Fifty-nine percent of all schools receive Title I funds.
Seventy-one percent of elementary schools, 49 percent of middle schools, and 25 percent of high schools receive Title I funds.(Table 1 and Figure 1)The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act), along with the passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, established a new approach to federal support for education by focusing on a framework of standards-based reform. Title I has always aimed to improve the education of the most at-risk students in high-poverty surroundings, and the 1994 reauthorization linked Title I to other federal, state, and local reform efforts. The reauthorized Title I is intended to support local school districts in improving teaching and learning to help low-achieving students in high-poverty schools meet the same challenging state content and performance standards that apply to all students. Title I supports schools in implementing various reform strategies including revising curriculum, developing assessments aligned with standards, creating opportunities for teachers' professional growth, implementing high quality instruction, and extending learning time. The 1994 legislation also placed a strong emphasis on schoolwide reform to help all students in high-poverty schools meet challenging standards. In addition, to encourage the full integration of Title I into the school's education program, the new legislation called for minimizing instructional approaches that pull students out of regular classes.
The 1994 legislation also required the U.S. Department of Education to conduct an assessment of the Title I program. As one of the many studies informing the National Assessment of Title I, the Follow-up Public School Survey on Education Reform responds to the Congressional mandate to examine the implementation of the key provisions in the reauthorized Title I at the school level. The Follow-up Survey is adapted from the Public School Survey on Education Reform, conducted through the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The first Public School Survey was administered during the 1995-96 school year at the request of two U.S. Department of Education offices--the Office of Educational Research and Improvement and the Planning and Evaluation Service. The first survey was sent to a nationally representative sample of public elementary and secondary school principals to collect early implementation information following the 1994 ESEA reauthorization. The survey asked principals about their use of content and performance standards and other reform strategies, links between the school and home, the role of Title I in supporting reform, and what information they needed to help them advance reform strategies. The Follow-up Survey, administered to a nationally representative sample of public elementary and secondary school principals during the 1997-98 school year, was designed to update the information collected through the earlier FRSS survey by examining how schools were progressing in implementing standards-based reform.
The Follow-Up Survey was intended to provide a 1997-98 snapshot of the general characteristics of Title I schools, principals' perceptions of school reform, and how Title I and non-Title I schools compared in terms of their reform efforts. The survey also compared schoolwide and targeted assistance (programs in which Title I services are provided to students most at risk of failing to meet state standards) programs to determine any significant differences in the way the principals in these two types of Title I schools reported implementing key reforms. The main findings--presented in the next section--address the following questions:
Also included in this document are the survey methodology, a guide to interpreting the reference tables, and the reference tables for the findings below. Data in the reference tables are reported by Title I status, school type, minority enrollment, school level, metropolitan status, poverty level, and school size. The appendices include a copy of the Follow-up Public School Survey on Education Reform and a complete set of reference tables for all survey items.
The Follow-up Survey found that for the most part, principals in both Title I and non-Title I schools report implementing content and performance standards to guide curriculum and instruction in their schools. Principals report implementing a variety of reform strategies, with the most common ones being the use of strategic plans, content-rich instructional materials, professional development linked to the content standards, and assessment for school accountability and continuous improvement. When asked to identify barriers to applying high standards, most principals did not identify any that were factors "to a great extent". When barriers were cited, the most common were inadequate parent involvement and high student mobility.
Principals did not perceive that their schools required a great deal of change. Even in Title I schools that had been identified by their states for not making adequate progress toward improving student performance, principals were unlikely to report that a great deal of change was needed.
Title I requires as part of its provisions for performance accountability that states develop assessments by 2000-01 that report student results by proficiency levels tied to standards and disaggregated for targeted groups of students. In 1997-98, slightly less than one-third of Title I schools were reporting student achievement results by performance levels. Title I school principals were more likely to report doing so than non-Title I school principals. Title I principals were also more likely to report using assessment results broken out by reporting categories (student gender, limited English proficiency, migrant status, poverty status, disabling condition, and Title I participation) than non-Title I principals. About two-thirds of Title I principals, as contrasted with a little over one-half of non-Title I principals, reported their achievement data this way.
Despite the focus of the reauthorized program on improvement and flexibility, services provided through Title I have not changed dramatically, though more schools are now using in-class and extended time models (as opposed to models that pull students out of class) than in the past. There has also been a large increase in the number of schoolwide programs. Paraprofessionals continue to be used extensively in Title I schools, comprising about half of all Title I staff. The paraprofessionals also continue to provide or assist in providing instruction, despite their lack of qualifications to do so (most lack a college degree). Paraprofessionals are also used more heavily in highest-poverty schools. Most Title I principals report using parent-school compacts and over one-third report they are very helpful in supporting teacher-parent relations.
