Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
description: tags: introduction

description: tags: introduction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2 |Likes:
Published by anon-14316

More info:

Published by: anon-14316 on Jan 23, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





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 proles 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.
Accountability Requirements
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-dened levels o prociency 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 studentperormance 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 inormation 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 prociency, gender and migrant status.States must set annual targets or school and districtperormance that lead all students to prociency onstate reading and mathematics assessments by the2013-14 school year. Schools and districts that do notmake adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward this goalor two consecutive years are identied as needingimprovement and are subject to increasing levels ointerventions designed to improve perormance andincrease options or students and parents.Ater two consecutive years o missing AYP, schoolsare required to notiy 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 ater-schoolacademic programming provided by public or privateorganizations or rms.Ater 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. Ater a th year o missing AYP,schools begin planning or restructuring and ater 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 reorms. 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 annualperormance targets or it will reenter the rst stage oimprovement ater 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, denes prociencylevels or students and designates the other academicindicator or schools and districts. Assessments andaccountability systems are not necessarily comparablestate-to-state.
Guide to State Indicator Profles
The state proles in this report contain key indicatorsor K-12 public education. They ocus on the statuso each indicator as o the 2002-03 school year, therst year o the implementation o
, and manyindicators also include data or a baseline year or thepurpose o analyzing trends over time. The sourcessection at the end o the publication provides moredetailed inormation and explanations or the indica-tors. The indicators in each state prole are organizedinto seven categories:
Districts and Schools
The indicators in this category provide a statewidepicture o characteristics o the public K-12 schoolsystem as o 2002-03, including the number o dis-tricts, public schools, and charter schools in the state.A comparison number rom 1993-94 is provided togive a picture o how the state’s school systems havechanged over time, and to refect change since the1994
reauthorization. These data are rom theCommon Core o Data (CCD), collected rom statedepartments o education by the National Center orEducation Statistics (NCES).
Four nancial data elements are included in thisreport: total current expenditures, including in-structional, noninstructional, and support; per-pupilexpenditures; sources o unding; and Title I, Part A,allocation. These gures provide a picture o schoolnances or each state, demonstrating how unding isdistributed, as well as the relationship between ed-eral unding allocations and state and local resources.Data are collected rom CCD surveys through NCESand the Budget Oce o the U. S. Department oEducation.
An important aspect o the accountability systemrequirements under
is the disaggregation ostudent achievement results by student subgroup.This section o the prole reports student enroll-ment across grades, as well as trends in the studentpopulations in each state, particularly characteristicso students by race or ethnicity, poverty, disabilitystatus, English language prociency, and migrant sta-tus. The bar graph showing counts o public schoolsby the percentage o students eligible or the reeor reduced-price lunch program (i.e., students romlow-income amilies) is useul or reviewing the disag-gregated student achievement results reported on thesecond page o each prole. Data on students in eachstate are collected rom several sources, includingNCES, program oces within the U. S. Department oEducation, and the National Assessment o Educa-tional Progress (NAEP).
This section provides inormation about educators,including the number o teachers and non-teach-ing sta in each state rom data collected by NCESthrough the CCD. A third data element, the percent-age o teachers with a major in the main subjecttaught, grades 7-12, is reported rom results o theSchools and Stang Survey, a periodic sample surveyo teachers and schools conducted by NCES.The nal gure in this section, percentage o corecourses taught by highly qualied teachers, 2002-03, was reported by states through the Consoli-dated State Perormance Report. In 2002-03,
 required that all newly hired teachers in assignmentssupported with Title I, Part A, unds be “highlyqualied,” and by 2005-06 all teachers teachingin core academic subjects had to be “highly quali-ed.”
provides a ramework by which stateslabel teachers as “highly qualied.” Because thelaw requires each state to create its own rubric orevaluating experienced teachers, these indictors arenot comparable across states.
