A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

FOR RELEASE: January 19, 2001	Contact:         Melinda Kitchell Malico (202) 401-1008

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF TITLE I SHOWS STUDENT PROGRESS ON STATE ASSESSMENTS; LITTLE PROGRESS ON NAEP

More than half of the nine states reporting three years of assessment data on mathematics and reading showed increases in the number of disadvantaged students performing at or above state-set proficiency levels. Five of these states - Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas - also narrowed the achievement gap between high- and low-poverty schools.

In contrast, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), administered nationally, showed few gains in performance and a widening gap in student performance since the late 1980s between high- and low-poverty schools. Students' scores remained flat in reading but were slightly improved in math.

The gap in reading performance between nine-year-old students in high- and low-poverty schools stands at 40 points, characterized in the report as being equivalent to four grade levels. The gap in math performance for the same age group is nearly 30 points, or three grade levels.

The new report, High Standards for All Students: A Report from the National Assessment of Title I on Progress and Challenges Since the 1994 Reauthorization, prepared by the U.S. Department of Education's Planning and Evaluation Service, examines trends in student performance using both state assessment data and NAEP. The report notes that "neither of these measures alone can provide a definitive answer to questions about the impact of standards-based reform on student achievement," and the report's authors conclude that the seemingly conflicting findings appear to be "perplexing."

Title I reaches more than 12.5 million students enrolled in both public and private schools, from preschool through high school, but two-thirds of Title I participants are in grades 1-6. Title I is intended to help address the greater educational challenges facing high-poverty communities by targeting extra resources to school districts and schools with the highest concentrations of poverty, where academic performance tends to be low and the obstacles to raising performance are greatest. As previous studies have shown, Title I is much more targeted to the highest-poverty districts than are state and local funds. Its flexible funding may be used for various purposes, including supplementary instruction, after-school programs, professional development for teachers, or new computers. Nearly half of Title I funds go to the highest-poverty schools, those with more than a 75 percent poverty level. More than three-quarters of Title I funds pay for instruction, and just 1 percent is used at the state level for program administration.

According to the report, some of the explanation for the inconsistent achievement findings may be attributed to Title I law. Because states have flexibility to set their own standards and decide how the standards are assessed and at which grade levels, it is difficult to meaningfully compare states on how well their students are doing. And the law does not require full implementation until 2000-01, so measuring accountability - essential for helping districts and schools - is hampered by the fact that most states do not yet have the trend data needed to assess student progress. The report calls for an independent body to examine how best to interpret the data.

In the report the department also criticizes states for failing to provide timely and accurate data, noting that the required annual state performance reports are often late, incomplete and riddled with errors. The report notes that for an accountability system to work, all parties must receive accurate and timely data.

Finally, the report cites other significant challenges to improving achievement:

• While research documents the need for high-quality instruction for the neediest students, aides often provide instruction and a disproportionate number of teachers in high-poverty schools are inexperienced, uncertified, and don't receive high-quality professional development;
• The capacity of states to turn around low-performing schools is hampered by limited resources and know-how, as many such schools do not get the help they need to improve, even after having been identified as in need of improvement for several years;
• A large number of students in Title I are disabled or have limited English proficiency, and many states have not yet included these students in assessments as required by 2000-01;
• As many disadvantaged children lack access to quality preschool programs, there should be stronger connections between Title I and Head Start, and a focus on early literacy;
• Disadvantaged children need, but do not always receive, sufficient opportunities for extra time to learn, such as those provided in after-school programs;
• Schools need to integrate efforts to involve parents with the school's efforts to improve student learning; and
• Many states continue to have a separate accountability system for Title I, although the intent of ESEA was that states would have one strong and rigorous accountability system that includes Title I.

The report will be available by calling 1-877-4ED-PUBS, or through the department's web site at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/ed_for_disadvantaged.html