 2 

Utah 54 -2 54 0 79 0 

Washington 36 -1 36 1 66 -2 

West Virginia 70 4 74 0 79 4 

Wisconsin 46 5 62 11 84 5 

Median 58 5 66 7 84 3 

# of states with 

achievement gains 22 out of 27 states 22 out of 27 states 23 out of 27 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
68

Exhibit A-8 

Proportion of Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Eighth-Grade Reading 

in 2006–07, and Change From 2004–05, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups

Black Hispanic White 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Alabama 59 4 56 0 80 2 

Alaska 75 12 79 7 88 2 

Arizona 55 1 48 2 79 2 

Arkansas 44 10 49 3 71 6 

California 28 4 27 3 62 4 

Colorado 77 -1 74 1 93 0 

Florida 29 4 41 6 61 5 

Illinois 70 16 73 15 87 5 

Indiana 44 2 48 -4 73 1 

Iowa 46 -1 49 3 76 1 

Louisiana 44 7 56 1 72 3 

Maryland 53 4 56 4 82 1 

Mississippi 37 -4 45 -11 68 -5 

Montana 85 32 76 32 82 15 

Nevada 41 9 41 9 71 5 

New Jersey 49 1 56 1 83 0 

New Mexico 51 6 51 5 72 5 

North Carolina 80 0 76 2 94 0 

North Dakota 53 -6 60 4 79 4 

Oklahoma 61 9 63 6 83 4 

Pennsylvania 50 13 50 12 81 11 

South Carolina 19 5 24 7 46 7 

South Dakota 63 -5 57 3 82 -1 

Tennessee 87 8 85 16 94 4 

Texas 84 6 83 8 94 3 

West Virginia 74 1 71 -5 81 0 

Wisconsin 61 5 67 0 89 -1 

Median 53 4 56 3 81 3 

# of states with 

achievement gains 21 out of 27 states 22 out of 27 states 20 out of 27 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
69

Exhibit A-9 

Proportion of Students Performing At or Above Their State’s Proficient Level in Eighth-Grade Mathematics 

in 2006–07, and Change From 2004–05, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups 

Black Hispanic White 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Percent 

Proficient 

in 2006–07 

Change 

From 

2004–05 

Alabama 52 7 58 1 75 2 

Alaska 59 19 67 12 78 6 

Arizona 47 4 48 4 76 3 

Arkansas 21 11 38 16 57 15 

California 18 3 21 3 47 3 

Colorado 56 3 59 2 85 1 

Florida 42 5 57 4 75 4 

Georgia 74 18 76 18 89 9 

Indiana 43 2 55 0 77 0 

Iowa 45 0 54 1 79 1 

Louisiana 38 1 54 -3 71 -1 

Maryland 36 5 44 4 74 7 

Massachusetts 40 2 55 -4 69 1 

Mississippi 57 12 54 5 63 -4 

Montana 33 5 38 14 67 5 

New Jersey 38 8 50 8 80 5 

New Mexico 23 6 23 6 48 8 

North Dakota 37 -2 50 1 71 2 

Oklahoma 58 11 67 9 81 5 

Pennsylvania 40 7 46 6 75 5 

South Carolina 12 4 20 6 39 7 

South Dakota 52 6 51 6 77 3 

Tennessee 79 3 82 3 91 0 

Texas 61 13 65 14 83 7 

Utah 58 12 55 5 81 5 

West Virginia 57 4 62 0 72 1 

Wisconsin 38 7 55 6 82 1 

Median 43 5 54 5 75 3 

# of states with 

achievement gains 25 out of 27 states 23 out of 27 states 23 out of 27 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
70

Exhibit 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 2006–07 

Black-White Achievement Gap Hispanic-White Achievement Gap 

2004–05 2006–07 Change in Gap 2004–05 2006–07 Change in Gap 

Alabama 7 7 0 8 9 1 

Alaska 7 6 -1 6 7 1 

Arizona 13 12 -1 16 14 -2 

Arkansas 15 15 0 9 12 3 

California 16 16 0 17 17 0 

Colorado 7 9 2 9 10 1 

Florida 13 14 1 7 9 2 

Indiana 13 11 -2 11 11 0 

Iowa 12 13 1 11 10 -1 

Louisiana 12 11 -1 4 5 1 

Maryland 10 8 -2 8 6 -2 

Massachusetts 15 16 1 17 17 0 

Mississippi 6 4 -2 5 4 -1 

Montana 0 2 2 8 6 -2 

New Jersey 12 13 1 9 10 1 

New Mexico 13 12 -1 12 11 -1 

North Carolina 9 8 -1 9 7 -2 

North Dakota 7 6 -1 6 6 0 

Oklahoma 9 6 -3 8 6 -2 

South Carolina 13 15 2 11 13 2 

South Dakota 8 8 0 7 9 2 

Tennessee 7 6 -1 10 6 -4 

Texas 9 8 -1 8 6 -2 

Utah 11 11 0 15 13 -2 

Washington 8 8 0 12 10 -2 

West Virginia 4 3 -1 4 4 0 

Wisconsin 13 13 0 12 12 0 

Median 10 9 -1 9 9 0 

Number of states with 

gap reduction 13 out of 27 states 12 out of 27 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
71

Exhibit 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 2006–07 

Black-White Achievement Gap Hispanic-White Achievement Gap 

2004–05 2006–07 Change in Gap 2004–05 2006–07 Change in Gap 

Alabama 19 18 -1 20 16 -4 

Alaska 20 16 -4 16 12 -4 

Arizona 26 23 -3 26 22 -4 

Arkansas 30 32 2 16 19 3 

California 31 29 -2 25 23 -2 

Colorado 16 14 -2 13 12 -1 

Florida 30 27 -3 15 13 -2 

Georgia 20 18 -2 18 13 -5 

Indiana 25 25 0 16 19 3 

Iowa 25 26 1 21 20 -1 

Louisiana 30 31 1 9 12 3 

Maryland 25 16 -9 18 12 -6 

Massachusetts 29 32 3 30 30 0 

Mississippi 20 18 -2 9 7 -2 

Montana 15 16 1 11 13 2 

New Jersey 28 23 -5 18 17 -1 

New Mexico 27 25 -2 24 22 -2 

North Dakota 27 21 -6 13 12 -1 

Oklahoma 27 19 -8 15 11 -4 

South Carolina 31 34 3 23 25 2 

South Dakota 29 25 -4 26 24 -2 

Tennessee 15 12 -3 11 6 -5 

Texas 21 16 -5 14 11 -3 

Utah 23 25 2 25 24 -1 

Washington 30 30 0 32 30 -2 

West Virginia 10 9 -1 2 6 4 

Wisconsin 37 38 1 28 22 -6 

Median 26 23 -3 18 16 -2 

Number of states with gap 

reduction 17 out of 27 states 20 out of 27 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
72

Exhibit 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 2006–07 

Black-White Achievement Gap Hispanic-White Achievement Gap 

2004–05 2006–07 Change in Gap 2004–05 2006–07 Change in Gap 

Alabama 23 21 -2 22 24 2 

Alaska 22 13 -9 14 9 -5 

Arizona 22 23 1 30 30 0 

Arkansas 31 28 -3 19 22 3 

California 34 34 0 34 35 1 

Colorado 15 16 1 19 19 0 

Florida 31 32 1 21 20 -1 

Illinois 28 17 -11 24 14 -10 

Indiana 30 29 -1 20 25 5 

Iowa 27 29 2 28 26 -2 

Louisiana 33 28 -5 14 16 2 

Maryland 32 29 -3 29 26 -3 

Mississippi 32 32 0 17 23 6 

Montana 15 -3 -18 23 6 -17 

Nevada 33 30 -3 34 30 -4 

New Jersey 36 34 -2 29 27 -1 

New Mexico 22 21 -1 22 21 0 

North Carolina 14 14 0 19 17 -2 

North Dakota 16 25 9 20 19 -1 

Oklahoma 27 22 -5 22 20 -2 

Pennsylvania 34 31 -3 33 31 -2 

South Carolina 26 27 1 23 23 0 

South Dakota 15 19 4 29 25 -4 

Tennessee 12 8 -4 21 9 -12 

Texas 13 10 -3 16 11 -5 

West Virginia 8 7 -1 4 9 5 

Wisconsin 33 28 -5 23 22 -1 

Median 27 25 -2 22 22 0 

Number of states with 

gap reduction 17 out of 27 states 16 out of 27 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
73

Exhibit 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 2006–07 

Black-White Achievement Gap Hispanic-White Achievement Gap 

2004–05 2006–07 Change in Gap 2004–05 2006–07 Change in Gap 

Alabama 29 23 -6 17 17 0 

Alaska 32 19 -13 17 11 -6 

Arizona 30 29 -1 29 28 -1 

Arkansas 32 35 3 20 19 -1 

California 30 30 0 26 26 0 

Colorado 32 30 -2 28 27 -1 

Florida 34 33 -1 18 18 0 

Georgia 23 15 -8 22 13 -8 

Indiana 36 34 -2 22 22 0 

Iowa 33 34 1 24 24 0 

Louisiana 35 34 -1 15 18 3 

Maryland 36 38 2 27 29 2 

Massachusetts 30 28 -2 9 14 5 

Mississippi 22 6 -16 18 9 -9 

Montana 33 34 1 38 29 -9 

New Jersey 45 42 -3 33 30 -3 

New Mexico 23 25 2 23 25 2 

North Dakota 31 34 3 20 20 0 

Oklahoma 29 23 -6 18 14 -4 

Pennsylvania 37 35 -2 30 28 -2 

South Carolina 24 27 3 18 19 1 

South Dakota 29 26 -3 29 26 -3 

Tennessee 16 12 -4 12 9 -3 

Texas 28 22 -6 25 18 -7 

Utah 30 23 -7 26 26 0 

West Virginia 17 15 -2 10 10 0 

Wisconsin 49 44 -5 31 27 -5 

Median 30 29 -1 22 20 -2 

Number of states with gap 

reduction 19 out of 27 states 14 out of 27 states 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
74

