U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

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

Title I Grants for Schools Serving At-Risk Children

Goal 8: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.
Objective 1 of 3: PERFORMANCE OF THE LOWEST-ACHIEVING STUDENTS AND STUDENTS IN HIGH-POVERTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS WILL INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY IN READING AND MATHEMATICS.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Student performance on national assessments: Performance of the lowest-achieving public school students and students in high-poverty public schools will increase substantially on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Reading scale scores on the Main NAEP for public school students at the bottom 25th percentile
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
4th grade 8th grade 12th grade
4th grade 8th grade 12th grade
1992
192 235 268
     
1994
187 234 263
     
1998
192 239 266
     
2000
193    
202 249 276
2001
     
27 249 276

Mathematics scale scores on the Main NAEP for public school students at the bottom 25th percentile
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
4th grade 8th grade 12th grade
4th grade 8th grade 12th grade
1992
197 242 274
     
1996
201 247 281
     
2000
206 250 276
211 257 291

Reading scale scores on the Trend NAEP for public school students in the highest-poverty schools (75-100% poverty)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
9-year olds 13-year olds 17-year olds
9-year olds 13-year olds 17-year olds
1992
180 223  
     
1994
184 229 256
     
1996
188 233 262
     
1999
186 234 266
2000
191 239 271

NAEP mathematics scale scores on the Trend NAEP for public school students in the highest-poverty schools (75-100% poverty)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
9-year-olds 13-year-olds 17-year-olds
9-year-olds 13-year-olds 17-year-olds
1992
208 248  
     
1994
215 256 290
     
1996
217 252 284
     
1999
212 254 283
     
2000
     
217 259 288
Status: Positive movement toward target.

Explanation: Data are based on the Trend NAEP, which is currently collected every 4 years. Over an 8 year period, trends in NAEP scores appear flat in reading but show gains in mathematics. In reading, scores for 4th-graders were the same in 1998 as in 1992, while 8th-graders show a gain of 4 points and 12th-graders show a decline of 2 pints. In mathematics, scores rose at two grade levels tested (4th and 8th), by an average of 10 to 12 points and declined in 12th grade.   		Additional Source Information: National Assessment of Educational Progress-Reading, Mathematics.

Frequency: Other.
Collection Period: 2003.
Data Available: January 2004.
Validated By: NCES/Federal Statistical Agencies.


Limitations: NAEP assessments are not aligned with state content and performance standards. Caution is suggested in interpreting 12th grade achievement data because Title I serves a small number of high school students.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Meeting or exceeding state performance standards: Among states with 2 years of assessment data and aligned content and performance standards, an increasing number will report an increase in the percentage of students in schools with at least 50 percent poverty who meet proficient and advanced performance levels in reading and math on their state assessment systems.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of states with performance standards aligned to content standards and two years of data disaggregated by school poverty level
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1997
10
 
1998
11
 
1999
5
15
2000
20
2001
 
24
2002
 
26

Number of states reporting an increase in the percentage of students in schools with at least 50 percent poverty who meet proficient and advanced levels of performance
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Reading Mathematics Both
Reading Mathematics Both
1997
7 7 7
     
1998
10 10 10
     
1999
2 4 2
13 13 13
2000
     
18 18 18
2001
5 7 5
20 20 20
2002
     
24 24 24
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: There were a limited number of States with two years of data disaggregated by poverty that also had aligned content standards in the1998-99 school year and two years of comparable data. Seven States were available for review. Five of the seven States showed progress in both reading and mathematics. Five States showed progress in reading, and seven States showed progress in mathematics. The States not showing progress in reading had minimal declines.   		Additional Source Information: Title I State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Data Available: March 2002.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Verified by ED attestation process and Standards for Evaluating Program Performance Data.

Limitations: There is substantial variation across states in their definitions of proficient student performance as well as alignment of content and performance standards. All States have submitted evidence and have been reviewed. Many States are transitioning from NRTs to assessments aligned to standards. Many States therefore, will not have two years of data. Also many States do not disaggregate by poverty, so would not have two years of data.

