-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/9ee1c0af4d9adab302b3dff320730df7.pdf
d39b844ec099ca927b57c8c3804e153a
PDF Text
Text
(f\)
~
©
Ii""
(§
~
~
~
(§
(f\)
~
0
Ii""
Q{iil
~
©
@)
'iii!
I8J
!Ml
~
~
~
(f\)
~
I8J
25
~
SI
!Ml
!Ml
'iii!
~
!Ml
~
SI
~
Q{iil
Ii""
SI
(§
~
~
©
SI
SI
!Ml
'iii!
=
©
Q{iil
!Ml
~
(f\)
I8J
25
Q{iil
(§
©
©
!Ml
(f\)
~
SI
~
Ii""
~
=
(f\)
©
©
!Ml
'iii!
~
'iii!
=
@
"iiil
~
as
(iW
(f\)
!Ml
~
Q{iil
�"""
G"9
,
@
G"9
'='
®
8
®
~
o
I
.
�COUNCIL
OF
PLANN!NG
U.S.
••••••••••••••
*
CHIEF
AND
STATE
SCHQOL
EVALUATION
DEPARTMENT
.....................
JII
OF
••••
OFFICERS
SERVICE
OF
THE
EDUCATION
"."'.* ......... .
S.IAI E.. EDUCATJO_N INDICATORS
. .
WITH A FOCUS ON TITLE I
1999
Rolf K. Blank
Jennifer Manise
Barbara C. Brathwaite
.,'\:, SCHoo
' ' -'fg (~
~
-
•
'"
J -t.
o..
""
;.;;::
"""
'"
,~
......
~.
v
('
() t; ~
c \ '\.
.,
The 1999 report on State Education Indicators was completed under a project of the ((SSO State Education Assessment (enter.
by the Planning and Evaluation Service of the U.S. Department of Education. The indicators were developed and
cooperation of the state departments of education and components of the u.s. Department of Education, including the
National (enter for Education Statistics, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Planning and Evaluation Service.
�At the edge of a new century and an increasingly competitive global
economy, we know that our children's futures will be determined in
large part by the quality of the education they receive.
William Jefferson Clinton
The task of the modern educator
is not to cut down jungles,
but to irrigate deserts.
--":::::-.--.
S. Lewis
�This report, State Education Indicators with a Focus on
I, provides
important state-by-state information on the characteristics and performance of •
Our Council is privileged once again to be publishing an important report
of State Education Indicators. With a decade of reporting experience
schools and students in each state-information that is vital to monitoring the •
progress and evaluating the success of local, state, and national education
behind us, the 1999 edition includes new information and an adjusted
--Jret'[}rrns;,------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~~,.-~£~o.:.'rmllat to assist
Importantly, the report disaggregates student achievement data so we can
focus not only on the average student, but also on students in high poverty
schools, migrant students, -ands~udents with
,
li~ited E~gli~h ~roftciency. This-:~
help ensure that no student is left behind as schools work to help all
in ~the United-States. This report offers state profile information~ aQOut
students and their achievement, teachers,
is a ctucial time in the national effort to raise standards for our students.
Six years after
standards for student
the assistance they receive toward,achieving state standards through
enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act, one of
most important requirements of the Act comes due. States must h;lVe in
place standards for student achievement, assessments that are aligned with the
Title I, the largest single federal education program. A particular feature of
our report
standards, and procedures for holding schools accountable for the results they
achieve with
in reviewing and interpreting key factors about education
learning. It includes special data about the education of children in poverty
children reach high standards.
~-This
media and
makers and practitioners, parents and students, the
students. This report provides a snapshot of state progress
toward implementing these requirements, demonstrating the considerable
1999 is the inclusion of state accountability summaries.
1999 report has been prepared with great cooperation from the states
and through a joint effort of our Council and the Planning and Evaluation
progress many states have already made, as well as the additional work still
Service of
ahead.
Department for its support and,join with them in hopes the report serves
This report is the product of an ongoing partnership between the
United States Department of Education. We thank the
you well. Please let us know of your reactions and suggestions for future
Department of Education, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the
States. By continuing to work together, we can complete the task at hand:
reports.
Strengthening our schools and improving teaching and learning by insisting
on the same high expectations for all of our children.
Gordon M. Ambach
Executive Director
Michael Cohen
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
Council of Chief State School Officers
U.S. Department of Education
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE 1-1999
�Acknowledgments
The Council received valuable
many organizations and
the 1999 State Education
consider the report a
we look forward to .",""vi""
series.
from
We received strong support from chief state
officers, state assessment directors,
state Title I directors for the idea of a 50-state
report profiling key statewide education indicators
and indicators of progress of Title I programs.
States provided excellent cooperation in reporting
not only the state assessment data required
Title I, but also further details about state
assessment programs and student demographics
provide the context for analyzing assessment
results. State education staff carefully reviewed
the data in the state profiles and provided
suggestions for improving the
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
and we thank them for their
which make the profiles possible.
assistance
Beth Sinclair, Nina Blecher, and Babette Gutmann in
data collection and project support.
support for the State Education
tors report was provided under a task
U.S. Department of Education,
Evaluation Service. We very much appreciate the
guidance and assistance provided by staff in the
Planning and Evaluation Service, including
Daphne Hardcastle, Collette Roney, Joanne
Bogart, and Kathryn Doherty, as well as staff in
the Office of Compensatory Education Programs,
including Janet Carroll, Elois Scott, and Grace
Ross. The National Center for Education
Statistics provided access to data files
Common Core of Data, NAEP, and Schools
Staffing Survey, and we particularly thank John
Sietsema for his assistance. The database for the
state profiles was developed in collaboration
Westat, Inc., and we appreciate the efforts of
design files were created by Anastasia Miller and
the layout work was done by Cynthia Dardine. The
data were proofed by Cynthia Dardine and Thomas
MacMillan. This report would not have been com
pleted without their combined assistance and we are
OFFICERS
An expert advisory panel guided CCSSO in selecting
and developing the indicators for 1991 as well
assisting in refining the report design, and we
to thank the panel members
assisted us this year: Paul Barton , Barbara
Clements, Ellen Forte-Fast (CT), Ken Gentry (KS),
Leslie Lawrence, Sam Lester (TX), Dori Nielson
(MT), John Poggio (KS), Peter Prowda (CT), Hal
Sanderson (UT), John Sietsema, and Phoebe
�Contents
Introduction: State Education Indicators for 1999
Report Objectives and Design
vi
Guide to
Indicator Profiles
vi
State Progress toward Standards & Assessments
viii
Sample State
Use of State Indicators
ix
_x _______________
____Standards_& Assessments,-Summary_ Chart ___ _ _ _
Achievement by Category-Summary Chart
xii
State Profiles
Alabama ____
_____ 2
Indiana
Alaska _______
_ 4
__
lowa_
Arizona
Arkansas .._ . .
6
___.____.8
___ .30
___ __ 32
62
Kentucky
New Mexico
___. 64
T
exas __ .__ ._._.
_90
______ .. ____.___ 92
..
Utah.
Louisiana _
._.38
New York __
_ 66
____
Vermont _____ ___ ._.__.___ 94
68
.__ 70
Virginia _____. ____ ._. ___ 96
Connecticut _____ .______ .__ 14
Maryland _. __ ._
____ 42
North Dakota
Delaware ____
Massachusetts
Ohio__________.
44
Michigan __
Washington
72
46
Minnesota_. ___..___ .__ 48
Mississippi __
98
... _ 100
...
West Virginia
Wisconsin ________ ._. ___.102
_ 74
Oklahoma
Oregon ____ .._ _. ___ .__ ... _______ 76
...
Pennsylvania ______________________ 78
_50
Missouri ___. _____ ._ ...... 52
Puerto Rico _.
___ ...... 54
____ _____ 56
Rhode Island
Wyoming .___.. _________ 104
.80
..... 82
Hawaii
24
Idaho .... __ ___ ... __.___ 26
Montana
.. __ .. ___.28
Nebraska
Sources
__ ._ .. 88
..
New Jersey_
North Carolina
Illinois
Tennessee _
__ 36
__ . 40
20
Georgia _._____________ 22
.. __ .. __ .:-86
Kansas ____ _____ ... _ 34
.......
Maine .. ___
Distrid of Columbia ___ 18
South Dakota
.60
New Hampshire_
California____ .__ 10
._____ 12
'Colorado
16
58
Nevada
South Carolina
84
106
Appendices
Appendix A: Further State Proficiency Level Definitions
108
Appendix B: Context Indicators by State
110
Appendix C: NAEP-Definitions and Further Information
116
STATE
ED U CAT ION
I N Die A TOR S
WITH
A
F 0 CU S
ON
TITLE I • 1 9 9 9
�Introduction
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) .
established its leadership in reporting state-by-state
education indicators in 1984. Since our initial reports,
which provided a core set of indicators focusing on
student outcomes, state context, and state policies, the
Council continues to find strong interest in reliable,
comparable state indicators. We aim to provide
use by state leaders,
educators, parents,
federal agencies, and rt><:.t>::Irrht>rc
Report Objectives and Design
1999 report entitled State Education Inrlir:Jtnrc
a Focus on Title /, CCSSO collaborated
state departments of education to compile,
report key indicators of the condition and progress of K
12 public education. While the goals for the state
indicators reports have remained consistent for 15 years,
new indicators have been added and existing indicators
have been refined to improve their use and applications.
The CCSSO approach to education indicators has three
emphases: 1) consistent, reliable indicators to allow
analysis of trends for each state over time, 2) high data
quality to provide comparability from state-to-state, and
3) accessible indicator formats for increased uses by a
variety of audiences.
The design for the CCSSO State Education Indicators
report is based on two-page profiles that report the
same indicators for each state. The present
originated in 1997 with the start of our
the U.S. Department of Education to inmrnM:::.to
nriir::ltnr<:. of state progress
systems. The
ntages-first, readers can
nrlir::ltnrc for a state;
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
placed on trends for a state over time; and, third, less
emphasis is given to use of indicators for ranking states
against each other.
The indicators included in the 1999 report were selected
a three-step process: consultation with state
education leaders; input from U.S. Deoartment of
Education officials; and review by an
of researchers, data managers, and
educators. All of the indicators nrt><:.l>ntt>ri
measures
used this year. We have received excellent cooperation
in obtaining data for this report from state departments
of education and various offices of the U.S. Department
of Education.
Guide to State Indicator Profiles
CCSSO's State Education Indicators are reported to
widely diverse audiences. It is our hope that all of the
readers-public officials, educators, citizens- will find the
profiles useful and informative. The profiles that follow
are key measures of the quality of K-12 public educa
tion in each state. The 1999 profiles focus o~ the status
of each indicator as of the 1997-98 school year, or the
most recent year for which data were available.
also provide data trends over time for many of
the indicators.
state indicators is not to
every need for state
We hope that
state indicators
for more detailed information and explanation. The
Appendices contain several 50-state tables for reviewing
indicators that are directly comparable from state-to
ronnrtint'l
OFFICERS
state. The indicators in each state profile are organized
in four categories:
School and Teacher Demographics
indicators in this category provide a statewide
picture of imoortant characteristics of the oublic K-12
state departments of education. The data on
professional development of teachers in the fields of
reading, mathematics, and science education are
complied from teacher questionnaires distributed with
the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). The data for percentage of secondary teachers
with a major in their main assignment field is from the
NCES Schools and Staffing Survey. Appendix BproVides
50-state tables summarizing context and demographics,
including expenditures per pupil, Title I funding, Sources
of funding, percent of population that is school-age,
percent of children living in poverty, per-capita personal
income, educational level of adults, and public K-12
teachers.
elemen
schools are reported for two years, the
most recent school year available and the
to 1990 for which data were
tant aspect of the assessment and evaluation for Title I is
disaggregation of student achievement results by stu
dent characteristics, particularly race/ethnicity, disabilities,
proficiency, and migrant status. The data give read
ers a picture of the size of these student populations in
�each state. Included in this section are two measures of
student outcomes from secondary schools-the
school drooout rate (based on annual percent of 9-12 stu
and the post-sec-
aggregated
second page of each profile.
Statewide Accountability Information
The 1999 State Education Indicators report marks the ad
dition of a new indicator section that reflects CCSSO's first
effort to report information on the statewide accountabil
ity systems operating in the 50 states. The information on
accountability systems was compiled from state reports
on the Internet, printed reports, surveys and research by
CCSSO (Taylor, Case Studies of State Accountability Sys
tems, 1999; Olson, et ai" Annual Survey, State StudentAs
sessment Programs, 1999), and Title I accountability indi
cators by state (Miller, Title! Report, 1999).
Our purpose is to provide four indicators of the status of
state accountability systems as of fall 1999. A majority of
states have developed and implemented school-level ac
measures and improvement targets which
and all states are
of
submitted by states to the U.S. Department of Education.
(tollowlng state profiles),
• Statewide Goal for Schools on Student Assess
States reported the average percent of all students
ment- 30 states have established a goat
each of three state-defined levels, and the
percentage of students in a
levels
the state-defined oroficient level on state
assessments in
name and state definition
page
p)-------~-----------~-----------------------------------I
• Expected School Improvement on Assessment-26
at WhiCh students are
states have set a target for amount of
Cl<;hievement sc~re~ are_ not comparable
in student achievement scores for the
state-to-state. Student results for a state, e.g"
certain time period (e.g.,
meeting the state's "proficient" level. can be compared
• Indicators for School Accountability-31 states have
with the same state's performance in the prior year,
defined one or more indicators that are used in the
accountability system.
State level results on the National Assessment of
• Title I AYP Target for Schools-All 50 states have
Educational Progress (NAEP), which are comparable
measures of adequate yearly progress, as required
state-by-state, are reported in the lower right corner.
under Title I. Some states have a transitional
Definitions of state proficiency levels when not listed in
definition of AYP, In 17 states the AYP target for
the profile are available in Appendix A, NAEP proficiency
school improvement is based on the statewide
definitions are available in Appendix C.
accountability system, and we list "same" for this
indicator. If it is different, the Title I target is
States reported student achievement results for the
summ<lrized,
1997-98 school year for mathematics and reading!
language arts at three grade levels, as specified byTitle I
Title ! Schools
requirements: elementary-grade 3, 4 or 5; middle-grade
In an effort to expand the focus on Title I in our report, we
6, 7, or 8; and high-grade 10, 11, or 12, We report
have added several indicators of Title I programs. We re
disaggregated assessment results for states reporting
port the total enrollment in Title Iand racelethnic percent
I programs, school percent of students from low
ages for Title I students, In addition, we report the Title I
the number of schools
of
The
are intended to
how the state has developed its
wide and for Title I. Further
tem can be found
Student Achievement
State assessment aggregate scores were obtained by
C(SSO from the Title! Performance Report (Part 7)
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
sis-and eleven states
WITH
A
FOCUS
are dlsplaved
baseline year
1995-96 as their baseline
ON
TITLE 1-1999
�state standards
students.
that
to all
individual state
results in the CCSSO State tOUCdUOf
are useful
State Progress toward
Standards and Assessments
CCSSO aims to assist states and the u.s. Department of
Education in tracking the progress otTitle I programs,
and particularly the development and use of state
standards and assessments in state accountability for the
programs. A goal of our annual report is to chart the
progress of states in developing Title I accountability
systems based on state content standards and aligned
state assessment programs. Title I is the largest single
grant program of the federal government. For over 30
years, it has earmarked funds for states to provide
additional educational support for the neediest children
in all 50 states and the outlying territories. Ninety-seven
percent of schools with more than seventy-five percent
of their students living in' poverty receive some level of
I funds. Schools with greater than fifty
poverty are eligible to become a "schoolwide" program
entire school. Targeted assistance programs
to the neediest
The Improving America's Schools Act
reauthorized federal fundina for
in schools and changed the
for assessment and evaluation of Title I. The new
requires states to monitor the progress of schools in
improving the achievement of low-income students, and
also requires alignment of student achievement tests
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
addition, the status of components
systems can be used to assess the progress of states
toward meeting the requirements of the IASA by the
school year 2000. We have organized the information
on state systems in a 50-state matrix table (following)
which displays five key indicators of state progress in
developing accountability systems for Title I.