Three measures o student outcomes are reportedin the national and state proles: the high school“event” dropout rate; the averaged reshman gradu-ation rate, a calculation o high school graduationrates; and the college-going rate.The high school dropout rate is based on the CCD“event rate” that reports the annual percent ostudents in grades 9-12 that drop out o school.This measure may underestimate the actual numbero students that drop out o high school, because itindicates only the percent o students that droppedout o high school within a single year and not thecumulative dropout rate or each student cohort overa lietime.An alternate estimate o student attrition, the aver-aged reshman graduation rate, is reported or com-parison purposes. The indicator is a new calculationrom NCES. It uses aggregate student enrollment datato estimate the size o an incoming reshman classand aggregate counts o the number o regular di-plomas awarded our years later. While the averagedreshman graduation rate is the best measure o thegraduation rate that is currently available, it has sev-eral faws that aect its accuracy and reliability. Thecalculation or each state is based on local denitionso what constitutes a high school diploma, which varyconsiderably. For example, this denition may or may
not include students graduating with a GED or otheralternative credential. The graduation rate also doesnot take into account student mobility across districtsor states, or into or out o private schools, nor does itinclude students who repeated a grade in high schoolor those who graduated early. Another outcome pro-vided is the college-going rate, which measures thepercent o high school graduates in a state enrolled inany postsecondary education institution in the all othe ollowing school year, as reported by NCES.Finally, this section also includes test results rom theNational Assessment o Educational Progress (NAEP)in reading and mathematics, which are comparableacross states. Prior to the passage o
, stateparticipation in NAEP was voluntary and reading andmathematics tests were given in our-year cycles.Under
, each state is now required to partici-pate in each two-year cycle o the NAEP, starting with2002 or reading and 2003 or mathematics. TheNAEP or these subjects is administered to a repre-sentative sample o students in each state (approxi-mately 2,000 students), producing state-level scoresor grades 4 and 8 reading and mathematics. Dataor 1994 (reading) and 1996 (mathematics) NAEP areprovided in order to show trends, as these years areclosest to the 1993-94 baseline used or the remain-der o the report.
Statewide Accountability Inormation
The rst column on the second page o each stateprole provides a snapshot o state accountabilitysystems or the 2002-03 school year, the rst year o
implementation. Accountability inormation ispresented or each state, including the name o thestate’s accountability system, the assessments used,the subjects included or state-level accountabilitydeterminations, and the perormance levels used toreport student achievement.This section provides inormation on accountabilitygoals or one grade in elementary, middle, and highschool (the same as the assessment data reportedin the second column o the second page o eachprole) in reading or language arts (or the state’sequivalent) and mathematics. The annual measurableobjective (AMO) target provides an indication o howmany students in each student group must perorm ator above the state-dened procient level or 2002-03 in order to make adequate yearly progress (AYP)on the state’s trajectory toward 100 percent pro-ciency by 2013-14. The starting point o the trajec-tory or most states was 2001-02, and the target or2002-03 is also displayed. The latter number is useulor reviewing the achievement inormation presentedin the second column on the second page.Accountability results are based on school and districtperormance against three criteria: disaggregatedstudent assessment results, student participation onstate assessments, and perormance on the otherindicator selected by the state. Any consequences areapplied in the ollowing school year. The middle parto this column provides inormation on school anddistrict perormance, including the number that madeAYP, the number identied or improvement (due tomissing AYP two or more years in a row), and thenumber that exited school improvement status (atermaking AYP two years in a row).Each state chooses its own assessment, sets itsown learning standards, and determines the level oprociency expected o its students. As a result, AYPresults, as well as AMOs and targets are not compa-rable rom state-to-state.
Student Achievement 2002-03
The second column on page 2 o the prole includesstate student assessment inormation, including thename o the assessment, the subject assessed, anddisaggregated results or one grade in elementary,middle, and high school. Due to limited space, theprole does not include all disaggregated scoresand grades assessed. However,
requires theassessment o all students in grades 3-8 and once inthe 10-12 grade span in reading or language arts andmathematics by the 2005-06 school year, and thatthese assessment results be reported or state-de-ned perormance levels by the ollowing categories:all students and students disaggregated by economicdisadvantage, limited English prociency, disability,migrant status, gender, and race or ethnicity. (Whilereporting by migrant status and gender is required by
, these two indicators are not used in deter-mining AYP.) In the 2002-03 school year, all statesreported in all o these categories, according to theguidelines o
.To illustrate recent achievement trends, two charts areprovided showing a three-year trend, where available,or the percentage o students achieving at the state’sprocient level or above in reading and mathematicsor one grade each in elementary, middle, and highschool.
Nationwide Data
In addition to providing individual state proles, thisreport includes three tables that provide nationalsummary inormation. Table 1 on page 2 provides asummary o state assessments, the number o levelsor which student achievement is reported, and thenumber o years consistent data is available. Table2 on page 4 provides a summary o student per-

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->