Archived Information

TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN

Goal: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards. Funding History
($ in millions)

Fiscal Year Appropriation Fiscal Year Appropriation

Legislation: Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1985 $3,200 2000 $7,941
1965, as amended by the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et. 1990 4,768 2001 $8,601
seq.).
1995 $6,698 2002 (Requested) $9,060

Program Description
Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) provide supplemental education funding to LEAs and schools, especially in high-poverty areas, to improve education
for children at risk of failing to achieve high standards. The primary purpose of Title I is to ensure equal educational opportunity for all children regardless of
socioeconomic background and to close the achievement gap between poor and affluent children, by providing additional resources for schools serving disadvantaged
students.

The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) required states to develop challenging content and performance standards for all
students that are be linked to an aligned assessment and accountability system. Students in Title I schools are to be held to the same standards as students in other schools,
and districts and schools are held accountable for the achievement of all children, including those who are low-achieving, have limited English proficiency or disabilities,
or are migratory. These policies were intended to align federally-supported Title I resources and policies with state and local reforms.

Title I funds are allocated to districts and schools in accordance with their number of low-income children. Title I funds go to nearly all districts (93 percent) and 58
percent of all schools. Ninety-five percent of the nation’s highest-poverty schools (those with 75 percent or more students eligible for free- or reduced price lunch)
participate in Title I. While the highest-poverty schools comprise 16 percent of all schools, they account for 46 percent of Title I spending.

Schools may use Title I funds for one of two approaches: 1) targeted assistance programs, in which schools use Title I funds to provide targeted services for low-achieving
students, and 2) schoolwide programs, in which schools use Title I funds to improve curriculum and instruction throughout the entire school. The schoolwide approach
may be used only in high-poverty schools (those with 50 percent or more students from low-income families) or in schools which have received waivers of this eligibility
minimum. Use of the schoolwide approach increased dramatically after the eligibility requirements were relaxed in the 1994 reauthorization, and schoolwide programs
now account for 45 percent of Title I schools (up from 10 percent in 1994-95) and 60 percent of Title I funds.

Title I reaches more than 12.5 million students enrolled in both public and private schools. Two-thirds (67 percent) of Title I participants are in grades 1-6, while 12
percent are in kindergarten or preschool, 15 percent are in grades 7-9, and 5 percent are in grades 10-12 (VI-6). Elementary schools receive 89 percent of Title I funds,
which go to two-thirds of all elementary schools (67 percent) and less than one-third of secondary schools (29 percent).

TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08 PAGE A-3
Program Performance
OBJECTIVE 1: PERFORMANCE OF THE LOWEST-ACHIEVING STUDENTS AND STUDENTS IN HIGH-POVERTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS WILL INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY IN READING AND MATHEMATICS.
Indicator 1.1 Student performance on national assessments: Performance of the lowest-achieving public school students and students in high-poverty public
schools will increase substantially on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Reading scale scores on the Main NAEP for public school students at the bottom 25th percentile Status: Positive movement toward the Sources: National Assessment of
Year Actual Performance Actual Performance Actual Performance targets for students at the bottom 25th Educational Progress (NAEP), reading.
Performance Targets Performance Targets Performance Targets percentile.
4th Grade 8th Grade 12th Grade
1992: 192 235 268 Explanation: Data are based on the
1994: 187 234 263 Main NAEP, which is currently
1998: 192 239 266 collected every 4 years. For low-
2000: 193 202 No data 249 No data 276 achieving students (those at the 25th
2002: percentile), NAEP scores rose over the
most recent 4-year period in both
Mathematics scale scores on the Main NAEP for public school students at the bottom 25th percentile reading and mathematics at all three
1990: 192 237 269 grade levels. Over a slightly longer 6-
1992: 197 242 274 year period, however, trends in NAEP
1996: 201 247 281 scores appear flat in reading but show
2000: No data 211 No data 257 No data 291 gains in mathematics. In reading, scores
2002: for 4th-graders were the same in 1998 as
2004: in 1992, while 8th-graders show a gain
of 4points and 12th-graders show a
decline of 2 points. In mathematics,
scores rose at all three grade levels
tested, by an average of 10 to 12 points.