1. Content Standards-49 States
As of 1999, 49 states have completed and imple
mented content standards for K-12 education in the
core academic subjects of English/language arts and
mathematics, and 47 states also have standards for
science and social studies/history.
2. Performance Standards met Criteria-25 States
The u.S. Department of Education is reviewing the
process by which states have developed performance
standards in language arts/reading and mathematics.
As of 1999, performance standards developed by 27
states met the review criteria set
State oerformance standards are a critical step in
state content
3. State Assessment Results reported by Proficiency
Levels-33 States
For the 1997-98 school year, 33 states reported
state assessment results using three or more
proficiency levels that were defined by the state. The
OFFICERS
matrix in Appendix Bidentifies the name of each
assessment instrument and the year in which the
nrr.firionr\l levels were set bv the state.
4. State Achievement Results Disaggregate~35 States
A key feature of the IASA was a orovision that
assessment results could be
is to report assessments
and policymakers can easily determine
the progress of schools according to key characteris
tics of students. By 2000, states must report their
assessment results disaggregated for Title I schools
by Schoolwide and Targeted assistance-and by
school according to the percent of students in each
school from families in poverty. States must also
disaggregate results according to student's gender,
race/ethnicity, and their status as disabled, limited
English proficient, and/or migrant. For 1997-98, 35
states reported assessment results using some of the
disaggregated categories.
5. Assessment Trends Analysis-11 States
As of 1997-98, 19 states had reported two years of
assessment results using consistent assessments,
levels, and grades; and 11 states reported three years
of results that could be analyzed as trends.
�Sample State Trends Analysis
two years in math in high-poverty schools-a gain of 8.5
percentage points on Math Level 3 (i.e., proficient).
Improvement in reading in high-poverty schools is above
the rate of improvement for all students.
Uses of State Indicators
is an example of trend analysis in
• The CCSSO State Education Indicators report is a
using data from North Carolina's assess
rative effort. State departments of education committed
ment program. We examine the extent of gains in
extensive staff time to analyzing and reportina student
language arts/reading and mathematics from 1996 to
• assessment results and reviewing and
Across all North Carolina elementary schools, three
1998 using consistent data from three years of assess
profiles. Assessment directors reviewed the report
.Quarters of students are at orab()v~the~pected .•....
ment results,-based-on-thesame-test-with-results---
of performance in mathematics and reading. In
reported by proficiency levels and disaggregated by
'''''''''''-'"'-',, Advisory Committee and provided valuable
• with high concentrations of low-income children, only
school poverty level.
• suggestions and revisions. The U.S. Department of
. " _ sixtYP5~rcent of students are proficient in math and fifty
.:-- Education provided funding and analysis supportfor the _.
• percent of students are proficient in reading. The ... , -.
report, facilitated our use of data. and advised on the
NC End of Grade Test-Grade 4
category in North Carolina includes 100
reporting of indicators.
elementary schools from a total of over 1,200 schools.
Reading Level 3 and higher
This report comes at an important time for states,
1998 IGafii--l
1996
and students. Standards and assessments are at the center
North Carolina's accountability system and levels have
All Students
69.4% 70.9% 11.5%
of education reform in the states. Schools are working with
in place since 1992.A total of 5 percent of
00-34 % Poverty 77.3
79.4
12.1, I
• TItle I programs to develop new approaches to education
students were excluded from testing in grade 4 reading
75-100% Poverty 52.0
52.9
~
• for low-income students and other at-risk students. An
and math due to exemptions for disabilities and
• important goal of these efforts is to close the gap in
Math Level 3 and higher
• education opportunity and student learning between poor
1996
1998
wealthier students. We hope that State Education
The progress of North Carolina students in mathematics
All Students
67.8% 76.3%
8.5%
Indicators will be a useful tool in analyzing the effective
as measured on NAEP is consistent with the progress of
0-34 % Poverty
66.4
75.4
• ness of state education systems. We look forward to
75-100% Poverty 45.8
61.2
15.2
on the state assessment during the
• reader feedback on ways we can improve both the types of
1995 to 1998. For example, the percent of high poverty
• indicators we report and how they are presented and
schools at or above Basic mathematics level on NAEP
• explained. We hope to continue to examine indicator
Test-CRT; levels set in 1992
improved 19.7 percentage points over four years
trends in these indicators and to expand the usefulness of
North Carolina Level 3 Students performing at
• our reports for analyzing the development and implemen
1992 to 1996 (from analysis of NAEP data, School
this level consistently demonstrate mastery of
• tation of state systems of reporting and accountability.
Poverty and Academic Performance: NAEP Achievement
grade level subject matter and skills and are well
in High Poverty Schools, U.S. Department of Education,
prepared for the next grade level.
1998). Mathematics gains in high poverty schools on
the state assessment showed 8.5 percentage
In both Reading and Mathematics, a disparity in
at Level 3 over two years. The progress of North
achievement is evident between schools with few low
Carolina students in reading on NAEP from 1992 to
income students and schools with many low-income
1994 is different from the trend on the state assessment
For example the average school has 76.3
1996 to 1998. With each assessment, high poverty
percent of students above Level 3 in mathematics, while
schools made small gains in reading scores while NAEP
high-poverty schools have 61.2 percent above this level.
actually sliahtlv decreased.
Mathematics results did improve significantly in the
I
raiill
19.0
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A' FOCUS
ON
TITLE 1-1999
�Standards &Assessments
State Progress toward Development of Accountability System
Content
Standards
Performance
Standards
STATE
Complete 1999:
Core subjects
Met review
criteria of USED
Alabama
M, S, ElLA, SSt
Waiver
Alaska
M, S, ElLA
descriptors approved CAT·5
--~~-
Arizona
Waiver
Arkansas
Waiver
Achievement
reported for 1997-98
Proficiency
levels/year set
By sch.% poverty,
stud. LEP, Disability
Years of
consistent data
1996
Poverty, lEp, Dis.
3
-'-~~~--'
Stanford 9
Waiver
California
By levels
_.'-
Achievement
Disaggregated
Trends
Assessment
Results
1998
Stanford 9
1998-99
STAR
LEP
CO Student Assess.
Colorado
1997
Dis.
2
Dis.
4
Connecticut
LA, Math
CMT
1994
Delaware
Waiver
DE Student
1998
District of Columbia
ElLA
Waiver
SAT·9
Florida
M, S, LA, SSt
Waiver
Multiple tests
LEP
SSt
Idaho
Waiver
M, S,LA, HIG
Waiver
Dis.
Poverty, LEP, Dis.
HS Grad. Test
Waiver
SSt
Hawaii
1997
LEP, Dis.
2
lEP, Dis.
3
LEP, Dis.
SAH
SSt
3
ITBS and TAP
Indiana
Iowa
Math
IGAP
1996
Math
Illinois
ISTEP+
1997
ITBS
1997
KS Mathl Read Assess
1998
Waiver
Kansas
S, LA, SSt
Kentucky
1
Math
M, S, LA, SSt
2
KIRIS
Louisiana
SSt
LEAP
Maine
SSt
MEA
1995
3
SSt
MSPAP
1993
3
Massachusetts
LEP
MCAS
Missouri
MEAP Essential Skills
1996
MN Basic Standards Test
1998
Waiver
Minnesota
1998
Waiver
Waiver
SSt
ITBS and TAP
Math
Montana
Poverty, LEP, Dis.
2
2
LEP
3
1998 .
MO
Waiver
1997
Nebraska
Waiver
Nevada
Waiver
Terra Nova, Form A
LA, Math
NH State Assess. Test
New Hampshire
COUNCil
M, S, ElLA, SSt
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
NRTs
OFFICERS
1994
�State
Assessment
Results
Performance
Standards
By levels
- --- -- --~
-~-~~.,~~."
Complete 1999:
Core
-STATE
Met review
Achievement
JoL1997-=98__
New
SSt
Waiver
SSt
Waiver
1998
Trends
._ ._~~a.~y~~s.._-,
Years of
consistent data
ITBS
-Waiver_
--.-.
Proficiency
By sch. % poverty,
_ __levelsly.eats_eJ____
Early Warning Test
New Mexico
Achievement
Disaggregated
~.~-'--~"-;~
. New York
NY State
1973
North Carolina
M, 5, ElLA, SSt*
LA, Math
NC End of Grade Test
1992
Poverty, LEP, Dis.
North Dakota
M, ElLA
Waiver
CTBS
1997
~P
LA, Math
Ohio 4th and§t~Grade PrClf.Test
1996
Poverty
3
2
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
- MIS, EILA,SSt
Poverty, LEP
----
M,S, LA, SSt
------------
3
M, S, LA, SSt
LA, Math
OK Core Curric. Test
M, S, E, H
LA, Math
Oregon StatewideAs~__
1996
Poverty, LEP
M, ReadinglWriting
LA, Math
PA
1997
4
Dis.
-------
Under
Rhode Island
.----
of Student Assess.
Math
ElLA
PPCE
Math
New Stand. Ref. Exam
1998
Poverty, LEP, Dis.
Disability
South Carolina
M, S, ElLA
Waiver
MAT 7
1996
South Dakota
M,
LA, Math
SAT-9
1997
LA, SSt
Tennessee
M,S, E, SSt
Waiver
TN Compo Assess. Prog.
Texas
M, S, ElLA, SSt
LA, Math
TAAS
1995
Utah End ofLevelTest
1995
Utah
Waiver
Vermont
HISSt
. New Stand. Ref. Exam
Standards of Learning
M, S, SSt, LA
M, S, ElLA, SSt
Waiver
1996
1998
M, S, ElLA, SSt
LA, Math
M, 5, LA, SSt
LA, M<lth
Multiple Tests
49 M. ElLA
25
Poverty
WI Knowledge & Concept Exam
Wyoming
_LE_P._D_is_ability_ _ _ _ __
Stanford 9
Wisconsin
3
-------
CTBS4
West Virginia
Poverty, LEP, Dis.
Nation
Disability
----~~~--------~--------
33
11 (3 yrs.)
35
State Assessment Results for 1997-98: By Levels
Source: State Departments of Education, reported in Title I Periormance Report, Part
7, to U.S. Department of Education, 1998-1999, and CCSSO, Annual Survey
of State Assessment Programs, 1999.
State Content Standards
Source: State Departments of Education, CCSSO Policies and Practices
1998; and Status Report, State Systemic Education
Performance Standards
Source: U.S, Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Com
pensatory Education Programs, Review of State Title I plans, 1999.
Achievement Disaggregated; Trends Analysis
Source: State assessment results submitted in Title I Periormance Report, Part 7,
1998, and follow-up by CCSSO, State Education Assessment Center.
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE 1-1999
�Student Achievement by Category
Availability of Student Achievement Results by Disaggregated Category, 1997-98
(State results reported by Grade, School and Student Characteristics)
4
8
11
Arizona
4
Arkansas
5
8
7
10
10
California
4
8
Colorado
4
Connecticut
4
Delaware
3
10
10
elem
Dis!. of Columbia
8
8
middle
upper
florida
4
8
Georgia
3
8
Hawaii
3
8
Idaho
4
Illinois
3
8
8
11
11
10
11
Indiana
3
6
~~-----.
4
8
Kansas
Iowa
3r/4m
7
Kentucky
4r/5m
7r/8m
louisiana
3
7
Maine
4
8
Maryland
3
Massachusetts
4
Michigan
4
Minnesota
3
10
11
10
11
10
11
Mississippi
4
Missouri
3
8
10
Montana
4
elem
8
middle
11
Nebraska
~
8
8
7
8
8
Nevada
4
New Hampshire
3
New lersey
4 pilot
8
6
8
New Mexico
4
3
6
11
none
upper
8
New York
10
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
10
11
•
..
•
.
..
.
..
..
.,
..
"
•
..
•
•
•
•
.
..
..
..
..
•
.
..
.
.
.
•
SCHOOL
.•
all Title I
•
.
•
•
•
..
.
..
•
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
.
·
..
..
•
..
available in 1999
.
all Title I together
.
..
OFFICERS
•
.
•
•
•
.
.
•
..
..
..
•
•
•
.
.
..
•
•
..
.
.
•
.
..
..
•
•
•
"
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
.
....
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
~---------
.
.
.
•
.•
.
.
•
..
..
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
�~'
State,
I...,.....,..;~
Elementary
Grade
, Middle
'Grade
High
School
Grade
North Carolina
4
8
Course
North Dakota
4
8
11
Ohio
4
6
Oklahoma
5
8
11
Oregon
3
5
10
Pennsylvania
5
8
11
Puerto Rico
3
6
9
Rhode Island
4
8
10
South Carolina
4
7
11
South Dakota
4
8
11
Tennessee
4
8
Texas
4
8
Utah
4
6
Vermont
4
8
Virginia
3
8
Washington
4
8
West Virginia
4
8
Wisconsin
4
8
10
Wyoming
elem
middle
high
Nation
Source:
10
Course
10
All
Students
Schoolwide
Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
35
•
30
School
Poverty
level
49
all Title I together
low
Income
Students
limited
English
Proficient
Migrant
Disabled
Race!
Ethnicity
Gender
•
•
Targeted
Assistance
Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
23
26
25
~
-
""".- '-•.
•
--.
•
•
•
•
•
25
14
•
27
19
- ---
--.•
---_._.
-
•
•
•
u.s. Department of Education, Title I Performance Report, Part 7, 1997-98, with follow-up from CCSSQ,
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
1-1999
�V'I
0:::
UJ
u
o
o
o
:c
u
V'I
UJ
I
«
I
V'I
u..
UJ
:c
u
o
u
z
::>
o
u
�I I I
\J
:::0
o
I I
I
I I I
l/)
�http://157.149.1.31/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
· Statewide Accountability Information
---!
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
127
(CCD, 1997-98)
1989-90
Number of
schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
Middle
692
223
Student/teacher
ratio
High
(By st.te definition)
Combined
266!
154
530,737
207,514
345
1997-98
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
>50 percent of students at or above 40th percentile on
NRT (R, LA, M, s, SSt)
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Two percent gain per year for schools not attaining
Academic Clear. Academic Alert schools are required to
improve by 5 percent/year.
Indicators for School Accountability
Test scores
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
Other
Race/ethnicity
10
I
Elementary
Middle
17: 1
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
High
16: 1
17:1
(CCD, 1997-98)
525,730
198,013
n/a
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
1997-98
0.7%
0.5
35,7
0.2
62.9
0.8%
0.7
36.0
0.8
61.7
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
Middle
High
Combined
1990-91
Other
Students with disabilities
20,313 I 7,135 I 11,079 I 5)77 I 257
1989-90
proficient
Grade 4
education> 16 hours
Mathematics education >16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Grade 8
24%
24
n/a
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-9BI
1997-98
11.9%
(OSEP, K-12)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
12.1%
23%
45
57
nfa
Eng.
-_._------
Math
75 I 89
Soc. Std.
Sci.
73
• Title I enrollment
5,565
(USED)
•
1993-94
Migrant
1997-98
6,822
6,972
• Race/ethnicity
•
1996-97
6.2%
5.3%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
64%
68%
80
1997-98
1.0%
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
(OME, K-g!
1993-94
1997-98
236,589
21,784
2,061
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
High school
drop-out rate (CCO. event)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
· Title I Schools
Title I allocation
(IPEDS. High school grads enrolled in colli!lJe)
0.4
58.6
0.8
39.2
$131,409,069
(Includes 8asic. Concentration, and LEA grants. Capital Expenditures. Even Start, Migrant
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Education. and Neglected & Delinquent, USED. 1997-98)
:
•
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance (USED)
•
0-34%
Federal
9.6%
Schoolwide
Targeted Assistance
780
286
50-74%
Intermediate
0.2%
State
35-49%
587
75-100%
63.2%
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Alabama
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
Grade 8
[~~ading/~iln9.~,~ge Arts
Academic
Alert
~~c,
Academic
Caution
[Reading/lllnJJuagiArts---Academic
Clear
Academic
Alert
=
Academic
Caution
~
Academic
Clear
Assessment Reported
Stanford Achievement Test version 9, used since 1996
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.s.
