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

Section 1:
Baseline Information on Student Performance and Title I Participants

What the New Provisions Are

The fundamental goal of the new Title I is to help children who are at risk of school failure to significantly improve their achievement of the high academic standards expected of all children. Title I targets students living in low-income communities and others who are at a disadvantage in becoming successful learners. Assessing progress toward this goal requires information on the performance of students targeted by the program over time; information on student performance is critical for indicating where needs are, whether schools and school systems are moving in the right direction, and what must be accomplished. New provisions in the law that are intended to support improved learning need to be assessed against these findings. By knowing how well students who are targeted for services perform and how many of them participate in the program, the National Assessment of Title I (NATI) can gauge the extent to which Title I is reaching its intended beneficiaries.

What the National Assessment of Title I Has Learned About Student Performance

The previous National Assessment of Chapter 1 relied on student achievement information from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Prospects study, a longitudinal evaluation of student performance. Both sources are useful for setting benchmarks to measure progress for the nation and for Title I.

NAEP student score trends show a narrowing of the gap in achievement between students in disadvantaged urban communities and those in more advantaged communities during the 1970s and most of the 1980s. However, as the National Assessment of Chapter 1 noted, recent information indicates a lack of progress in closing the gap. The latest NAEP data show that between 1990 and 1992 the gap in mathematics performance widened in the lower grades between racial/ethnic minority students and white students. The 1994 reading results show that the disparities in reading performance between minority and white students did not diminish between 1992 and 1994. While results by racial/ethnic group are an imperfect proxy for assessing the performance of students at risk of school failure, these data raise concerns because minority students are disproportionately found in high-poverty schools.

An unpublished reanalysis of NAEP trends in reading suggests that students in high-poverty schools (those with at least 75 percent of students eligible for subsidized lunch) lost ground relative to students in other schools between assessments in 1984 and 1992 (Pelavin Associates, unpublished tabulations). For 9-year-old students in 1984, the gap between high- and low-poverty schools was 20 points. By the time this cohort of students reached age 17 in 1992, the gap had widened to 34 points.

Current state NAEP data show that by the fourth grade there is already a large gap in reading proficiency between students in high-poverty schools and those in low-poverty schools. This is true for every state that participates in state NAEP, but the gap is narrower in some states than in others. While the samples of schools may be small, high-poverty schools in some states score at levels comparable to low-poverty schools in others. These outliers suggest that poor performance is not inevitable and that performance can be increased in high-poverty schools, and that is the intent of the changes in the new Title I program.

The second source, data drawn from Prospects, more directly measured the impact of the Chapter 1 program. The study concluded that the learning gap between high-poverty and low-poverty schools was wide and that the Chapter 1 program, operating in isolation, was no longer helping to close the gap. Children in high-poverty schools exhibited tremendous need, yet their schools were unable to provide the high-quality curriculum, instruction, and support to help them become successful learners. Participation in Chapter 1 programs was not sufficient to decrease the achievement gap between participants and their more advantaged peers nor to increase their performance relative to disadvantaged children who did not participate. Over a one-year period:

• Chapter 1 participants did not improve their relative standing in reading or math in the fourth grade or in math in the eighth grade; only eighth-grade reading participants showed improvement relative to their peers.



• The progress of Chapter 1 participants on standardized tests and on criterion-referenced tests was no better than that of nonparticipants with similar backgrounds and prior achievement.

More recent trend data from the Prospects study reflect this pattern (the data show performance of the three cohorts of students over a four-year period). Using data obtained from students in the first grade cohort (students who were in the first grade in 1991, the second grade in 1992, the third grade in 1993, and the fourth grade in 1994) and the third grade cohort (students who were in the third grade in 1991, the fourth grade in 1992, the fifth grade in 1993 and the sixth grade in 1994), the National Assessment of Title I found the following:

• In reading vocabulary in 1991, for the first grade cohort, there was a gap of 42 scaled score points between those students who had participated in some Chapter 1 compared to those who never participated in Chapter 1. In 1994, in the fourth grade, the gap had not closed; the difference in scaled score points was 44. In reading comprehension, which requires more higher-level thinking skills, the initial gap for this same cohort was 38 points; by 1994, the gap was 60 points.



• There is a slightly different pattern for the third grade cohort. While the gap increases somewhat in vocabulary (a 40-point difference in 1991, and 45-point difference in 1994), it decreases slightly for reading comprehension (a 56-point difference in 1991, and 44-point difference in 1994). Similar patterns are found for mathematics.

The lack of progress in improving student performance for disadvantaged students is evident as well in the number of schools in Chapter 1 that have been identified for program improvement as having failed to make adequate progress. Although the measures used to assess the need for program improvement in Chapter 1 were criticized as unreliable by the National Assessment of Chapter 1--for example, identifying schools for improvement one year but not the next--of the 11,000 schools identified in 1994-95, over half had been in program improvement for at least two years. Almost 1,000 schools had been in program improvement for at least four years and over 100 schools had remained in program improvement throughout the entire authorization of Chapter 1 of the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988 ( U.S. Department of Education, unpublished).