Exhibit 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 Group 

Grade 4 Grade 8 

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics 

Low-income 23 out of 27 states 22 out of 27 states 25 out of 27 states 26 out of 27 states 

Black 19 out of 27 states 22 out of 27 states 21 out of 27 states 25 out of 27 states 

Hispanic 20 out of 27 states 22 out of 27 states 22 out of 27 states 23 out of 27 states 

White 19 out of 27 states 23 out of 27 states 20 out of 27 states 23 out of 27 states 

LEP 20 out of 27 states 24 out of 27 states 18 out of 27 states 17 out of 27 states 

Migrant 12 out of 21 states 17 out of 21 states 16 out of 20 states 14 out of 20 states 

Students with disabilities 19 out of 25 states 21 out of 25 states 19 out of 25 states 21 out of 25 states 

“All students” group 20 out of 27 states 21 out of 27 states 20 out of 27 states 24 out of 27 states 

Average proportion of 

state subgroups with 

achievement gains 

73% 83% 78% 84% 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (n=30 states).

Exhibit A-15 

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 2013–14 

Grade 4 Grade 8 

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics 

Low-income 3 out of 27 states 4 out of 27 states 5 out of 27 states 3 out of 27 states 

Black 2 out of 27 states 3 out of 27 states 5 out of 27 states 5 out of 27 states 

Hispanic 4 out of 27 states 6 out of 27 states 5 out of 27 states 3 out of 27 states 

White 5 out of 27 states 8 out of 27 states 5 out of 27 states 3 out of 27 states 

LEP 7 out of 27 states 6 out of 27 states 4 out of 27 states 2 out of 27 states 

Migrant 4 out of 21 states 5 out of 21 states 4 out of 20 states 3 out of 20 states 

Students with disabilities 4 out of 25 states 3 out of 25 states 6 out of 25 states 3 out of 25 states 

“All students” group 3 out of 27 states 6 out of 27 states 4 out of 27 states 3 out of 27 states 

Average proportion of 

student groups predicted 

to reach 100% 

15% 20% 18% 12% 

Notes: The average shown at the bottom of each column is based on summing the numerators and denominators reflected in the 

eight cells of that column, and dividing the total of the numerators by the total of the denominators. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (n=30 states).
75

Exhibit A-16 

Predicted Percentage of Low-Income Students Who Would Reach Their State’s Proficient Level in 2013–14, 

in Fourth-Grade Reading, If Achievement Trajectories From 2004–05 to 2006–07 Continue Through 2013–14 

 Actual Percent Proficient 

 2004–05 2006–07 Annual Change 

Predicted Percent Proficient in 2013–14, 

Assuming Same Rate of Change 

Alabama 76 78 1.0 85 

Alaska 64 69 2.5 87 

Arizona 48 51 1.5 62 

Arkansas 40 47 3.5 72 

California 33 37 2.0 51 

Colorado 76 75 -0.5 72 

Florida 62 57 -2.5 40 

Indiana 59 63 2.0 77 

Iowa 66 67 0.5 71 

Louisiana 59 62 1.5 73 

Maryland 68 76 4.0 100 

Massachusetts 26 31 2.5 49 

Mississippi 85 86 0.5 90 

Montana 64 70 3.0 91 

New Jersey 67 63 -2.0 49 

New Mexico 43 46 1.5 57 

North Carolina 73 79 3.0 100 

North Dakota 65 69 2.0 83 

Oklahoma 77 84 3.5 100 

South Carolina 22 39 8.5 99 

South Dakota 77 80 1.5 91 

Tennessee 80 82 1.0 89 

Texas 71 77 3.0 98 

Utah 66 67 0.5 71 

Washington 68 66 -1.0 59 

West Virginia 74 76 1.0 83 

Wisconsin 67 68 0.5 72 

Number of states predicted to reach 100% proficient by 2013–14 3 out of 27 states (11%) 

Note: To calculate the predicted percent proficient in 2013–14, we multiplied the annualized percentage-point change from 2004–05 

to 2006–07 by the number of years remaining to 2013–14 (seven years), and added that figure to the percent proficient in 2006–07. If 

the product was greater than 100 percent, the predicted percent proficient in 2013–14 is 100 percent (since there cannot be more than 

100 percent of students reaching the proficient level). It should be noted that this method assumes no variation in the rate of change. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports. 
76

Exhibit 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 Level 

230 230 232 233 235

213 211

217 216 217 220

187 183

194 197 200

233

225 225

212 215

196

182

192

160

180

200

220

240

260

1992 1994 1998 2000 20022003 2005 2007

Low-Poverty Schools

*

*

* * *

*

*

* * *

All Schools

*

* *

* * *

* * *

* *

High-Poverty Schools

Reading

235 239

247 251 253

222 224

234 237 239

209 205

216 221 222

218

230

219

212

194 195

160

180

200

220

240

260

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

All Schools

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

High-Poverty Schools

Low-Poverty Schools

Mathematics

162 162 165

145 145 149

131

117

127

100

120

140

160

180

1996 2000 2005

Low-Poverty 

Schools

*

All Schools

High-Poverty 

Schools

* *

Science

* Indicates that the score is significantly different from the most 

recent score (2007 for reading and mathematics and 2005 for 

science) (p<.05). 

Note: High-poverty schools were defined as those with 76 to 

100 percent of their students eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunches; in low-poverty schools, 0 to 25 percent were eligible 

for subsidized lunches. 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP. 
77

Exhibit 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 Ethnicity 

36% 36%

39% 39%

42%

12% 12% 14%14% 15% 17%

10% 9% 12% 12% 14%

39%

33% 35%

10% 11%

12%

8% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1992 1994 1998 2000 20022003 2005 2007

White

Hispanic

Black * * * *

*

* * *

* * * *

* * *

* * *

Reading

26%

30%

42%

47%

51%

7% 7%

15%

19%

22%

10%

13% 15%

15%

22%

4% 5%

3% 4% 2%

0% 1%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

White

Hispanic

Black

* * *

*

*

* * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Mathematics

35% 36% 38%

8% 7% 10%

5% 6% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1996 2000 2005

White

Black

Hispanic

*

*

*

Science

* Indicates that the score is significantly different from the most 

recent score (2007 for reading and mathematics and 2005 for 

science) (p<.05). 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP. 
78

Exhibit A-19 

Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: 

Average Scale Scores in Eighth Grade by School Poverty Level for Public School Students 

270 273 273

261 261 260

240 239 240

274

267 264

263

258 257

240

233 237

220

240

260

280

300

1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005

Low-Poverty Schools

All Schools

High-Poverty Schools

* *

*

* *

*

Reading

279

287 290 293

278

255

246

251 254

276

270

276 272 269

262

267

251

240

220

240

260

280

300

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005

Low-Poverty Schools

All Schools

High-Poverty Schools

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

Mathematics

156

162 163

149 149 149

136

121 121

100

120

140

160

180

1996 2000 2005

Low-Poverty 

* Schools

All Schools

High-Poverty 

Schools

Science

* Indicates that the score is significantly different from the 

most recent score (2007 for reading and mathematics and 2005 

for science) (p<.05). 

Note: High-poverty schools were defined as those with 76 to 

100 percent of their students eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunches; in low-poverty schools, 0 to 25 percent were eligible 

for subsidized lunches. 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP. 
79

Exhibit A-20 

Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: 

Percent Proficient in Eighth Grade for Public School Students by Race/Ethnicity 

White

Hispanic

Black

37% 39%39% 37% 38%

13% 14%14% 14% 14%

12% 11% 12%

33% 33%

11% 12%

13% 9% 11%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1992 1994 1998 20022003 2005 2007

* *

*

* *

Reading

29%

33%

36% 37%

41%

7% 8%

11% 13% 15%

7% 8%

11%

18%

25%

7% 6%

4% 5% 2% 5% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

White

Hispanic

Black

*

*

*

* * *

* * * *

* *

* * * * * *

Mathematics

36% 38% 38%

9% 9% 10%

5% 6% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1996 2000 2005

White

Black

Hispanic

*

Science

* Indicates that the score is significantly different from the 

most recent score (2007 for reading and mathematics and 2005 

for science) (p<.05). 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP. 
80

