Title I Implementation-Update on Recent Evaluation Findings

《Title I Implementation-Update on Recent Evaluation Findings》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Title I Implementation-Update on Recent Evaluation Findings（128页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、Title I ImplementationUpdate on Recent Evaluation FindingsStephanie Stullich Andrew AbramsElizabeth EisnerErica LeeU.S. Department of EducationOffice of Planning, Evaluation and Policy DevelopmentPolicy and Program Studies Service2009U.S. Department of EducationMargaret SpellingsSecretaryOffice of P

2、lanning, Evaluation, and Policy DevelopmentBill EversAssistant SecretaryPolicy and Program Studies ServiceAlan GinsburgDirectorProgram and Analytic Studies DivisionDavid GoodwinDirectorJanuary 2009This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with p

3、ermission and copyright, 2007, Getty Images. Authorization to reproduce this report 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, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and

4、Program Studies Service, Title I ImplementationUpdate on Recent Evaluation Findings, Washington, D.C.: Author, 2009.Copies of this report may be ordered in the following ways: Mail. Write to:ED PubsEducation Publications CenterU. S. Department of EducationP. O. Box 1398Jessup, MD 20794-1398 Fax. Dia

5、l 301-470-1244. Telephone (toll-free). Dial 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734. Electronic mail. S

6、end your request to edpubsinet.ed.gov. Online. Order a copy of the report at: www.edpubs.ed.gov. This report may also be downloaded from the Departments Web site at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. Alternate formats. Upon request, this publication is available in alternat

7、e formats such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Departments Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.CONTENTSList of ExhibitsvAcknowledgmentsxiExecutive SummaryxiiiI. Introduction1A. Technical Notes2II. Trends in Student Achieveme

8、nt3A. Student Achievement on State Assessments4B. Student Achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress10III. Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems15A. Development and Implementation of Assessments Required Under No Child Left Behind15B. School and District I

9、dentification for Improvement17C. Adequate Yearly Progress Ratings for Schools and Districts21D. Communication of School Performance Results25E. School Improvement Efforts and Assistance for Identified Schools and Districts26F. Accountability Under Other State Initiatives31IV. Title I School Choice

10、and Supplemental Educational Services33A. Eligibility and Participation33B. Parental Notification37C. Characteristics of Supplemental Educational Services39D. Relationship Between Participation in Title I Choice Options and Student Achievement40E. Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplemental Service Pr

11、oviders42V. Highly Qualified Teachers and Professional Development43A. State Implementation of Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements43B. Teachers Highly Qualified Status45C. Professional Development47Endnotes51References57Appendix A. Supplemental Exhibits61Appendix B. Standard Error Tables95EXHIBITS

12、II. Trends in Student Achievement1 Percentage of Fourth-Grade Public School Students Performing At or Above the Proficient Level on NAEP and State Assessments in Reading, 200752 Proportion of Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above the Proficient Level in Reading and Mathematics onS

13、tate Assessments in 200607 and on NAEP in 200763 Percentage of Low-Income Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level in Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Reading and Mathematics, 200405 to 20060774 Percentage of States Showing an Increase in the Proportion of Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Stude

14、nts Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level From 200405 to 200607, by Student Group85 Predicted Percentage of States That Would Reach the Goal of 100 Percent Proficient by 201314, forVarious Student Groups, If Achievement Trajectories From 200405 to 200607 Continue Through 20131496 Main

15、 NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores for Public School Students by School Grade Level117 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Fourth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity128 Ma

16、in NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Eighth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity139Percentage of States Showing an Increase From 2003 to 2007 in the Proportion of Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above the NAE

17、P Proficient Level, by Student Group14III. Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems10 NCLB Assessment System Approval Status, as of Jan. 8, 20091611 Number and Percentage of Title I Schools That Were Identified for Improvement, 199697 to 2006071712Number of Identified Title I Sc

18、hools by Identification Status, 200405 to 2006071813 Number and Percentage of Schools Identified for Improvement, by State, 2006071914 Distribution of Title I Districts and Distribution of Title I Schools Identified for Improvement, by Number of Identified Schools in the District, 2006072015 Percent

19、age of Schools Identified for Improvement in 200405 That Were in Various Stages of School Improvement Status in 2006072116 AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress, 200304 to 2005062217 AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress in 200405

20、, by Stageof School Improvement Status for 2005062318 Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP, by School Poverty and Number of Subgroups in the School, 2005062419 Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP for Individual Student Subgroups, by School Poverty Rate,2005062420 Timing of State Notification Abou

21、t School Improvement Status, Fall 2004 and Fall 20062521 Percentage of Elementary Teachers Who Reported Changing the Amount of Instructional Time That They Spent on Various Subjects From 200405 to 2006072722 Average Number of Hours Per Week That Public School Teachers of First- Through Fourth-Grade

