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--ESEA - 2002

CFDA Number: 84.010 - Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies


Goal 8: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.
Objective 8.1 of 2: 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 3: 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
191 239 271
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: Unable to judge

Progress: Positive movement toward target. Data for FY 2002 are not available until Spring 2003. Progress in meeting 2002 targets cannot be measured until those data are available from NCES.

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 4th and 8th grades. 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 points for that same period. In mathematics, scores rose at two grade levels tested (4th and 8th) and declined in 12th grade.   		Additional Source Information: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading, Mathematics.

Frequency: Biennially.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: April 2003
Validated By: NCES.

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 3: 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 increse in the percentage of students in schools with at least 50% 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

Progress: Data to measure progress on this indicator are not available until Spring 2003.

Explanation: There were a limited number of states with two years of data disaggregated by poverty that also had aligned content standards in the 1998-99 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: Consolidated State Performance Report which includes the Title I State Performance Reports

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: April 2003
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 3: 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
81
85
2001
 
90
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: Data for this indicator are not available until Spring 2003; therefore, we are unable to measure progress for FY 2002.

Explanation: The Title I State Performance Report for 1999-2000 indicates that 19% of all schools are designated as Title I Schools in Improvement. The converse of this fact indicates that 81% are not in school improvement.   		Additional Source Information: The Consolidated State Performance Report which includes the annual Title I State Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: April 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

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

 

Objective 8.2 of 2: States and districts will implement standards-based accountability systems and provide effective support for school improvement efforts.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 3: 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


Explanation: The only data available is for states applying for Ed-Flex authority. Currently 10 states have received approval (as of 10/02). All states are required to establish Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) consistent with No Child Left Behind by January 2003 which is a pre-requisite of Ed-Flex.   		Additional Source Information: Title I performance reports that respond to the requirements of the Consolidated State Application for No Child Left Behind. Reports on adequate yearly progress measures (due Jan. 2003) are reviewed by Department staff.

Frequency: Other.

Data Available: January 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Verfication of data will be done through an on-site peer review process which will be completed by April 30, 2003.

 
Indicator 8.2.2 of 3: 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
2002
50
50
Status: Unable to judge

Explanation: As of January 2003, the Department had reviewed assessment systems for all states, approved 21 states, systems, and negotiated timeline waivers for 26 additional states. The 5 remaining states have entered a compliance agreement.   		Additional Source Information: Records of the Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Standards Team in the Title I program office.

Frequency: Other.

Data Available: May 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 8.2.3 of 3: 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

Progress: Progress on this indicator cannot be judged because the Longitudinal Survey of Schools ended its collection of data on this indicator with the 2000-2001 school year. Future data for this indicator will be obtained through the Consolidated State Performance Report. The baseline for the indicator will be established after 2 years of data from the new data source. The first year for reporting on these new data will be Spring of 2003.

Explanation: Because the existing state Performance Report was based on the requirements of the Improving America's Schools Act, the Department did not require states to submit data on schools identified for improvement for 2001-02; therefore, no data are available for this year. The Performance Report will be revised to reflect the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.   		Additional Source Information: Longitudinal Survey of Schools

Frequency: Other.

Data Available: January
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: State assessments and accountability systems are currently in transition, and state policies for identifying schools vary widely across states. Department performance reporting requirements are also in transition because of new requirements in No Child Left Behind.

 

Return to table of contents