Department of Education.
State Definition of "Proficient," used since 1996
The"Academic Caution" level reflects the percent of students
scoring at the4thstanTne:
- ....----.-----------. :.--~-----
! Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
8.4
27_8
LEP Students
Migrant students
11.3
23.4
80.2
48.8
31.4
16.1
24.8
26.4
. in Poverty. 00-34
75-100
12.3
32.0
76.4
43_9
43.8
57.5
11.4
24.1
. All students in Title I schools at tested grade
are included in the assessment results.
Exclusion from Assessment
IEP committee decisions, LEP committee decisions, or PEP decisions
for 504.
Other Assessments
None.
Grade 10
Academic
Academic
Academic
Alert
Caution
Clear
All Students
15.7%
15.4%
68.8%
Title I Schoolwide
21.5
18.9
59.7
Title ITargeted
13.4. 15.1
71.5
Percent ScI1OO1---····-------------------·---
in Poverty
00-34
9.6
10.8
79.6
75-100
26.5
21.5
52.0
LEP Students-----20:3----- --ioI---------s9.4
Migrant students
19.3
12.1
68.7
Academic
Alert
Academic
Caution
Academic
Clear
13.0
15.2
28.0
71.7
34.9
of
Student achievement trend
4th grade meets or exceeds Academic Caution
• All Students
• 0-34% free/Reduced lunch
75-100% free/Reduced Lunch
100
o
91.5
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
37.1
LEP Students
Migr(jlit
Academic
Academic
Academic
Alert
Caution
Clear
All Students
26.5%
16.9%
56.6%
Title I Schoolwide
40.1
20.2-~
!itl~Ja..rget~d..______.________..._._ .. . . .
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Academic Caution
• All Students
• ()34% free/Reduced lunch
o 75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
100
86.6
Academic
Alert
19.8%
Academic
Caution
'31:7
16.2
27.0
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
80
60
40
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
20
Academic
Clear
56.3%
39.0
56.8
Grade 8
24%
21%
56%
66%
11%
48%
12%
45%
o
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1995-1996
1996-1997
STATE
1997-1998
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
3
�http://www.educ.state.ak.us/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
Number of districts
school
enrollment
Number of
Elementary
Middle
High
183
34
72
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
205
9-12
(By state definition)
schools in state (CCO, 1997-98)
K-8
(CCO)
53
(CCD. 1997-98)
PreK
1989-90
81,698
27,582
nfa
1997-98
93,465
36,474
2,183
1989-90
22.4%
3.6
4.5
1.9
67.6
1997-98
24.8%
4.8
4.7
3.0
62.8
1990-91
10.9%
1997-98
11.9%
Other
I
Racefethnicity
3
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Elementary
18: 1
(CCD. 1997-98)
Statewid.e Accoun"tability Information
White
(CCD, K-12)
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCO, 1997-98)
Elementary
Middle
3,427
987
High
Combined
I 1,799 I 1
Other
Students with disabilities
5
(OSEP, K-12)
1989-90
11,103
1996-97
34,942
1993-94
16,732
1997-98
13,125
High school
drop-out rate (CCO. evenl)
1993-94
nfa
1996-97
nfa
• Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
37%
1996-97
42%
Professional development
of teachers in field
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
nfa
27%
nfa
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
(USED INCBE, K-12)
Grade 8
nfa
31%
50
Mig~ant
(OME. K-12J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ww
Secondary teachers
major in
main assignment
Math
Sci.
50
79
84
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
Soc. Std.
66
(!PEDS, High school grads enrolled in coli"}e)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Planned for 2002
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
none
Indicators for School Accountability
none
Title I AYP Target for Schools
>40 percent of students scoring proficient on CAT-5 every
2 years
. Title I Schools
• Title I enrollment
1997-98
17,104
1,695
439
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
Racefethnicity
997-98
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
4.1
7.8
3.4
29.5
I allocation
$26,661,743
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Slart, Migrant
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD. 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-981
~~ii~i~l)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs" targeted assistance
•
local
24.8%
State
63.4%
Education. and Neglected &Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
0-34%
Federal
11.8%
Schoolwide
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
238
298
35-49%
50-74%
[!II 81
75-100%
12
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Alaska
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
Grade 8
fRead~gl________________________~~___
Assessment Reported
California Achievement Test, Version 5, used since 1995-1996
~ading
Below
Proficient
Proficient
-------------------l
. .
;
Above
Proficient
Below
Proficient
Proficient
Pro,gress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
:
PerfOrmance descriptors of standards met review criteria of the
U.S. Department of Education.
Above
Proficient
State Definition of "Proficient"
50% or more questions answered correctly
---.-,-~~--,--
All-Students
c-=-:=~=-c-~____.~18::..:.=-2°,-,Vo~~~-=-42 .3%_ _ _39.5%
Title I Schoolwide
33.6
45.0
21.4._.
............_....
.._.. __
Title I Targeted
24.2
41.8
34.0
Percent of School
in Poverty__
-
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
48.1
44.6
43.4
37.3
8.5
18.1
All Students
22.2%
39.9%
37.9%
TItle I Schoolwide ____._._._._.._._ _._..._..._._._.__._ _.____.____.....__.._.__._.._......
51.5
35.5
13.0
.. " 0_'__0_- _ ....____..._.
__
Title I Targeted
32.2
38.4
29.4
Percent o(School
.In PQverty _ _
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
65.6
52.1
29.7
31.5
, Definition-of-Title-I-Targeted-Assistance
; All students in Title I schools at tested
: are included in the assessment results.
: Exclusion from Assessment
NoJnformation provided -- ___
-i
: Other Assessments
: High School Graduation Qualifying Exam, Benchmark Tests
4.8
16.4
------
rMathernatics- ------------ .------:------]
Below
Proficient
Proficient
~-------------------·-1
Above
Proficient
All Students
15.8%
45.1%
39.1%
Title I Schoolwide
30.7
46.0
23.3
18.7
44.7
36.6
TIt!~}_Iilrg_~!~~ _______________ __ __________________________ ____ _
Percent of School
in Povel1y
I
I Mathematics
Below
Proficient
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
29.3%
53.5
----------
Proficient
43.2%
27.5%
36.5 - - - - - - - - - 10.0
--
Pe:cent of School
in Poverty
00-34
Grade 11
L!§C!fu9
Below
Proficient
All Students
TItle I Schoolwide
32.0
30.8
52.3
45.1
15.7
24.0
LEP Students
~igrant students
Proficient
Above
Proficient
28.7%
74.7
44.8%
21.9
26.5%
3.4
~it!~I!?.!:ge!~_~ ___________ ~?~!
75-·100
LEP Students
Migrant students
-----~-
__________ ~}~!__________?.1~~_
IMathemat~-
00-34
75-100
--,.
~-.-~-
Above
Proficient
____________ ~1.:i__________ ~g:_~ _____
!it!~_L~'!I:g~.!~~ ________ ~L9
---.-
55.0
46.1
STATE
35.5
40.0
EDUCATION
9.4
13.9
-----~
Below
Proficient
All Students ._._--_.. _....._._-_. __. _..% __....
33.1 _--_.
-_..._.__ ..__
Title I Schoolwide
59.5
Title I Targeted
39.2
INDICATORS
WITH
A
Proficient
39.2%
34.7
38.9
FOCUS
ON
Above
Proficient
27.7%
5.8
21.9
TITLE
5
�http://www.ade.state.az.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
332
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
451,311
156,304
n/a
586,577
217,667
4,655
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
(CCD, 1997-98)
1989-90
1997-98
6.6%
1.5
4.1
23.7
64.1
7.0%
1.8
4.4
30.8
56.0
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state
Elementary
Middle
High
226
836
Student/teacher
ratio
(CCD, 1997-98)
37
49
High
19:1
20:1
21 :1
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
Combined
Other
Middle
High
22,866
I
7,658
I
158
10,053
1990-91
84
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
29%
22
n/a
Soc. Std.
65
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
Sci.
61
73
60,270
1997-98
18,173
1993-94
n/a
1996-97
n/a
.
1994-95
1996-97
50%
65
Postsecondary enrollment
47%
(IPEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
1997-98
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
(OME, K-12)
(CCD, evenl)
214,937
30,019
2,088
K-8
9-12
PreK
93,528
18,658
1997-98
Title I enrollment
(USED)
Migrant
High school
drop-out rate
Math
Title I Schools
1996-97
1993-94
25%
43
44
Eng.
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Progress toward 90 percent proficient
No students below basic
(USED INC8E, K-12)
Grade 8
I
,
(OSEP, K-12)
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
Indicators for School Accountability
i none
8.7%
1989-90
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
none
1997-98
8.0%
Students .with disabilities
Professional development
of teachers in field
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Transitional Assessment
Other
I
Middle
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
(8y state definition)
Combined
I
236
Statewide Accountability Information
15.5%
1.0
5.6
51.5
• 26.3
$121,119,108
• Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
to participate in the Free lunch Program
Education; and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
:
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance (USED)
_
Schoolwide
t:: ···d
Targeted Assistance
496
data not available
Federal
9.3%
""-----Intermediate
3.9%
State
45.0%
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Student Achievement i997-i 998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
, Stanford Achievement Test, Version 9
,
, Used since 1996-97
LEP Stuw::n\.:')
Migrant students
Migrant students
IMathematics
(88%oftotal school grade took
!Mat!lematics
(90% of total school grade!~
National
Percentile
All Students
National
Percentile
51%
All Students
42%
Il\IIathem~tics
00-34
LEP Students
Migrant students
(82% of total school gra9~!ook exaT1J
National
Percentile
Poverty
75-100
Grade 10
lli@fu!l______..__
75""100
LEPStu~d~e~n'~'s~
National
Percentile
___________________________________
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title ITargeted
Migrant students
47%
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
EDUCATION
22%
53%
28%
73%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
15%
57%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
18%
57%
TITLE
I
1
�http://arkedu.state.ar.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
311
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
1989-90
311,060
123,900
nfa
321,248
136,202
1,693
1989-90
1997-98
(CCD)
Elementary
Middle
High
574
187
(CCD, 1997-98)
323
Student/teacher
ratio
(By state definition)
Combined
I
23
Elementary
Middle
High
17: 1
17: 1
17: 1
(CCD, 1997-98)
Number of FTE teachers in state
Elementary
Middle
High
12,784 ! 5)31
Combined
I 7,879 I 250
1990-91
Other
Students with disabilities
876
Grade 4
Grade 8
29%
45 .
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
•
Math
Sci.
70
66
78'
Soc. Std.
9.7%
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
none
Indicators for School Accountability
none
Title I AYP Target for Schools
• ; Average >40th percentile on NRT,
. years
10 percent per 2
1989-90
nfa
10.3%
1997-98
14,965
1993-94
1996-97
•
Postsecondary enrollment
4.9%
5.0
1994-95
1996-97
48%
54%
(IPEDS, Highschool gra,js enrolled in college)
1997-98
141,728
11,002
2,171
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
lOME, K-12)_
70
Title I enrollment
5,282
11,344
(CCD. event)
•
1996-97
......._
Migrant
Title I Schools
1997-98
1993-94
15%
55
53·
nfa
l!!,SED INS_~~!L
High school
drop-out rate
Eng.
0.4%
0.8
23.7
2.2
72.9
(OSEr, K-12)
limited English proficient
(NAEP. 1995-96, 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
0.2%
0.6
24.0
0.4
74.8
I
(CCD, 1997-98)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
•
Other
5
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Developing
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
(CCD, 1997-98)
Number of public schools in state
Statewide Accountability Information
Racefethn icity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K- 12)
White
1997-98
0.3%
0.6
37,6
2.8
58.6
$80,475,746
Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
Sources of funding
Education, and Neglected & Delinquent. USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
468
•
Schoolwide
841
35-49%
Federal
7.8%
OF
CHIEF
STATE
828
I 311
75-100%
1995
COUNCil
Targeted Assistance
50-74%
Intermediate
0.1%
State
60.1%
(USED)
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Arkansas
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 5
Grade 7
!
~--'~~'------~-------------------------,
Mean
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the
U.S. Department of Education.
Mean
Ncr
Ncr
:::-:-::-=--c-:::=:;:-'--=-;-----:-;.----c=-...- - - - .----.... - - _ . .
..---..._.-..-.-...
i State·Oefinition·of..!!Proficient"----·
, Percentile; no levels
Exclusion from Assessment
No information pro)lided.
in Poverty
00-34
7)-100
L£P
Assessment Reported
Stanford Achievement Test, Version 9
Other Assessments
No information provided
Student~
Migrant students
Grade 10
[Mai~s"
Mean
NeE
All Students"44,S-'"
Titie
I Schoolv,ide----
Mean
NeE
---
...
..
Mean
NeE
All Students
46.5
TitlE' I Schoolwide
!Mathematics
LEP"Studenis"
Migrant students
Mean
NeE
LEP Stud::.:c::.:n.::ts;-.-________
Migrant students
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
EDUCATION
23%
55%
23%
68%
Math,1996:
Profident level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
13%
54%
13%
.52%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
I
9
�http://goldmine.cde.ca.gov/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
Statewide Accountability Information
-------
Number of districts
school
enrollment
,004
(CCO. 1997-98)
(CCD)
schools in state (C(D. 1997-98)
Number of
Elementary
Middle
High
Combined
1,211 I 1,443 I
5,175
Student/teacher
ratio
(By state definition)
152
Elementary
Raceiethnicity
23:1
(CCD. K-12)
Number of FTE teachers in state
Middle
High
1990-91
Other
Students with disabilities
1997-98
8.4%
Grade 8
Grade 4
Title I enrollment
•
1,381,393
(USED)
(USED INCBE, K-12)
Math
Soc. Std.
Sci.
50
1993-94
47%
70
63
62
1997-98
197,806
210,220
1993-94
1996-97
4.4%
3.3%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
61%
70%
Migrant
Racefethnicity
•
(IPEDS, High school wads enrolled in college)
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCO, 1996-97)
*
(CCD. 1997-98)
local
31.8%
1997-98
•
$924.683,568
Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant
Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
0.9%
7.7
14.3
57.7
17.6
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-lI)
White
(OME. K-12)
77
1997-98
,779,620
270,799
3,256
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
861,531
High school
drop-out rate (CCO. event)
57%
45
nfa
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
76 I
. Title I Schools
9.2%
1989-90
Limited English proficient
(NAEP, 1995-96. 1997-98)
Eng,
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Average school score at 50th percentile
(OSEP. K-12)
Professional development
of teach,ers in field
(SASS. Percent, 1993-94)
White
Indicators for School Accountability
Attendance, graduation, NRT scores
0.9%
11.1
8.8
40.5
38.8
(CCD, 1997-98)
144,835 I 43,859 I 63,091
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Five oercent gain in index annually.
1997-98
0.8%
10.4
8.7
33.0
47.1
--~
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Index baselines for each school
3,470,198 4,055,145
1,301,780 1,579,374
nfa
nfa
1989-90
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Middle
21:
(CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary
K-8
9-12
PreK
1997-98
Other
197
1989-90
3,271
•
Schoolwide
•
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
3.920
35-49%
50-]41%
State
60.0%
Federal
8.2%
75-100%
1,786
1,974
n/a
*3 Schools did not report
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�California
Assessment Information
student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students meeting slate proficiency levels
Grade 4
r,,·':-.:---·~ Arts
~~in9.fLanguags.
Assessment Reported
Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Form 1; used since
1997-1998
Grade 8
~adjn~/Lan~uage Arts
NPR
_ .. __,__
NPR
for Average
for Average
_"m,,__,••.____",_ _"".__•___, _••_. __,••_ _ _ _ _ ..