22、Self-Contained Classrooms Spent on Teaching Each of Four Subjects, Selected Years 198788 Through 2003042823 Percentage of Identified Title I Schools That Reported Experiencing Various Types of InterventionsSince Identification for Improvement, 2006072924 Percentage of Title I Schools in Corrective A

23、ction That Reported Experiencing Various Types ofInterventions, 200405 and 2006073025 Percentage of Districts Taking Various Actions in Response to Being Identified for Improvement,20050632IV. Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services26 Number of Students Participating in Title I S

24、chool Choice and Supplemental Services, 200203 to2005063427 Percentage of Districts Reporting That They Offered Title I School Choice, By School Grade Level,and Percentage of Students in Such Districts, Among Districts Required to Offer School Choice, 2006073528 Parents Most Frequently Reported Reas

25、ons for Choosing to Participate or Not Participate in Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 2006073629 District Strategies for Communicating With Parents About Title I School Choice and Supplemental Services Options, 200405and 2006073730 Timing

26、of Parent Notification About Title I School Choice, as Reported by School Districts, 200405and 2006073831 Number of State-Approved Supplemental Educational Services Providers, by Provider Type, May2003 to May 2008.3932 Achievement Gains for Student Participation in Title I Supplemental Educational S

27、ervices and School Choice, in Six to Seven Districts, 200203 Through 200405.41V. Teacher Quality and Professional Development33 State Cut Scores for Praxis II Assessment of Teacher Content Knowledge in Mathematics4434 Percentage of Teachers Reporting That They Were Considered Highly Qualified Under

28、NCLB, 2006074635 Change in Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on Instructional Strategies for Reading and Mathematics, 200304 to 2005064836 Comparison of Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on Instructional Strategies Versus In-Depth Study ofTopics in Rea

29、ding and Mathematics, 20050649Appendix A. Supplemental ExhibitsA-1 Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students Achieving At or Above the Proficient Level on NAEP and State Assessments in Mathematics, 200761A-2 Proportion of Fourth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level in Readin

30、g in 200607, and Change from 200405, for Various StudentSubgroups62A-3 Proportion of Fourth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level in Mathematics in 200607, and Change from 200405, for Various StudentSubgroups63A-4 Proportion of Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Abo

31、ve Their States Proficient Level in Reading in 200607, and Change from 200405, for Various StudentSubgroups64A-5 Proportion of Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level in Mathematics in 200607, and Change from 200405, for Various StudentSubgroups65A-6 Proportion of

32、Fourth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level in Reading in 200607, and Change from 200405, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups66A-7 Proportion of Fourth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level in Mathematics in 200607, and Change from 200405

33、, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups67A-8 Proportion of Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level in Reading in 200607, and Change from 200405, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups68A-9 Proportion of Eighth-Grade Students Performing At or Above Their States Profici

34、ent Level in Mathematics in 200607, and Change from 200405, for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups69A-10 Change in Black-White and Hispanic-White Achievement Gaps in Fourth-Grade Reading: Differencein the Percentage of Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level, 200405 to 20060770A-

35、11 Change in Black-White and Hispanic-White Achievement Gaps in Fourth-Grade Mathematics: Differencein the Percentage of Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level, 200405 to 20060771A-12 Change in Black-White and Hispanic-White Achievement Gaps in Eighth-Grade Reading: Difference

36、in the Percentage of Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level, 200405 to 20060772A-13 Change in Black-White and Hispanic-White Achievement Gaps in Eighth-Grade Mathematics: Differencein the Percentage of Students Performing At or Above Their States Proficient Level, 200405 to 20

37、060773A-14 Number of States Showing an Increase in the Proportion of Fourth- and Eighth-Grade StudentsPerforming at or Above Their States Proficient Level From 200405 to 200607, by StudentGroup74A-15 Predicted Percentage of States That Would Reach the Goal of 100 Percent Proficient Level by 201314,

38、for Various Student Groups, if Achievement Trajectories From 200405 to 200607 Continue Through20131474A-16 Predicted Percentage of Low-Income Students Who Would Reach Their States Proficient Level inFourth-Grade Reading, if Achievement Trajectories From 200405 to 200607 Continue Through20131475A-17

39、Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores inFourth Grade for Public School Students by School Poverty Level76A-18 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Percent Proficient in FourthGrade for Public School Students by Rac

40、e and Ethnicity77A-19 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores inEighth Grade for Public School Students by School Poverty Level78A-20 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Percent Proficient in EighthGrade for Public

41、School Students by Race and Ethnicity79A-21 State Trends on Main NAEP for Fourth-Grade Reading and Mathematics: Percentage of Public SchoolStudents Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to 200780A-22 State Trends on Main NAEP for Eighth-Grade Reading and Mathematics: Percentage of P

42、ublic SchoolStudents Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to 200781A-23 State Trends on Main NAEP for Fourth-Grade Reading for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003to 200782A-24 State Trends on