Exhibit 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 2007

 Reading Mathematics 

 2003 2005 2007 Change 2003 2005 2007 Change 

Nation 30 30 32 2 31 35 39 8 

Alabama 22 22 29 7 19 21 26 7 

Alaska 28 27 29 1 30 34 38 8 

Arizona 23 24 24 1 25 28 31 6 

Arkansas 28 30 29 1 26 34 37 11 

California 21 21 23 2 25 28 30 5 

Colorado 37 37 36 -1 34 39 41 7 

Connecticut 43 38 41 -2 41 42 45 4 

Delaware 33 34 34 1 31 36 40 9 

District of Columbia 10 11 14 4 7 10 14 7 

Florida 32 30 34 2 31 37 40 9 

Georgia 27 26 28 1 27 30 32 5 

Hawaii 21 23 26 5 23 27 33 10 

Idaho 30 33 35 5 31 40 40 9 

Illinois 31 29 32 1 32 32 36 4 

Indiana 33 30 33 0 35 38 46 11 

Iowa 35 33 36 1 36 37 43 7 

Kansas 33 32 36 3 41 47 51 10 

Kentucky 31 31 33 2 22 26 31 9 

Louisiana 20 20 20 0 21 24 24 3 

Maine 36 35 36 0 34 39 42 8 

Maryland 32 32 36 4 31 38 40 9 

Massachusetts 40 44 49 9 41 49 58 17 

Michigan 32 32 32 0 34 38 37 3 

Minnesota 37 38 37 0 42 47 51 9 

Mississippi 18 18 19 1 17 19 21 4 

Missouri 34 33 32 -2 30 31 38 8 

Montana 35 36 39 4 31 38 44 13 

Nebraska 32 34 35 3 34 36 38 4 

Nevada 20 21 24 4 23 26 30 7 

New Hampshire 40 39 41 1 43 47 52 9 

New Jersey 39 37 43 4 39 45 52 13 

New Mexico 19 20 24 5 17 19 24 7 

New York 34 33 36 2 33 36 43 10 

North Carolina 33 29 29 -4 41 40 41 0 

North Dakota 32 35 35 3 34 40 46 12 

Ohio 34 34 36 2 36 43 46 10 

Oklahoma 26 25 27 1 23 29 33 10 

Oregon 31 29 28 -3 33 37 35 2 

Pennsylvania 33 36 40 7 36 41 47 11 

Rhode Island 29 30 31 2 28 31 34 6 

South Carolina 26 26 26 0 32 36 36 4 

South Dakota 33 33 34 1 34 41 41 7 

Texas 26 27 27 1 24 28 29 5 

Tennessee 27 29 30 3 33 40 40 7 

Utah 32 34 34 2 31 37 39 8 

Vermont 37 39 41 4 42 44 49 7 

Virginia 35 37 38 3 36 39 42 6 

Washington 33 36 36 3 36 42 44 8 

West Virginia 29 26 28 -1 24 25 33 9 

Wisconsin 33 33 36 3 35 40 47 12 

Wyoming 34 34 36 2 39 43 44 5 

# with achievement 

gains 39 out of 51 50 out of 51 

Median change 2 percentage points 8 percentage points 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=50 states and the District of Columbia). 
81

Exhibit 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 2007

 Reading Mathematics 

 2003 2005 2007 Change 2003 2005 2007 Change 

Nation 30 29 29 1 27 28 31 4 

Alabama 22 22 21 -3 16 15 18 2 

Alaska 27 26 27 4 30 29 32 2 

Arizona 25 23 24 -1 21 26 26 5 

Arkansas 27 26 25 0 19 22 24 5 

California 22 21 21 1 22 22 24 2 

Colorado 36 32 35 1 34 32 37 3 

Connecticut 37 34 37 0 35 35 35 0 

Delaware 31 30 31 0 26 30 31 5 

District of Columbia 10 12 12 1 6 7 8 2 

Florida 27 25 28 3 23 26 27 4 

Georgia 26 25 26 1 22 23 25 3 

Hawaii 22 18 20 1 17 18 21 4 

Idaho 32 32 32 2 28 30 34 6 

Illinois 35 31 30 -2 29 29 31 2 

Indiana 33 28 31 -1 31 30 35 4 

Iowa 36 34 36 1 33 34 35 2 

Kansas 35 35 35 4 34 34 40 6 

Kentucky 34 31 28 -5 24 23 27 3 

Louisiana 22 20 19 0 17 16 19 2 

Maine 37 38 37 4 29 30 34 5 

Maryland 31 30 33 5 30 30 37 7 

Massachusetts 43 44 43 3 38 43 51 13 

Michigan 32 28 28 -3 28 29 29 1 

Minnesota 37 37 37 2 44 43 43 -1 

Mississippi 21 18 17 -5 12 14 14 2 

Missouri 34 31 31 -4 28 26 30 2 

Montana 37 37 39 3 35 36 38 3 

Nebraska 35 35 35 2 32 35 35 3 

Nevada 21 22 22 0 20 21 23 3 

New Hampshire 40 38 37 1 35 35 38 3 

New Jersey 37 38 39 2 33 36 40 7 

New Mexico 20 19 17 0 15 14 17 2 

New York 35 33 32 0 32 31 30 -2 

North Carolina 29 27 28 -1 32 32 34 2 

North Dakota 38 37 32 3 36 35 41 5 

Ohio 34 36 36 1 30 33 35 5 

Oklahoma 30 25 26 -2 20 21 21 1 

Oregon 33 33 34 2 32 34 35 3 

Pennsylvania 32 36 36 3 30 31 38 8 

Rhode Island 30 29 27 -2 24 24 28 4 

South Carolina 24 25 25 0 26 30 32 6 

South Dakota 39 35 37 1 35 36 39 4 

Texas 26 26 26 2 21 21 23 2 

Tennessee 26 26 28 2 25 31 35 10 

Utah 32 29 30 -1 31 30 32 1 

Vermont 39 37 42 3 35 38 41 6 

Virginia 36 36 34 0 31 33 37 6 

Washington 33 34 34 1 32 36 36 4 

West Virginia 25 22 23 -4 20 18 19 -1 

Wisconsin 37 35 33 -1 35 36 37 2 

Wyoming 34 36 33 1 32 29 36 4 

# with achievement 

gains 28 out of 51 47 out of 51 

Median change 1 percentage point 3 percentage points 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=50 states and the District of Columbia). 
82

Exhibit 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 2007

Black Hispanic White 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Nation 14 2 17 3 42 3 

Alabama 13 4 17 39 9 

Alaska 20 -1 17 -4 40 0 

Arizona 20 7 13 1 36 1 

Arkansas 9 -1 16 -2 36 1 

California 13 2 11 2 40 4 

Colorado 18 0 15 -3 47 2 

Connecticut 15 3 16 -2 52 -2 

Delaware 18 2 24 4 44 0 

District of Columbia 9 2 15 7 74 4 

Florida 16 3 28 4 44 2 

Georgia 14 2 21 4 40 2 

Hawaii 23 5 21 4 40 5 

Idaho 15 3 39 6 

Illinois 14 4 18 3 42 0 

Indiana 12 1 17 -9 37 1 

Iowa 16 8 18 1 38 1 

Kansas 18 4 19 0 41 4 

Kentucky 14 -2 36 3 

Louisiana 9 1 26 31 -3 

Maine 36 0 

Maryland 17 3 21 -2 49 5 

Massachusetts 19 4 18 3 56 8 

Michigan 12 4 19 3 39 -1 

Minnesota 12 -2 16 0 42 -1 

Mississippi 8 0 31 1 

Missouri 12 -2 22 -8 37 -2 

Montana 30 42 4 

Nebraska 10 -7 16 2 40 4 

Nevada 16 7 14 3 35 7 

New Hampshire 25 20 1 42 1 

New Jersey 22 8 23 2 52 3 

New Mexico 15 -3 16 3 40 6 

New York 17 3 18 0 47 -1 

North Carolina 12 0 18 -6 39 -5 

North Dakota 38 4 

Ohio 14 -2 21 -2 42 3 

Oklahoma 11 -2 15 1 31 -1 

Oregon 10 -9 10 -5 34 0 

Pennsylvania 13 4 15 5 47 7 

Rhode Island 10 -2 12 0 39 3 

South Carolina 12 1 17 -3 35 -1 

South Dakota 15 37 0 

Texas 8 -1 20 -7 34 2 

Tennessee 17 1 21 4 44 5 

Utah 15 4 38 3 

Vermont 41 4 

Virginia 19 3 26 6 46 2 

Washington 21 -2 18 2 41 3 

West Virginia 13 0 28 -1 

Wisconsin 11 -2 17 -3 41 5 

Wyoming 21 -2 39 3 

# with achievement 

gains 24 out of 42 23 out of 41 35 out of 51 

Median change 1 percentage point 1 percentage point 2 percentage points 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=50 states and the District of Columbia). 
83

Exhibit 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 2007

Black Hispanic White 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Nation 15 5 22 7 51 9 