Title I Schoolwide
Title !Targeted -,-_ _ __
Percent of School
----inPovCfty--
in-POVerty
00-.34
00--34
75-100
75-100
lEP Students
students
15
-------------·----l
L~athes:natits
,
lEP Students
Migrant students
21
Grade
!]athematics
NPR
NPR
for Average
All Students
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
California has been granted a waiver of the deadline for
having performance standards in place. California has
adopted content standards in reading/language arts,
,-mathematics;-sEien<:e.and-historylsocial-science.-Perfof_-_~; _ _
l mance standards will be adopted in 1999 and 2000.
, State Definition of "Proficient"
! Percentile. no levels
I
--- i
- !"ExclUsi6nftom Assessment -
Exempted IEPs and students with written requests from
parents
Other Assessments
No inforrTlation p~2X!.dE!d
for Average
39%
NPR
Migrant students
15
Academic
Caution
Clear
NPR
Academic
Caution
Academic
45%
All Students
Title 1 Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percentof Schooi-------
in Poverty
00--34
75-100
lEP Students
Academic
for Average
lEP Students
for Average
23
Migrant students
Clear
All Stu-;;-de.,..n....
ts'-;--,-;-
Title I Schoolwide
Title I
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
20%
22%
64%
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
58%
11%
46%
NDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
17%
51%
TITLE
11
�http://www.cde.state.co.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Dem.ographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
176
(CCD, 1997-98)
1989-90
Elementary
Middle
High
883
266
289
S
tudentlteacher
ratio
(By state definition)
Combined
I
481,032
192,259
12,861
1997-98
Other
Race/ethnicity
I 26
33
Elementary
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCO, K-12)
White
High
19:1
18: 1
(CCD, 1997-98)
1997-98
407,525
155,230
3,366
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
0.9%
2.2
5.1
16.1
75.6
1.1%
2.7
5.6
19.3
71.3
• : Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
• : Phased in: 100 percent at proficient or advanced levels
j
• Expected School Improvement on Assessment
. Twenty-five percent gain in students scoring proficient per
, three years
• i Indicators for School Accountability
Test scores, graduation, dropout, expelled, suspended,
percent not tested
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Districts reduce difference between base index and 100%
by_10% annuallY' ___
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
18,558
Middle
High
Combined
1990-91
Other
I 7,954 I 10,102 I 566
Students with disabilities
359
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Grade 8
n/a
1993-94
44
Math
Sci.
65
78
91 I
Soc. Std.
1997-98
8,896
13,029
1993-94
1996-97
•
n/a
(CCD, event)
Postsecondary enrollment
n/a
1996-97
52%
61
1994-95
53%
(WEDS, High school 9fa<!s enrolledJncoliege)
71.
531
2,470
Race/ethnicity
(OME, K-12)
High school
drop-out rate
Eng.
24,675
(USED)
Migrant
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
15,011
• Title I enrollment
(USED INC BE, H2)
44% I 27%
21 I 42
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education>16 hours
(SASS, PefCent, 1993-94)
9.1%
1989-90
limited English proficient
Title I Schools
1997-98
(OSE?, K-12)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
8.8%
.
1997-98
2.1%
1.5
8.2
45.4
42,9
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
• Title I allocation
$74,147,303
(Includes Basic, (oneenITation, and LEA grants, (apita! Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant
District average
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD. 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Education, and Neglected & D<!linquent, USED. 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
State
44.1%
0-34%
-------'
local
35-49%
50.6%
50-74%
1,093
•
Schoolwide
D
(USED)
•
Targeted ASSistance
582
205
158
Federal
5.2%
75-1
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL OFFICERS
1996
1998
I
�Colorado
Assessment ·Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
.,
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
(97.1 % oltotal school grade tOOK ex~;;;il
[Reading/language Arts
Progress
Partially
Proficient
Proficient
Advanced
10.2%
20.2
12.2
30.1 %
38.8
33.6
50.6%
34.8
46.0
6.1 %
1.9
4.7
In
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of.school
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
25.6
41.9
5.8
26.0
58.2
25.0
8.1
1.1
Assessment Reported
Colorado Student Assessment Program, used since 1996-1997
and writing only for
Grade 8
: Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
. Descriptors for performance standards met review criteria of the
U.S. Department of Education.
Not
Tested
2.9%
4.3
3.5
2.2
6.0
LEP
;
1 Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
All students in Title I schools at tested grade
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
are included in the assessment results.
Exdiisionfrom Assessment
No information provided
75-100
Other Assessments
A variety of assessments are used for math until state
assessment is in place.
LEP Students
Mig@l1t
.
_-
-"
- -,-
.-~~--
Grade 10
[}y1athemath:;s
[WJauiem_a_t.;..ic_s_.___
All Students
All StUdents
Title i Schoolwide
Title! Schoolwide
Xille 1Targete.d
Percent of School
in Poverty
in Poverty
00·-34
75-100
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
f!1i9!i3r~t?!~.~.~~.!S_.
All Students
Title I Schoo'-w'C'id:-e--
Title I Targeted
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
o
801
60
NAEP State Results
•
All Students
.0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
100
I "7
:i.
:~11120.5
Grade 4
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
""7_
1126.1
r-,
OI _ _I .. _J
_ L - I
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
STATE
EDUCATION
Grade 8
34%
69%
30%
76%
Math, 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
66.3
22%
67%
25%
67%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
13
�Connecticut
http://www.state.ct.us/sde/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
166
Number of districts
(CCD. 1997-98)
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
338.378
123,182
4,870
382,915
140,872
9,678
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
1989-90
1997-98
Public school
enrollment
(CCD)
schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Middle
High
Combined
654
180
Studentfteacher
ratio
176
I
(By state definition)
Other
I
43
5
Elementary
Middle
High
16:1
13:1
13:1
(CCO. 1991-98)
Number of FTE teachers in state (cco. 1991-98)
Elementary
Middle
High
Combined
17,674
18
Students with disabilities
12.1%
0.2%
2.5
13.7
12.1
71.5
1997-98
12.5%
1989-90
16,495
1993-94
1997-98
3,882
5,347
High school
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Eng.
36%
22
I
nfa
1993-94
1996-97
4.9%
3.9%
Sci.
Soc. Std.
84
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
72%
73%
Indicators for School Accountability
Grades 4,6, and 8 CRT scores 3 subjects
Grade 10 CRT scores 4 subjects
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Gain on achievement index based on current level over 2
years.
L ____
~_'_"~_
. Title I Schools
• Title I enrollment
Migrant
(OME. K-12)
92
(I.PEDS. High school grads enrollad in college)
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
66,398
7,305
2,368
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
1997-98
(USED)
Grade 8
31%
47
51
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
19,819
proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Title I goals are only in place at this time
1996-97
Professional development
of teachers in field
(SASS. Percent. 1993-94)
0.2%
2.0
12.5
9.7
75.6
1990-91
Other
I 8,196 110,767 I 625
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Statewide Accountability Information
0.2%
1.4
33.4
35.8
28.3
Title I allocation
$71,835,314
(Includes Basic. Concentration. and LEA grants. Capital Expenditures. Even Start. Migrant
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligibl$
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD. 1996-91)
(CCO. \997-98)
Education. and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
School wide
•
State
37.1%
Local
59.4%
0-34% I
I 781
35-49%
Federal
targeted assistance
Schoolwide
0
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
536
77
50-74%
VS.
79
75-100%
3.5%
• 67 schools did not report.
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Connecticut
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
L
Readin!l/language Arts
All Students
ntleiSchoolwlde
TitlelJargeted
Percent of School
'inPi.ivert{~ ,.,
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
~g!'l.nt Students
Score
Band 1
23.3%
60.7
23.3
Score
Band 2
22:3%
24.0
23.9
Score
Band 3
14.8
62.1
82.1
76.7
20.8
243
10.9
14.8
64.4
13.6
6.9
8.5
[Mathematics '
____ _
L',..,.~
Grade 8
(91.9% of total school grade took exami}
(93.0% of total
~·
54~4%
153
52.9
I
Grade 10
'0~(Ilgrade took exa'miJ
Score
Score
Score ,
Score
Band 1
Band 2
Band 3
Band 4
All Students
9.9%
10.4%
18.4%
61.4%
TitlilSchooIWide- 32.1
iT.7 21.7
24.5
TItle I Targeted
9.2
10.6
19.7
60.4
Percent'of School
in Poverty
00-34
4.8
7.4
16.9
71.0
75-100
34.0
22.4
21.6
22.1
LEP Students
50.8
203
17.1
11.8
Migran~Stud~~_,
43.3 __ ~lJL ____ J2..L_-.-!8~_~
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade in Score Band 3
.
Score
Band 1
Score
Band 2
Score
Band 3
00-34
4.5
10.2
75-100
35.2
28.2
LEP Students
59.1
15.9
M!g..:ant Studef1ts__ ~_21_·L~,_JJJ_ _
20.7
64.6
22.0
14.6
11.4
13.6
l ~~~ __ .1,I!:~ __
40
20
o
1997-1998
Score
Band 1
Score
Band 2
Score
Band 3
Score
Band 4
__~_(_8~% of_~~1 s~t;;,~ grade too\( ~x;;;;;n
Score
Band 1
Score
Band 2
Score
Band 3
Score
Band 4
16.8
19.1
31.0
33.2
NAEP State Results
i]
1996-1997
1996·1997
STATE
Grade 8
46%
78%
42%
82%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
11.2
Grade 4
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
58.5
I
!j1athematics
Title I Targeted
III All Students
III 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
o 75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
100
60
1996-1997
Score
Band 4
in Poverty
80
1995-1996
--'---------~.--~,...,...-,'---.'-~'
~I!g/languag.~ Arts__(~~:~~!:!P~fi:~~i~!~o~ exam)!
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade in Score Band 4
• All Students
• 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
o 75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
100
Score
Score
Score
Band 1
Band 2
Band 3
AII"Students---"-15:4%-- ~18::2%---66;4%
TiilelSchoolwide
46T29.2---f4.s-
Title I Targeted
14.2---18.r~ --67.2'
Percent of School
in Poverty- ~
00-34
10.0
16.1
73.8
Assessment Reported
Connecticut Mastery Tes~ used since 1985; grades 4, 6, 8
Connecticut Academic Performance Tes~ used since 1995 (grade 10)
Connecticut administers the CMT in September. Fall CMT test results
are considered an outcome measure for the previous school year.
The CAPT is administered in May.
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.s, Department of
Education.
Reading Score Band 3; MatnScore Banif4, useasifiCel993;---"
high school levels set in 1994. Oefinitions provided in Appendix A
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
All students in Title I schools at tested grade
are included ill the.assessmen~ re~u!ts.
Exclusion from Assessment
Percent tested: valid test scores available; percent excluded includes
exemptions due to disability status or enrollment in a bilingual or ESL
program, absences. and invalid test scores
Other Assessments
None
31%
75%
31%
70%
1997-1998
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
15
�http://www.doe.state.de.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
70,699
27,109
n/a
78,200
33,188
572
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
19
Number of districts
1989-90
1997-98
Public school
enrollment
(CCD, 1997-98)
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary
Middle
High
Combined
86
42
Student/teacher
ratio
(CCD.
I
34
Middle
High
17: 1
17: 1
16: 1
Number of FTE teachers in state
Elementary' Middle
High
Combined
0.1%
1.5
26.9
2.6
68.7
Indicators for School Accountability
none
0.2%
1.9
30.1
4.6
63.2
1990-91
Other
Students with disabilities
n/a
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Districts select transition NRT with state
1997-98
12.4%
1989-90
proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96. 1997-9B)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
31%
22
n/a
Math
I
I
Sci.
90
n/a
Title I enrollment
1,470
1,928
(USED)
1993-94
32%
55
45
(OME,
K~
Soc. Std.
82
.
1997-98
740
Migrant
573
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.~
1993-94
Postsecondary enrollment
77
1996-97
4.6%
4.5%
1994-95
1996-97
65%
(CCD. event)
84%
(IPEDS. High school grads emolled-"'-COlioge)
•
1997-98
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD. 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
$19,068,780
Title I allocation
grants,~Capital
Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
0-34%
0.3%
.0
41.6
6.9
50.2
Edutation. and Negle<:ted & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
*
Local
27.6%
1997-98
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
(Includes Basic. Concentration, and LEA
Sources of funding
8,222
401
36
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
Grade 8
High school
drop-out rate
Eng.
· Title I Schools
11.7%
(OSEP. K-12)
Professional development
of teachers in field
(SASS, Percent, 1993·94)
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
none
(CCD, 1997-98)
I 1,788 I 2,061 I 267
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
, Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
. Setting standards-1999
Other
Elementary
1997~98)
2,650
(By state definition)
I 1
22
· Statewide Accountability Information
Schoolwide
96
D
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
118
110
State
64.8%
Federal
7.6%
35-49%
50-74%
75-100%
'15 s(hools did not
report~
o
1995
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Delaware
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
Delaware Student
Grade 3
Grade 8
[Readin~/L~r:.9uage Arts
TReading/Language Arts
l..':...______
Title ITargeted
Percent 5(1\00-'---~-
in Poverty
of
Title 1Targpted
Percent ofschool
if)
PoY~11Y
!Other-Assessments-
i None
75--100
18
LEP Students
18
students
National
Percentile
All Students
Title I
(94.6% of total sCh~}Jl!ade took e~;~
Grade 10
,-_J?L7% of total 5~hool grad~ t()<)~~~~I1l) I
[Bead§g
National
Percentile
53%
Affsti.laents- --""'""'41%
30
Title I
r~t!.~II~!9~t~9_____________
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75--100
LE P Students
Migrant students
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the
U.S. Department of Education.
Exdusion--from-Assessment ---__
: Small percentage of students with disabilities and lEP
students as per decision of IEP or child study team
[Ma}heIliatiCs-:
---
1
National
Percentile
00-34
00--34
75-100
LE P Students
Migral'! stude']t,
(95.;"% of t~;al school grade to~_ k exam)
_
_______
.~~~._~_
National
Percentile
Title ITargeted
Pel-cf:1tofSchool - - -
in Poverty
IMathematics
00-34
7S-l00
25
UP Students
Migrant student,
28
22
All Students
Title I
Tille I TiJrgetHl
;NAEP State Results
Grade 4
EDUCATION
25%
57%
25%
66%
tMath. 1996:
, Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
;Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
16%
54%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
19%
55%
TITLE
I
17
�District of Columbia
http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of
Public school
enrollment
(CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
Middle
High
110
23
23
(CCD, 1997-98)
Student/teacher
ratio
I
Middle
Elementary
9-12
PreK
Race/ethnicity
11
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
High
n/a
(CCD. 1997-98)
52,452
15,896
5,156
1997-98
0.0%
0.9
90.7
4.6
3.7
0.0%
1.5
87.0
7.5
4.0
Other
I
3
i Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
!
1989-90
K-8
(By state definition)
Combined
1997-98
60,662
'20,639
3,749
1989-90
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state
Statewide Accountability Information
n/a
White
(CCD. K-I2)
None
Expeded School Improvement on Assessment
, None
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Move 5 percent of students up one levellyear, 10 percent from
below basic to basic level, decrease Secondary dropout rate by
10 percent. 93 percellt elementary attendance rate. 90 percent
attendance rate for middle and junior high. senior high 10
percent improvement
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Middle
n/a
High
n/a
Combined
n/a
n/a
1990-91
Other
Students with disabilities
n/a
1997-98
7.3%
10.1%
(OSEP. K-12)
1989-90
Professional development
of teachers in field
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995--96, 1997-98)
30%
27
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education>16 hours
n/a
3,417
1993-94
326
n/a
Math
90
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
Soc. Std.
Sci.
82 I n/a
n/a
•
.
Sources of funding
Postsecondary enrollment
1997-98
65
1996-97
n/a
1994-95
1996-97
71%
84%
(IPEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
.182
3,535
7.140
9-12
PreK
(USED)
15%
60
55
1997-98
K-8
4,911
1993-94
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
• Title I enrollment
1996-97
(USED INCBE. K-l2)
Grade 8
· Title I Schools
1997-98
• Race/ethnicity
0.0%
1.1
90.7
7.9
0.3
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
$23,309,146
Title I allocation
(Indudes Basic. Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start. Migrant
Distrid average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Education, and Neglected & Delinquent. USED, 1997-98)
: Number of schools with Title I programs
schoolwide
•
\IS.
tarqeted assistance
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
School wide
local
89
89:5%
data not available
Federal
10.5%
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�District of Columbia
Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
: Assessment Repo~ted
I Stanford Achievement Test Version 9. The District of Columbia
was unable to report results by grade this year.