PAGE A-4 TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08
 Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Reading scale scores on the Trend NAEP for public school students in the highest-poverty schools Status: Trend toward target likely. Sources: National Assessment of
(75-100% poverty) Educational Progress (NAEP), reading.
Year Actual Performance Actual Performance Actual Performance Explanation: Data are based on the Frequency: Every 4 years.
Performance Targets Performance Targets Performance Targets Trend NAEP, which is currently Next collection update: 2003.
9-year-olds 13-year-olds 17-year-olds collected every 4 years. In the highest- Date to be reported: 2004.
1990: 189 246 NA poverty schools (those with poverty
1992: 180 223 NA rates between 75-100%), trends in National Assessment of Educational
1994: 184 229 256 NAEP scores from 1990 to 1999 show Progress (NAEP), mathematics
1996: 188 233 262 a mixed pattern. For 9-year-olds the Frequency: Every 4 years.
1999: 186 234 266 trend is fairly flat in both reading and Next collection update: 2003.
2000: No data 191 No data 239 No data 271 math. For 13-year-olds, reading scores Date to be reported: 2004.
2002: show a marked drop in 1992 followed
2003: by a steady increase but remaining Validation Procedure: Data validated
NAEP mathematics scale scores on the Trend NAEP for public school students in the highest-poverty below the 1990 level, while math by NCES review procedures and NCES
schools (75-100% poverty) scores are about the same in 1999 as in Statistical Standards.
1990: 213 251 NA 1990. For 17-year olds, data are not
1992: 208 248 NA available before 1994; the trends from Limitations of Data and Planned
1994: 215 256 290 1994 to 1999 show an increase of 10 Improvements: NAEP assessments are
1996: 217 252 284 points in reading and a decline of 7 not aligned with state content and
points in math. performance standards. Caution is
1999: 212 254 283
suggested in interpreting achievement
2000: No data 217 No data 259 No data 288
data for 17-year-olds because Title I
2002:
serves a small number of high school
2003: students.

Indicator 1.2 Meeting or exceeding state performance standards: Among states with 2 years of assessment data and aligned content and performance standards,
an increasing number will report an increase in the percentage of students in schools with at least 50 percent poverty who meet proficient and advanced
performance levels in reading and math on their state assessment systems.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of states with performance standards aligned to content standards and two Status: Unable to judge. Source: Title I state performance reports
years of data disaggregated by school poverty level Frequency: Annually.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: There were a limited number of Next collection update: 2000.
1997: 10 States with two years of data disaggregated by Date to be reported: March 2002.
1998: 11 poverty that also had aligned content standards in
1999: 5 15 the1998-99 school year and two years of Validation Procedure: Verified by Department
2000: No data 20 comparable data. Five States were available for attestation process and Standards for Evaluating
2001: 24 review. Two of the five States showed progress Program Performance Data.
2002: 26 in both reading and mathematics. Two of the
five States showed progress in reading, and four
States showed progress in mathematics. Two of
the States not showing progress in reading had
minimal declines.

Looking ahead to next year, preliminary analysis

indicates that the number of States with two
years of assessment data and aligned standards is
likely to rise to 17 States, which is much closer
to the target.

TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08 PAGE A-5
 Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of states reporting an increase in the percentage of students in schools with Limitations of Data and Planned
at least 50 percent poverty who meet proficient and advanced levels of performance Improvements: There is substantial variation
Year Actual Targets Actual Targets Actual Targets across states in their definitions of proficient
Reading Mathematics Both student performance as well as alignment of
1997: 7 7 7 content and performance standards. States are
1998: 10 10 10 required to have their final assessment systems in
1999: 2 13 4 13 2 13 place by Spring 2001. All States have submitted
2000: No data 18 No data 18 No data 18 evidence and it is currently being reviewed.
2001: 20 20 20 Many States are transitioning from NRTs to
assessments aligned to standards. Many States
2002: 24 24 24 therefore, will not have two years of data.