Alabama 10 5 17 36 9 

Alaska 22 7 26 2 50 9 

Arizona 16 5 15 4 48 9 

Arkansas 12 7 22 7 46 12 

California 15 6 15 4 52 10 

Colorado 20 8 19 6 54 10 

Connecticut 15 5 18 3 57 4 

Delaware 20 8 25 8 53 10 

District of Columbia 8 4 19 12 73 2 

Florida 15 7 33 6 54 11 

Georgia 13 2 20 7 46 6 

Hawaii 24 8 19 2 46 11 

Idaho 18 7 45 11 

Illinois 9 2 19 6 50 6 

Indiana 14 7 26 8 52 12 

Iowa 17 8 25 11 46 7 

Kansas 21 8 29 10 58 11 

Kentucky 12 4 15 34 10 

Louisiana 11 5 31 37 -2 

Maine 17 43 9 

Maryland 17 6 28 7 55 11 

Massachusetts 26 13 23 10 65 16 

Michigan 12 5 26 9 44 1 

Minnesota 16 0 22 8 58 11 

Mississippi 9 3 34 4 

Missouri 12 3 26 12 45 10 

Montana 40 15 49 15 

Nebraska 9 2 15 6 45 6 

Nevada 16 6 18 8 43 11 

New Hampshire 25 27 8 53 10 

New Jersey 25 14 29 11 63 12 

New Mexico 18 8 16 6 43 10 

New York 18 6 25 10 56 11 

North Carolina 15 1 28 -2 56 1 

North Dakota 49 12 

Ohio 18 8 25 9 53 11 

Oklahoma 10 4 22 11 39 10 

Oregon 16 -4 12 -3 40 4 

Pennsylvania 18 10 28 16 53 9 

Rhode Island 16 9 15 9 41 4 

South Carolina 14 1 21 -5 50 4 

South Dakota 15 21 1 46 8 

Texas 9 3 15 1 36 6 

Tennessee 21 6 30 9 59 10 

Utah 16 5 45 10 

Vermont 50 8 

Virginia 18 5 28 8 53 7 

Washington 17 0 19 1 51 11 

West Virginia 19 6 33 9 

Wisconsin 10 2 27 14 54 11 

Wyoming 23 3 48 6 

# with achievement 

gains 39 out of 42 40 out of 43 50 out of 51 

Median change 5.5 percentage points 7 percentage points 10 percentage points 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=50 states and the District of Columbia). 
84

Exhibit 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 2007

Black Hispanic White 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Nation 12 0 14 0 38 -1 

Alabama 9 0 20 29 -1 

Alaska 17 4 24 7 36 0 

Arizona 19 3 11 -1 37 1 

Arkansas 8 2 15 -10 32 -1 

California 10 -2 11 0 34 0 

Colorado 18 2 17 3 43 0 

Connecticut 12 0 14 0 46 1 

Delaware 14 1 21 8 41 1 

District of Columbia 9 1 19 8 

Florida 13 2 23 4 36 -1 

Georgia 13 1 17 1 38 2 

Hawaii 21 21 -7 31 0 

Idaho 14 2 34 -1 

Illinois 10 -3 16 0 38 -7 

Indiana 10 -3 21 5 35 -1 

Iowa 17 7 16 3 38 0 

Kansas 12 2 17 0 40 0 

Kentucky 14 0 30 -6 

Louisiana 8 -1 29 -4 

Maine 38 1 

Maryland 14 1 24 4 45 5 

Massachusetts 17 -1 15 1 49 0 

Michigan 7 -5 14 -13 34 -5 

Minnesota 13 1 19 3 41 -1 

Mississippi 7 -2 29 -3 

Missouri 10 0 12 37 -2 

Montana 42 2 

Nebraska 12 2 21 10 39 0 

Nevada 16 9 11 3 30 1 

New Hampshire 20 37 -4 

New Jersey 17 2 22 5 48 2 

New Mexico 13 -1 12 0 29 -6 

New York 14 0 16 -2 43 -5 

North Carolina 10 -3 16 1 39 1 

North Dakota 34 -6 

Ohio 12 -1 31 -6 42 3 

Oklahoma 13 0 9 -8 31 -3 

Oregon 21 3 14 -4 37 1 

Pennsylvania 14 3 14 -10 41 5 

Rhode Island 10 -5 6 -2 35 -1 

South Carolina 9 -1 15 35 0 

South Dakota 39 -2 

Texas 8 -1 18 32 0 

Tennessee 14 0 16 2 43 4 

Utah 12 -1 33 -2 

Vermont 42 3 

Virginia 16 1 25 -6 40 -4 

Washington 16 -3 16 0 39 3 

West Virginia 11 -2 23 -2 

Wisconsin 8 0 17 0 38 -3 

Wyoming 13 -7 36 0 

# with achievement 

gains 18 out of 41 17 out of 37 16 out of 50 

Median change 0 percentage points 0 percentage points 0 percentage points 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=50 states and the District of Columbia). 
85

Exhibit 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 2007

Black Hispanic White 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Percent Proficient 

in 2007 

Change 

From 2003 

Nation 11 4 15 4 41 5 

Alabama 4 1 3 27 4 

Alaska 15 4 23 12 44 3 

Arizona 15 8 12 3 40 8 

Arkansas 9 6 8 1 31 7 

California 10 4 10 2 39 5 

Colorado 21 12 13 1 48 5 

Connecticut 7 0 10 -1 44 0 

Delaware 10 2 17 6 43 8 

District of Columbia 6 3 9 6 

Florida 11 4 21 5 37 3 

Georgia 11 4 16 2 37 5 

Hawaii 15 -1 28 3 

Idaho 16 9 38 7 

Illinois 7 1 13 4 41 1 

Indiana 9 2 20 11 40 5 

Iowa 11 0 13 3 38 3 

Kansas 16 8 16 0 46 7 

Kentucky 11 6 29 4 

Louisiana 7 2 28 0 

Maine 35 5 

Maryland 13 4 21 6 53 13 

Massachusetts 13 3 19 10 58 14 

Michigan 5 1 11 -3 35 0 

Minnesota 14 5 18 2 48 -1 

Mississippi 4 1 24 2 

Missouri 6 0 17 36 4 

Montana 41 4 

Nebraska 5 -2 11 1 41 5 

Nevada 12 3 11 4 32 5 

New Hampshire 14 39 4 

New Jersey 14 7 20 6 51 9 

New Mexico 12 7 10 3 33 2 

New York 10 0 15 -1 39 -5 

North Carolina 14 3 23 7 46 2 

North Dakota 44 5 

Ohio 9 1 25 7 42 7 

Oklahoma 9 4 8 -1 25 0 

Oregon 28 11 14 2 39 4 

Pennsylvania 13 9 17 11 44 9 

Rhode Island 9 4 7 2 35 6 

South Carolina 15 7 23 44 5 

South Dakota 18 43 6 

Texas 7 2 13 30 4 

Tennessee 16 8 23 9 53 15 

Utah 12 5 36 2 

Vermont 42 7 

Virginia 15 4 24 7 47 7 

Washington 16 3 13 -4 42 6 

West Virginia 4 -2 19 -1 

Wisconsin 6 1 18 2 42 2 

Wyoming 22 9 39 4 

# with achievement 

gains 35 out of 41 30 out of 37 43 out of 50 

Median change 3 percentage points 3 percentage points 4.5 percentage points 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP (n=50 states and the District of Columbia). 
86

Exhibit A-27 

Number of Title I Schools That Were Identified for Improvement, by State, 1998–99 to 2007–08

1998–99

(n=48)

1999–2000

(n=49)

2000–01

(n=51)

2001–02

(n=52)

2003–04

(n=52)

2004–05

(n=52)

2005–06

(n=52)

2006–07

(n=52)

2007–08

(n=52)

Total 8,608 8,457 8,609 6,675 6,219 9,417 9,694 10,781 11,537 

Alabama 60 60 61 52 46 79 308 289 63 

Alaska 8 14 11 13 64 125 118 113 106 

Arizona 181 169 346 403 220 135 149 161 270 

Arkansas 499 505 25 25 272 203 252 209 239 

California 210 765 1,275 1,009 1,205 1618 1,746 2,240 2204 

Colorado 91 273 158 84 80 87 105 112 122 

Connecticut 26 NR 28 8 12 93 98 110 155 

Delaware 32 32 20 21 12 18 10 7 9 

District of Columbia 100 28 12 14 14 75 89 103 142 

Florida 73 4 0 0 42 965 776 1,004 1001 

Georgia 603 658 625 600 533 285 210 175 186 

Hawaii 91 97 86 85 82 84 112 143 74 

Idaho 14 61 88 79 43 28 37 98 120 

Illinois 727 378 403 506 577 660 625 575 511 

Indiana 98 173 211 173 97 77 85 157 208 

Iowa 148 33 26 26 11 13 14 11 13 

Kansas 154 143 118 118 30 21 15 25 35 

Kentucky 615 114 108 106 26 135 132 158 146 

Louisiana 162 61 20 17 58 64 154 72 65 

Maine NR 12 20 12 7 20 24 20 19 

Maryland 18 113 113 110 102 115 95 96 95 

Massachusetts 399 276 259 259 208 288 320 455 463 

Michigan 1,523 1,712 1,602 851 352 511 238 154 161 

Minnesota NR 56 79 59 38 48 79 63 106 

Mississippi 100 125 118 21 7 71 80 57 69 

Missouri NR NR 171 37 30 132 126 105 197 

Montana 62 60 68 43 40 68 66 52 47 

Nebraska 204 126 104 19 6 9 5 1 7 

Nevada 35 8 19 12 27 49 55 70 56 

New Hampshire 4 4 4 10 6 27 28 34 66 

New Jersey NR NR NR 250 250 368 386 424 377 

New Mexico 149 62 63 111 96 121 156 262 381 

New York 492 369 484 434 526 508 504 513 576 

North Carolina 46 12 6 16 36 159 194 299 449 

North Dakota 20 19 23 29 23 21 18 19 16 

Ohio 508 673 723 161 191 304 291 472 708 

Oklahoma 31 19 29 28 46 111 100 37 43 

Oregon 28 9 16 8 7 24 41 44 35 

Pennsylvania 215 301 253 198 298 323 198 176 316 

Puerto Rico 200 109 234 234 140 598 834 799 748 

Rhode Island 34 32 33 19 24 39 28 24 34 

South Carolina 75 35 31 27 90 207 167 187 211 

South Dakota 0 15 22 13 32 59 53 45 49 

Tennessee 17 77 132 113 55 128 114 70 77 

Texas 61 127 121 72 9 199 176 291 278 

Utah 20 25 24 22 6 16 16 10 12 

Vermont 27 30 28 6 4 16 16 15 31 

Virginia 150 149 34 34 44 111 108 62 69 

Washington 71 33 58 50 51 156 180 100 112 

West Virginia 130 118 13 8 7 37 36 23 18 

Wisconsin 66 166 98 70 52 35 38 33 32 

Wyoming 31 17 0 0 0 7 3 7 10 

NR= Not Reported. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
87

Exhibit 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)