 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Improving schools: An increasing percentage of Title I schools will report that they have met or exceeded state or district standards for progress.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Title I schools
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Percentage of Title I schools
Percentage of Title I schools
1998
57
 
1999
80
75
2000
 
85
2001
 
90
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: The Title I State Performance Report for 1998-99 indicates that 20% of all schools are designated as Title I Schools in improvement. The converse of this fact indicates that 80% are not in school improvement.   		Additional Source Information: Annual Title I State Performance reports, SY 1999-2000.

Frequency: Annually.
Data Available: October 2002.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: There is substantial variation across states in their definitions of adequate yearly progress and proficient student performance.

 
Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: School readiness of Title I participants: An increasing percentage of children in Title I preschool programs will achieve a basic level of readiness on measures of language development, reading readiness, and mathematics concepts.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
- No Targets And Performance Data -
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: A study of Title I-supported preschool programs is currently in the design phase. According to the NCES Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 59 percent of students entering kindergarten in Title I schools had mastered letter recognition readiness skills, compared with 76 percent in non-Title I schools. Among poor students entering kindergarten, those who enrolled in preschool programs were more likely to achieve proficiency than poor students not enrolled in preschool programs.   		Additional Source Information: Planned Title I Preschool Evaluation.

Frequency: Biennially.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Limitations unknown--study is in the design phase.

 

Objective 2 of 3: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TITLE I SCHOOLS USING STANDARDS-BASED REFORM AND EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO ENABLE ALL STUDENTS TO REACH STATE AND LOCAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 3: Use of challenging standards : All Title I schools will report the use of content standards to guide curriculum and instruction in reading and mathematics.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of schools reporting use of content standards to guide curriculum and instruction in reading and math "to a great extent"
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Reading Mathematics
Reading Mathematics
1998
74 73
   
1999
81 78
85 85
2000
83 80
100 100
2001
84 83
100 100
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: The percentage of schools reporting use of content standards to guide curriculum and instruction in reading "to a great extent" rose from 83 percent in 1999-00 to 84 percent in 2000-01 (both based on teacher's responses) but did not reach the target of 100 percent for the second year. For math, the percentage of schools reporting use of standards to guide curriculum and instruction "to a great extent" rose from 80 percent in 1999-2000 to 83 percent in 2000-2001 but did not reach the target.   		Additional Source Information: Follow-up Public School Survey on Education Reform, SY 1997-98 National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, SY 1998-99 through SY 2000-01.

Frequency: Other.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Verified by Department attestation process.

Limitations: Teacher survey responses are subject to self-report bias.

 
Indicator 8.2.2 of 3: Extended learning time: An increasing number of Title I schools will operate before- and after-school, summer, or other programs to extend and reinforce student learning.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Title I schools operating extended learning time programs either during the school year or during the summer
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
65
 
1999
83
70
2000
84
75
2001
86
80
Status: Target exceeded.

Explanation: The percentage of Title I schools operating extended time programs rose from 84 percent in 1999-2000 to 86 percent in 2000-2001.   		Additional Source Information: National Longitudinal Survey of Schools.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Department attestation process.

Limitations: Much of the increase from 1998 to 2000 is probably due to a change in the wording of the questionnaire. The l997-98 survey asked about instructional extended time programs, while the l998-99 survey asked about extended time programs generally and included daycare and other non-instructional programs. The survey was revised for the 2000-01 school year to focus again on instructional programs only.

 
Indicator 8.2.3 of 3: Qualified staff: Title I schools will report an increase in the proportion of Title I staff who are teachers and in district support for the educational improvement of paraprofessionals.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Title I staff who are teachers
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
45
 
1999
45
 
2000
49
47
2001
49
49

Percentage of Title I schools in districts offering career ladders for paraprofessionals
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
24
 
1999
30
30
2000
30
35
2001
31
35
Status: Target met.

