○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

S TAT E E D U C AT I O N I N D I C ATO R S
WITH A FOCUS ON TITLE I
○ ○
2001-02
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Prepared for:
U. S. D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
By
Andra Williams
Rolf K. Blank
Lori Cavell
Carla Toye
of the
Council of Chief State School Officers
Washington, D.C.
2005
 This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-01-CO-0040-0001. The project monitors were Jessica Hausman and Kirsten Duncan in the Policy and
Program Studies Service. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings
Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Tom Luce
Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg
Director

September 2005

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S.
Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I, 2001-02, Washington, D.C.: 2005.

Copies of this report may be ordered the following ways:

•Mail. Write to ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398.
•Fax. Dial 301.470.1244
•Telephone (toll-free). Dial 877.433.7827 (877.4ED.PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 800.872.5327 (800.USA.LEARN). Those who use a telecommuni-
cations device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletyperwriter (TTY) should call 800.437.0833.
•Electronic mail. Send your request to: [email protected]
•Online. Order a copy of the report at: www.edpubs.org. This report may also be downloaded from the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/
ppss/reports.html#title.
•Alternate formats. Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please
contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202.260.9895 or 202.205.8113.

ii
 Contents
Introduction: State Education Indicators ................................................................................................................................................................................ v
Report Objectives and Design ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... v
Guide to State Indicator Profiles ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ v
Progress of State Standards and Assessments ....................................................................................................................................................................................... vi
Uses of State Indicators ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ix
National Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Table 1: State Progress toward Development of Accountability System, 2001-02 ...................................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Availability of Student Achievement Results by Disaggregated Category, 2001-02 ................................................................................... 4
Table 3: Summary by State of Students at Proficient Level or Higher, by State Definition .................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Sample Student Achievement Trends, 1996-2002 .................................................................................................................................................. 8
State Profiles ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Alabama ....................... 12 Indiana ....................... 40 N e v a d a ....................... 68 S o u t h D a k o t a ............ 96
A l a s k a ........................... 14 Iowa ............................. 42 N e w H a m p s h i r e ........ 70 Te n n e s s e e .................. 98
A r i z o n a ......................... 16 K a n s a s ........................ 44 N e w J e r s e y ................ 72 Te x a s ......................... 100
A r k a n s a s ...................... 18 K e n t u c k y .................... 46 N e w M e x i c o ............... 74 Utah ........................... 102
C a l i f o r n i a ..................... 20 L o u i s i a n a ................... 48 N e w Yo r k .................... 76 V e r m o n t ................... 104
C o l o r a d o ...................... 22 M a i n e .......................... 50 N o r t h C a r o l i n a ......... 78 V i r g i n i a .................... 106
C o n n e c t i c u t ................. 24 M a r y l a n d .................... 52 N o r t h D a k o t a ............ 80 Washington ............. 108
D e l a w a r e ...................... 26 M a s s a c h u s e t t s ......... 54 Ohio ............................. 82 We s t Vi r g i n i a .......... 110
D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a . 28 M i c h i g a n .................... 56 O k l a h o m a .................. 84 W i s c o n s i n ................ 112
F l o r i d a .......................... 30 M i n n e s o t a ................. 58 O r e g o n ........................ 86 Wyoming................... 114
G e o r g i a ........................ 32 M i s s i s s i p p i ................ 60 P e n n s y l v a n i a ............. 88
Ha w a ii ........................... 34 M i s s o u r i ..................... 62 P u e r t o R i c o ............... 90
Idaho ............................. 36 Montana ..................... 64 R h o d e I s l a n d ............. 92
Illinois ............................. 38 N e b r a s k a ................... 66 S o u t h C a r o l i n a ......... 94

Sources ..................................................................................................................................................................... 117

Appendices
Appendix A: Further State Proficiency Level Definitions .................................................................................................. 119
Appendix B: National Assessment for Educational Progress—Definitions and Further Information .................................... 121

iii
iv
Introduction

○
Report Objectives and Design 2014. It is important to note that the data proficiency, and migrant status. The bar graph

○
presented in this report reflect the year prior to accompanying each two-page report that shows counts of

○
State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I 2001-02

○
is the seventh in a series of reports designed to provide: 1) the implementation of NCLB. public schools by percent of students eligible for the free or

○
consistent, reliable indicators to allow analysis of trends Guide to State Indicator Profiles reduced-price lunch program (i.e., students from low-

○
income families, when the data is available from the state)

○
for each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico The state profiles in State Education Indicators with a

○
over time, 2) high data quality for comparability from state is useful for reviewing the disaggregated student

○
Focus on Title I contain key measures of the quality of K-12 achievement results reported on the second page of each

○
to state, and 3) accessible indicator formats for use by a public education. They focus on the status of each

○
variety of audiences. The report is based on two-page profile.

