Studies of Title I Program and State and Local Implementation of NCLB: What We Know of its Impact Th

1

• Studies of Title I Program and State and Local
  Implementation of NCLB  What We Know of its
  Impact (Thus Far)

Zollie Stevenson Jr., Ph.D. Director, Student
Achievement and School Accountability
Programs U.S. Department of Education
2
Title I

• Title I appropriations have increased from 6.5
  billion in FY 1980 to 12.8 billion in FY 2007.
• The number of students served by Title I has
  increased from 5,162,822 in the 1979-80 school
  year to 20,024,011 in the 2004-05 school year.
• Most Title I funds were used for instruction
  (73) and instructional support (16) in 2004-05.
• Most Title I funds go to high-poverty districts
  and schools 38 went to schools over 75
  poverty and 76 went to schools over 50 poverty.

3
Appropriations for Title I Grants to LEAs, FY
1966 to FY 2007(in 2007 constant Dollars)
4
District and School Uses of Title I funds,2004-05
5
Distribution of Title I Funds by District Poverty
Quartile, 1994-95, 1997-98, and 2004-05
6
School Level Funding Per Low-income Student

• Title I targeting has changed little since NCLB
  was passed.
• In the highest-poverty schools, Title I funding
  per low-income student has not changed since
  1997-98, after adjusting for inflation.
• High-poverty schools continue to receive less
  funding per low-income student than low-poverty
  schools.

7
Average Title I Allocation Per Low-income
Student, by School Poverty Level, 1997-98 and
2004-05(In constant 2004-05 dollars)
Highest PovertySchools(75 to 100)
Second Highest Poverty Schools(50 to lt75)
Second LowestPoverty Schools(35 to lt50)
Lowest PovertySchools(0 to lt35)
8
Adequate Yearly Progress

• 75 of all schools made AYP in 2003-04.
• 74 of all schools made AYP in 2004-05.
• 72 of schools missing AYP in 2004-05 missed for
  either the All Students group or 2 or more
  subgroups.
• Only 21 of schools missing AYP missed solely due
  to the achievement of a single subgroup.
• Over half of the states set AYP targets that
  expect student achievement growth to accelerate
  after 2009.
• Schools in states with more challenging
  proficiency standards, as measured relative to
  NAEP, were less likely to make AYP and have much
  further to go to reach the NCLB goal of 100
  proficient.

9
Reasons Schools Missed AYP, 2004-05
10
Percentage of Schools by Number of Subgroups for
Which AYP was Calculated 2003-2004
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Number of Student Subgroups
11
Percentage of Schools Held Accountable for a
Subgroup That Did Not Make AYP for that Subgroup,
2003-04
12
Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP for the
Achievement of Specific Subgroups, as a
Percentage of Schools That Were Held Accountable
for Each Subgroup, 2004-05
13
Percentage of Schools Making AYP, by School
Poverty Level, Minority Level, and Urbanicity,
2003-04
75 percent or greater poverty
35 to lt75 percent poverty
0 to lt35 percent poverty
75 percent or greater minority
25 to lt75 percent minority
0 to lt25 percent minority
Central city
Urban fringe/large town
Rural/small town
14
Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP,by School
Poverty and Number of Subgroups, 2004-05
15
School Improvement

• Thirteen percent of the nations schools
  (including Title I and non-Title I schools) were
  identified for improvement for 2004-05.
• High poverty, high-minority, and middle schools,
  and large schools in urban areas, were more
  likely than other schools to be identified for
  improvement for 2004-05. Similarly, schools with
  more student subgroups and greater proportions of
  students with disabilities were more likely to be
  identified for improvement.
• Most schools in corrective action status reported
  experiencing one or more of the interventions
  specified under NCLB.
• Restructuring interventions were rarely reported
  by schools identified for restructuring.