10%

7% 4% 5%

7%

20%

20%

20%

31%

41% 35%

12% 10%

7%

5%

24%

21% 23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Achievement of "All Students" Group

Achievement of Two or More

Subgroups But Made AYP for "All

Students" Group

Achievement of a Single Subgroup

Only

Other Academic Indicator Only

Test Participation Only

Other

AYP Targets Missed:

Notes: Schools included in the “Achievement of ‘All Students’ Group” and the "Achievement of Two or More Subgroups" 

segments of the graph may have also missed AYP for test participation or the other academic indicator. However, schools 

included in the "Achievement of a Single Subgroup Only" segment are those that missed AYP for that factor alone and did not 

miss any other AYP targets. “Other” includes schools that missed AYP for combinations of the achievement of a single subgroup, 

test participation, or the other academic indicator, or through a small school analysis. 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (based on data reported by 26 

states for 13,497 schools that missed AYP in 2003–04, for 14,458 schools in 2004–05, and for 14,981 schools in 2005–06).
88

Exhibit A-29 

Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP for Individual Student Subgroups, 

By School Percentage of Minority Students, 2005–06

Less Than 

25% Minority 

25-75% 

Minority 

75% or More 

Minority 

African-American 8% 26% 35% 

Asian 6% 7% 20% 

Hispanic 8% 19% 28% 

Native American 9% 22% 50% 

White 2% 4% 9% 

Low-income students 11% 21% 32% 

Students with disabilities 33% 49% 65% 

LEP students 11% 36% 47% 

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under 

NCLB (n=81,836 schools, based on data reported by 47 states).

Exhibit 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 Subjects 

 Increase in Time No Change Decrease in Time 

Reading/English/language arts 19% 78% 3% 

Mathematics 13% 83% 4% 

Science 5% 88% 7% 

Social studies 2% 90% 8% 

Art/music 1% 93% 5% 

Physical education/health 3% 91% 6% 

Other 2% 95% 2% 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Principal Survey (n=771 elementary schools).

Exhibit 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 Principals 

All Schools 

(n=771) 

Identified Schools 

(n=219) 

Non-Identified Schools

(n=551) 

Reading/English/language arts +10 +24 +9 

Mathematics +24 +40 +22 

Science +1 +2 +1 

Social studies -2 +1 -2 

Art/music -1 -1 -1 

Physical education/health +1 +7 0 

Other +1 +6 0 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Principal Survey.
89

Exhibit A-32 

Number of Students Participating in Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, 

2003–04 to 2006–07

 School Choice Supplemental Educational Services 

2003–04 

(n=43)

2004–05

(n=52) 

2005–06

(n=48) 

2006–07

(n=50) 

2003–04

(n=46) 

2004–05

(n=52) 

2005–06

(n=51) 

2006–07

(n=50) 

Total 31,907 48,278 64,668 119,988 244,300 445,652 497,956 529,627 

Alabama 740 1,018 1,477 1,383 1,616 1,917 6,713 7,481 

Alaska 26 200 103 47 475 513 766 895 

Arizona 149 32 140 1,308 2,815 3,177 4,223 3,969 

Arkansas 388 2,611 2,615 399 3,369 284 1,468 NR 

California 3,609 8,509 12,482 56,710 41,198 98,403 95,731 70,110 

Colorado 368 364 876 1,180 2,149 2,993 3,068 4,400 

Connecticut 260 1,131 697 333 711 884 1,402 3,675 

Delaware 18 346 166 129 4 104 203 495 

District of Columbia 68 174 324 241 2,814 2,935 2,554 3,926 

Florida NR 6,762 9,220 14,905 NR 2,461 23,225 70,457 

Georgia 2,547 3,032 4,902 4,558 24,451 8,514 9,670 10,564 

Hawaii 157 693 358 559 2,447 2,991 4,353 4,822 

Idaho 20 0 10 24 0 0 121 162 

Illinois 1,313 986 1,048 2,297 18,000 90,320 50,579 46,397 

Indiana 1,199 1,169 2,137 2,743 3,064 3,083 4,022 5,682 

Iowa 60 31 27 15 75 60 51 48 

Kansas 212 319 471 623 624 87 677 1,151 

Kentucky 328 611 320 801 1,170 2,061 3,079 3,063 

Louisiana 771 774 2,219 2,397 1,568 5,017 1,861 4,212 

Maine NR 0 0 0 NR 23 50 76 

Maryland 914 1,612 1,497 1,373 5,077 5,970 10,718 11,693 

Massachusetts 554 412 1,671 5,008 6,589 3,411 6,430 7,500 

Michigan 340 796 599 433 11,444 11,044 13,316 10,909 

Minnesota 306 155 108 99 1,498 2,627 2,334 3,150 

Mississippi 7 55 60 71 200 714 3,573 2,290 

Missouri 28 252 252 0 992 1,515 2,844 4,922 

Montana 14 29 NR 0 10 23 28 48 

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nevada 252 817 1,092 1,061 259 4,984 5,389 5,993 

New Hampshire 1 22 22 120 15 77 97 355 

New Jersey 363 735 NR 600 19,243 16,400 NR 17,566 

New Mexico 1,656 2,046 1,841 1,903 3,682 3,782 4,656 3,825 

New York 7,364 551 4,102 3,692 67,180 105,035 87,814 64,906 

North Carolina 337 2,826 4,053 3,228 362 666 6,546 9,790 

North Dakota NR 0 0 0 118 197 205 251 

Ohio 1,300 1,614 1,994 2,133 3,508 5,012 7,468 11,927 

Oklahoma 714 884 447 122 1,467 1,917 2,248 2,305 

Oregon 873 402 652 2,543 537 991 1,331 2,031 

Pennsylvania NR 814 575 881 NR 28,451 4,213 4,121 

Puerto Rico 1,126 0 0 NR NR 10,597 102,727 104,095 

Rhode Island NR 161 34 51 4,698 2,322 2,402 2,384 

South Carolina NR 1,447 925 2,695 NR 3,827 6,465 6,887 

South Dakota 39 15 NR 9 2,191 132 155 239 

Tennessee 1,772 973 2,412 2,312 1,487 4,053 4,714 5,065 

Texas NR 1,031 1,209 NR 45 25 1,136 NR 

Utah 4 90 82 27 47 251 6 4 

Vermont NR 0 NR 2 45 2 10 136 

Virginia 839 1,111 922 666 4,870 2,112 2,526 2,769 

Washington 62 365 194 221 635 136 363 348 

West Virginia NR 65 93 81 NR 33 296 165 

Wisconsin 432 197 197 3 1,301 3,519 4,103 2,279 

Wyoming 377 39 43 2 250 0 27 89 

Note: “NR” indicates state did not report these data for that year. 

Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports (n=50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
90

Exhibit A-33 

Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Using the Title I School Choice Option, 

as a Percentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006–07 

The quality of teaching at the new school is better. 62% 

My child’s old school was not meeting his/her needs. 62% 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at the new school. 47% 

My child got transportation to the new school. 35% 

The new school is located in a place that is easy to get to. 30% 

There are different academic programs at the new school. 30% 

My child wanted to change schools. 28% 

There are activities after school and sports teams at the new school. 24% 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at the new school. 20% 

My child had been getting bad grades. 19% 

There are services for children with disabilities at the new school. 12% 

My child’s old teacher thought he/she should move. 11% 

There are services at the school for children whose first language is not English. 5% 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=282 parents). 

Exhibit A-34 

Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services, 

as a Percentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006–07 

Tutoring is free. 53% 

There is tutoring in the subject area(s) in which my child needs extra help. 51% 

My child’s teacher thought he/she should get this extra help. 48% 

My child wanted to get this extra help. 35% 

Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to get to. 30% 

My child got a low score on a yearly achievement test. 29% 

My child had been getting bad grades. 27% 

There is tutoring for children with disabilities. 14% 

There is tutoring for children whose first language is not English. 9% 

My child’s school is not meeting his/her needs. 8% 

I needed after-school care. 8% 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=452 parents). 
91

Exhibit A-35 

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, 2006–07 

I was satisfied with the quality of teaching at my child’s school. 63% 

My child’s school is located in a place that is easy to get to. 60% 

My child wanted to stay. 45% 

My child was getting good grades at the current school. 42% 

I didn’t want to disrupt my child. 42% 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at my child’s school. 34% 

There are activities after school and sports teams at my child’s school. 33% 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at my child’s school. 28% 

There are services at my child’s school for children whose first language is not 

English. 