○
indicator as of the 2001-02 school year, prior to the

○
profiles that present the same indicators for each state. requirements of NCLB, and many indicators also include Statewide Accountability Information

○
○

○
Title I is the largest single grant program of the U.S. data for a baseline year to enable analysis of trends over The information on state accountability systems was

○
Department of Education, authorized under the Elementary time. The baseline year of 1993-94 was chosen in order to compiled from several sources: annual updates collected

○
○

○
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For 40 years, it has present data with comparable definitons, many of which by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) with

○
provided funds to states, the District of Columbia, and the changed with the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA. The each state education agency, review of state Internet Web

○
○

○
outlying territories for additional educational support for sources section provides more detailed information and sites, and print reports. The information, collected during

○
the neediest children. In 2004, the $14 billion program explanations for the indicators. The indicators in each state the winter of 2002, reflects the status of the state's system

○
served more than 15 million students in nearly all school profile are organized in six categories: for the 2001-02 school year, prior to the large-scale
○

○
○

○
districts and nearly half of all public schools. ○
School and Teacher Demographics accountability requirements of NCLB. The information

○
provides comparable information on the status of state
○

○
The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA required states to The indicators in this category provide a statewide picture
○

○
monitor the progress of schools in improving the policies defining accountability systems and their
○

○
of characteristics of the public K-12 school system, relationship to Title I accountability. In summary:
○

○
achievement of low-income students through including schools, teachers and finances. The number of
○

○
assessments, and also required alignment of student • Statewide Goal for Schools on Student Assessment: 42
○

○
public schools and FTE (full-time equivalent) teachers are
○

○
achievement tests with state standards for learning that presented for 2001-02 and 1993-94, and percentage of states had established a goal, such as percentage of
○

○
apply to all students. States reported student achievement
○

○
grade 7-12 teachers with a major in the main subject students in a school that will attain the state-defined
○

○
results by levels of proficiency for the 2001-02 school year taught is presented for 2000 and 1994, permitting proficient level on state student assessments in specific
○

○
for reading or language arts and mathematics at three
○

○
comparisons across time. These data are from the subjects, as of the 2001-02 school year.
○

○
grade levels: elementary school—grade 3, 4, or 5; middle Common Core of Data, collected from state departments • Expected School Improvement on Assessment: 36 states
○

○
school—grade 6, 7, 8, or 9; and high school—grade 10,
○

○
of education by the National Center for Education had set a target for amount of improvement in student
○

○
11, or 12. Each state determines its state test, how Statistics (NCES), and the Schools and Staffing Survey, a
○

○
proficiency levels are set and defined, and at which grades achievement scores for the school by a certain time period
○

○
sample-based survey of teachers and schools, also (e.g., annually), by the 2001-02 school year.
○

○
students are tested. conducted by NCES.
○

○
• Title I AYP Target for Schools: 50 states and the District
○

○
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which Student Demographics
○

○
reauthorized ESEA in 2002, strengthens these of Columbia had measures of Adequate Yearly Progress
○

○
requirements by requiring states to develop an integrated An important aspect of the assessment system for Title I, (AYP) for the 2001-02 school year, as required under Title I
○

○
reinforced by NCLB, is the disaggregation of student
○

○
accountability system for all students, and added a and later reinforced by NCLB. Schools that do not meet
○

○
requirement for testing of all students in grades 3-8 and achievement results by student group. This section of the their AYP targets for two years are identified for
○

profile provides a picture of the student enrollment across ○

○

○
one grade in the 10-12 grade span, in reading or language improvement actions by the state. Eighteen states and the
○

arts and mathematics by 2005-06. These data are reported grades, as well as trends in the student populations in District of Columbia had an AYP target for Title I schools
○

each state, particularly characteristics of students by race

○

by student group, with the aim of all students in each based on the statewide accountability system, and the
○

group attaining the state-defined level of proficiency by or ethnicity, poverty, disability status, English language report lists "same" for this indicator. If the target for Title I
○

○
○

v
 schools is different from non-Title I schools, the Title I States reported student achievement results for the 2001- language arts and middle grades mathematics from 1995-

○
○

○
target is described. (AYP measures for Title I schools were 02 school year for reading or language arts and 96 through 2001-02 for states with consistant tests,

○
required under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization. The mathematics at three grade levels, as specified by Title I standards, proficiency levels, and definitions of proficiency.

