Delaware

Districts and schools
Number of districts
(CCD)

http://www.doe.state.de.us
Students
2003-04
19 19

Staff
1993-94
Pre-K K-8 9-12 Total (K-12) 565 76,052 28,930 104,982

1993-94

Public school enrollment (CCD)

2003-04
642 82,256 34,770 117,026

Number of FTE 1993-94 teachers (CCD) Elementary 2,429
Middle High Combined Other Total Instructional aides Instructional coordinators Administrators Other Total 1,741 1,838 287 - 6,295 846 61 491 3,862 5,260

2003-04
3,269 1,752 2,159 362 12 7,554 1,361 188 658 4,631 6,838

Number of public schools

(CCD)

86 41 32 18 n/a 177 105 43 32 19 1 200 13

Elementary Middle High Combined Other Total
(CCD)

Race/ethnicity (CCD)
American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Students with disabilities (OSEP) * 2% 28 3 66 11% 1% * 3% 32 8 57 12% 4%

Number of FTE non-teacher staff (CCD)

Number of charter schools

Finances
Total current expenditures 1993-94
(CCD, in thousands of dollars, adjusted for inflation to 2002-03) $508,593 Instructional 34,525 Noninstructional 277,358 Support Total 820,476

2002-03
$693,970 52,592 381,184 1,127,746

Students with limited English proficiency (NCELA) Migrant students
(OME)

Percentage of teachers with a major in the main subject taught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000
English Mathematics Science Social studies 90% # 82 77 61% 74 68 n/a

1%

1%

Percentage of core courses taught by highly qualified teachers, 2003-04 (As defined and reported by states, collected by ED)

Per-pupil expenditures
(CCD, adjusted for inflation to 2002-03)

$7,774

$9,693

Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 Algebra I for high school credit 39%
(NAEP)

2003

21%

All schools High-poverty schools Low-poverty schools

73% 68% 74%
2000-01
4% 71 60

Sources of funding
(CCD, 2002-03)

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced39,817 Price Lunch Program, 2003-04 (CCD)

Federal 9%

Local 28%

Outcomes

Number of schools, by percent of students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, 2003-04 (CCD)

State 63%

1993-94 High school dropout rate (NCES) 5% Avg. freshman graduation rate (NCES) 74 65 College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES) NAEP state results (NCES)
Reading, Grade 4 Proficient level or above Basic level or above Math, Grade 8 Proficient level or above Basic level or above

0-34% 35-49% 50-74% 39 7 63

91

1994
23% 52

2005
35% 74

Title I allocation 2002-03
(ED; Includes Title I, Part A)

$30,637,587

75-100%

1996
19% 55

2005
30% 73

KEY:

28

K

— n/a # FTE

* = Less than 0.5 percent

= Not applicable = Not available = Sample size too small to calculate = Full Time Equivalent

Statewide Accountability Information
See Appendix B for Delaware’s definitions of proficient for Reading and mathematics for grades 3, 8, and 10. See http://www.doe.state.de.us/files/pdf/de_edreportcard200304.pdf for more details on the statewide accountability system. State assessment for NCLB accountability: Delaware Student Testing Program State student achievement levels: Well Below the Standard, Below the Standard, Meets the Standard, Distinguished, Exceeds the Standard

Delaware

St udent Achievement 2003-04
Delaware Student Testing Program, used for NCLB accountability Reading Proficient level or above for: Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10
All students Economically disadvantaged students Migrant students Students with disabilities Students with limited English proficiency Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic students White, non-Hispanic 82% 73 90 53 68 70 74 90 71% 55 75 30 19 54 56 82 71% 50 n/a 16 23 51 55 80

NCLB Accountability Goals

Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics

2001-02 Annual measurable objective starting point
57% 33 57 33 57 33

Target (2003-04)
57% 33 57 33 57 33

Student achievement trend: Reading percent proficient level or above 100% 2004 80 79 82 2003 72 70 71 67 67 71 75% 2002 50%
25% 0% Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10

2003-04 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2004-05 school year
AYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools
Made AYP Identified for improvement: Year 1 Year 2 Corrective action Restructuring Exited Improvement status (made AYP twice after being identified for improvement) 81 (82%) 6 (6%) 4 (4%) 3 (3%) 0 0

All schools
131 (76%) 34 (20%) 6 (3%) 3 (2%) 0 0

All districts
19 100%) ( 0 0 0 0 0

Mathematics Proficient level or above for: Grade 3
All students Economically disadvantaged students Migrant students Students with disabilities Students with limited English proficiency Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic students White, non-Hispanic 78% 67 82 47 70 61 74 87

Grade 8
50% 30 60 16 23 28 33 64

Grade 10
53% 31 n/a 11 30 27 34 63

Other indicator, 2003-04

State target

State outcome
Met Met

Elementary/middle school indicator: Decrease in the Progress toward 0 students number of students performing below the standard below the standard. High school indicator: Graduation rate Progress toward or above 90%

NCLB choice participation
Title I school choice: Supplemental educational services:

Number of Title I students Percent of eligible students
195 54 * *

Student achievement trend: Mathematics percent proficient level or above 100% 2004 78 2003 72 74 75% 2002 48 47 50 43 45 53 50%
25% 0% Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10

29