25% 

There are different academic programs at my child’s school. 25% 

There are services at my child’s school for children with disabilities. 21% 

I didn’t have enough information about the schools from which I could choose. 13% 

The district did not have transportation to any of the new schools from which I could 

choose. 

4% 

I was not given enough time to make the decision to move my child to another school. 2% 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=220 parents). 

Exhibit A-36 

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, 2006–07 

My child doesn’t need help. 46% 

Tutoring is given at times that are not good for my family. 35% 

Tutoring is given at a place that is not easy to get to. 15% 

My child did not want to get this extra help. 13% 

There is no tutoring in the subject areas where my child needs extra help. 11% 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children whose first language is not English. 3% 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children with disabilities. 2% 

There is no tutoring at my child’s grade level. 1% 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=125 parents). 
92

Exhibit A-37 

Achievement Effects of Student Participation in 

Title I Supplemental Educational Services in Seven Districts 

Mathematics Reading 

n Effect Size n Effect Size 

District A 16,127 .04 * 16,207 .06 * 

District B 342 .04 991 .03 

District C 22,757 .03 * 22,757 .03 * 

District D 5,650 .06 * 5,972 .08 * 

District E 3,732 .12 * 3,659 .07 * 

District F 1,001 .38 * 965 .58 * 

District H 1,124 -.002 1,096 .03 

* Indicates significance at the 5 percent level. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Analysis of Title I Choice Options in Nine Urban Districts. 

Exhibit A-38 

Achievement Effects of Student Participation in 

Title I School Choice in Six Districts 

Mathematics Reading 

N Effect Size n Effect Size 

District A 646 .03 648 .02 

District B 305 -.01 769 -.02 

District C 312 .01 312 .09 

District D 799 -.01 845 .07 

District E 721 -.16 * 740 -.01 

District G 645 -.03 675 -.01 

* Indicates significance at the 5 percent level. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Analysis of Title I Choice Options in Nine Urban Districts. 
93

Exhibit A-39 

State Definitions of Highly Qualified Teacher: Use of Praxis II Exams and Cut Scores, November 2007

State Uses At Least One 

Exam from Praxis II 

Series for Some/All 

Teachers 

Praxis II: Elementary 

Education Content 

Knowledge 

Praxis II: English Language, 

Literature and Composition: 

Content Knowledge 

Praxis II: 

Mathematics 

Content 

Knowledge 

Total Number of States 

Using Praxis II Subject 

Assessments

40 26 36 36 

Alabama X 137 151 126 

Alaska X 143 158 146 

Arkansas X 159 116 

Colorado X 147 162 156 

Connecticut X 172 137 

Delaware X 151 163 141 

District of Columbia X 145 142 141 

Hawaii X 164 136 

Idaho X 143 158 119 

Indiana X 153 136 

Iowa X 142 

Kansas X 165 137 

Kentucky X 148 160 125 

Louisiana X 150 160 130 

Maine X 145 160 126 

Maryland X 142 164 141 

Minnesota X 145 157 125 

Mississippi X 153 157 123 

Missouri X 158 137 

Montana X Composite with 

other factors 

Nebraska X 

Nevada X 150 133 

New Hampshire X 148 164 127 

New Jersey X 141 162 137 

North Carolina X Composite with other tests 

North Dakota X 151 139 

Ohio X 143 167 139 

Oregon X 159 139 

Pennsylvania X 160 136 

Rhode Island X 145 

South Carolina X 162 131 

South Dakota X 140 154 124 

Tennessee X 140 157 136 

Utah X 150 168 138 

Vermont X 148 172 141 

Virginia X 143 172 147 

Washington X 141 158 134 

West Virginia X 155 133 

Wisconsin X 147 160 135 

Wyoming X 160 * * 

National Median Score 164 178 144 

Range from 25th to 75th Percentile 152–176 167–188 129–159 

Range from 10th to 90th Percentile 141–185 155–196 113–173 

Source: Educational Testing Service (n=41 states and the District of Columbia). 

* Test required but passing score not set. 

Notes: Cut scores were obtained from the Educational Testing Service publication, The Praxis Series Passing Scores by Test and State, found on 

the ETS Web site in January 2008 (www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/09706passingscores.pdf). Percentile scores were provided by 

the Educational Testing Service on Sept. 7, 2007. 
94

Exhibit A-40 

Change in Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on 

In-Depth Study of Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 to 2005–06

Elementary Teachers

27% 28%

51% 47%

32% 28%

29% 28%

19%

30%

14%

28%

6% 6% 13% 14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003–04 2005–06 2003–04 2005–06

More

Than 24

Hours

6 to 24

Hours

1 to 5

hours

None

Reading Mathematics

Secondary English and Mathematics Teachers

30% 27%

49% 38%

30% 28%

25%

28%

24% 19% 15%

29%

16% 16% 10% 15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003–04 2005–06 2003–04 2005–06

More

Than 24

Hours

6 to 24

Hours

1 to 5

hours

None

English Mathematics

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Teacher Survey. 
95

APPENDIX B: STANDARD ERROR TABLES 

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

Exhibit B-1: Standard Errors for Exhibit 6 

Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2005: 

Average Scale Scores by School Grade Level for Public School Students 

 4th Grade 8th Grade 12th Grade 

Reading 

1992 215 (1.0) 258 (1.0) 290 (0.7) 

1994 212 (1.1) 257 (0.8) 286 (0.7) 

1998 213 (1.2) 261 (0.8) 289 (0.7) 

2000 211 (1.4) 

2002 217 (0.5) 263 (0.5) 285 (0.7) 

2003 216 (0.3) 261 (0.2) 

2005 217 (0.2) 260 (0.2) 285 (0.7) 

2007 220 (0.x) 261 (0.x) 

Mathematics 

1990 212 (1.1) 262 (1.4) 294 (1.2) 

1992 219 (0.8) 267 (1.0) 297 (1.0) 

1996 222 (1.1) 269 (1.0) 303 (0.9) 

2000 224 (1.0) 272 (0.9) 300 (1.1) 

2003 234 (0.2) 276 (0.3) 

2005 237 (0.2) 278 (0.2) 

2007 239 (0.x) 280 (0.x) 

Science 

1996 145 (1.2) 148 (0.9) 150 (0.8) 

2000 145 (1.1) 148 (1.1) 145 (1.0) 

2005 149 (0.3) 147 (0.3) 146 (0.6) 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP.
96

Exhibit B-2: Standard Errors for Exhibit A-17 

Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: 

Average Scale Scores in Fourth Grade by School Poverty Level for Public School Students 

High-Poverty Schools 

(76–100% Eligible for Free 

or Reduced-Price Lunches) 

Low-Poverty Schools 

(0–25% Eligible for Free 

or Reduced-Price Lunches) 

Reading 

1992 192 (3.0) 225 (1.7) 

1994 182 (3.2) 225 (1.7) 

1998 187 (3.1) 230 (1.5) 

2000 183 (2.8) 230 (1.7) 

2002 196 (0.7) 233 (0.5) 

2003 194 (0.5) 232 (0.5) 

2005 197 (0.4) 233 (0.3) 

2007 200 (0.5) 235 (0.4) 

Mathematics 

1990 194 (4.2) 218 (2.0) 

1992 195 (2.8) 230 (1.4) 

1996 209 (2.7) 235 (1.5) 

2000 205 (1.2) 239 (1.4) 

2003 216 (0.5) 247 (0.3) 

2005 221 (0.3) 251 (0.3) 

2007 222 (0.4) 253 (0.3) 

Science 

1996 131 (2.9) 162 (1.4) 

2000 117 (2.2) 162 (1.3) 

2005 127 (0.5) 165 (0.3) 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP, unpublished tabulations. 
97

Exhibit B-3: Standard Errors for Exhibit 7 

Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2005: 

Average Scale Scores in Fourth Grade by Race and Ethnicity for Public School Students 

 Black Hispanic White 

Reading 

1992 191 (1.7) 194 (2.7) 223 (1.4) 

1994 184 (1.8) 186 (3.6) 222 (1.3) 

1998 192 (2.1) 192 (3.2) 223 (1.1) 

2000 189 (1.9) 188 (3.1) 223 (1.2) 

2002 198 (0.6) 199 (1.4) 227 (0.3) 

2003 197 (0.4) 199 (0.6) 227 (0.2) 

2005 199 (0.3) 201 (0.5) 228 (0.2) 

2007 203 (0.4) 204 (0.5) 230 (0.2) 

Mathematics 

1990 187 (1.9) 199 (2.4) 219 (1.1) 

1992 192 (1.4) 201 (1.7) 227 (0.9) 

1996 198 (1.6) 207 (1.9) 231 (1.1) 

2000 203 (1.2) 207 (1.5) 233 (0.9) 

2003 216 (0.4) 221 (0.4) 243 (0.2) 

2005 220 (0.3) 225 (0.3) 246 (0.2) 

2007 222 (0.3) 227 (0.3) 248 (0.2) 

Science 

1996 119 (1.4) 122 (3.1) 157 (1.0) 

2000 121 (1.1) 121 (2.3) 158 (0.8) 