Elel'!'entary Grades 1-6 ______
[~eading/L'!!!guage ~rts
e_e
" ,~
•
Middle and Junior High Grades 6-9
16eading/Lang-':'il.ge Arts
Below
-- - -
- -
-:=1
Below
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
, Department of Education.
,
: State Definition of "Proficient", set in 1995
'--;-Represents-solid-academic-perfonnance -that---
i students are prepared for this grade level
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Definition of Title I Targeted
All students in targeted assistance
in Poverty
00-34
3.8
21.2
36.9
5.7
33.6
42.7
18.0
1.2
Exclusion from Assessment
LEP and IEP
Other Assessments
ESL Portfolio Assessment
-~-------
High School Grades 10-12
[Ma~~_~Tatics -:--- '_'~
Below
Basic
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
. Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
32.2%
36.1 '
35.3
6.2
Proficient Advanced
38.4%
22.4%
7.1%
39.9
19.5
4.5
36.02]_._9_ _ ~.?__
Below
Basic
42.1
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent oIS-chool
in Poverty
00-34
Basic
Below
Basic
Proficient Advanced
-----------
57.0%
71.0
55.8
30.4%
23.8
34.1
10.2%
4.7
9.6
26.0
34.9
25.2
2.4%
0.4
0.5
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeter!
Basic
46.0%
67.4
39.9%
30.2
Below
Basic
Basic
22.1
[ReadingLLilng.!:'~g! A~,
Basic
Proficient Advanced
12.0%
2.4
2.2%
13.9
::-:.c:--~----;---
Proficient Advanced
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Tar~v~ted
Grade 4. Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
10%
12%
38%
44%
Math, 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
5%
20%
5%
20%
I
S TAT E
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WIT H
A
F0 C US
ON
TIT l E
19
�http://www.firn.edu/doe/index.html
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
(CCD. 1997-98)
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
(By state definition)
Number of districts
67
(CCD)
Elementary
1,609
I
Middle
465
S
tudentlteacher
ratio
(CCD. 1997-98)
High
374
I
Combined
I 362
Elementary
18: 1
!
Other
67
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Middle
20:1
19: 1
(CCD, K-11)
Elementary
Combined
62,904
10,486
I
Students with disabilities
911
Grade 4
Grade 8
1989-90
1,303,439
486,486
nfa
1997-98
1,626,263
613,694
54,044
1989-90
0.2%
1.4
23.8
11.9
62.8
1997-98
0.2%
1.8
25.4
16.4
56.2
1990-91
11.4%
1997-98
12.7%
(DIE?, K-ll)
limited English proficient
(NAEP, 1995--96, 1997-98)
•
1989-90
57,710
Eng,
83
1997-98
52,941
1993-94
1996-97
76
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
49%
Migrant
nfa
Math
I
1993-94
54,595
34%
61
61
(OME. Hl)
Soc. Std.
Sci.
I
52
•
86
Title I Schools
• Title I enrollment
nfa
nfa
1996-97
54%
(IPEDS. High school grads enrolled in college)
1997-98
580,903
7.374
23,631
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
(USED INCBE, K-l1)
45%/
30
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
High School: >85 percent pass lang. Arts, >80 percent pass
Math, >67 percent Writing. Middle School: >40 percent
50th percentile NRT. Elementary school: >33 percent over
50th percentile NRT
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Meet target in 3 years
Indicators for School Accountability
Test scores
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
1996-97
288,603
High school
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education>16 hours
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
White
Other
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
K-8
9-12
PreK
· Statewide Accountability Information
• Racefethnicity
1997-98
0.3%
1.1
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, Hl)
White
Title I allocation
39.9
19.0
39.1
$358,106,126
(Includes Basic. Concentration. and lEA 9rants. Capital Exjlt!nditure~ Even Start. Migrant
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
District average
(CCD, 1996-97)
Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED. 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
(CCO. 1997-98)
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
Local
43.8%
0-34% L
I 1,360
•
Schoolwide
•
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
848
State
48.8%
Federal
35-49%
7.4%
50-74%
75-100%
1995
COUNCIL OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OffiCERS
1996
1998
�Florida
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students
Assessment Information
state proficiency levels
Grade 8
Grade 4
__~=:J
L!k@!!ig!!-anguag!!\rts
:-J
~g/language Arts
----.
:r~~~~~~~t
Proficient
Alf~sili"deiits--~~--49!%-'-'~-=~25o/~==;='''~--2-60'k===~~--':,~IF~t",~rl;;;lt~ -====::46,>i,":::===J~-iv;=== ~=;)io.
I
Assessment Reported
Multiple Assessment Tools; High School Competency Test-
Communications and Mathematics
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
State Definition of "Profident"
J~~~~j"i~==~~===~~===~~==-~-1:-see-APpendix-A~Florida-includes-proficientand-advanced
. P rty
In ove
.
29
18
31
71
40
11
In 'Poverty
-
00-34
75-100
31
30
72
17
scores in their reporting of Proficient to the Department of .
Education. We have separated advanced scores out for
j purposes of this report.
"Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
All students in TItle I schools at tested grade
are included in the assessment results.
Exclusion from Assessment
Absence, sickness, temporary disability, etc.
39
11
LEP Students
M!grant students
Grade 11
!Communications
Partially
Proficient
Proficient
All Students
38%
24%
----TItle I Schoolwide
49 -----_..._-----
23
._TI"iiei "Targeted----- 35
28
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
22
25
75-100
55
22
---------
LEP Students
Migrantstude!rts'
74
Partially
Advanced
38%
28
37
53
23
16
63 ----20
Proficient
Proficient
All Students
43%
26%
Title I Schoolwlde- 60 --'~-'----21Title I Targeted29
Percent of Schoor
in Poverty
00-34
29
27
75-100
67
20
LEP - - - -Students
Migrant students
85
Partially
All Students
Title! Schoolwide ----33
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
100
[M'a"thematics
44
13
Partially
4
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TitleT Targeted
10
Proficient
24%
30
25
Proficient
76%
70
75
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
100
Proficient
79%
67
28
11
18
72
Proficient
21%
Advanced
801
67
69
• All Students
• 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
o
III All Students
III 0-34% Free/Reduced lunch
NAEP State Results
o 75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
80
Grade 4 _ Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
60
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
40
23%
54%
65%
15%
55%
17%
54%
23%
Math, 1996:
20
o.JIII I
1996-1997
1997-1998
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1998-1999
1996-1997
1997-1998
STATE
1998-1999
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
�http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Public schoo!
180
of districts
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
1,136
I
High
IBy state definition)
I
Student/teacher
ratio
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
16:1
I
71
Race/ethnicity
3
Middle
17:1
Number ofFTE teachers in state
High
White
Professional development
of teachers in field
(NAEP, 199,-96, 1997-98)
1997-98
I
0.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
38.0
1997-98
1,9
2,9
57,1
3,468
Students with disabilities
I 180
8.0%
Eng.
82
:
II
·I
~~
~
Limited English proficient
Grade 8
24%
25
n/a
Sci.
I
29%
44
41
Soc. Std,
1997-98
IOSEP, H2)
1989-90
Grade 4
· Title I Schools
9.8%
•
6,194
IUS ED)
1993-94
1997-98
13,373
14,973
1993-94
1996-97
9,0%
8,2%
• Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
59%
57%
Migrant
K-12)
90
(!PEDS, High school
~rads
enrolled in college)
305,162
9-12
PreK
14,339
IUSEOINCBE, K-12)
!Q~l,
K-8
1996-:-97
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, e""nt)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
365,429
29,357
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
School: ':>85 percent pass lang. Arts, >75
Math on CRl All students >40th percentile on NRT (4
subjects)
,
, Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Eight percent increase in students scoring proficient per
year
, Indicators for School Accountability
Curriculum implifmentation, professional development,
test scores
• I Title I AYP Target for Schools
• i Same as statewide____" ____,___,,
L::_, _____ ____, goal
______________J
(CCD, 1997-98)'
Combined Other
19.525
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
n/a
1990-91
High
15:1
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
(CCD, K-12)
Elementarv Middle
298,109
Combined Other
280
333
1997-98
828,426
1989-90
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
16)63
4,681
Race/ethnicity
1997-98
0.1%
1.0
American Indian/Alaskan
AsianlPacific Islander
Black
61.9
4.3
31.7
White
(USED, K-12)
I allocation
$200,419,145
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA granl5, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
District average
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-971
(CCD, 1997-98)
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
Schoolwide
(USED)
•
Targeted Assistance
994
1995
CO U N C I L
0 F
CH I E F
STAT ESC H 0 0 L
0 F F ICE R 5
1996
1998
�Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
r
I:
Assessment Reported
Iowa Test of Basic Skills
Grade 3
[Reading~ang-ua-9~e~Ans:::~_·_________________~
Grade 8
National
--------Percentile--
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Tirie I Targeted
Perceli t of School
in
53%
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
National
Percentile
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
_________----+~S_tate Definition of "Proficient"
t;tl~~~C=480/0
N"iltional percent lln --;;-;;-1=1;-
Exclusion from Assessment
No information provided
-~-+--.-,
in Poverty
Other Assessments
00-34
75-100
No information provided
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant studen~ _______
Grade
National
Percentile
National
Percentile
61%
55%
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
!itle I largeted
Percent of Scbool
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Percent of School
f,M~he~atics
in Poverty
i
~
k
~--'--~
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
~1_!g~!1t_st~ld~£l~_._.
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
EDUCATION
24%
55%
25%
68%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
13%
53%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
16%
51%
TITLE
�http://www.k12.hLus/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
n/a
1997-98
135,726
53,448
606
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
1989-90
0.3%
71.7
2.6
2.3
23.0
1997-98
0.4%
70.7
2.6
4.7
21.6
Students with disabilities
1990-91
6.8%
1997-98
8.4%
(CCD)
(CCD. 1997-98)
Number of public schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
174
I
30
I
35
Student/teacher
Elementary
ratio
Middle
I
18:1
(CCD. 1997-98)
I
9
2
High
18:1
18:1
K-8
9-12
(By state definition)
Pre K
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
5,790
I 1,457 I 3,033
229
Professional development
of teachers in field
77
Grade 4
Grade 8
1989-90
123,496
45,997
1989-90
8,407
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Eng.
81 I
(SASS. Percent. t 993-94)
47%
30
I
n/a
Math
Sci.
74
69
38%
55
56
Soc. Std.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Title I AYP Target for Schools
None
Title I Schools
PreK
1997-98
58,838
3,260
321
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
1997-98
0.4%
68.2
2.4
2.7
16.2
Title I enrollment
K-8
9-12
1996-97
12,349
(USED)
(USED/NCBE. K-12)
n/a
1997-98
425
High school
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None
(OSEP. K-12)
Limited English proficient
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
Statewide Accountability Information
1993-94
1993-94
4.9%
1996-97
4.8%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
62%
1996-97
73%
Migrant
(OME. K-t2)
I 86
(IPEDS. High school grads enrolled in college)
•
$20,746,182
Title I allocation
(Includes Basic. Concentration. and LEA grants. Capital Expenditures. Even Start.
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD. 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
Sources of funding
Migrant Education. and Neglected & Delinquent. USED. 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
.
, _ Federal
8.1%
Local
35-49%
50-74%
2.4%
r:
44
35
0
1995
o
F
CHI F
E
S TAT E
SCHOOL
Targeted Assistance
I 170
75-100%
COUNCIL
•
102
0-34% I
State~
89.5%
Schoolwide
(USED)
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Hawaii
Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students
state oroficiencv levels
Grade 3
Assessment Reported
Stanford Achievement Test version 8, used since 1992
Grade 8
rReading/Language- Arts
(90% 01 total school gr;~; took e;a~
Partially
Profident
jR';ading/Language Arts
of total school gr~~.. took exam)]
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
Partially
Proficient
Advanced
Profident
(90%
1\11 t" ..... .J ... _ ......
38.3
78.5
LEP Students
Migrant students
42.5
18.6
19.2
2.9
84.2
14.1
1.8
Ime I ::.cnOOIWloe
Title I Targeted
Percent of SchoOl
i~ Poverty
00-34
75-100
b/A
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
All students in Title I schools at tested grade
are included in the assessment results.
1:111
44.6 .
75.2
LEP Students
Migran.!__stud~nts
33.8
17.0
21:7
7.9
J:Yrlu<inn' from Assessmenf
No appropriate test form for all special education stu
dents
!lU.3
Other Assessments
Hawa~ .~tat~ I~~t ?f.~ssential Com~~te.!lcies
!Mathematic~___~ ________ (90% of tOlal school grade took exam>!
AIISiudentS .
Partially
Proficient
Profident
41.5% ...... 33.4%
51.4
31.6
37.8
35.0
...-------....
---.-.----~
~~
L
Mathematics
__- ____ (90% 01 tOlal school grade took e~
_
Partially
Proficient
Advanced
"._---.
25.1%
17.0
27.2
Proficient
Grade 10
Partially
Proficient
Advanced
...
Proficient
A-IEtudeTits------ .. --·49.0%-31.ioi~
Advanced
19.4o
f·-
------------~~---~--
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
27.7
64.3
34.3
25.5
38.0
10.3
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
61.4
27.1
11.5
100,
•
II
All Students
0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
o 75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
75.8
]2.3
28.0
37.8
60.3
65.8
24.9
9.3
64:0-26-.0-----10-:0--
n ---------------------;1]
Mathematics
.
tOlal school
took
LEP
Student achievement trend
Reading 3rd grade meets or exceeds Proficient
80
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
29.9
11.8
(90% 01
Partially
Proficient
All Students
48.0%
Title I Schoolwide
64.2
:r:!!~_'_l~!geted. _________ ~O.3
grade
Profident
33.1 %
27.3
21.6
100 ,
•
II
All Students
0-34% Free/Reduced lunch
o 75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
801
62.2
Grade 4
1998-1999
1996-1997
1997-1998
5 TAT E
• Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1998-1999
EDUCATION
17%
45%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1997-1998
Advanced
18.9%
8.6
8.1
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
61.7
1996-1997
exam)
16%
53%
Grade 8
19%
60%
16%
51%
i
~-
I
INDICATORS
WIT H
A
F0 CU S
ON
TIT L E
25
�Idaho
http://www.sde.state.id.us/Oept/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
156,602
58,330
166,648
75,539
2,114
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
112
Number of districts
(CCD,
1989-90
Public school
enrollment
1997~98)
(CCO)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combi.ned Other
342
I 106
I
161
Student/teacher
Elementary
ratio
Middle
19:1
(CCD. 1997-98)
(By stale definition)
I 7
20
High
18:1
18:1
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
6,125
I 2,851 I 3,853 I 245
Reading education > 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
I
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69 I
Sci.
Math
n/a
1997-98
9.1%
8.4%
461
77
1
•
1997-98
•
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
48%
47%
73
1997-98
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED,K-12)
White
(OME, K-12)
1996-97
n/a
37,050
1,894
565
9-12
PreK
(USED)
1993-94
1997-98
K-8
11,632
Migrant
Title I enrollment
12,210
1993-94
· Title I Schools
1996-97
3,440
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Combined scores on NRT,performance tests (Math,
local measures. .
•
n/a
n/a
n/a
Soc. Std.
Indicators for School Accountability
Attendance, dropout rates, test scores
n/a
n/a
- school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Eng.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
n/a
n/a
(OSEP, K-12)
proficient
Grade 8
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
School accreditation based on index
1997-98
n/a
n/a
1990-91 .