○
○

○
requirements of the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, known requirements prior to the program's reauthorization in the In the bottom right corner of the second page of each

○
as NCLB, which requires measures for all schools, are not No Child Left Behind Act: elementary school—grade 3, 4, profile are reported two measures of student outcomes

○
captured in this report.) or 5; middle school—grade 6, 7, 8, or 9; and high school—

○
from secondary schools: the high school dropout rate

○
Title I Schools grade 10, 11, or 12. Each state determines its state test, (based on annual percent of grade 9-12 students leaving

○
how proficiency levels are set and defined, and the grades

○
The report includes several specific indicators for the Title I school or "event" rate as reported by states to the U.S.

○
at which students are tested. (Note: such practice has Department of Education in the Common Core of Data)

○
programs. These include the number of Title I schools, changed since the passage of NCLB, which requires states,

○
which may be either "targeted assistance" programs for and the postsecondary enrollment rate (percent of high

○
by the 2005-06 school year, to assess all students in school graduates enrolled in any postsecondary education

○
low-income children that channel funds for services grades 3-8 and one grade in the 10-12 grade span in

○
provided directly to the neediest students or "schoolwide institution in the fall of the following school year, as

○
reading or language arts and mathematics.) reported by the National Center for Education Statistics).

○
programs" for schools with high rates of low-income

○
children that use Title I funds to support the learning of all The state profiles in this report also provide disaggregated Progress of State Standards and Assessments

○
students in the school. (Based on the 1994 ESEA assessment results, when available, for schools with Title I

○
This report tracks the progress of state Title I programs,

○
legislation, schools with 50 percent or greater of the programs, economically disadvantaged students, students
and particularly the development and use of state
○

○
student population from low-income families are eligible to with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities,
○

○
○
and migratory students. The availability of results by other standards and assessments in state accountability. A goal

○
operate schoolwide programs; beginning with the 2002-03 of the annual report is to chart the progress of states in
○

○
school year, under NCLB, schools with greater than 40 student groups is listed in the Availability of Student
○

○
Achievement Results by Disaggregated Category table on developing state accountability systems based on state
○

○
percent poverty may do so.) Also reported are the number content standards and aligned state assessment
○

○
and percentage of each type of Title I schools meeting AYP pages 4-5. NCLB requires states to provide data
○

○
disaggregated by these categories for accountability programs.
○

○
goals and the number and percentage of each type of Title
○

○
I schools identified for school improvement, which means purposes, as well as by race or ethnicity and gender, The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, which guided state
○

○
beginning with the 2002-03 school year. accountability and reporting systems in the 2001-02 school
○

○
the school missed the AYP goals for two or more years in a
○

○
row. In addition, the report includes the Title I funding It is important to note that student achievement scores on year prior to the requirements of NCLB, required states to
○

○
monitor the progress of schools in improving the
○

○
allocation per state. the state assessments are not directly comparable state to
○

○
state. Within a state, student results, e.g., percent meeting achievement of low-income students and also required
○

○
National Assessment of Educational Progress alignment of student achievement tests with state
○

○
the state's "proficient" level, can be reasonably compared
○

○
State-level results on the National Assessment of with the same state's performance in the prior year as long standards for learning that apply to all students. The
○

○
Educational Progress (NAEP), which are comparable state individual state profiles and trends in assessment results
○

○
as the same test, standards, proficiency levels, and
○

○
by state, are reported in the lower right corner of the left- definitions of proficiency are in place. As such, the "student in the State Education Indicators report are useful for
○

○
hand page of each state's profile. NAEP proficiency initial determinations of educational improvements that
○

○
achievement trend" at the bottom of the second page of
definitions are available in Appendix B. may be related to Title I programs. The matrix in Table 1 on
○

○
each profile shows a histogram with the percent of
○

○
Student Achievement students that meet or exceed the state definition of pages 2-3 displays key indicators of state progress in
○

○
developing accountability systems for Title I.
○

○
The name of the state assessment and the state "proficient." Histograms are displayed for six states with
○

○
1996-97 as their baseline year for analysis, and eight Content Standards
○

○
definitions of proficient are included at the top of the right
○

page of each state profile. State assessment aggregate states with 1997-98 as their baseline year. Table 3 on page As of spring 2002, 49 states plus the District of Columbia
○

6 provides a summary of student performance for all states

○

scores were obtained from the State Consolidated and Puerto Rico had adopted and implemented statewide
○

Performance Report (Section B) submitted by states for 2001-02, and Table 4 on pages 8-9 summarizes content standards meeting Title I requirements for K-12
○

student achievement trends for elementary reading or

○

annually to the U.S. Department of Education. education in the core academic subjects of English or
○

vi
language arts and mathematics, and 46 states and the Assessment Trends Analysis

○
District of Columbia had adopted and implemented

○
As of 2001-02, 32 states had reported at least two years of

○
statewide standards for science and social studies or assessment results using consistent assessments, levels,

○
history. NCLB requires that all states have content

○
and grades, and 26 states reported three or more years of

○
standards in mathematics and English or language arts by results that could be analyzed as trends. Table 4 on pages

○
the 2002-03 school year. States are also required to

○
8-9 provides a sample of student achievement trends for

○
develop science content standards by the 2005-06 school the period from 1996 to 2002.