2005 128 (0.6) 132 (0.5) 161 (0.3) 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP.
98

Exhibit B-4: Standard Errors for Exhibit 8 

Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2005: 

Average Scale Scores in Eighth Grade by Race and Ethnicity for Public School Students 

 Black Hispanic White 

Reading 

1992 236 (1.8) 238 (1.7) 265 (1.2) 

1994 235 (1.8) 239 (1.6) 265 (1.0) 

1998 242 (1.2) 241 (1.7) 268 (1.0) 

2002 244 (0.8) 245 (0.8) 271 (0.5) 

2003 244 (0.5) 244 (0.7) 270 (0.2) 

2005 242 (0.4) 245 (0.4) 269 (0.2) 

2007 244 (0.4) 246 (0.4) 270 (0.2) 

Mathematics 

1990 236 (2.8) 245 (4.4) 269 (1.4) 

1992 236 (1.3) 247 (1.2) 276 (1.1) 

1996 239 (1.9) 249 (1.9) 279 (1.2) 

2000 243 (1.3) 252 (1.4) 283 (0.9) 

2003 252 (0.5) 258 (0.6) 287 (0.3) 

2005 254 (0.4) 261 (0.4) 288 (0.2) 

2007 259 (0.4) 264 (0.4) 290 (0.2) 

Science 

1996 120 (1.0) 126 (2.9) 158 (0.8) 

2000 120 (1.4) 125 (1.4) 158 (0.9) 

2005 123 (0.4) 120 (0.5) 159 (0.3) 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Main NAEP.
99

Exhibit B-5: Standard Errors for Exhibit 23 

Percentage of Identified Title I Schools Experiencing Various Types of Interventions 

Since Identification for Improvement, 2006–07 

 Percent of 

Schools in 

Year 1 of 

Improvement 

(n=102) 

Percent of 

Schools in 

Year 2 of 

Improvement 

(n=63) 

Percent of 

Schools in 

Corrective 

Action 

 (n=99) 

Percent of 

Schools in 

Restructuring 

(n=163) 

Actions Required for All Identified Schools 

Parents were notified of schools’ improvement 

status 

94.3 (3.3) 100.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 95.9. (2.3) 

District or state developed a joint improvement 

plan with the school 

82.7 (5.8) 95.9 (2.4) 94.1 (2.7) 85.8 (7.1) 

Students were offered the option to transfer to a 

higher-performing school, with transportation 

provided 

70.9 (9.6) 80.1 (11.1) 85.3 (7.4) 90.7 (3.5) 

Action Required for Identified Schools That Miss AYP After Identification

Eligible students were offered supplemental 

educational services from a state-approved 

provider 

52.8 (10.0) 92.0 (4.8) 100.0 (0.0) 94.2 (4.3) 

Corrective Actions

Implemented a new research-based curriculum or 

instructional program 

53.7 (9.8) 60.3 (11.9) 67.0 (9.5) 80.8 (5.8) 

Significantly decreased management authority at 

the school level 

3.9 (2.3) 16.7 (8.8) 1.5 (0.7) 13.3 (3.8) 

Appointed outside expert to advise the school 34.4 (8.5) 35.2 (10.8) 25.6 (6.1) 52.8 (6.4) 

Extended length of school day 14.8 (4.9) 26.4 (9.5) 22.0 (9.8) 43.7 (6.7) 

Extended length of school year 6.2 (3.2) 6.9 (4.1) 8.8 (4.1) 16.2 (4.4) 

Restructured internal organization of the school 10.4 (4.2) 11.9 (6.3) 20.8 (7.3) 39.4 (6.3) 

Replaced school staff members relevant to 

school’s low performance 

4.2 (2.2) 10.9 (7.0) 20.8 (8.1) 29.9 (6.4) 

Replaced the principal * 13.3 (4.7) 24.3 (8.1) 29.5 (8.2) 40.2 (6.6) 

Restructuring Interventions

Reopened the school as a public charter school 1.8 (1.8) 7.3 (6.9) 0.0 (0.0) 0.7 (0.6) 

Entered into a contract with a private entity to 

manage the school 

1.8 (1.8) 1.5 (1.5) 0.0 (0.0) 1.3 (0.8) 

Operation of school turned over to state 1.8 (1.8) 2.2 (2.1) 0.1 (0.1) 3.0 (1.4) 

Replaced all or most of the school staff 5.0 (2.7) 10.7 (7.4) 4.4 (2.7) 12.1 (4.0) 

* Replacing the principal is not a mandated intervention for schools in corrective action, but the principal may be thought of as the 

staff person responsible for the school’s performance, so replacing the principal was included as a separate item on the survey. 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Principal Survey. 
100

Exhibit B-6: Standard Errors for Exhibit 25 

Percentage of Districts Taking Various Actions in Response to 

Being Identified for Improvement, 2006–07 

Offered/required specific professional development for teachers 91.2 (4.8) 

Increased district monitoring of instruction and student performance at school sites 84.7 (6.5) 

Offered/required specific professional development for principals 70.1 (9.4) 

Reallocated fiscal resources to target specific needs (e.g., particular groups of students, 

subjects, or schools) 

64.4 (8.9) 

Developed or revised district content standards 39.4 (9.9) 

Distributed test preparation materials to some or all schools 48.6 (8.9) 

Implemented a district-wide curriculum in reading 39.6 (8.0) 

Hired a consultant to advise district administrators on effective strategies 35.8 (9.3) 

Implemented a district-wide curriculum in mathematics 32.3 (7.4) 

Reorganized the district office staff to increase efficiency or focus on instruction 29.0 (7.0) 

Changed the budget allocation formula for schools 21.4 (6.2) 

Implemented new personnel procedures for hiring or assigning principals and teachers 22.5 (6.9) 

Created smaller schools, or schools-within-schools 12.3 (4.7) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, District Survey (n=95 districts). 
101

Exhibit B-7: Standard Errors for Exhibits 28 and A-33 

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 2006–07 

2004–05 2006–07 

The quality of teaching at the new school was better 52.2 (3.2) 62.4 (3.1) 

My child’s old school was not meeting his/her needs 47.1 (3.2) 62.0 (3.1) 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at the new school 49.4 (3.2) 46.9 (3.2) 

My child got transportation to the new school 34.8 (2.8) 34.6 (3.0) 

The new school is located in a place that is easy to get to 33.7 (3.2) 30.3 (2.9) 

There are different academic programs at the new school 28.6 (2.8) 30.0 (3.0) 

My child wanted to change schools 25.3 (2.7) 28.0 (2.8) 

There are activities after school and sports teams at the new school 19.8 (2.4) 24.0 (2.7) 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at the new school 18.9 (2.4) 20.2 (2.6) 

My child had been getting bad grades 17.1 (2.1) 19.3 (2.5) 

There are services for children with disabilities at the new school 11.0 (1.9) 11.8 (2.0) 

My child’s old teacher thought he/she should move 9.6 (1.4) 10.9 (1.9) 

There are services at the school for children whose first language is not English 4.8 (1.3) 4.8 (1.4) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=356 parents in 2004–05; 282 parents in 2006–07). 

Exhibit B-8: Standard Errors for Exhibits 28 and A-34 

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 2006–07 

2004–05 2006–07 

Tutoring is free 57.9 (3.5) 52.8 (4.5) 

There is tutoring in the subject area(s) in which my child needs extra help 60.3 (3.5) 50.8 (4.5) 

My child’s teacher thought he/she should get this extra help 51.7 (3.6) 48.1 (4.5) 

My child wanted to get this extra help 43.1 (3.5) 34.7 (4.1) 

Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to get to 47.0 (3.6) 30.2 (4.0) 

My child got a low score on a yearly achievement test 33.2 (3.4) 29.0 (4.0) 

My child had been getting bad grades 26.9 (3.2) 26.9 (4.0) 

There is tutoring for children with disabilities 10.9 (2.3) 13.5 (2.9) 

There is tutoring for children whose first language is not English 6.3 (1.8) 8.9 (2.8) 

I needed after-school care 11.6 (2.4) 8.1 (2.2) 

My child’s school is not meeting his/her needs 18.3 (2.8) 7.8 (2.2) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=260 parents in 2004–05; 452 parents in 2006–07). 
102

Exhibit B-9: Standard Errors for Exhibits 28 and A-35 

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 2006–07 

2004–05 2006–07 

I was satisfied with the quality of teaching at my child’s school 46.7 (6.2) 63.0 (5.8) 

My child’s school is located in a place that is easy to get to 75.2 (5.4) 60.3 (6.1) 

My child wanted to stay 49.6 (6.2) 44.8 (6.1) 

My child was getting good grades at the current school 47.4 (6.2) 42.4 (6.1) 

I didn’t want to disrupt my child 42.1 (6.2) 41.5 (6.1) 

There is free tutoring or other extra help with schoolwork at my child’s school 26.5 (5.3) 33.8 (5.7) 

There are activities after school and sports teams at my child’s school 27.4 (5.5) 33.3 (5.9) 

There is good discipline, safety, and order at my child’s school 33.9 (6.0) 28.1 (5.2) 

There are services at my child’s school for children whose first language is not English 9.2 (3.3) 25.4 (5.8) 

There are different academic programs at my child’s school 21.6 (5.3) 25.1 (5.3) 

There are services at my child’s school for children with disabilities 19.7 (4.9) 21.2 (5.3) 

I didn’t have enough information about the schools I could choose from 22.9 (5.0) 12.5 (4.2) 

There was no space for my child at the school I wanted NA 4.8 (2.7) 

The district did not have transportation to any of the new schools I could choose from 18.4 (5.0) 4.4 (1.5) 

I was not given enough time to make the decision to move my child to another school 17.2 (5.2) 2.0 (1.0) 

NA = Not applicable (this response category was not included in the 2004–05 parent survey). 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=217 parents in 2004–05; 220 parents in 2006–07). 