Students with disabilities
131
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995- 96. 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
n/a
1989-90·
Professional development
of teachers in
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
· Statewide Accountability Information
n/a
•
1.0%
0.5
OJ
10.6
37.5
$26,091,926
Title I allocation
(Includes Basic. Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD, 1995-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Local
29.8%
Migraot Education. and Neglected & Delinquent. USED, 1997-98)
-------
Number of schOols with Title I programs
5choolwide vs. targeted assistance (USED)
474
0-34%
•
Schoolwide
EGl
Targeted Assistance
413
35-49%
Stat,e
63.5%
Federal
6.7%
120
50-74%
75-100% 117
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Idaho
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
Grade 4
Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Tests ofAchievement and Proficiency,
Form K,
Grade 8
~dingfl~nguage Arts
-: -~
!Readi{lg/LangliijeAriS-_-----
Below
Partially
Part. Prof. Proficient
Profkient
Below
Partially
Part. Prof. Proficient
Advanced
Proficient
Advanced
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the u.s.
Department of Education.
All Students
~,~,
'"-'~'~'----'
,,-.-,~,~.---.--.--
.Pe,cen1 of5J@QI_.
in Poverty
00-34
LEP Students
MTgrant students
Idaho Direct MathlWriting Assessments,
75-100
75-·100
11 %
10
33%
49%
31------s4
Grade 10
!lIJIathE!matics
Below
Partially
Part. Prof. Proficient
Proficient
Below
Partially
Part. Prof. Proficient
Advanced
Proficient
Advanced
Below
Partially
Part. Prof. Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Advanced
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
-percent of School -
in
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
13%
Migrant stlJcfents---9 ------·-·c-::----
Below
Partially
Part. Prof. Proficient
Advanced
75-100
~%_~'l'0__
54
-
10
LEP Students
Migrantstudents
16%
3
Ali Students
-------.-
-~,----
Student
Title I Schooiwide
Title I
NA.EP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
S TAT E
E DUe A T ION
I N Die A TOR S WIT H A
Foe U SON TIT LEI
27
�Illinois
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
935
(CCD, 1997-98)
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
(By .Iale definition)
Number of districts
1989-90
I
2,590
High
713
I
I
114
Middle
I
Racefethnicity
59
American Indian/Alaskan
AsianlPacificlslander
Black
High
17: 1
16:1
White
(CCD, K-12)
Number of HE teachers in state
Elementary Middle
61,465
I
18,918
High
J
1990-91
Combined Other
32,628
I
0.2%
3.1
21.3
13.2
62.3
I
2,203
Students with disabilities
699
1997-98
11.5%
11.5%
(OSEP, K-12)
1989-90
Eng,
89 I
73,185
Indicators for School Accountability
none
TItle I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
--.-.-.-.-.
1993-94
Math
Sci.
82
77
•
n/a
n/a
nfa
1997-98
3,619
3,520
1993-94
1996-97
nfa
nfa
Soc. Std,
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
64%
70%
• Title I enrollment
(OME, K-12)
I 80
(IPEDS, High school grad. enroiled in (olie<)e)
1997-98
374,365
83,464
15,143
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
(USEDINCBE, K-12)
Migrant
•
· Title I Schools
118,246
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
n/a
nfa
nfa
education > 16 hour>
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
To meet 50 percent in 5 year>
1996-97
limited English proficient,
Grade 8
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
1997-98
0,1%
2,6
21.9
9.3
66,0
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
>50 percent students above IGAP state goals (4
subjects),
(CCD, 1997-98)
Professional development
of teachers in
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1,376,549
558,129
55,835
Combined Other
752
Student/teacher
ratio
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
18:1
1997-98
1,280,021
517,334
n/a
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
Elementary Middle
· Statewide Accountability Information
Racefethnicity
1997-98
0,2%
0,9
55,0
22.7
21.1
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
White
(USED, K-12)
$334,054,531
• Title I allocation
(Include. 8a.;(, Concentration, and tEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
Sources of funding
District average
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide
Local
66.7%
•
data not available
V$,
targeted assistance
Schoolwide
(USED)
•
Targeted Assistance
2.394
2,140
State
27,0%
63%
105 nfa
1995
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Illinois
Student Achievement '-991:""1998
Percentage of students
Grade 3
~~ft..:l--n9-u-ag-e-A-rts--.......:___________
Does Not Meet
State Goals
-in Poverty 00-34
75-100
Assessment Information
state proficiency levels
Meets
State Goals
15
58
56
37
==::J
Exceeds
State Goals
29
4
LEP Students
Migrant students
Assessment Reported
Illinois Goal Assessment Program
Grade 8
::J
IReadj'1g-I:;-La-n-9-ua-g-e-:-Art--:-~-_;-
Does Not Meet
Meets
Exceeds
State Goals
State Goals
State Goals
All Students
- 30%
53%
17.%
Title I Schoolwide
54
40
5
Title I Targeted
29
_
54
17
Percent ofSc~-----------~------in Poverty
00-34
21
57
22
75-100
57
39
4
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
State Definition of "Proficient"
Meets.state-goals________
---J
i Definition o(Title I Targeted Assistance
i All students in Title I schools at tested grade
! are included in the assessment results.
-t-Exdusion from Assessment
! No information provided
i Other Assessments
LEP Students
Migrant students
i No information provided
l~
__
._~
Grade 10
~athematics
Does Not Meet
State Goals
All Students
8%
Title I Schoolwide
20
6
Title I Targ_~ted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
2
75-100
22
Meets
State Goals
65%
70
66
61
71
Exceeds
State Goals
27%
10
28
37
7
LEP Students
Migrant students
Does Not Meet
State Goals
All Students
12%
Title I Schoolwide
31
10
Titl~_~Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
5
75-100
33
Meets
Goals
63%
63
65
St~te
Exceeds
State Goals
25%
6
25
62
63
Does Not Meet
Meets
Exceeds
State Goals State Goals State Goals
All Students
32%
44%
24%
Title I Schoolwide
61
33
6
Title I TargetE?CL_____3_2___ ~ ______23
Mathematics
33
4
Does Not Meet
Meets
Exceeds
State Goals State Goals State Goals
All Students
19%
54%
26%
45----- --4-
Title IScilOoiWide
51
Title I Targeted 18
57
25
LEP Students
Migrant students
---,-,~----
Student achievement trend
Reading 3rd grade meets or exceeds State Goals
100
84
85
II All Students
II 0--34% Free/Reduced Lunch
o
75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds State Goals
100
95
95
II All Students
II 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
o 75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
80
l
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1997·1998
1998-1999
1996-1997
1997·1998
S TAT E
nfa
nfa
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1996-1997
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
1998-1999
E DUe A TID N
I N Die A TOR S
WIT H A
Foe U SON
TIT l E I
29
�Indiana
http://www.doe.state.in.us/
School and T~acher Demographics
Student Demographics
295
Number of districts
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
671,036
283,129
n/a
685,205
292,130
5,561
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
1989-90
1997-98
0.1%
0.6
10.9
1.8
86.5
0.2%
0.8
11.3
2.6
85.1
1990-91
1997-98
11.1%
12.3%
Public school
enrollment
(CCD. 1997-98)
(CCO)
Number of public schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
1,152
I' 311
348'
Student/teacher
ratio
Elementary
Middle
High
17: 1
18:1
19:1
(CCD. 1997-98)
(By state definition)
I 8
40
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
26,575
I
10,458 , 16.116
1.814
1
proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
Grade 8
n/a
I 30%
n/a
Eng.
76 I
Sci.
Math
81 I
n/a
Soc. Std . •
78 I
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
. Gain 5 percent of students per year.
Indicators for School Accountability
Attendance rate. graduation rate, test scores.
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide
· Title I Schools
•
4,001
Title I enrollment
(USED)
1993-94
1997-98
5,491
7,149
1993-94
1996-97
4.6%
3.2%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
55%
62%
Migrant
•
(OME. K-12)
89
(IPEDS, High school grads enrolled in mllege)
•
1997-98
99,837
1,162
2,612
K-8
9':'12
PreK
9,195
•
39
13%
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Sixty-six to seventy-nine percent of students above
Math, lang. Arts. (Standard varies by student composi
tion of schooL)
.
1996-97
High school
drop-out rate «(CD, event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
(OSEP, K-12)
1989-90
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Students with disabilities
433
I
Statewide Accountability Information
1997-98
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
0,8%
OJ
26.1
6.0
65.8
$117,422,643
Title I allocation
(Includes Basic. Concentration. and LEA gran15. Capital Expenditures, Even Start.
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program*
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
0-34%
1,389
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent. USED, 1997-98)
. Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance (USED)
•
D
Schoolwide
Targeted Assistance
1,045
35-49%
186
50-74%
164
819
Federal
716
4,2%
Intermediate
State --./
75-100%
0.7%
50.5%
29
* 63 schools did not report.
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1995
35
1996
�Assessment! nformation
Student Achievement 1991-1998
Percentage of students
state proficiency levels
Grade 3
----I
L!!~~~il'l!J/lan9uageArts
-------.
'-,-.
Below
Standard
Grade 8
IReading/language Arts
'~,-
!
Below
Standard
Above
Standard
- : - ; ; - - : ; : - - : - - : - - - - - - .."C'C.'C""'------
Percent of School
__ _
75-100
in Poverty
---- '00--=3;( - --75-100
Exempted.throughIEp.or-LEP~status~--- -.
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
'fiiie I Targeted
Percent of School
Poverty
OD-34
75-100
30%
70%
Other Assessments
None
Grade 10
!Mathematics
Above
Standard
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
Exclusion from Assessment
----.-- --
-----
Below
Standard
Assessment Reported
Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress Plus,
modified in 1987
.
IReadin9!...-_ _
Below
Standard
All Students
32%
-------Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted - ------.
Percent of School
in Poverty
Above
Standard
Below
Standard
65°1c.~o_ _ __
All Students ------Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
li\1athematics
00-34
75-100
70%
..__~
Below
Standard
LEP Students
Migrant students
Above
Standard
38% .
All Students
Above
Standard
58%
Title I Targeted
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
E DUe A T ION
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Math. 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
S'T ATE
Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
24%
72%
24%
68%
I N Die A TOR S
WIT H
A
Foe U SON
TIT l E
�http://www.state.ia.us/educate/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
(CCD, 1997-98)
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD, \997-98)
(By state definition)
379
1989-90
842
High
I 295
I
375
29
14,746
High
14:1
Number of HE teachers in state
High
7
j
Middle
15:1
Elementary Middle
14:1
0.5%
1.6
3.5
2.6
91.8
1997-98
11.1%
12.0%
•
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
I 170
Students with disabilities
(OSEP, K-11)
1989-90
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None, goals established locally.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None '
'.
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Title I AYP Target for Schools
District NRT score >41 st percentile
35
46
3,603
7,304
1997-98
(USEDINCBE. K-12)
n/a
26%
18
n/a
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Grade 8
Migrant
1,330
(OME, K-ll)
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Eng.
Math
Sci.
80
74
86
Soc. Std.
1993-94
1996-97
3.4%
4,6%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
64%
67%
I 81
· Title I Schools
• Title I enrollment
urEDS, High school 9calis en~eclin(ollege)
1997-98
44,772
189
961
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
1993-94
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
I
I
(CCD, 1997-98)
Professional development
of teachers in field
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
1997-98
0.3%
1.3
2.7
1,1
94.5
1990-91
Race/ethnicity
Combined Other
I 6,933 I 11.164 I 596
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
326,621
155,517
4,757
Combined Other
Student/teacher
ratio
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
1997-98
338,422
140,064
3,417
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
Elementary Middle
Statewide Accountability Information
(USED)
Race/ethnicity
1997-98
1.3%
1.3
7.2
5.8
83.8
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
{USED, K-12l
White
Title I allocation
$53,355,268
(Indudes Basic, Concentration, and lEA grants. Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible*
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
District average
(CCD,
1996~97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Local
42.7%
1,321
35-49%
Intermediate
State
0.3%
•
Schoolwide
G]
Targeted Assistance
169
75-100%
(USED)
942
144
50-74%
5,1%
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
Federal
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
13
52.0%
* one school did not report
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996'
1998
�Student Achievement 1996-1997 to 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
fReading
-----1I
Low
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
. -00-"3475-100
Intermediate
30.2%
54.0%
Low
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
----00.:.34
75-100
15.8%
Intermediate
27.8%
57.5%
High
14.6%
l
Low
Intermediate
27.1%
56.7%
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
Exclusion- from Assessment
lEP and limited exclusion for Special Education Students
Other Assessments
local school district decision
Grade 11
!Mathematics
IReading~______________________________~
High
16.2%
Assessment Reported
Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Forms K and l
Scores reported are two-year average
State Definition of "Proficient," used since 1997
Intermediate: Definitions are grade-specific and
available in Appendix A.
lEP
Migrant students
!Mathematics
lEP Students
Migrant students
~eadTngL-_________________________
High
lEP
Migrant students
All Students
Titl(' I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Grade 8
Low
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Intermediate
23.6%
58.3%
High
Low
18.2%
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Intermediate
22.4%
57.6%
High
20.0%
i
r-Mathematics
Low
lEP Students
~1i9!_~r:!_ stu der~
All Students
Title I Sthoolwide
Title I Targeted
Intermediate
17.8%
54.1%
High
28.2%
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
35%
nfa
70%
nfa
Math. 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
22%
31%
74%
78%
-- - --- -.-..--
S TAT E
E DUe A T ION
I N Die A TOR S
WIT H
A
Foe U SON
TIT l E I
33
�http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
304
(CCD, 1997-98)
Public school
enrollment
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
I
839
High
247
355
Student/teacher
ratio
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
16:1
I
I
15,015
6,235
High
I
9,764
I
I
8
4
Middle
High
15:1
14:1
319,700
140,182
5,373
1989-90
Race/ethnicity
1997-98
1.0%
1.4
8.0
4.2
85.4
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
I
1.1%
2,0
8.6
7.0
81.3
1990-91
126
89
1997-98
9.2%
Combined Other
10.1%
Students with disabilities
(OSEP, K-12)
1989-90
Grade 8
Eng.
63
Math
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Annual gain toward goal
Indicators for School Accountability
Test scores
Title I AYP Target for Schools
4 percent gain every 2 years
27% I 18%
n/a
n/a
n/a . n/a
Sci,
Soc. Std . •
Title I Schools
Title I enrollment·
(USED)
1993-94
1997-98
14,482
20,817
1993-94
1996-97
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
57%
63%
Migrant
(OM( K-12)
5.0%
I 63 I 78 I 73
4.6%
(lPEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
1997-98
72,966
1,523
976
K-8
9-12
PreK
12,843
(USED/NCBE, K-12)
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education>16 hours
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Reading >53 percent proficient, Writing average >
2,21, Math> 47 percent proficient grade 4, >41
percent grade 7, >36 percent grade 10
1996-97
4,789
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
313,588
117,276
n/a
K-8
9-12
Pre K
1997-98
(CCD, 1997-98)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1989-90
Combined Other
Number of FTE teachers in state
Elementary Middle
(By state definition)
. Statewide Accountability Information
Race/eth ni city
1997-98
2.1%
5.4
17.5
16,1
58.8
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
Title I allocation
$64,478,767
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Federal
5.6%
State
56.2%
~~Intermediate
4,2%
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
35-49%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
759
1
405
•
Schoolwide
723
50-74%
75-100%
1995
C0 U N CI L
0 F
CHI E F
5 TAT ESC.H 0.0 L
(USED)
~ Targeted Assistance
0 F F ICE R 5
1996
1998
�Student Achievement 1991-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 3
Arts
Grade 4
Grade 10
(97.4% of total school'grade took e;;U
Unsatisfactory
All Students
Basic
Proficient
---------------------
~-~-----
23.8%
Excellent
---------
22.7%
21.1%
!Ntathematics
(96.6% of total school grade took
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
exa_~
IReading
Excellent
(95.0~h~f;otal
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Excellent
18.1
18.4
41.0
22.4
~-c---c-----
21.3
22.9
23.2
16.0
39.6
14.2
24.8
16.6
11.6
Student achievement trend
III All Students
III 0·34% Free/Reduced Lunch
o 75..100% Free/Reduced Lunch
80
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
25.6
57.5
19.6
28.8
44.3
13.1
10.4
0.6
52.5
24.1
22.6
!Mathe~a1:ics_.--==.
grad~ t~ok ~~~)
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Excellent
Math 7th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
II All Students
II 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
100 I
NAEP State Results
o 75·100% Free/Reduced Lunch
80
1997-1998
1998-1999
54.7
1996-1997
1997-1998
S TAT E
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
34%
71%
35%
81%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
60
1996·1997
I
0.8
(95.0% of total school
Student achievement trend
Reading 3rd grade meets or exceeds Proficient
100
I
32.4%
Title'I'schooiwide
40.9···-·-23.0--16:6----·19.4-
Title-I Targeted-"'---22T-' 24.8
22.2
30.i
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
15.9
75-100
46.9
LEP Students
Migrilni..... students ' 47.0
school grade took exam)
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
1998-1999
EDUCATION
I
INDICATORS
WIT H
A
F 0 C U S
oN
TIT l E
35
�Kentucky
http://www.kde.state.ky.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
176
Number of districts
(CCD, 1997-98)
Public school
enrollment
(CCO)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
790
I 231
I
270 .