More specific findings are highlighted in the sections that follow. The term "highest-poverty" is used to describe schools with 75 percent or more students receiving free- or reduced-price lunch. "Low-poverty" refers to schools with 35 percent or fewer students receiving free- or reduced-price lunch.
Title I schools often tend to have higher poverty levels, since they qualify for Title I based on their numbers of poor children, measured in terms of eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches. Schools are eligible if their attendance areas have a poverty rate that is at least equal to the district average poverty rate or is at least 35 percent (whichever is less). Districts may choose to concentrate their Title I funds on their highest-poverty schools and limit school eligibility to a poverty level that is higher than the district-wide average. Title I schools also have higher minority enrollments than non-Title I schools, as described and displayed below.
Fifty-nine percent of all schools receive Title I funds.
Overall, Title I schools have a proportionally higher enrollment of black, Hispanic, limited English proficient, and migrant students than non-Title I schools. (Table 2 and Figure 2) Minority-isolated schools (those with 80 percent or higher minority student enrollment) are almost twice as likely to receive Title I funds than lower minority enrollment (0-49 percent minority enrollment) schools. Eighty-four percent of minority-isolated schools receive Title I funds, as contrasted with 45 percent of lower minority enrollment schools. (Table 3)
The 1994 reauthorization called for changes at the school level to support standards-based reform. The legislation required use of schoolwide reform strategies that provided opportunities for all children to meet the state's proficient and advanced levels of student performance. Emphasis is also placed on high-quality teaching and professional development for all staff to help all children meet state student performance standards, as well as parent-school compacts to support learning. Title I encourages the use of student performance results for accountability and continuous improvement. It also encourages increased use of extended learning time programs.
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. These perceptions suggest that without further intervention, schools will only modestly change instruction and other services to students. Nearly two-thirds of Title I principals reported familiarity "to a great extent" with such Title I changes as developing a parent involvement policy (61 percent), developing a school-parent compact (60 percent), and using student performance results for accountability and continuous improvement (60 percent). Only one-third (35 percent) of Title I school principals reported that they were familiar to a great extent with the legislation's new emphasis on extending learning time. (Table 4)
Only 17 percent 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. Similarly, few principals believed that change would be needed to a great extent to assess student performance against high standards (16 percent), minimize pull-out programs (16 percent), use student performance results for school accountability and continuous improvement (17 percent), or provide extended learning time programs (18 percent). (Table 5 and Figure 3) 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. 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. Principals from schoolwide programs were more likely to use a strategic plan than were principals from targeted assistance schools.
In schools where more than one-fifth of the students had limited English proficiency (LEP), 53 percent of principals reported their school made adaptations to a great extent for LEP students to achieve to high levels of performance; 21 percent in schools with 0-9 percent LEP enrollment reported doing so. (Table 10)
The extent to which principals were aware of reform efforts is associated with whether or not reforms are implemented. 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.
A key goal for the Title I program is that all schools receiving Title I funds use challenging content and performance standards to guide curriculum and instruction. Recent research has found that high-performing, high-poverty schools use standards extensively to design curriculum and instruction, and to assess both student and teacher performance.[1] The 1994 legislation encouraged schools to adopt strategies that have been proven effective in raising student performance in high-poverty schools. Use of content standards in reading and mathematics is widespread, according to principals. Elementary and middle school principals reported implementing standards to a great extent. One-third of both Title I and non-Title school principals reported that standards for teacher quality were linked to a great extent to student content and performance standards.
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. A relatively small percentage of principals cited various challenges as barriers to a great extent in applying high standards to all students in their school. The most commonly reported barriers were inadequate parent involvement (13 percent) and high student mobility (12 percent). Title I principals were more likely than non-Title I principals to report parent involvement and high student mobility as barriers to a great extent. Principals in the highest poverty schools were more likely than principals from low poverty schools to report these as barriers to a great extent. (Tables 15 and 16 and Figure 5)
The school improvement provisions of the Title I legislation require State, district, and school-level accountability for results. These requirements built on and strengthened the 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Amendments to ESEA which required that schools show improvement in test scores each year. The 1994 reauthorization required states to establish criteria for measuring school progress toward having all children who are served by Title I meet state standards. Each Title I school is required to demonstrate, based on measures established by states, adequate yearly progress toward attaining the state?s performance standards. Schools and districts that fail to make adequate progress for two consecutive years are to be identified for improvement. Schools districts are also held accountable through mechanisms similar to those established for schools. Schools and districts identified for improvement are required to develop or revise their plans to address identified needs. States and districts are to provide technical assistance through schools support teams and other mechanisms to schools and districts identified as in need of improvement.
