State Education Indicators With a Focus on Title I

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

Introduction

Report Objectives and Design

For the 2001 report entitled State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I, the U.S. Department of Education collaborated with the state departments of education to compile, analyze, and report key indicators of the condition and progress of K-12 public education. While the goals for the state indicators reports have remained consistent for 15 years, new indicators have been added and existing indicators have been refined to improve their use and applications. Our approach to education indicators has three emphases: 1) consistent, reliable indicators to allow analysis of trends for each state over time, 2) high data quality to provide comparability from state to state, and 3) accessible indicator formats for increased uses by a variety of audiences.

The design for the State Education Indicators report is based on two-page profiles that report the same indicators for each state. The present format originated in 1997 with the start of the Council of Chief State School Officers' (CCSSO) partnership with the U.S. Department of Education. At that time CCSSO began reporting indicators of state progress in implementing Title I state accountability systems.

The indicators included in the annual series were selected through a three-step process: CCSSO consultation with state education leaders; input from U.S. Department of Education officials; and review by an expert advisory panel composed of researchers, data managers, and educators.

Guide to State Indicator Profiles

The profiles that follow are key measures of the quality of K-12 public education in each state. The profiles in this report focus on the status of each indicator as of the 1998-99 school year or the most recent year for which data were available. The profiles also provide data trends over time for several of the indicators. The data sources section provides more detailed information and explanations for the indicators.

The indicators in each state profile are organized in four categories:

School and Teacher Demographics
The indicators in this category provide a statewide picture of important characteristics of the public K-12 school system, including schools, teachers and finance. The statistics for each state on number of school districts, public schools by grade level, student-teacher ratios, and sources of funding are from the Common Core of Data surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through the state departments of education.

Student Demographics
Statewide totals for numbers of students in public elementary and secondary schools are reported for two years, the most recent school year available and the baseline year closest to 1990 for which data were available. An important aspect of the assessment and evaluation for Title I is the disaggregation of student achievement results by student characteristics, particularly race/ethnicity, poverty, disabilities, English proficiency, and migrant status. The data give readers a picture of the size of these student populations in each state. Included in this section are two measures of student outcomes from secondary schools--the high school dropout rate (based on annual percent of grade 9-12 students leaving school or "event rate") and the postsecondary enrollment rate (percent of high school graduates enrolled in college one year later). Finally, the bar graph showing counts of public schools by percent of students eligible for free lunch program (i.e., students from families below the poverty level) are useful for reviewing the disaggregated student achievement results reported on the second page of each profile.

Statewide Accountability Information
This year's edition of State Education Indicators reports information on statewide accountability systems operating in the 50 states. The information on accountability systems was compiled initially in 1999 from state reports on the Internet, printed reports, surveys, and research by CCSSO. For the 2000 report, information on each state accountability system was updated from the "State Accountability Profiles" (compiled and written by the Consortium for Policy Research under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service) and information collected on the Consolidated Performance Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in 1999.

The report provides five indicators of the status of state accountability systems as of fall 2000. A majority of states have developed and implemented school-level accountability measures and improvement targets which apply to all schools, and all states are required by federal law to develop a system of school accountability for Title I programs which measures "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) according to the state's standards and measures of progress. Thus, four indicators in the state profile (identified below) are intended to provide a basic picture of how the state has developed its accountability system statewide and for Title I. The fifth indicator addresses the number and percent of Title I schools making adequate yearly progress in the state.

• Statewide Goal for Schools on Student Assessment--33 states have established a goal, such as percentage of students in a school that will attain the state-defined proficient level on state student assessments in specific subjects (see assessment name and state definition of "proficient" on second page of profile).
• Expected School Improvement on Assessment--30 states have set a target for amount of improvement in student achievement scores for the school by a certain time period (e.g., annually).
• Indicators for School Accountability--40 states have defined one or more indicators that are used in the state accountability system.
• Title I AYP Target for Schools--50 states have measures of adequate yearly progress, as required under Title I. Some states have a transitional definition of AYP. In 18 states the AYP target for school improvement is based on the statewide accountability system, and we list "same" for this indicator. If it is different, the Title I target is summarized.

Title I Schools
To offer a focus on Title I, the report includes several specific indicators of Title I programs. These include the total enrollment in Title I and race/ethnic percentages for Title I students. In addition, the report includes the Title I funding allocation per state and the number of schools with Title I programs. States report the data on Title I programs through the U.S. Department of Education's Consolidated Performance Report.

Student Achievement
State assessment aggregate scores were obtained from the Consolidated Performance Report (Part 2) submitted by states to the U.S. Department of Education.

Each state determines its state test, how levels are set and defined, and the grade at which students are tested. Thus, student achievement scores are not comparable state to state. Student results for a state, e.g., percent meeting the state's "proficient" level, can be compared with the same state's performance in the prior year. State-level results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which are comparable state by state, are reported in the lower right corner of the right page of each state's profile. Definitions of state proficiency levels when not listed in the profile are available in Appendix A. NAEP proficiency definitions are available in Appendix C.

States reported student achievement results for the 1998-99 school year for mathematics and reading/language arts at three grade levels, as specified by Title I requirements: elementary--grade 3, 4 or 5; middle--grade 6, 7, or 8; and high--grade 10, 11, or 12. The report provides disaggregated assessment results for states reporting by schools with Title I programs, school percent of students from low income families, limited English proficient students, and migrant students. Results by other student characteristics are listed in the Student Achievement by Category table on page xii.