Stu de nt/teache r
ratio
Elementary
I 37
Middle
I
16:1
(CCD, 1997-98)
24
High
16:1
17:1
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
20,292
I 7,831 I 11,251 I 196
186
Professional development
of teachers in field
Grade 4
Grade 8
46%
34
Students with disabilities
I 36%
69
1989-90
451,858
178,830
1997-98
444,935
190,829
n/a
n/a
1989-90
*%
0.4
9.4
0.2
90.0
1997-98
0.1%
0.5
10.3
0.5
88.5
1990-91
10.6%
1997-98
10.5%
Eng.
63 I
63
n/a
Math
Sci.
79
55
Soc. Std . •
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Score of 100 on 0~140 scale (7 content areas)
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Gain every 2 years toward 100 score in 20 yrs
Indicators for School Accountability
Test scores (90.5-95,15% depending on grade level),
and non academic indicators (attendance, retention,
dropout rate, transition from school)
Title IAYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
. Title I Schools
1989-90
1,344
K-8
9-12
1996-97
3,194
1993-94
17,262
1997-98
25,038
1993-94
1996-97
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
. 49%
n/a
n/a
1996-97
57%
(I PEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
1997-98
0.1%
0.4
12.9
0.7 .
85.4
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
(OME, K-12)
I 80
PreK
(USED)
(USEDfNCBE, K-12)
Migrant
1997-98
255,870
15,663
7,500
Title I enrollment
(OSEP, K-12)
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
* > 0.05 %
Limited English proficient
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
(By state definition)
K-8
9-12
Pre K
Statewide Accountability Information
•
$137,956,427
Title I allocation
(Includes Baste, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program*
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
0-34%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
435
•
Schoolwide
(USED)
1m
Targeted Assistance
35-49%
State
626
62.9%
50-74%
75-100%
1995
• 89 schools did not report.
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
t998
�Kentucky
Student Achievement ·1997....;1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state oroficiencv levels
Grade 4
Novice
Proficient
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
3.2
60.7
00-34
75-100
lEPStudents
Migrant ~tLJc!ents
2.2
7.8
11.4
7.0
54.9
68.0
54.2
71.2
Distinguished
2.3
in POvertY
40.1
23.1
32.1
20.9
__e _ _ _ _~___• _ _ _•
2.8
1.1
2.3
0.9
Grade 5
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
lEP Students
Migrant students
I
Grade 8
Grade 11
IMa~h~~-m-at-:-ic-s~c---{,-c-.
Novice
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Assessment Reported
Kentucky Instructional Skills Information System
Grade 7
Commonwealth Accountability Testing Syst., used in 1998-99
rD~-:; .--~--,-;,:-~--,,.----.:'~
I Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
~~lng/lan!Juage Ar~_
__
_-..-.---l
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
Distin__...____ .. _._~~~~:_Appren!i~~~~~,~is~:d_
I State Definition of "Proficient," used since 1995
-AIiStUdents--' '--570/0--78:8%--15:2%--0~3%
iDefiilition-avaiiable'in-Appendix
---+
Title I Schoolwide
8.1
80.3
11.4
0.2
; Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
Title I Targeted ___
4.3
79.3
16.2 _ _ _
0_.2
; Only Title. I students at tested grade are
Percent of School
: reported In the assessment results.
in' POVerty' , ' ...-. ------, '7'Ex-cit.isiori from Assessmeiir
00-34
3.4
75.8
0.4
: Students with an alternative
75-1
0 . 1 , are nOHounted in a grade.
Other Assessments
i CT8S-5 Survey Edition
Apprentice
Proficient
27.5%
33.1
22.7
52.6%
51.8
55.1
11.0%
8.8
12.4
17.4
51.9
48.2
42.9
49.3
15.5
-~-~--~~-------
40.4
46.9
41.2
Distin
guished
8.9%
15.2
Novice
Apprentice
Proficient
Distinguished
All Students
33.7%
34.4%
16.5%
15.4%
Title I Schoolwide
40.5
34.0
14.0
11.5
TItle I Targeted
--'3'0'.'3"'--36.0 "-"'17.5
16~2
Percent of Schoc}j-,_ ----.--",
..
in Poverty
00-34
25.2
33.6
75-100
48.5
LEP StUileOtS-~i
47.8
Mig.@l1t students
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds Proficient .
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
100
I
100 ,
• All Students
II 0-34% Free/Reduced lunch
~ 75-100"k Free/Reduced lunch
80
60
.. All Students
.. 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-100% free/Reduced lunch
o
80
1996·1997
1997·1998
Apprentice
7A:-:-U-=-St-u"7de-n-ts--- 15.6%
Title I Schoolwide
19.8
Title I'Targeted---i7.8
Novice
56.1 %
26.5%
1.8%
58.1
20:8---1,3---
56.2 -.-.,_.-23.3 ..--ii~
Apprentice
All Students
32.0% --- 41.5%
Title I Schoolwide '" 41.1
40.0
Title I Targeted
36.2
42.3
,'~-
Distinguished
Proficient
--.. _
Distin
guished
Proficient
16.9%
9.6%
13.1--------s:s--
13,8
7.7
-~---------
-
. NAEP State Results
Gracie 4
1995·1996
1996·1997
STATE
1997-1998
EDUCATION
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
60
1995-96
Novice
29%
63%
29%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
, __ .__ __..• __ level and above
Basic
L
16%
60%
74%
'16%
56%
~
.-->-~
NDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
....
.
TITLE
37
�Louisiana
http://www.doe.state.la.us/DOE/asps/home.asp
'j
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
Public school
enrollment
66
Number of districts
(CCO, 1997-98)
(CCO)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
796
I
High
285
I
Student/teacher
Elementary
ratio
(CCD, 1997-98)
16:1
119
I
9,266
17:1
11,717
I
581,702
201,323
n/a
0,6%
1.3
46.7
1.1
44,1
1.0
53.4
·
•
1.2
50.2
1990-91
3,252
I
Students with disabilities
395
1997-98
8.3%
9,8%
(OSEP, K-12)
;
I
i
Indicators for School Accountability
CRT, NRT scores, attendance, dropout
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
Limited English proficient
Grade 8
Grade 4
28%
31
n/a
•
Math
Sci.
63
57
Soc, Std,
• Title I enrollment
7,088
Migrant
(USED)
1997-98
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
53%
66%
I 67
1996-97
11,6%
(IPEDS, High schOOl grads enrolled in (allege)
1997-98
0.8%
1.1
58.7
4,8
34.7
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
(OME, K-12)
•
13,139
Race/ethnicity
4,759
nla
290,809
19,561
9-12
PreK
6,494
1993-94
1997-98
K-8
f!i~INCBE, K-12)
1993-94
27%
40
40
• Title I Schools
1996-97
school
drop-out rate (CCD,event)
65 I
"
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Steady growth toward 10 year goal, with growth evaluation
every two years.
1997-98
0.4%
Goar for SchOols on
-Assessment
10 year goal on ITBS=55th percentile
10 year goal on LEAP=AII students at Basic
20 year goal on ITBS=75th percentile
20 year goal on LEAP=AII students at Proficient
534,897
207,939
15,166
1989-90
1989-90
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Eng,
i Statewide
1997-98
(CCD, 1997-98)
Combined Other
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
High
Professional development
of teachers in
Secondary teachers
major in
main assignment
K-8
9-12
Pre K
Race/ethnicity
34
17:1
High
I
I
Middle
Number of FTE teachers in state
23,070
1989-90
Combined Other
242
Elementary Middle
(By state definition)
· Statewide Accountability Information
$197,893.618
• Title I allocation
(inciudes Basic. Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
Di 5 trict average
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
0-34%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
•
Schoolwide vs, targeted assistance
•
354
(USED)
Schoolwide
Targeted Assistance
779
35-49%
State
50,3%
50-74%
6
75-100%
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Student Achievement 199J-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
Grade 5
~"~~_"___
""
louisiana Educational Assessment Program, used since 1989
Currently, Louisiana's criterion-referenced testing program results
are reported at two levels only-Attaining and Not Attaining.
Grade 7
Percent
Passing
Future plans include a new standards-based assessment
program, with implementation being phased in between 1998
that time;--touisiana'will have'five-'
proficiency levels: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Approaching
Basic, and Unsatisfactory.
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
i
'l-'Pefformailce'starfdards-at"!wo'grades"meneview'criteriaof the!
u.s. Department of Education.
'
Exclusion from Assessment
No information given
Other Assessments
No information given
Percent
Passing
,
75--1
i
75-,100
Grade 10
Percent
Passing
Percent
Passing
Percent
Passing
Percent
Passing
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math, 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
S TAT E
E D U CAT ION
19%
48%
44%
I N Die A TOR S
WIT H
A
7%
Foe U SON
Grade 8
18%
64%
i
8%
38%
TIT LEI
39
�http://janus.state.me.us/education/homepage.htm
School and Teacher Demographics
Number of districts
Student Demographics,
(CCD, 1997,98)
Public school
enrollment
K-8
(CCD)
~12
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
(By state ,definition)
Pre K
Elementary Middle
443
I
284
High
126
Statewide Accountability Information
1989-90
1997-98
52,267
61,508
nfa
150,874
58,825
' 978
1989...,90
1997-98,
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None
Expected School· Improvement on
None
Combined Other
I'
110
Student/teacher
ratio
16
I
Racefethnicity
2
Middle
High
15:1 '
,American Indian/Alaskan'
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
(CCD. K-12)
15:1
(CCD; 1997-98)
nfa
nfa
.1990-91
Elementary
Students with disabilities
6,736
1997-98
11.6%
1989-90
Professional development
of teachers in field
Indicators for School Accountabili~
None
0.6%
0.9 '
0.9
.0.5
97.1
nfa
nfa
13.5%
'.,
. Title I Schools
.' Title, I enrollment
2,386
(USED)
1993-94
1997-98
7,582
9,838
1993-94
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment,
1996-97
3.3%
3,2%
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
Eng.
Math
81 I
1994-95
1996-97
68
50%
60%
jf!:'~~li9h S(ho::l.~rads enrolled in ~2£L~__~___ ~_".___ ~~
Racefethnicity
Sources of funding
. «((D;'1996:"97)
,
.
1997-98
1.0%
1:2
0.7
1.6
95.4
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
• Title I allocation
'.
District average
22,882
446
158
9-12
PreK
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
997-98
K-8
1996-97
1,822
As~essrrtent
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program*
$32,817,893
(Includes Basic. Concentration. and lEA grants. Capital Expenditures, Even Start
Migrant Education. and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
~-:----"---~~-----.-~-~
Number of schools with Title I programs
(CCD, 1997-98)
School wide vs. targeted assistance
•
(USED)
Targeted ASSistance
Schoolwide
533
"
1995
1996
1998
�Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
, Assessment Reported
Maine Educational Assessment, used since 1985; Test revisions
. to reflect new state standards expected during 1997-98.
Revisions will be in place for the 1998-99 school year.
: Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
j
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
i Department of Education.
----,-State-Definitionof .. ~~Proficient.~-used-since ..1995 .._-+--__
i Basic: Definition can be found in Appendix A.
Grade 8
:
Arts
i Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
i All students in Title I schools at tested grade
._I ..are inciudedjnJhe.assessment.results~
in Poverty
I Exclusion from Assessment
in Poverty
00-20
8
62
30
17
00-20
61
22
l
I
Primary reasons Disability, LEP Status, and Other
.
i Other Assessments
1 No information provided
L.
Grade 11
~athematics
[11athematics
Novice
Basic
Advanced
Distin
guished
Novin~
Ba<k
Advanced
Distin
guished
Novice
Basic
Advanced
17%
58%
·25%
Novice
Bask
Advanced
41 %
48%
11%
All Students
in Poverty
in Poverty
00-20
Migrant students
20
53
45
18
42
9
9
5
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds Basic
III
III
EJ
93
00-20
50-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
64
60
22
30
46
39
8
3
51
56
2
2
4
III
III
0
100
IMathematics-I..
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Basic
All Students
0-20% Free/Reduced Lunch
50·100% Free/Reduced Lunch
12
All Students
0-200/0 Free/Reduced Lunch
50-100% Free/Reduced lunch
Grade 4
77
Distinguished
NAEP State Results
89
80
Distinguished
Grade 8
1996-1997
1997-1998
1995·1996
1996-1997
S TAT E
36%
Math. 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1995·1996
Reading, 1998:'
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
27%
31%
75%
77%
73%
42%
84%
1997-1998
E D U ( A T ION
I N D I ( AT
0 R S WIT H
A
F
0 ( U SON
TIT L E I
41
�Maryland
http://www.msde.state.md.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
(CCD, 1997-98)
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (ccli, 1997-98)
(By state definition)
24
1989-90
852
Middle
High
I 229
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
184
Elementary
Elementary Middle
23,349
High
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
High
16:1
18:1
Combined Other
Students with disabilities
I 299
1997-98
11.1%
11.3%
(OSEP, K-12)
989-90
Professional development
of teachers in field
proficient
Grade 8
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
34%
23
nfa
_ education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Eng.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Substantial and sustained progress in meeting perfor
mance standards annually (average for 3 yrs,).
Indicators for School Accountability
CRT (MSPAP) and MD Functional scores, attendance,
dropouts.
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide
10,034
16,186
•
29%
53
47
1993-94
Migrant
Math
Sci.
73
86
Soc. Std. •
1997-98
576
(OME, K-12)
1993-94
Post secondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
55%
64%
1996-97
nfa
I 92
Title ISchools
• Title I enrollment
nfa
(IPEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
1997-98
12,452
560
6,842
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
- school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
86 I
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
0.3%
4.0
36,1
3.7
55.9
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Seventy percent of students at Satisfactory level
(6subjects)
(CCD, 1997-98)
I 10,489 I 12,498 I 456
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1997-98
0.2%
3.3
32.7
2.1
61.7
1990-91
Racefethnicity
I 15
18
Number of FTE teachers in state
575,279
221,995
19,739
Other
Middle
I
18: 1
(CCD, 1997-98)
1997-98
507,007
191,799
nfa
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
Elementary
. Statewide Accountability Information
(USED)
Racefethnicity
1997-98
0.4%
1.7
64.6
5.6
27.7
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
White
(USED, K-12)
I allocation
$101,036,890
(Indud", Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
~/:,;·t.'.·::;.·.\\'\;~
State;'\<:"'f"'"
local
':/s{::;:\:':V- 56.0%
38.8%
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
35-49%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
870
193
•
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
Schoolwide
394
50-74%
75-100%
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Maryland
Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
of students meetina state proficiency levels
Grade 3
Grade 8
[Rea~!.r!.g/Langua_ge Arts
__(91.5% of total sdloolg,;de ;;;;;~;l
in-=-:
l~.~.~ding/lan~uage Arts ...
...- - - -..-
(95.1% of total sdloo~gr.de took examlJ
Not
Excellent
Excellent
Students
58.4%
34.7%
6.9%
All students in Title I schools at tested grade
are induded in the assessment results.