Highest-poverty schools are more likely to be identified as in need of improvement over a longer period of time. Twelve percent of Title I school principals reported that their schools had been identified for improvement while 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. (Table 17) Schools identified as in need of improvement were more likely to be highest-poverty schools and to have high minority student enrollment. (Tables 18 and 19 and Figure 6) None of the low-poverty schools identified as in need of improvement under Title I had been in that status for two years or more but two-thirds of the highest-poverty schools had been identified as in need of improvement for two years or more. (Table 20) On average, highest-poverty schools are identified as in need of improvement for three years, high-poverty schools for two years, and low-poverty schools for one year or less. (Table 21) Schools identified for improvement for two or more years were more likely to be schoolwide programs and to have predominantly minority enrollment (50 percent or more minority students). (Tables 22 and 23) 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. (Tables 24 and 25) Interestingly, as reported earlier, schools identified for improvement tended not to think changes were needed to a great extent in their schools to implement school reform strategies.As the number of years increases that a school has been identified as in need of improvement under Title I, the more likely it is that the school will receive additional technical assistance or professional development.
Only 39 percent of the schools identified as in need of improvement for one year reported additional technical assistance or professional development whereas 97 percent identified for four years or more reported receiving such assistance. This might suggest that school districts are not focusing on schools that have bounced into school improvement status but are concentrating on the chronically low-performing schools. (Tables 26-29)
The Title I statute requires that by the 2000-01 school year each state will use assessments that are aligned with challenging standards to measure the academic progress of all Title I schools and students. Once final assessments are in place, Title I further requires that performance levels be established for students, including partially proficient, proficient, and advanced. Reporting categories for schools include: gender, race/ethnicity, Title I participation, migrant status, poverty status, limited English proficiency, and disabling condition. While the Follow-Up Survey was conducted in school year 1997-98, before final assessments were required, it examined the extent to which schools were moving in these directions. Title I schools have a long way to go in moving to full implementation of student achievement reporting requirements. Less than one-third of Title I schools are using performance levels to report student achievement results.
Title I schools are more likely than non-Title I schools to use disaggregated results for reading and mathematics assessments. 
The Title I program has traditionally provided reading and mathematics instruction to students whose achievement did not meet performance expectations. Prior to the 1988 reauthorization of ESEA, Title I was predominantly a remedial program that pulled students out of their regular classes. Beginning in 1988, greater emphasis was placed on teaching advanced skills and having the same expectations for all students. By 1994, the legislation placed an even stronger focus on standards and on using Title I to support all children in achieving to state content standards, with aligned assessment systems. The Follow-Up Survey examined services to determine changes since the 1994 reauthorization. 
Many Title I schools eligible to operate schoolwide programs are doing so. Nearly half of Title I schools operate schoolwide programs. Four-fifths (80 percent) of highest-poverty schools operate schoolwide programs, as do 66 percent of schools with poverty rates between 50 and 75 percent. Some principals in low-poverty schools also reported using Title I funds for schoolwide programs, possibly under federal or state waivers of the minimum eligibility requirement. (Table 34 and Figure 8) 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. The in-class model is used more often than pull-out settings to deliver Title I instruction. Secondary schools use pull-out settings less often than elementary schools. Virtually all targeted assistance schools use Title I funds to support reading instruction and about two-thirds use Title I funds to support mathematics instruction.
Extended learning time programs can improve student achievement when coordinated with challenging curricula and thoughtful instruction.[4] Successful programs connect the added time to regular school experiences so that teachers can build on the skills that students are gaining in their regular classes and supplement what they are learning during the school day. Recent research on effective schools has found that such schools use extended time learning in reading and mathematics to improve learning and achievement. In a recent study of higher-success and lower-success elementary schools in Maryland, researchers found that the more successful schools were seeing consistent academic gains as a result of extended-day programs.[5] In a study of high-performing, high-poverty schools, 86 percent of the schools extended time for reading and 66 percent extended instructional time in mathematics.[6]
Two-fifths (41 percent ) of all Title I principals reported using Title I funds to provide extended learning time opportunities in 1997-98. (Table 36) 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). Principals from highest-poverty schools were also more likely to report providing summer learning programs (50 percent, compared with 26 percent in low-poverty schools). (Table 39 and Figure 9) Principals from urban areas were also more likely to report offering extended learning time programs than principals did from rural areas (54 versus 32 percent). (Table 40) Before-school programs averaged 4 hours a week and after-school programs averaged 5 hours per week. Summer programs averaged 5 weeks per year and 16 hours per week. (Table 41) However, another recent study has found that schools that offer extended-time programs typically serve a small percentage of their students in these programs.
