The Follow-Up Survey on Education Reform, which informed the National Assessment of Title I, examined the implementation of standards-based reform and Title I supports for such reform, in a nationally representative sample of public elementary and secondary schools during the 1997-98 school year. This study served as a bridge between an earlier baseline survey of principals in the 1995-96 school year and the more comprehensive National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, for which data collection began in the 1998-99 school year.
- How are schools responding to the Title I reforms, based on principals? reports?
Over half of Title I principals report a high level of familiarity with the 1994 Title I reforms, yet most report that little change is needed in order to implement key reform strategies promoted through Title I. Implementation in those schools may not change much unless there is outside assistance and support.
- Principals who reported a high familiarity with Title I reforms were more likely than principals with low familiarity to report implementing key reforms in their schools.
- Fewer than one-fifth of Title I principals reported that change would be required to a great extent to: use student performance results for school accountability and continuous improvement; assess student performance against high standards; apply high state-approved standards to all students; minimize pull-out programs, and provide extended learning time programs.
- Even principals of schools that had been identified for improvement (based on low student achievement for two consecutive years) reported that, for the most part, little change would be required in their schools to implement reforms.
About half of the principals in Title I schools reported they were implementing school-level reform strategies to a great extent.
- Principals from schoolwide programs were more likely to use a strategic plan than were principals from targeted assistance schools.
Principals from both Title I and non-Title I schools tended to rely more on local and state sources rather than federal sources for assistance in understanding or implementing comprehensive reforms.
- About one-third of all schools reported that the following sources of assistance were very helpful: the school district (36%), state-developed content standards (34%), institutes or workshops (33%), other administrators (30%), and state- or district-sponsored education conferences (29%).
- In contrast, the percent of principals reporting that federal sources, such as the Comprehensive Assistance Centers, Regional Labs, Parent Information Resource Centers, and ERIC, were very helpful ranged from less than 1 percent to 3 percent.
- To what extent are schools implementing standards?
Use of content standards in reading and mathematics is widespread, according to principals.
- Nearly three-fourths (72 percent) of all principals reported using content standards to a great extent to guide curriculum and instruction in reading and mathematics.
- There were no significant differences in the use of content standards between Title I and non-Title I schools or between schoolwide programs and targeted assistance schools or between highest-poverty and low-poverty schools.
Though low percentages of principals overall identified barriers to implementing standards, principals of Title I schools were more likely to experience barriers in applying high standards than principals of non-Title I schools.
- The most commonly reported barriers were inadequate parent involvement (13 percent) and high student mobility (12 percent).
- Principals in the highest-poverty schools were more likely than principals from low-poverty schools to report these as barriers to a great extent (29 percent versus 5 percent for parent involvement, and 25 versus 5 percent for student mobility).
- How are schools responding to the Title I accountability provisions?
Twelve percent of Title I school principals reported that their schools had been identified for improvement and 75 percent reported their schools had not been identified.
- However, an additional 13 percent of principals were uncertain as to whether their schools had been identified for improvement.
Many schools identified as in need of improvement did not receive additional assistance.
- Among schools that reported they had been identified as in need of improvement, less than half (47 percent) reported that they had received additional professional development or technical assistance.
- Nearly one-third of highest-poverty schools identified for improvement had not received any additional assistance.
- Are Title I schools moving towards implementing the reporting requirements that take effect in 2000-01?
Title I schools have a long way to go in moving toward full implementation of student achievement reporting requirements.
- Fewer than one-third of Title I schools are using performance levels to report student achievement results.
- Principals from Title I schools were more likely than principals from non-Title I schools to report using disaggregated results for reading (67 percent compared with 54 percent) and mathematics assessments (65 percent compared with 53 percent).
- How are Title I schools supporting instructional services?
Most Title I schools eligible to operate schoolwide programs are doing so.
- Forty-five percent of Title I schools reported operating a schoolwide program, with about 16,000 in operation in 1997-98 as contrasted to 5,000 in 1995.
- Four-fifths (80 percent) of highest-poverty schools operate schoolwide programs, as do 66 percent of schools with poverty rates between 50 and 74 percent.
- Fifty-nine percent of high schools reported using Title I funds to implement schoolwide programs, an increase from the 11 percent that reported doing so in 1995-96.
The in-class model is used more often than pull-out settings to deliver Title I instruction.
- Overall, 83 percent of Title I principals reported using the in-class model, with no significant differences in use between schoolwide and targeted assistance programs. Sixty-eight percent reported using the pull-out model, with 53 percent of schoolwide programs and 80 percent of targeted assistance programs reporting use.
- However, the use of mixed models is common, with over half (57 percent) of Title I schools reporting using both in-class and pull-out approaches.
- What types of extended learning strategies are used in Title I schools and how widespread is their use?
The percentage of Title I schools offering extended learning time strategies has increased and is almost twice as likely among the highest-poverty schools.
- Two-fifths (41 percent ) of all Title I principals reported using Title I funds to provide extended learning time opportunities in 1997-98, up from 9 percent in 1991-92.
- Title I principals from the highest-poverty schools were more likely to report providing extended learning time than principals from low-poverty schools (54 percent, compared with 28 percent).
- However, another recent study has found that few students participate in these programs. Extended time instructional programs during the school year (before- and after-school and weekend programs) served only 16 percent of the students in high-poverty schools that offer such programs and 12 percent of the students in Title I schools with these programs.
- What are the staffing patterns in Title I schools and what role do paraprofessionals play in delivering services?
Staffing patterns have not changed in Title I schools, where about equal numbers of teachers and paraprofessionals are supported through Title I.
- Nationwide, in 1997-98, approximately 74,700 teachers were supported through Title I as were 76,900 paraprofessionals.
- About two-thirds (69 percent) of all Title I schools used paraprofessionals in 1997-98. Use of paraprofessionals was higher among schoolwide programs (81 percent) than targeted assistance programs (59 percent). Eighty-four percent of highest-poverty schools used paraprofessionals, as contrasted with 53 percent of low-poverty schools.
Paraprofessionals overwhelmingly were used to provide instruction.
- Principals reported that paraprofessionals spent most of their time working one-on-one or in small groups with students (85 percent); the rest of their time was spent doing clerical tasks (8 percent of their time) and working with parents (4 percent of their time).
- Are Title I schools using school-parent compacts to support learning and improve parent involvement in their children?s education?
Despite Title I requirements that schools have a parent involvement policy and school-parent compact, one-quarter of Title I schools did not have these in place four years after the reauthorization.
- Principals from schools with 35 percent or greater poverty were more likely than other principals to report that they used school-parent compacts. Elementary school principals were more likely to report using compacts (77 percent) than high school principals (55 percent).
Principals see school-parent compacts as useful in improving communication and encouraging home learning.
- Three areas in which Title I principals most often reported school-parent compacts to be helpful were teacher-parent relations (76 percent), school climate (80 percent), and reading at home (79 percent).
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[Introduction]