Indicator 1.3 Improving schools: An increasing percentage of Title I schools will report that they have met or exceeded state or district standards for progress.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Unable to judge. Sources: Annual Title I State Performance
1998: 57% Reports, SY 1998-99 and beyond.
1999: No data available 75% Explanation: The Title I State Performance
2000: No data available 85% Report for 1998-99 will not be available until
2001: 90% May 2001.
2002:
Indicator 1.4 School readiness of Title I participants: An increasing percentage of children in Title I preschool programs will achieve a basic level of readiness on
measures of language development, reading readiness, and mathematics concepts.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Unable to judge. Source: Planned Title I Preschool Evaluation
1999:
2000: No data available To be established after baseline Explanation: A study of Title I-supported
data are obtained preschool programs is currently in the design
2001: phase. According to the NCES Early Childhood
2002: Longitudinal Study, 59 percent of students
entering kindergarten in Title I schools had
mastered letter recognition readiness skills,
compared with 76 percent in non-Title I schools.
Among poor students entering kindergarten,
those who had been enrolled in preschool
programs were more likely to achieve
proficiency on this measure of school readiness
(46 percent) than poor students who did not
participate in preschool programs.

PAGE A-6 TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08
OBJECTIVE 2: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TITLE I SCHOOLS USING STANDARDS-BASED REFORM AND EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO ENABLE ALL STUDENTS TO REACH STATE AND LOCAL PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS.
Indicator 2.1 Use of challenging standards: All Title I schools will report the use of content standards to guide curriculum and instruction in reading and
mathematics.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of schools reporting use of content standards to guide curriculum and Status: Unable to judge. Sources: Follow-up Public School Survey on
instruction in reading and math “to a great extent” Education Reform, SY 1997-98.
Year Actual Performance Actual Performance Explanation: The percentage of schools Frequency: One time.
Performance Targets Performance Targets reporting use of content standards to guide Next collection update: None.
Reading Mathematics curriculum and instruction in reading "to a great Date to be reported: N/A.
1998: 74% 73% extent" rose from 81 percent in 1998-99 to 83
1999: 81% 85% 78% 85% percent in 1999-2000 (both based on teacher's National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, SY
2000: 83% 100% 80% 100% responses) but did not reach the target of 100 1998-99 through SY 2000-01.
2001: 100% 100% percent. For math, the percentage of schools Frequency: Annually.
2002: reporting use of standards to guide curriculum Next collection update: 2001.
and instruction "to a great extent" rose from 78 Date to be reported: 2002.
percent in 1998-99 to 80 percent in 1999-2000
but did not reach the target of 100 percent. Validation Procedure: Verified by Department
attestation process and Standards for Evaluating
Program Performance Data.

Limitations of Data and Planned

Improvements: Teacher survey responses are
subject to self-report bias.
Indicator 2.2 Extended learning time: An increasing number of Title I schools will operate before- and after-school, summer, or other programs to extend and
reinforce student learning.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Title I schools operating extended learning time programs either Status: Target exceeded. Sources: National Longitudinal Survey of
during the school year or during the summer Schools, SY 1998-99 through 2000-01.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The percentage of Title I schools
1998: 65% operating extended time programs rose from 83
1999: 83% 70% percent in 1998-99 to 84 percent in 1999-2000.
2000: 84% 75%
2001: 80%
2002:

TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08 PAGE A-7
Indicator 2.3 Qualified staff: Title I schools will report an increase in the proportion of Title I staff who are teachers and in district support for the educational
improvement of paraprofessionals.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Title I staff who are teachers Status: Exceeded target. Sources: National Longitudinal Survey of
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Schools, SY 1998-99 through 2000-01.
1998 45% Explanation: The percentage of Title I staff who
1999: 45% No target set are teachers rose from 45 percent in 1998-99 to
2000: 49% 47% 49 percent in 1999-2000.
2001: 49%
2002: Historically, the program has supported as many
teacher aides as teachers, and there is concern
that many of these aides are performing
instructional responsibilities for which they are
not qualified. An increase in the proportion of
Title I staff who are teachers would reflect a shift
in using Title I funds for staff who are more
qualified to help students improve their
achievement levels.

Percentage of Title I schools in districts offering career ladders for Status: Target not met. Sources: Follow-up Public School Survey on
paraprofessionals Education Reform, SY 1997-98.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: The percentage of Title I schools Frequency: One time.
1998: 24% that reported that their districts offered career Next collection update: None.
1999: 30% 30% ladders rose from 1998 to 1999 but was Date to be reported: May 2001.
2000: 30% 35% unchanged from 1999 to 2000.
2001: 35% National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, SY
2002: 1998-99 through 2000-01.
Frequency: Annually.
Next collection update: 2000.
Date to be reported: May 2001.