16
Number Percentage of Title I Schools Identified
for Improvement, 1996-97 to 2005-06
18
18
18
18
20
16
16
13
12
NA
17
Percentage of Schools Identified for
Improvement, by School Poverty Level, Minority
Level, and Urbanicity, 2004-05
75 percent or greater poverty
38 to lt75 percent poverty
0 to lt35 percent poverty
75 percent or greater minority
25 to lt75 percent minority
Less than 25 percent minority
Central city
Urban fringe/large town
Rural/small town
18
Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement,
by School Poverty Level, Minority Level, and
Urbanicity, 2005-06
75 percent or greater poverty
38 to lt75 percent poverty
0 to lt35 percent poverty
75 percent or greater minority
25 to lt75 percent minority
Less than 25 percent minority
Central city
Urban fringe/large town
Rural/small town
19
Percentage of Identified Schools,by Other
Demographic Characteristics, 2004-05
Elementary
Middle
High
Large
Medium
Small
gt 5 LEP
1-4 LEP
0 LEP
20
Technical Assistance

• Both Identified and non-identified schools
  reported needing technical assistance in many
  areas, but the need was greater among identified
  schools.
• More than half of states reported providing some
  level of support to all identified schools, but
  others targeted support to a subset of identified
  schools. The most common support mechanisms
  were among those mandated by NCLB school
  support teams and distinguished educators.
• Curriculum enhancement was a major focus of
  school improvement, but about one-third of
  teachers in identified schools reported having an
  inadequate number of textbooks and instructional
  materials.

21
Technical Assistance Cont

• Of the schools that needed technical assistance
  to improve services to students with disabilities
  or students with limited English proficiency,
  half did not have there needs met.
• Required interventions occurred in most, but not
  all, Title I schools in Year 1 or Year 2 of
  identification or in corrective action however,
  few Title I schools in restructuring status
  reported receiving any of the four specific
  interventions that were mandated.

22
Primary Support Mechanisms for Identified
Schools, 2004-05
Support Teams
Individual SchoolImprovement Specialist
Regional Centers/County Offices
Resources/Statewide Meetings
Districts
Number of States
23
Primary Focus of Support Provided by States,
2004-05
Needs-based Assistance
Planning Process and/orData Analysis
Other/Unspecified
Obtaining Resourcesand Grants
Planning Process and/orData Analysis
Number of States
24
Percentage of Schools Needing Technical
Assistance to Meet the Needs of Students with
Disabilities, by School Characteristics, 2003-04
or 2004-05
Non-identified
Year 1 or Year 2 identified
Corrective Action Status
Restructuring status
High poverty
Medium poverty
Low poverty
High minority (75 or more)
Moderate minority (25-75)
Low minority (less than 25)
Central City
Urban Fringe
Rural / small town
Elementary
Middle
High
25
Percentage of Schools Needing Technical
Assistance to Meet the Needs of Limited English
Proficient Students, by School Characteristics,
2003-04 or 2004-05
Non-identified
Year 1 or Year 2 identified
Corrective Action Status
Restructuring status
High poverty
Medium poverty
Low poverty
High minority (75 or more)
Moderate minority (25-75)
Low minority (less than 25)
Central City
Urban Fringe
Rural / small town
Elementary
Middle
High
26
Percentage of Schools Needing Technical
Assistance to Analyze Assessment Results, by
School Characteristics, 2003-04 or 2004-05
Non-identified
Year 1 or Year 2 identified
Corrective Action Status
Restructuring status
High poverty
Medium poverty
Low poverty
High minority (75 or more)
Moderate minority (25-75)
Low minority (less than 25)
Central City
Urban Fringe
Rural / small town
Elementary
Middle
High
27
Percentage of General Education Teachers
Reporting Moderate or Major Challenges to
Improving Student Performance, 2004-05
Large Class Size
Too few textbooks andother instructional
materials
Textbooks and instructionalmaterials that are
not aligned with state standards
Insufficient parentinvolvement
Low studentmotivation
28
Percentage of Principals Reporting Increases in
Instructional Time for Reading Mathematics, by
School Improvement Status, 2003-04 to 2004-5
Reading
Reading
Math
Math
Increase of More than 30 Minutes
Any Increase in Instructional Time
29
Percentage of Principals Reporting Increases in
Instructional Time for Reading Mathematics, by
School Improvement Status, 2003-04 to 2004-5
Percent of Schools OfferingAfter-School Programs
Percent of Students Served inAfter-School
Programs
30
School Choice and Supplemental Services

• Nearly ten times as many students participated in
  SES (446,000) as in the school choice option
  (48,000).
• Participation in school choice more than doubled
  from 2002-03 to 2004-05, and participation in
  supplemental services increased more than ten
  fold.
• Most districts required to offer school choice at
  the middle and high school level are not offering
  the option because all schools at that grade
  level are identified for improvement.
• Students receiving supplemental educational
  services generally experienced gains in reading
  and math achievement that were statistically
  significant.