Several studies have concluded that teacher quality or instructional quality is as important as poverty status in predicting student achievement.[8] Moreover, some studies have found that teacher quality has a greater effect on students who are at risk than other students. Sanders and Rivers determined that having one of the most effective teachers increased low-achieving students' test scores 39 points more than having one of the least effective teachers.[9] These findings highlight the importance of high-quality teachers for all students, and at-risk students in particular. Yet Title I schools traditionally have used paraprofessionals to provide some of the instruction Title I students receive and there has been longstanding concern with the appropriateness of this role for paraprofessionals. A recent study has found that only one-quarter (25 percent) of paraprofessionals have a bachelor's degree and that in the highest-poverty schools, only 10 percent had this degree.[10]
Staffing patterns have not changed in Title I schools, where 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. (Table 42) About 48,000 teachers and 52,000 paraprofessionals were in schools with 50 percent poverty or greater. (Table 43)
About two-thirds (69 percent) of all Title I schools used paraprofessionals funded by Title I in 1997-98. Use of paraprofessionals was higher among schoolwide programs (81 percent) than targeted assistance programs (59 percent). (Table 44) Eighty-four percent of the highest-poverty schools used paraprofessionals, as contrasted with 53 percent of low-poverty schools. (Table 45 and Figure 10)
Paraprofessionals overwhelmingly were used to provided 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). (Table 46) There were no significant differences between schools by poverty levels or by schoolwide versus targeted assistance status.
Some school districts are offering ways for paraprofessionals to advance. Principals reported that over one-third of the school districts are supporting paraprofessionals by providing career ladders (38 percent), funding for higher education classes (33 percent), and release time for classwork or studying for higher education courses (22 percent). (Table 47)
Recent studies indicate that technology is beneficial when it is used appropriately. Since technology is an integral part of everyday activities, any discussion of comprehensive school reform that does not address technology presents an incomplete picture of educational reform in this country. The Follow-up Survey examined access to computers and the Internet and barriers to the acquisition or use of advanced telecommunications in the schools. Access to technology is more limited in Title I schools and highest-poverty schools. About one-fourth of principals report barriers to a great extent in acquiring or using advanced telecommunications. Access to the Internet in classrooms is more limited in the highest-poverty rural schools than in the low-poverty rural schools.
More than three decades of research support the critical role that parents play in the academic success of their children. Title I makes parent involvement a priority by supporting partnerships between families and schools while encouraging community efforts to improve schools and reinforce the importance of learning. The Title I legislation includes three key provisions to strengthen parent involvement: a written parent involvement policy, jointly developed by the school district, school, and parents; school-parent compacts that identify shared responsibilities for high student performance; and training to build school and parent capacity for involvement, including literacy and parenting 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. Three-quarters (77 percent) of Title I principals reported that their school had a parent involvement policy that describes shared responsibilities for school staff and parents (Table 52) and 74 percent reported that their school had a school-parent compact. (Table 53) Principals from schools with 35 percent or greater poverty were more likely than other principals to report that they have school-parent compacts. (Table 54) Elementary school principals were more likely to report having compacts (77 percent) than high school principals (55 percent). (Table 55 and Figure 11)
Principals see school-parent compacts as useful in improving communication and encouraging home learning. Five areas in which Title I principals most often reported school-parent compacts to be "helpful" were school climate (80 percent), parents helping students with learning at home (80 percent), reading at home (79 percent), homework completion (79 percent) and teacher-parent relations (76 percent). (Table 56 and Figure 12)
Based on reports from principals on how paraprofessionals are used in Title I schools, it is clear that principals are not using these staff to work with parents, which is a potentially more appropriate role for them than providing instruction, particularly for the vast majority who lack academic qualifications.
Based on the Follow-Up Survey, it appears that Title I schools are making progress in implementing standards-based reform and the 1994 Title I provisions supporting such reform. Though implementation is not complete, it does seem that standards are helping to guide instruction in Title I and non-Title I schools. Title I schools do differ on some dimensions that may make reform more difficult: higher poverty, high student mobility, and lack of parent involvement, according to their principals. Overall, Title I schools do still have a long way to go in several areas: reporting out achievement data as required when assessment systems are final, expanding the use of extended time programs, and changing the roles of paraprofessionals. Not all eligible schools are taking advantage of the flexibility provided by the schoolwide options, although many have. Even those schools with schoolwide programs do not appear to have delivery services that are different from targeted assistance schools. The only real significant differences were that schoolwide programs were more likely to report using a strategic plan than were targeted assistance programs; and principals from high-poverty schools as well as schoolwide programs were more likely to report offering extended-time programs than were the lower poverty schools and targeted assistance programs. Finally, the 25 percent of Title I schools that do not have parent-school compacts need to implement this important program requirement, to help ensure that families are involved in their children's education.
