National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report Volume I: Implementation of Title I

Structured Abstract

Citation: Stullich, S., L. Eisner, J. McCrary, & C. Roney. National Assessment of Title I Interim Report: Volume I: Implementation of Title I. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington, DC, 2006.

Background: The Title I program, created in 1965, is the largest federal program supporting elementary and secondary education and is intended to help ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state standards and assessments. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) expanded the assessment and accountability provisions in the law while also creating new provisions related to parental choice and teacher quality.

Purpose: To examine the implementation of key Title I provisions related to state assessments, accountability, school choice and supplemental educational services, and teacher quality, as well as examining trends in student achievement.

Research Design: The report synthesizes key findings from a variety of studies and data sources, including the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind and the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind which are repeated cross-sectional surveys of states, districts, and schools, as well as state performance reports and the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Setting: Public and private schools covered by Title I, NCLB.

Population/Sample/Subjects: Populations and samples vary by data source. The National Longitudinal Study of NCLB includes a sample of 300 school districts, 1,483 schools, and 10,199 teachers. The Study of State Implementation collected data from all states.

Intervention: Title I provides flexible funding to improve the education of disadvantaged students. States are required to develop assessments in reading, math, and science and to establish standards and proficiency targets for those assessments. Title I holds states, school districts, and schools accountable for achieving adequate yearly progress (AYP) on student proficiency targets.

Control or Comparison Condition: Comparisons are made over time and between groups such as high and low poverty schools.

Data Collection and Analysis: The National Longitudinal Study conducted surveys of districts, principals, classroom teachers, special education teachers, and Title I paraprofessionals in the 2004-05 school year on their experiences during that school year. The Study of State Implementation also collected data in the 2004-05 school year using telephone interviews and collecting a variety of extant data for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years, including state lists of schools and districts that were identified as in need of improvement.

Findings: Student achievement trends since 2000 are positive overall and for key subgroups on both NAEP and state assessments, although proficiency on NAEP and state assessments differs greatly for individual states. Based on data from 11 states, the rate of improvement would need to increase for states to reach the goal established in NCLB for all students to achieve proficiency on state assessments by the 2013-14 school year. Eighteen percent of all Title I schools were identified for improvement for 2004-05 based on state testing in 2003-04 and previous years. Schools most commonly missed making adequate yearly progress (AYP) because of the achievement of all students or multiple subgroups. The level of student participation for supplemental services is much greater than for school choice. The large majority of teachers have been designated by their states as “highly qualified” under NCLB, but state definitions of highly qualified vary widely.

Conclusions: N/A

Print this page Printable view Send this page Share this page
Last Modified: 04/05/2006