Validation Procedure: Data collected before

Department Standards for Evaluating Program
Performance Data were developed, but not
reported until 2000.

Limitations of Data and Planned

Improvements: No known limitations.

PAGE A-8 TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08
OBJECTIVE 3: STATES AND DISTRICTS WILL IMPLEMENT STANDARDS-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS AND PROVIDE EFFECTIVE SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS.
Indicator 3.1 Establishing annual progress measures: All states will adopt or develop measures of adequate yearly progress linked to state performance
standards.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Unable to judge. Source: Title I peer review records
1999: N/A
2000: No data available 40 states Explanation: No data is currently available.
2001: All states States must implement their final assessment
2002: systems by Spring 2001. States will submit
definition of AYP for peer review in March 2000.
Indicator 3.2 Aligned assessments: All states will have final assessment systems or negotiated agreements that will enable them to meet the criteria in the Title I
law—including alignment, inclusion of limited English proficient and special education students, disaggregated reporting, and technical quality—for two or
more core subjects.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Did not meet performance target. Source: Title I peer review records
1999: N/A N/A
2000: 34 40 states Explanation: As of January 2001, the
2001: All states Department had reviewed assessment systems
2002: for all States and had made decisions for 34
States. Of the 34 States with decisions, 11 States
received full approval, 6 States received
conditional approval, 14 States received a
timeline waiver, and 3 States entered into a
compliance agreement.

TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08 PAGE A-9
Indicator 3.3 Effective assistance and public school enrollment options: Schools identified as needing improvement will report receiving effective assistance from
their districts and states, including expanded opportunities for children to transfer to high-performing public schools.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of schools identified for improvement that report receiving assistance as Status: Did not meet performance target. Source: National Longitudinal Survey of
a result of being identified Schools, SY 1998-99 through 2000-01.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Among schools that indicated that Frequency: Annually.
1999: 47% Baseline they had been identified as in need of Next collection update: 2000.
2000: 40% 60% improvement in 1999-2000, only 40 percent Date to be reported: 2001.
2001: 80% reported that they had received additional
2002: professional development of other assistance as a Validation Procedure: Data collected before
result of being identified—a decline from 47 Department Standards for Evaluating Program
percent in 1998-99 and well below the target of Performance Data.
60 percent. This decline may be related to the
large increases in the numbers of schools Limitations of Data and Planned
identified for improvement and the actual Improvements: Schools were asked about
provision of support to help schools improve. whether they received assistance but not about
However, even among schools that had been the quality of that assistance. Future surveys will
identified for three years or more, only 50 ask schools about the effectiveness of the
percent reported receiving additional assistance. assistance they received.
Percentage of schools reporting expanded opportunities for children to transfer to Status: Unable to judge. Source: National Longitudinal Survey of
public schools not identified for improvement Schools, SY 1999-00 and 2000-01.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: Only 5 percent of schools that had Frequency: Annually.
been identified as in need of improvement Next collection update: 2000.
1999: No data available No target set
reported that their district had authorized Date to be reported: 2001.
2000: 5% Baseline
students to transfer to other public schools, with
2001: transportation provided, as a result of the school Validation Procedure: Data collected before
2002: being identified for improvement. However, the Department Standards for Evaluating Program
Title I requirement to institute corrective actions, Performance Data.
such as allowing students to transfer to other
schools, does not take effect until the third year Limitations of Data and Planned
after a school has been identified for Improvements: The number of sample schools
improvement, and few if any schools have yet responding to this survey item is very small
been identified for this length of time. because the question was asked only of schools
that had been identified as in need of
improvement for more than 1 year.

PAGE A-10 TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08
Indicator 3.4 Schools identified for improvement: An increasing percentage of schools identified for improvement will make sufficient progress to move out of
school improvement status.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Unable to judge. Sources: National Longitudinal Survey of
1999: Schools, SY 1999-00 and SY 2000-01.
2000: 44% Baseline Explanation: The data provided for 2000 is
2001: based on schools identified as in need of
2002: improvement in the first year by the district, but
were not in need in the second year.

INDICATOR CHANGES
From Annual Plan (FY 2001)
Adjusted—None.
Dropped
 Indicator 2.3 was dropped at the request of Office of Management and Budget.
New—None.

TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS SERVING AT-RISK CHILDREN - 02/10/08 PAGE A-11