Exhibit B-10: Standard Errors for Exhibits 28 and A-36 

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 2006–07 

2004–05 2006–07 

My child doesn’t need help 27.6 (7.2) 45.6 (7.4) 

Tutoring is given at times that are not good for my family 46.5 (10.2) 34.6 (6.9) 

Tutoring is given at a place that is not easy to get to 12.1 (7.2) 15.2 (4.9) 

My child did not want to get this extra help 11.8 (7.0) 13.3 (5.5) 

There is no tutoring in the subject areas where my child needs extra help 4.8 (2.9) 10.5 (5.0) 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children whose first language is not English <1 (.) 3.4 (3.3) 

Tutoring does not meet the needs of children with disabilities 5.3 (4.5) 2.3 (1.3) 

There is no tutoring at my child’s grade level 5.2 (3.3) 0.8 (0.4) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Parent Survey (n=52 parents in 2004–05; 125 parents in 2006–07). 
103

Exhibit B-11: Standard Errors for Exhibit 29 

District Strategies for Communicating With Parents 

About Title I School Choice and Supplemental Services Options, 2004–05 and 2006–07 

School Choice Supplemental Services

Percent of 

districts 

Percent of 

students 

Percent of 

districts 

Percent of 

students 

 2006–07 

Written notification in English 98.7 (1.3) 92.2 (0.8) 91.3 (5.4) 97.7 (1.1)

Written notification in language(s) other than English 59.4 (8.3) 73.7 (4.8) 6.9 (8.4) 82.6 (4.0)

Enrollment fairs or open houses 22.5 (5.4) 46.5 (5.0) 62.9 (9.2) 81.8 (2.7)

Individual meetings with interested parents 60.5 (8.6) 73.0 (4.6) 62.8 (9.4) 82.6 (3.7)

Notices in district or school newsletters 53.3 (8.6) 66.9 (4.9) 49.5 (9.4) 63.1 (4.3)

Public service announcements 14.9 (4.6) 26.1 (4.0) 30.8 (9.8) 42.1 (4.9)

Worked with a local community 16.8 (5.4) 31.0 (4.4) 33.0 (9.6) 40.4 (4.9)

Notices in public newspapers 25.6 (6.5) 35.0 (4.6) 12.7 (4.6) 37.0 (4.8)

Notices on school district’s website 24.4 (6.2) 53.4 (5.2) 30.8 (7.0) 63.0 (4.9)

Instructed principals to inform parents of availability of services 79.1 (7.0) 91.4 (3.1)

Provided information during regularly scheduled parent-teacher 

conferences 60.7 (9.4) 71.9 (5.1)

 (n=146 districts) (n=129 districts) 

 2004–05 

Written notification in English 67.9 (9.9) 87.9 (3.7) 94.0 (5.9) 94.2 (3.8)

Written notification in language(s) other than English 47.0 (9.6) 63.9 (3.7) 52.9 (5.9) 71.6 (3.8)

Individual meetings with interested parents 51.7 (9.2) 67.8 (3.8) 78.3 (8.6) 78.7 (5.5)

Notices in district or school newsletters 39.7 (8.6) 58.7 (4.3) 64.2 (9.9) 71.7 (5.7)

Notices in public newspapers 26.0 (7.4) 45.0 (4.4) 23.4 (9.0) 48.2 (6.2)

Enrollment fairs or open houses to provide information 

 about alternate schools and providers 19.2 (5.2) 41.7 (4.5) 51.4 (11.1) 70.8 (5.6)

Public service announcements 10.0 (3.3) 31.7 (4.5) 19.1 (5.6) 40.6 (5.9)

Working with a local community partner 

 (e.g., Parent Information and Resource Center) 10.1 (4.0) 20.1 (2.6) 16.2 (7.4) 40.4 (5.9)

Other 11.8 (4.1) 22.0 (3.2) 26.0 (8.2) 30.5 (5.6)

 (n=156 districts) (n=109 districts) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, District Survey.
104

Exhibit B-12: Standard Errors for Exhibit 30 

Percentage of Districts That Reported Notifying Parent Notification About the Title I School Choice Option, 

By Timing of Reported Notification, 2004–05 and 2006–07 

2004–05 2006–07 

Before the start of the school year 29.5 (8.9) 43.1 (8.5) 

At the start of the school year 21.2 (14.8) 14.7 (5.5) 

After the start of the school year 49.4 (12.1) 42.2 (9.4) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, District Survey (n=181 districts in 2004–05 and 132 districts in 2006–07). 

Exhibit B-13: Standard Errors for Exhibit 34 

Percentage of Teachers Reporting That They Were Considered 

Highly Qualified Under NCLB, 2004–05 and 2006–07

n Highly Qualified Not Highly Qualified Don’t Know 

 2006–07

Elementary teachers 4,121 84.9 (1.3) 1.5 (0.3) 13.7 (1.3) 

Secondary English teachers 1,826 84.0 (1.7) 2.6 (0.4) 13.4 (1.6) 

Secondary math teachers 1,727 79.3 (2.0) 4.4 (0.9) 16.2 (2.0) 

Special education teachers 1,137 72.1 (2.4) 10.0 (2.1) 12.8 (1.7) 

 2004–05

Elementary teachers 4,059 75.1 (1.8) 2.1 (0.3) 22.9 (1.8) 

Secondary English teachers 1,787 73.7 (2.2) 5.8 (0.9) 20.4 (2.2) 

Secondary math teachers 1,627 67.9 (2.6) 8.0 (1.2) 24.1 (2.5) 

Special education teachers 1,158 52.3 (2.4) 14.5 (2.2) 29.2 (2.3) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Teacher Survey.
105

Exhibit B-14: Standard Errors for Exhibits 35 and 36 

Percentage of Teachers Participating in Professional Development Focused on 

Instructional Strategies for Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 and 2005–06

Professional Development in 

Teaching Reading 

Professional Development in 

Teaching Mathematics 

Elementary 

Teachers 

Secondary 

English 

Teachers 

Elementary 

Teachers 

Secondary 

Mathematics 

Teachers 

 2005–06

More than 24 hours 26.3 (1.6) 25.7 (2.0) 11.4 (1.3) 21.6 (1.7) 

6 to 24 hours 41.4 (1.3) 39.7 (2.4) 33.0 (1.7) 36.6 (2.1) 

1 to 5 hours 23.9 (1.2) 25.6 (2.2) 34.7 (1.9) 28.7 (2.3) 

None 8.4 (0.9) 9.0 (1.3) 20.9 (1.6) 13.1 (1.6) 

 (n=4,047) (n=1,790) (n=4,043) (n=1,699) 

 2003–04

More than 24 hours 19.6 (1.3) 21.9 (1.8) 9.1 (0.9) 16.1 (1.6) 

6 to 24 hours 38.9 (1.3) 35.5 (1.8) 25.6 (1.2) 30.4 (2.1) 

1 to 5 hours 31.2 (1.9) 30.3 (2.0) 36.7 (1.6) 30.9 (2.5) 

None 10.4 (1.3) 12.2 (1.3) 28.6 (1.9) 22.6 (2.1) 

 (n=4,007) (n=1,740) (n=3,994) (n=1,580) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Teacher Survey.

Exhibit B-15: Standard Errors for Exhibits 35 and A-40 

Percentage of Teachers Participating in Professional Development Focused on 

In-Depth Study of Topics in Reading and Mathematics, 2003–04 and 2005–06

Professional Development in 

Teaching Reading 

Professional Development in 

Teaching Mathematics 

Elementary 

Teachers 

Secondary 

English 

Teachers 

Elementary 

Teachers 

Secondary 

Mathematics 

Teachers 

 2005–06

More than 24 hours 14.4 (1.1) 16.2 (1.7) 6.0 (0.9) 14.9 (1.7) 

6 to 24 hours 29.6 (1.3) 28.9 (2.2) 19.4 (1.5) 19.3 (1.9) 

1 to 5 hours 28.0 (1.3) 28.3 (1.7) 27.8 (1.3) 27.8 (2.2) 

None 28.0 (1.6) 26.6 (2.4) 46.7 (1.7) 38.0 (2.6) 

 (n=4,007) (n=1,776) (n=3,980) (n=1,694) 

 2003–04

More than 24 hours 12.8 (1.0) 15.9 (1.8) 6.2 (0.8) 10.4 (1.2) 

6 to 24 hours 28.0 (1.3) 23.6 (1.6) 13.6 (1.1) 15.4 (1.7) 

1 to 5 hours 32.4 (1.2) 30.4 (2.0) 29.1 (1.3) 25.5 (1.8) 

None 26.8 (1.3) 30.1 (2.2) 51.0 (1.7) 48.7 (2.4) 

 (n=3,982) (n=1,719) (n=3,950) (n=1,565) 

Source: National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, Teacher Survey.
106