○
year.

○
Uses of State Indicators

○
State Assessment Results reported by Proficiency Levels

○
This report comes at an important time for states, schools,

○
For the 2001-02 school year, 48 states plus the District of

○
and students. Standards and assessments are at the center

○
Columbia and Puerto Rico reported state assessment of education reform in the states and are a central focus of

○
results using three or more proficiency levels that were the No Child Left Behind Act. Schools are using Title I funds

○
○

○
defined by the state. Under NCLB, beginning with the to develop new approaches to education for low-income

○
2002-03 school year, all states must report assessment and at-risk students. An important goal of these efforts is

○
results by at least three proficiency levels defined by the

○
to close the gap in educational opportunity and student

○
state. The matrix in Table 1 on pages 2-3 identifies the learning between poor and wealthier students. For anyone
○

○
name of each assessment instrument and the number of ○

○
○ tracking information about student achievement in the

○
proficiency levels reported for 2001-02. states, State Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I is
○

○
○

○
State Achievement Results Disaggregated a useful tool.
○

○
○

○
A key feature of the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA was a
○

○
provision that assessment results be disaggregated by
○

○
○

○
categories of students, a requirement NCLB built upon to
○

○
hold schools and districts accountable for the achievement
○

○
○

○
of subgroups of students. The purpose of disaggregated
○

○
results and reporting is to increase the possibility that
○

○
○

○
educators, policymakers, and parents will analyze and
○

○
improve the progress of learning through focusing on the
○

○
○

○
students that are most in need of assistance. Under NCLB
○

○
requirements, states were required by 2002-03 to
○

○
○

○
disaggregate and report state assessment results by
○

○
school and by students with families in poverty, student
○

○
race or ethnicity, gender, and student status as disabled,
○

○
○

○
limited English proficient, and migratory. For the 2001-02
○

○
school year, 47 states plus the District of Columbia and
○

○
○

○
Puerto Rico reported assessment results using one or more
○

disaggregated categories. Table 2 on pages 4-5 ○

○

○
○

summarizes the availability of this disaggregated student

○

assessment data.
○

○
○

○
○

○
○

vii
viii
Acknowledgments

○
The Council of Chief State School Officers received Funding support for the State Education Indicators report was The data were proofed by Lori Cavell, Carla Toye, and

○
○

○
valuable contributions from many organizations and provided under a task order from the U.S. Department of Carlise Greenfield. The state assessment directors, Title I

○
individuals in preparing State Education Indicators with a Education, Policy and Program Studies Service. We very much coordinators, and CCD coordinators reviewed the profiles

○
○
Focus on Title I 2001-02. We consider the report a appreciate the guidance and assistance provided by staff in and proofed the state assessment data. The EIAC

○
○

○
collaborative effort. the Policy and Program Studies Service, including Kirsten subcommittee on assessment, co-chaired by Sally Tiel

○
Duncan, Jessica Hausman, and Joe McCrary, as well as staff (Idaho) and Louis Fabrizio (North Carolina), reviewed the

○
○
We received strong support from chief state school officers, from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, design and offered suggestions.

○
○
state assessment directors, and state Title I directors for including Mary Moran and Chuck Laster. The National Center

○
○

○
the idea of a 50-state report profiling key statewide for Education Statistics provided access to data files from the

○
education indicators and indicators of progress of Title I Common Core of Data, NAEP, and Schools and Staffing Survey,

○
○
programs. States provided excellent cooperation in and we particularly thank John Sietsema and Beth Young for

○
○

○
reporting not only the state assessment data required their assistance. The database for the state profiles was

○
under Title I but also further details about state assess- developed in collaboration with Westat, Inc., and we

○
○
ment programs and student demographics that provide the appreciate the efforts of Beth Sinclair, Nina Blecher, and

○
○

○
context for analyzing assessment results. State education Babette Gutmann in data collection and project support.

○
staff carefully reviewed the data in the state profiles and

○
○
provided important suggestions for improving the report,

○
○

○
and we thank them for their continued assistance which
○

○
makes the profiles possible. ○

○
○

○
○

○
○

○
○

○
○

○
○

ix
x