43、Main NAEP for Fourth-Grade Mathematics for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to200783A-25 State Trends on Main NAEP for Eighth-Grade Reading for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups: Percentage of Public School S

44、tudents Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003to 200784A-26 State Trends on Main NAEP for Eighth-Grade Mathematics for Various Racial and Ethnic Groups: Percentage of Public School Students Performing At or Above the NAEP Proficient Level, 2003 to200785A-27 Number of Title I Schools

45、That Were Identified for Improvement, by State, 199899 to 20060786A-28 AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress, 2003-04 to 2005-06 (in 26 States With Data Available for All Three Years)87A-29 Percentage of Schools That Missed AYP for Individual Student Subgroups, by

46、School Percentage ofMinority Students, 20050688A-30 Percentage of Elementary Principals Who Reported Changes From 200405 to 200607 in the Amount of Instructional Time for Third-Grade Students in Various Subject88A-31 Average Change in Minutes per Week of Instructional Time From 200405 to 200607 for

47、ThirdGrade Students in Various Subjects, as Reported by Principals88A-32 Number of Students Participating in Title I School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, 200304 to 20060789A-33Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Using the Title I School Choice Option, as a Percentage ofParticipatin

48、g Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 20060790A-34Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services, asaPercentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 20060790A-35Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Not Using the Title I School

49、Choice Option, as a Percentageof Eligible Parents Who Did Not Participate, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 20060791A-36Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Not Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services,as a Percentage of Eligible Parents Who Did Not Participate, in Eight Large Urban Di

50、stricts, 20060791A-37 Achievement Effects of Student Participation in Title I Supplemental Educational Services in SevenDistricts92A-38 Achievement Effects of Student Participation in Title I School Choice in Six Districts92A-39State Definitions of Highly Qualified Teacher: Use of Praxis II Exams an

51、d Cut Scores, September200793A-40 Change in Teacher Participation in Professional Development Focused on In-Depth Study of Topicsin Reading and Mathematics, 200304 to 20050694Appendix B. Standard Error TablesB-1 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scor

52、es for Public School Students by School Grade Level95B-2 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Fourth Grade for Public School Students by School Poverty Level96B-3 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Sc

53、ale Scores in Fourth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity97B-4 Main NAEP Results in Reading, Mathematics, and Science, 1990 to 2007: Average Scale Scores in Eighth Grade for Public School Students by Race and Ethnicity98B-5 Percentage of Identified Title I Schools Experiencing Vari

54、ous Types of Interventions Since Identification for Improvement, 20060799B-6 Percentage of Districts Taking Various Actions in Response to Being Identified for Improvement,200607100B-7 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Using the Title I School Choice Option, as a Percentage ofParticipating Paren

55、ts, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 200405 and 200607101B-8 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services, asaPercentage of Participating Parents, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 200405 and 200607101B-9 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Not Using th

56、e Title I School Choice Option, as a Percentageof Eligible Parents Who Did Not Participate, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 200405 and200607102B-10 Parents Reporting Various Reasons for Not Enrolling Their Child in Title I Supplemental Services,as a Percentage of Eligible Parents Who Did Not Partici

57、pate, in Eight Large Urban Districts, 200405 and 200607102B-11 District Strategies for Communicating With Parents About Title I School Choice and Supplemental Services Options, 200405 and 200607103B-12 Percentage of Districts That Reported Notifying Parent Notification About the Title I School Choic

58、eOption, By Timing of Reported Notification, 200405 and 200607104B-13 Percentage of Teachers Reporting That They Were Considered Highly Qualified Under NCLB, 200405 and 200607104B-14 Percentage of Teachers Participating in Professional Development Focused on Instructional Strategies for Reading and

59、Mathematics, 200304 and 200506105B-15 Percentage of Teachers Participating in Professional Development Focused on In-Depth Study ofTopics in Reading and Mathematics, 200304 and 200506105ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis report benefited from the contributions of many individuals and organizations that provided va

60、luable information and advice. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the teachers, principals, school district staff, and state education agency representatives across the country who took time out of their busy schedules to respond to our surveys, interviews, and requests for information. Wit

61、hout their efforts, this report would not have been possible, and we greatly appreciate their support for our Title I evaluation studies as well as their core work of educating Americas children.This report was prepared under the leadership and direction provided by Alan Ginsburg, director of the Po

62、licy and Program Studies Service (PPSS); David Goodwin, director of program and analytic studies in PPSS; and Daphne Kaplan, PPSS team leader.Studies conducted by independent research firms under contract to the U.S. Department of Education provided most of the information presented in this report.

63、In particular, the research teams for two PPSS evaluation studies deserve credit for designing and carrying out the data collection that provide most of the data in this report: National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB), led by Georges Vernez of the RAND Corporation and Michael Garet and Beatrice Birman of the American Institutes for Research, assisted by Brian Stecher (accountability team leader), Brian Gill (choice), Meredith