The data from NAEP, Prospects, and the states, while disheartening, provide clear benchmarks against which to measure Title I efforts to raise student performance.

Plans for Evaluating Student Performance

NAEP will continue to provide information on student performance nationally. The Department of Education plans to initiate a mandated study, the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance, that will focus on high-poverty schools, and to the extent that resources permit on schoolwide programs and schools that have been chronically identified for program improvement. This study will evaluate the impact of standards-based features in Title I and other federal programs on schools and classrooms and the consequent effect on student performance. Data will be collected through survey questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observations. Preliminary data from this study will be available early in 1998.

Student Participation in Title I

The new Title I contains provisions that can affect the participation of various targeted groups. Title I has always targeted children in school attendance areas of high poverty relative to their school district--the Prospects study showed that 32 percent of third grade children in high poverty schools received Chapter 1 services, compared with 12 percent of students in all schools. The number of children affected by poverty continues to be a vexing problem. Despite improvements in the 1960s and 1970s, the rate of childhood poverty is little different from that in 1965, when Title I was first enacted. In 1994, 15.3 million children lived in poverty--22 percent of the population under age 18. Research has shown these children to be among the most at risk of school failure. However, Title I is not restricted to poor children. Data from the Prospects study indicate that in 1992 approximately 4 percent of children in low-poverty schools (schools with 19 percent or fewer students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch) participated in Chapter 1/Title I programs.

Students may participate in the Title I program through targeted assistance or schoolwide programs. Targeted assistance schools must focus their Title I, Part A funds on eligible children rather than providing services to all children in the school. For the first time, under the 1994 reauthorization each targeted assistance school determines which eligible children it will serve and what services it will provide. A targeted assistance school generally identifies eligible children within the school on the basis of multiple educationally related, objective criteria established by the school district and supplemented by the school.

The new Title I allows schools with at least 60 percent poverty in the 1995-96 school year and 50 percent poverty in subsequent years to operate schoolwide programs. Schoolwide program schools are not required to identify particular children as eligible for participation; however, they must meet the needs of target populations and assist any student who fails to meet the state's standards. Schoolwide programs serve all children in a school and use Title I Part A funds with other funds to upgrade a school's entire educational program. These provisions have significant implications for future trend analysis of student participation as numbers will increase as all children in schoolwide programs are counted.

In addition, the following new provisions apply:

• Limited English-proficient (LEP) students and students with disabilities can be served by Title I, without the problematic restrictions related to identifying those children to be served that existed under Chapter 1;



• Migrant students are eligible for Title I services on the same basis as other eligible participants;



• Participation of preschool children, including those served by early childhood programs such as Head Start and Even Start, is supported and encouraged;



• Eligible participants include those served by programs for youth who are at risk of dropping out and those served by programs for neglected or delinquent children and youth, including local residential institutions and community day programs; and



• Students who are homeless and who attend any school in the district are considered eligible for participation in Title I.

Title I requires that a school district provide eligible private school children with Title I educational services comparable to those provided to eligible public school children. Data collected for the 1993-1994 Schools and Staffing study show that slightly more than 22 percent of all private schools have students who received Chapter 1 services. Of these private schools, 75 percent were Catholic schools. Under the reauthorized Title I, for the first time funding for eligible private school students will be based on the number of poor private school children residing in participating areas, not on educational disadvantage. School districts have the flexibility to use data from a sufficient sample of private schools and families to estimate the number of poor private school children. However, for the 1995-96 school year only, a district that does not have accurate poverty data on private school children can apply the percentage of poor children in the participating public school attendance area to the number of private school children who reside in that area.

What the National Assessment of Title I Has Learned About Student Participation

In 1993-94, the program served over 6 million students. As shown in the previous assessment of Chapter 1, participants were more likely to attend high-poverty schools, although the program also served many students in relatively well-off schools. The previous Assessment and more recent information find the following:

• According to the 1993 National Assessment of Chapter 1, almost half of low-poverty elementary schools participated in Chapter 1; later data from 1993-94 show that 45 percent of all public schools with free and reduced-price lunch eligibility of less than 25 percent participated. Some 19 percent of public schools with free and reduced-price lunch eligibility of at least 75 percent went unserved. These findings highlight the broad reach of the program and the degree to which students who are most at risk of school failure may go unserved (National Data Research Center, 1995).