31
Number of Students Participating in Title I
School Choice and Supplemental Services, 2002-03
to 2004-05
School Choice
Supplemental Services
32
Number of Schools Where Title I School Choice and
Supplemental Services Were Offered, 2002-03 to
2004-05
School Choice
Supplemental Services
33
Student Eligibility and Participation for Title I
School Choice and Supplemental Educational
Services,2004-05
19
1
School Choice
Supplemental Services
34
Number of State-Approved Supplemental Service
Providers and Distribution by Provider Type, May
2003 May 2007
997
1,890
3,168
2,734
3,234
35
Supplemental Service ProvidersShare of
Providers and Participants, by Provider Type,
2003-04
All PrivateProviders
Faith-Based
Districts andPublic Schools
Colleges andUniversities
36
Prior Year Achievement for Students Participating
in Title I Choice Options, Compared With Eligible
and Non-Eligible Students in Nine Large Urban
Districts, 2004-05
School Choice
Supplemental Services
Reading
Mathematics
Reading
Mathematics
37
Title I School Choice Characteristics of Schools
That Participating Students Transferred Out of
and Transferred Into, in Nine Large Urban
Districts, 2004-05
Average Achievement Level(Expressed in Z-Scores)
Percentage of Minority Students in the School
38
Supplemental Services Participation Rates by
Grade Level, In Nine Large Urban Districts,
2004-05
Student Participation Rates (as a Percentage of
Eligible Students)
39
Teacher Quality

• Most teachers have been designated by their
  states as highly qualified under NCLB.
• States varied considerably in the criteria they
  require teachers to meet to be deemed highly
  qualified under NCLB.
• The percentage of teachers who are not highly
  qualified under NCLB is higher for special
  education teachers, teachers of LEP students, and
  middle school teachers, as well as for teachers
  in high-poverty and high-minority schools.

40
Percent of Teachers Who Were Highly Qualified
Under NCLB, 2004-05
41
Percent of Special Education Teachers Who Were
Highly Qualified Under NCLB
42
Percentage of General Education Teachers
Considered Not Highly Qualified Under NCLB by
School Improvement Status 2004-05
43
Percentage of Teachers who were Highly Qualified,
Not Highly Qualified, and Who Didnt Know Their
Status, by School Characteristics, 2004-05
Poverty
Minority Concentration
Urbanicity
School Improvement Status
44
National Assessment of Title I Volume II Closing
the Reading Gap Findings from a Randomized Trial
of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers

• What is the impact of being in any of four
  remedial reading interventions relative to the
  usual instruction provided by schools?
• Does the impact vary across students with
  different characteristics?
• To what extent can this instruction close the
  reading gap bring struggling readers within the
  normal range relative to usual instruction
  provided by schools?

45
National Assessment of Title I Volume II Closing
the Reading Gap Findings from a Randomized Trial
of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers

• Four existing programs
• Spell Read P.A.T. Corrective Reading
• Wilson Reading Failure Free Reading
• Schools and teachers in Allegheny Intermediate
  Unit were randomly assigned to one of the four
  programs.
• Eligible students randomly assigned to program or
  usual instruction.
• Teachers received 70 hours of PD and support
  during year.
• Instruction in small groups of 3 students, 5 days
  a week, for a total of 90 hours.

46
Impact Results One Year after Program

• For 3rd grade cohort, programs continued to have
  positive impacts on phonemic decoding, word
  reading accuracy and fluency, and comprehension.
• For 3rd grade cohort, the gap in achievement
  between struggling readers and average readers
  was reduced by 2/3 on Word Attack skills and 1/3
  on comprehension.

47
Ongoing Impact Studies

• 5th Grade Reading Comprehension Programs
• Project CRISS ReadAbout
• Read for Real Reading for Knowledge
• 1st to 3rd Grade Mathematics Curricula
• Math Investigations Saxon Math
• Math Expressions Scott Foresman

48
Thank You

• Contact Number
• Zollie.Stevenson_at_ed.gov 202-260-1824