Report Objectives and Design
State Education Indicators With a Focus on Title I 2002-03
is the eighth in a series o reportsdesigned to provide (1) consistent, reliable indicatorsto allow analysis o trends or each state over time,(2) high data quality or comparability rom stateto state, and (3) accessible indicator ormats aimedtoward acilitating use by a variety o audiences.Since its inception, the report has provided two-pagestate proles that report the same indicators or eachstate. This 2002-03 report, the rst to refect theimplementation o the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
, has been reorganized to better refect therequirements o the law, adding indicators and trendson nances, demographics, sta, and accountability,and expanding the trends or assessment data. A ullexplanation o these indicators can be ound below.
Title I, Part A
Title I, Part A, is the largest single grant program othe U.S. Department o Education, authorized underthe
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
. For over 40 years, it has provided unds tostates, the District o Columbia, and the outlyingterritories or additional educational support or theneediest children. In 2004, the $14 billion programserved over 15 million students in nearly all schooldistricts and nearly hal o all public schools.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
),which reauthorized the
, requires all schools,districts and states to work toward the goal o allstudents meeting state-dened levels o prociency inreading or language arts and math by 2014. Previousreauthorizations o the bill, such as the 1994
Im- proving America’s Schools Act
), requiredstates to monitor the progress o schools in improvingthe achievement only o students participating inTitle I, Part A, (i.e, educationally needy students inschools with high concentrations o students romlow income amilies). States used assessments inreading or language arts and mathematics alignedto student learning standards to measure studentperormance in one grade each in elementary, middle,and high school, and reported the results to the pub-lic.
strengthens the requirements rom
byrequiring states to develop an integrated account-ability system, which combines testing all students ingrades 3-8 and one grade in the 10-12 grade span inreading or language arts and mathematics by 2005-06 and using an “other academic indicator” to pro-vide additional inormation about student progress.For the latter,
requires the use o graduationrate or high schools but allows states fexibility touse a number o other measures or elementary andmiddle schools. Data on assessment results and theother academic indicators are reported or all stu-dents in a school and by student subgroups, includingrace or ethnicity, poverty, disability status, Englishlanguage prociency, gender and migrant status.States must set annual targets or school and districtperormance that lead all students to prociency onstate reading and mathematics assessments by the2013-14 school year. Schools and districts that do notmake adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward this goalor two consecutive years are identied as needingimprovement and are subject to increasing levels ointerventions designed to improve perormance andincrease options or students and parents.Ater two consecutive years o missing AYP, schoolsare required to notiy parents that in most cases theymay choose to enroll their child in another publicschool in the district, thereby exercising their rightto public school choice under
. I an identi-ed school misses AYP or a third year, the district isrequired to provide supplemental educational servicesto students rom low income amilies in the school,which may include tutoring or other ater-schoolacademic programming provided by public or privateorganizations or rms.Ater a ourth year o missing AYP, a school is subjectto corrective action, where the district implementsat least one statutorily required strategy to improvestudent learning, such as introducing new curriculaor replacing sta. Ater a th year o missing AYP,schools begin planning or restructuring and ater asixth year they implement their restructuring plan,which may include replacing all or most o the sta,reopening the school as a charter school, or othermajor reorms. I at any point a school under reviewmakes AYP or two consecutive years, it exits im-provement status and is no longer subject to theseconsequences. The school, however, must continue todemonstrate progress and consistently meet annualperormance targets or it will reenter the rst stage oimprovement ater missing AYP or two consecutiveyears.It is important to note that each state establishesthe rules or schools to make AYP: the state designsits statewide assessment system, denes prociencylevels or students and designates the other academicindicator or schools and districts. Assessments andaccountability systems are not necessarily comparablestate-to-state.