• In the Prospects study, 37 percent of Chapter 1 students were found to come from families that had a total family income of less than $10,000, and 22 percent of the students had families who received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)--three times the rate of nonparticipants. Chapter 1 students' parents were three times less likely to have completed high school and twice as likely to report that English was not their native language. While Chapter 1 participants in the third grade were most likely to be white (44 percent), African Americans and Hispanics made up disproportionate percentages of Chapter 1 participants: 28 and 24 percent respectively, compared to their numbers in the population.



• Prospects data on fourth graders indicate that about one-third of the low-achieving children (those who score at the 35th percentile or below on reading tests) in schools with poverty rates over 75 percent did not receive Chapter 1 services. Additionally, between 11 percent and 17 percent of low-achieving students not participating in Chapter 1 services were enrolled in other programs, most commonly similar compensatory programs from federal, state, and local agencies; non-Chapter 1 ESL/bilingual programs; and education programs for students with disabilities.



• Prospects findings indicate that the majority of students served by Chapter 1 was concentrated in the early grades. Approximately 23 percent of first-grade students participated in the Chapter 1 program compared with a 16 percent participation rate for the third grade. Both Chapter 1 participation rates and the availability of services fell rapidly after sixth grade, according to the 1991-1993 data. Participation in targeted assistance programs was also much more common that participation in schoolwide programs because of stricter schoolwide requirements under the previous legislation.



• Relatively few secondary school students were served by the program: while 71 percent of public elementary schools provided Chapter 1 services, only 30 percent of public secondary schools (grades 9-12) participated in Chapter 1 (National Data Research Center, 1995).



• Approximately 3 percent of children enrolled in Chapter 1 attended private schools in 1993-94. Some 31 percent of private elementary schools had students that received Chapter 1 services, compared with 71 percent of public elementary schools. Among Roman Catholic elementary schools, 60 percent enrolled students who participated in the program; 10 percent of other religious schools and 3 percent of secular private schools also had students who participated.



• The most current information available on migrant students indicates that they were unlikely to participate in the regular Chapter 1 program. About one-fourth of migrant students participated in the regular Chapter 1 program in 1990. In addition to ineligibility based on test scores, many migrant students did not participate in the regular Chapter 1 program because it was not offered at their school or in their grade level.

Prior to the most recent reauthorization, the Chapter 1 program was only permitted to serve limited English-proficient (LEP) students whose educational needs stemmed from educational deprivation not related to limited-English-proficiency.

• Despite this limitation, Chapter 1 programs served a number of LEP students 35 percent of all LEP students were in Chapter 1 and 15 percent of Chapter 1 students were LEP (Moss & Puma, 1995). Prospects data on students with limited-English-proficiency indicate that LEP students were particularly likely to attend high-poverty schools (schools with subsidized lunch enrollment of at least 75 percent). In 1992, more than 40 percent of the first grade LEP students and more than 50 percent of third grade LEP students attended high-poverty schools, and most high-poverty schools served large proportions of LEP students.



• Lowering the threshold for schools to operate schoolwide programs from 75 percent to 50 percent poverty is expected to increase the proportion of language minority students with access to Title I services. About three-quarters of LEP students in both grades attended schools with poverty levels of at least 50 percent, schools that in 1996-97 will be eligible to operate schoolwide programs.



• LEP students in high-poverty schools were more likely to have access to Chapter 1 services than LEP students in lower-poverty schools. In high-poverty schools, 73 percent of first grade and 86 percent of third grade LEP students received supplementary reading assistance primarily through Chapter 1. Yet in both grades, more than 40 percent of low-achieving LEP students received no supplementary education assistance in reading/language arts from any source (Moss & Puma, 1995).

Performance Criteria for the National Assessment
of Title I

The major participation indicator is as follows: limited English-proficient students, migrant students, private school students and secondary school students will be served in the Title I program consistent with their needs.

Plans for Evaluating Progress

The NATI intends to examine the extent to which students served by Title I are participating in targeted assistance or schoolwide programs, the extent to which targeted populations participate in Title I (including students in high-poverty areas, LEP students, migrant students, preschool children, youth served by programs for the neglected and delinquent, homeless children and youth, and highly mobile children), and the extent to which these students have access to similar compensatory education programs funded by the state or local education agency or other federal programs.

The NATI will collect this information through several planned studies, including the following:

• A survey of states by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) in the U.S. Department of Education will collect information on key Title I items and provide data on schoolwide programs, the percentage of students eligible for Title I, and other basic data on participation, including private school student participation. These data will be collected annually. The first data will be available early in 1996.



• A congressionally mandated Study of Migrant Student Participation in Schoolwide Programs will provide information on the participation of this special population. A competitive procurement is planned to be awarded in FY 1996.



• A Study of Participation of Private School Students will provide information on the impact of changes in procedures that districts are using to determine allocations for private school students. These data will be available late in 1996.

[Introduction]

[Section 2: Reform through Linking Title I to Challenging Academic Standards]