Explanation: The percentage of Title I staff who are teachers rose from 45 percent in 1998-99 to 49 percent in 1999-2000 and remained at this level in 2000-2001. The percentage of Title I schools that reported that their districts offered career ladders rose from 1998 to 1999 and only slightly in 2000-2001.   		Additional Source Information: National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, SY 1998-99 through 2000-01; follow-up.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: Additional information is needed on the qualifications of teachers and the extent to which Title I teacher aides are providing instruction to students, a responsibility that is inappropriate for the education and training of most paraprofessionals. Future surveys will obtain information on these issues.

 

Objective 3 of 3: STATES AND DISTRICTS WILL IMPLEMENT STANDARDS-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS AND PROVIDE EFFECTIVE SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS.
Indicator 8.3.1 of 4: Establishing annual progress measures: All states will adopt or develop measures of adequate yearly progress linked to state performance standards.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of States
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Number of States
Number of States
2000
40
2001
9
50
Status: Target not met.

Explanation: The only data available is for states applying for Ed-flex authority. Currently 9 states have received approval (as of 3/02).   		Additional Source Information: Title I peer review records.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: Experienced Public/Private Entity.
Data supplied by independent contractors who reviewed state assessment and accountability systems.

 
Indicator 8.3.2 of 4: Aligned assessments: All states will have final assessment systems or negotiated agreements that will enable them to meet the criteria in the Title I law--including alignment, inclusion of limited English proficient and special education students, disaggregated reporting, and technical quality--for two or more core subjects.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of States with final assessment systems or negotiated agreements
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Number of States
Number of States
2000
34
40
2001
46
50
Status: Target not met.  

Explanation: As of January 2002, the Department had reviewed assessment systems for all states, approved 17 states, systems, and negotiated timeline waivers for 29 additional states. Of the 6 remaining states, 1 has requested a timeline waiver and approval seems likely. 5 States have indicated that they are amenable to entering a compliance agreement and have held the required public hearing for this purpose. Staff are working with these 5 States to finalize the compliance agreements.   		Additional Source Information: Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001.
Data Available: April 2003.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: No known limitations. By design and by the legislation, Title I peer review records are the authoritative data source for this indicator.

 
Indicator 8.3.3 of 4: Effective assistance and public school enrollment options : Schools identified as needing improvement will report receiving effective assistance from their districts and states, including expanded opportunities for children to transfer to high-performing public schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of schools identified for improvement that report receiving assistance as a result of being identified
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999
47
 
2000
40
60
2001
51
80

Percentage of schools identified for improvement that report receiving assistance as a result of being identified
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2000
5
 
2001
9
 
Status: Target not met.

Explanation: Only 5 percent of schools that had been identified as in need of improvement reported that their district had authorized students to transfer to other public schools as reported in 1999-2000 with transportation provided, as a result of the school being identified for improvement. This number increased to 9% in the 2000-2001 data collection. Among schools identified as in need of improvement in 2000-2001, 51% reported receiving additional professional development.   		Additional Source Information: National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, SY 1999-00 through 2000-01.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Data collected before Department Standards.

Limitations: Schools were asked about whether they received assistance but not about the quality of that assistance. Future surveys will ask schools about the effectiveness of the assistance they received.

 
Indicator 8.3.4 of 4: Schools identified for improvement: An increasing percentage of schools identified for improvement will make sufficient progress to move out of school improvement status.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2000
44
 
2001
47
 
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: The data provided for 2001 is based on schools identified as in need of improvement in the first year by the district, but were not in need in the second year.   		Additional Source Information: National Longitudinal Survey of Schools SY 1999-00 and SY 2000-01.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: NCES/Federal Statistical Agencies.

Limitations: State assessment and accountability systems are currently in transition, and state policies for identifying schools vary widely across states. For these reasons, data for this indicator is not a reliable indicator of schools' actual progress in raising student achievement levels. Moreover, schools and districts often disagree as to whether a particular school has been identified as in need of improvement.

 

Return to table of contents