For the Follow-up Survey of public school principals, a stratified sample of 1,600 schools was selected from the FRSS frame using the 1994-95 Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe File. The CCD includes over 80,000 elementary and secondary schools. Excluded from the frame were special education, vocational, and alternative/other schools, schools in the territories, and schools with the highest grade lower than grade 1.
The frame was stratified using school level, poverty level, and school size as explicit stratifiers. Metropolitan status and percent of minority students enrolled were used as sorting variables to induce some additional implicit stratification. The stratified sample of 1,600 schools included 674 elementary, 425 middle, and 501 secondary/combined schools. Since free- or reduced-price lunch data are missing for about 24 percent of the schools in the CCD, these schools were placed in a separate stratum for sampling purposes. Highest-poverty schools were oversampled to increase the numbers of highest-poverty schools in the sample within each instructional level. Within each instructional level and poverty status group, the sample of schools was selected within size classes with probabilities roughly proportional to the square root of enrollment of the school. The use of the square root of enrollment to determine the sample allocation is reasonably efficient for estimating both school-level characteristics and quantitative measures correlated with enrollment. Categories for the stratification variables are listed below:
Stratification variables
| School level | Elementary Middle Secondary/combined |
|
Poverty level |
0-34.9 percent 35-49.9 percent 50-74.9 percent 75 percent or more |
| School size |
Less than 300 students 300-499 500-999 1,000 or more students |
| Metropolitan status |
Central city of MSA MSA but not central city Not MSA |
| Percentage of minority students enrolled |
0-49.9 percent 50-79.9 percent 80 percent or more |
Respondents. Of the original 1,600 schools sampled, 23 were found to be ineligible (for example, no longer in operation). During the data collection period from November 1997 to May 1998, a total of 1,257 survey questionnaires were returned for a final response rate of 80 percent.
Weighting. Weights were assigned to each of the schools in the sample based on the school?s overall probability of being selected. The final weights of the responding schools were adjusted to compensate for differential nonresponse in the survey.
Standard errors. Standard errors measure the variability of estimates due to sampling. Estimates of sampling errors were calculated using a replication method known as jackknife replication. The survey estimates are also subject to nonsampling errors such as errors due to nonresponse, errors of reporting, and errors made in data collection. In order to minimize the potential for nonsampling errors, the Follow-up Survey was pretested with a variety of school principals. Also, manual and machine editing of survey responses were conducted to check data for accuracy and consistency. Finally, respondents with missing or inconsistent answers were recontacted by telephone.
Standard errors are not included in this report but will be available through the U.S. Department of Education's Internet website at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/elem.html. The final values for poverty level, minority enrollment, and school size used in the analysis were derived from the information principals reported on the Follow-up Survey. In some cases, the reported values differed from the information in the 1994-95 CCD file. Since the Follow-up Survey responses provided more current information on school characteristics, they were used in the analysis rather than the sampling information. In general, the consequences of using outdated information for sampling purposes is to increase sampling errors.
2 U.S. Department of Education, Status of Education Reform in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Principals' Perspectives (Washington, DC: Author, 1998): 58.
3 U.S. Department of Education, Status of Education Reform, 58.
4 U. S. Department of Education, Extending Learning Time for Disadvantaged Students: An Idea book, Volume I, Summary of Promising Practices (Washington, DC: Author, 1995) i.
5 Willis Hawley, William Schager, Francine Hultgren, Andrew Abrams, Ernestine Lewis, and Steve Ferra, "An Outlier Study of School Effectiveness: Implications for Public Policy and School Improvement", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL (March 25, 1997).
6 The Education Trust, 6
7 U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding.
8 Ronald F. Ferguson, "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters," Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28.2 (Summer 1991) 465-498; Ronald F. Ferguson and Helen Ladd, "How and Why Money Matters: An Analysis of Alabama Schools," Helen F. Ladd (ed.) Holding Schools Accountable: Performance Based Reform in Education (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1996).
9 William L. Sanders and J.C. Rivers, Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement, research report (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, 1996).
10 U.S. Department of Education, Study of Education Resources.
-###-
[Analysis and Highlights] 
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}