The "student achievement trend" at the bottom of the right-hand page of each profile shows a histogram with the percent of students in different school categories that meet or exceed the state level for "proficient." Histograms are displayed for four states with 1996-97 as their baseline year for analysis--and six states with 1995-96 as their baseline year. In order for a trend to be reported for multiple years, a state must disaggregate by school poverty level, use the same assessment tool and keep the same definition of proficient. Changes in these assessment characteristics disqualifies a state from having a trend analysis.

State Progress toward Standards and Assessments

This report tracks the progress of Title I programs, and particularly the development and use of state standards and assessments in state accountability for the programs. A goal of the annual report is to chart the progress of states in developing Title I accountability systems based on state content standards and aligned state assessment programs. Title I is the largest single grant program of the federal government. For over 30 years, it has earmarked funds for states to provide additional educational support for the neediest children in all 50 states and the outlying territories. Ninety-seven percent of schools with more than 75 percent of their students living in poverty receive some level of Title I funds. Schools with greater than 50 percent poverty are eligible to become a "schoolwide" program which allows funds to be distributed throughout the entire school. Targeted assistance programs channel funds directly to the neediest students.

The Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 reauthorized federal funding for compensatory education in schools and changed the requirements and systems for assessment and evaluation of Title I. The law requires states to monitor the progress of schools in improving the achievement of low-income students, and also requires alignment of student achievement tests with state standards for learning that apply to all students.

The individual state profiles and trends in assessment results in the State Education Indicators report are useful for initial determinations of educational improvements that may be related to Title I programs. In addition, the status of components of state accountability systems can be used to assess the progress of states toward meeting the requirements of the IASA by the school year 2000. The information on states is organized in a 50-state matrix on pages x-xi, which displays four key indicators of state progress in developing accountability systems for Title I.

1. Content Standards--50 States

   As of 2000, 50 states plus the District of Columbia had completed and implemented content standards for K-12 education in the core academic subjects of English/language arts and mathematics and 47 states also have standards for science and social studies/history.

2. State Assessment Results reported by Proficiency Levels--38 States

   For the 1998-99 school year, 38 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported state assessment results using three or more proficiency levels that were defined by the state. The matrix on the Standards and Assessments page identifies the name of each assessment instrument and the year in which the proficiency levels were set by the state.

3. State Achievement Results Disaggregated--40 States

   A key feature of the IASA was a provision that assessment results be disaggregated by characteristics of schools and students. The goal for Title I accountability is to report assessments such that educators and policymakers can easily determine the progress of schools according to key characteristics of students. By 2000-2001, states were to report their assessment results disaggregated for Title I schools and by school according to the percent of students in each school from families in poverty. States were required to disaggregate results according to students' gender, race/ethnicity, and their status as disabled, limited-English proficient, poor, and/or migrant status. For 1998-99, 40 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico reported assessment results using one or more disaggregated categories.

4. Assessment Trends Analysis--8 States

   As of 1998-99, 12 states had reported two years of assessment results using consistent assessments, levels, and grades; and 8 states reported three years of results that could be analyzed as trends.

Sample State Trends Analysis

The following is an example of trend analysis in student achievement using data from North Carolina's assessment program. This sample examines the extent of gains in language arts/reading and mathematics from 1996 to 1999 using consistent data from four years of assessment results, based on the same test with results reported by proficiency levels and disaggregated by school poverty level.

In both Reading and Mathematics, a disparity in achievement is evident between schools with few low-income students and schools with many low-income students. For example, the average school has 77.5 percent of students above Level 3 in mathematics, while high-poverty schools have 67.8 percent above this level. Mathematics results did improve significantly in the past two years in high-poverty schools--a gain of 22 percentage points on Math Level 3 (i.e., proficient). Improvement in reading in high-poverty schools is also above the rate of improvement for all students.

Across all North Carolina elementary schools, three-quarters of students are at or above the expected levels of performance in mathematics and reading. In schools with high concentrations of low-income children, almost 70 percent of students are proficient in math and 55 percent of students are proficient in reading. The high poverty category in North Carolina includes 100 elementary schools from a total of over 1,200 schools.

North Carolina's accountability system and levels have been in place since 1992. A small percentage of students were excluded from testing in grade 4 reading and math due to exemptions for disabilities and English proficiency.

The progress of North Carolina students in mathematics as measured on NAEP is consistent with the progress of students on the state assessment during the period 1995 to 1998. For example, the percent of high poverty schools at or above basic mathematics level on NAEP improved 19.7 percentage points over four years from 1992 to 1996 (from analysis of NAEP data, School Poverty and Academic Performance: NAEP Achievement in High Poverty Schools, U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Mathematics gains in high poverty schools on the state assessment showed 8.5 percentage points gain at Level 3 from 1995 to 1998.

Uses of State Indicators

This report comes at an important time for states, schools, and students. Standards and assessments are at the center of education reform in the states. Schools are working with Title I programs to develop new approaches to education for low-income students and other at-risk students. An important goal of these efforts is to close the gap in education opportunity and student learning between poor and wealthier students.

[Title Page] | [Acknowledgments]

This page last modified—February 22, 2002 (jer).