Exclusion from Assessment
.. <;~J!a!n students with disabi!i~es and lEP students
Other Assessments
Comprehensive Tests of BasicSkilis. given each year to all students in grades 2, 4,
and 6. Maryland FunctionalTests in Reading, Ma1hematks. andWriting. Minimum
competency tests required for high school graduation.(Effective with 1I1e 1999-00
school year.)
0.3
in Poverty
in Poverty
0()'-24
75-100
45.0
84.1
44.5
14.4
10.5
1.5
0()'-24
75-100
65.8
94.5
30.8
5.3
3.4
0.2
lEP Students
Migrant students
62.9
33.6
3.5
lEP Students
Migrant students
91.9
7.2
0.9
[~ihematfcs
(95.6%
o~!?_tal SChool~'~de took ex;;]
Not
Satisfactory
43.6
87.1
45.6
12.0
10.8
0.9
lEP Students
Migrant students
66.7
28.7
4.6
Student achievement trend
Not
Satisfactory
•
•
o
All Students
0-24% Free/Reduced lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
60
in Poverty
0()'-24
75-100
lEP Students
Migrant students
t......:..:.:="--_ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _._ _-...l
Not
Satisfactory
Excellent
36.9
88.9
44.9
10.2
23.3
Excellent
Title I Schoolwide
ritl~ I
--~-'"
18.2
0.9
70.7
Satisfactory
All Students
6.0
Not
Satisfactory
All Students
Satisfactory
Excellent
-------_.
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Satisfactory
100
•
•
o
80
All Students
0-24% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
63.1
40
20
20
o
1996-1997
1997-1998
NAEP State Results
1995-1996
1996-1997
S TAT E
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
29%
61%
31%
72%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
62.6
60
1995-1996
exa~J
Student achievement trend
3rd grade meets or exceeds Satisfactory
80
(97.9% of total school grade ;ook
11.6%
1.2
1.8
O()'-24
75-100
100
~athematics
Excellent
All Students
-----------
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of'.:cS':':ch:'::o-o"C"-~
in Poverty
Assessment Reported
Maryland School Performance Assessment Program, used since 1992
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of 1I1e U.s. Department of
Education.
State Definition of 'Proficient: used since 1993
, Satisfactory: A realistic and rigorous level of achievement indicating
proficiency in meeting 1I1e needs of students.
22%
59%
24%
57%
1997-1998
E 0 U CAT ION
I N Die A TOR 5
WIT H A
Foe U SON
TIT L E '
43
�Massachusetts
http://www.doe.mass.edu/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
(CCD, 1997-98)
Public school·
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-9B)
(By state definition)
Number of districts
353
1989-90
1,210
Middle
High
I 313
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
290
Middle
Elementa
Number of FTE teachers in state
Elementary Middle
n/a
I
High
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
n/a
I
I
n/a
Students with disabilities
n/a
14.5%
1989-90
Limited English proficient
Grade 8
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
•
Eng,
89 I
Math
Sci,
76 I 89
39%
68
67
Soc, Std. •
· Title I Schools
• Title I enrollment
44,394
(USEDI
(USEDINCBE. K-12)
1993-94
1997-98
4,436
4,621
1993-94
1996-97
3.5%
3.4%
Post secondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
65%
85%
Migrant
(lPEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
174,185
30,892
6,714
Race/ethnicity
1997-98
0.3%
7.1
23.3
29.5
36.4
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
i~
I 87
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
40,057
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
33%
38
n/a
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
1997-98
16.3%
(OSEP. K-12)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
0.2%
4.1
8.5
9.7
77.5
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Decrease percentage of students at the Failing level and
increase the percentage of students at the Proficient
and Advanced levels
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Increase average scaled scores, dependent on baseline
performance
Indicators for School Accountability
Results of CRT (MCAS) tests
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
(CCD, 1997-98)
Combined Other
n/a
n/a
1997-98
0.1%
3.2
7.5
7.4
81.8
1990-91
Race/ethnicity
High
n/a
n/a
(CCD, 1997-98)
673,447
252,519
18,226
Other
I 12
33
1997-98
590,238
235,350
6,819
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
Elementary
· Statewide Accountability Information
$148,845,765
• Title I allocation
(Indudes 8asic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
District average
.
(CCD, 1996-97)
ICCD, 1997-98)
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-981
,
•
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance (USED)
•
Schoolwide
o Targeted Assistance
575
State
39.9%
data not available
local
55.3%
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
~
�Massachusetts
-Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
Grade 8
Needs
Failing Improvement Proficient
Needs
P f'
Improvement fO IClent
Advanced
Advanced
-~~~~~===~~-..:!.!~~--:!:~----=-~-
~--~ -i n
___ ~ __ ~ _,
75-; 00
lEP Students
53
~g!ants!LJ~~}~==__ 46__---=_
!Mathem~ti£s
,:~(984% of total SCh;;lgrade took examlj
Needs
Failing Improvement Proficient
!Fatllematlr~s'_~
(97,7% of total
sChOOI-;~_detook exam)
Needs
Failing Improvement Proficient
Advanced
All Students
TItleTSchorii;;;;:;-a;,
litle 11argt'lec1
Percent of School
in
___
_::,_:,________.::.:~__~
Title I Targeted
42%
26%
I
Assessment Reported
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, first year in use
: Progress loward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.s. Department
, 01 Education.
~ State Definition of ·Proficient"
Students at this level demonstrate a solid understanding of
~--~; challenging subject mattetandsolvea~ide_va,.i~ty ofprobl~... >.
: Exclusion from Assessment
i Spanish speaking lEP students enrolled >3 yrs. in U.S. will not be'
ienrolled in reg ed until SY 2000-2001; Spanish speaking lEP whose
' reading/writing skills do not permit participation in Spanish MCAS.
No'n-Spailish speaRing lEP stLidents enrolled:.>3 yrs, in U.S;willnot'
be enrolled in regulared. until SY 2001-2002.
Other Assessments
MCAS-All field tested in 2000-2001
Grade 10
!!i~iJlish Lan9~ge Arts
Needs
Improvement Proficient Advanced
Advanced
23%
19~~;;~"f.:iOOk exa~ll
~ ~'~--"~-"-~-=:~---'~-~""-'-'-:,";
8%
~-------....
Percent of School
in
IMathe!!!~~£~;~
75--1
(95)%01 total school g(a9~'took exam) I
Needs
Failing Improvement Proficient Advanced
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I
--,,-,,- "t
i
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
37%
73%
36%
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level' and above
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
24%
71%
ON
80%
28%
68%
TITLE
�Michigan
http://www.mde.state.mi.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
(CCD, 1997-98)
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
(8y state definition)
Number of districts
680
1989-90
2,116
Middle
i
High
623
682
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
Elementary
Elementary Middle
41,515
I
18,769
High
I
120
24,078
High
18:1
Number of HE teachers in state
19:1
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
1,773
I
1,375
Students with disabilities
1997-98
9.5%
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
Eng.
Math
Indicators for School Accountability
CRT (MEAP) test scores, percent of students assessed
!
Title I AYP Target for Schools
10 percent gain per year in students at Satisfactory
level
Grade 8
28%
22
n/a
I n/a
44
Sci.
41
Soc. Std. •
· Title I Schools
33,449
25,988
(USED)
(USEDINCBE, K-12)
1993-94
1997-98
20,018
18,446
1993-94
1996-97
Post secondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
60%
63%
Migrant
67 I 61 I 73 I 88
1997-98
1.0%
1.3
46.7
4.1
46.5
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
n/a
(IPEDS, High school glads enrolle<Lin college)
416,798
43,335
9,296
Race/ethnicity
(OME, K-12)
n/a
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Reading education >16 hours
Mathematics education >16 hours
Science education>16 hours
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Statistica lIy significant gain every 2 years
• Title I enrollment
(OSEP, K-12)
1989-90
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
1.0%
1.6
19.7
2.8
75.4
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
All students at Satisfactory level (4 subjects)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary te<!chers
with major in
main assignment
1997-98
0.9%
1.2
17.8
2.3
77.8
1990-91
Race/ethnicity
Combined Other
I
1,175,001
468,899
14,784
Other
84
Middle
I
20:1
(CCD, 1997-98)
1997-98
1,127,921
448,864
n/a
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
Elementary
· Statewide Accountability Information
$340,649,296
• Title I allocation
(lndudes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures. Even Stan,
District average
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
•
12,601
0-34% I
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
School wide
FTI
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
2,232
35-49%
50-74%
Federal
6.6%
State
65.5%
Intermediate
0.1%
371
367
75-100%
1995
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1998
�Michigan
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students
Assessment Information
state proficiency levels
Grade 4
Grade 7
Arts
--All Students-=-::::::Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
low
15:4%
25.5
15.9
Moderate
30.2
28.1
21.7
30.2
LEP Students
t.IIig~'1! students
(96.0% of total school grade took exam) !
_ _ _ """'~,,'
. . . ,..1
Satisfactory
Moderate
17.7%
74.1%
27.6
59.7
-_._------'..-- ... _-,.-.
19.1
73.2
low
8.2 %
16.7
17.0
41.0
17.2
27.6
56.8
31.4
35.8
45.6
25.3
24.6
29.5
28.1
65.3
51.5
LEP Students
Migrant stUdents
•
•
o
80
. ···-·--·-··---·----
Satisfactory
61.4%
39.7
59.2
Not
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
--------
Endorsed
24.1%
52.7
25.8
-~------
20.5
30.9
[Mathematics
28.8
29.8
20.4
35.1
71.5
36.7
46.7
33.3
Endorsed
All Students
22.3%
Title I Schoo!wide
37.2
Title 'Targe~d __ ~~5.1
At Basic
Met
Exceeded
level
Standard Standard
17.0%
44.5%
14.4%
-1'55--· 24.7 - 7 , - 1
---------- ---_._19.3
43.9
11.0
Not
At Basic
level
18.5
19.3
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds Satisfactory
100
Grade 11
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItlefTargeted .-Percen!of Schoor-------~--·
in Poverty
00-34
8.0
75-100
32.4
Student achievement trend
I
l!~dinglLan9uage Arts
low
Moderate
14.5%
24.1 %
29.4
30.9
-..-14.6---'---- -i6T--'
84.1
60.0
, reading selection from the MEAP Essential Skills Reading Test. The '
, student scored 520 or more on overall performance in the MEAP
Essential Skills Mathematics Test
Exclusion from-Assessment- ~~
LEP and special education students
, Other Assessments
Science and Writing, Grades 5, 8, and 11
i
___"~__
24.8
33.3
3.4
16.1
Migrant students
60 I
IMailil!~'!.tics
low
Moderate
Satisfactory
23,4%--27.9%--48.8%-
36.1
29.0
34.9
25.9
29.7
44.4
12.5
23.9
!i~If~r.g~!~~_.:=.~ . . '_~~?:§ ____ ~..
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
38.7
9.1
!
--._
~--<>-------.
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
69.5
44.3
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
30.7
36.4
8.8
25.1
LEP Students
29.1
'Migran~students_~.54.4 _
[Mathematics
Satisfactory
58:6%
44.3
56.0
--26:0%~---
Assessment Reported
, MEAP Essential Skills-Reading, used since 1989; MEAP
, School Test, used since 1998; Some categories do not add up
I 100% due to omission of scores by student request.
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review. criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
All Students
0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
69.5
Math 7th grade meets or exceeds Satisfactory
•
•
100
o
80
All Students
0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
715
.
-'-~.
Met
Exceeded
Standard Standard
27.8
16.5
39.5-----_..
16.0
--- --
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1995-1996
1996-1997
S TAT E
28
63%
nfa
n/a
Math. 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
57
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
23%
68%
28%
67%
%
1997-1998
E DUe A T ION
I N Die AT 0 R S
WIT H A
Foe U SON
TIT LEI
47
�http://www.educ.state.mn.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public schoolenrollment
Number of
Elementary
1,038
Middle
High
I 267
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
576
Elementary
Middle
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
High
nfa
(CCD, 1997-98)
PreK
nfa
White
(CCD, K-12)
Number of HE teachers in state
Elementary Middle
nfa
I
High
nfa
nfa
Students with disabilities
nfa
limited
1997-98
2.0%
4.4
5.6
2.5
85.5
1990-91
9.1%
1997-98
Eng,
31%
24
nfa
Math
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Under development
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Under development
•
proficient
1989-90
11,858
Sci.
94 I 97
· Title I Schools
1997-98
7,820
1993-94
5.2%
1996-97
5,5%
Post secondary enrollment
1994-95
53%
1996-97
56%·
54
,<EME, K-11)
Soc Std,
89
1997-98
5,8%
9.4
19.2
5.2
60.3
9-12
(USED)
1993-94
6,245
Migrant
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
K-l1)
White
K-8
1996-97
28,237
(USED/NCBE,
33%
50
PreK
1997-98
110,970
1,026
1,487
• Title I enrollment
High school'
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
84
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
Grade 8
Grade 4
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Secondary teachers
major in
main assignment
1989-90
1.6%
2.9
3.1
1.2
91.1
(OSEP, K-l1)
Professional development
of teachers in field
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
1997-98
578,906
265,504
8,945
(CCD, 1997-98)
Combined Other
nfa
1989-90
528,507
211,046
nfa
Other
I 43
88
9-12
(By state definition)
schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
K-8
(CCD)
401
(CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
(IPEDS, High sc!lool_grads enrolled in COllege)
• Racefethnicity
(USED,
I allocation
$90,942,205
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and tEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program*
(CCD, 1996-971
(CCD, 1997-98)
0-34%
local
37,1%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1991-98)
• Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs.targeted assistance
1,595
•
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
Schoolwide
935
35-49%
681
Federal
4.3%
State
55,0%
50-74%
Intermediate
3.6%
75-100%
• One school did not report
1995
COUNCIL
OF CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
i
I.
�Minnesota
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment!nformation
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (elementary school)
Minnesota Basic Standards Test (middle school)
Grade 8
Arts
Arts
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards are currently under waiver by the U.S.
; Department of Education.
Percent
Passing
lev el4
---- -
State.Definition.oC'Proficient"__
Elementary: no definition available
Middle: Percent passing
Titii;l~h;:;;:J;;:;i~---:------'-"-'----------
.
---.
71 .9
29.2
-.---
~--
.-...,... ..,..-.-,-,
: Exclusion from Assessment
Testing policies include-provisions·for·"
accommodating IEP and LEP students.
Other Assessments
None
.~
rMa't~cs
level 1
level 2
level 3
All Students----·-~·-47%--29%
Title I Schoolwide
level 4
--'6%
Percent
Passing
71%
All Students
AU Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
TItle I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
47
39
13
52
33
8
7
1
Student achievement trend
Reading 3rd grade meets or exceeds Level 3
•
100
o
o
80
All Students
0·34% FreefReduced Lunch
75-100% FreefReduced Lunch
..
_--_._---------
75
30
Student achievement trend
Mathematics 8th grade meets or exceeds Passing
• All Students
Cl 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-1 00% Free/Reduced Lunch
100
NAEP State Results
o
80
Grade 4
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
60
40
Grade 8
36%
69%
37%
81%
30
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
20
o
1997·1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
1997-1998
1998-1999
S TAT E
29%
34%
76%
75%
1999-2000
EDUCATION
L-
INDICATORS
WIT H
A
F
a
CU S
a
N
TIT L E
I
49
�Mississippi
http://mdek12.state.ms.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
(CCD, 1997-98)
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (ceo, 1991-98)
(By state delinition)
153
(CCO)
Elementary
437
Middle
I
High
168
179
S
tudentlteacher
ratio
Combined
I
Elementary
Elementary Middle
12,238
,
22
High
17:1
18:1
Number of HE teachers in state
High
1997-98
369,513
132,507
379
355,357
133,919
1,289
1989-90
1997-98
0.1%
0.4
50,6
0,1
48.7
0.5%
0.6
50.9
0.4
47.6
1990-91
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
1997-98
Students with disabilities
11.0%
1989-90
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Grade 8
10.8%
Eng.
66 I
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Levell and 2 schools improve one level in 2 years,
Indicators for School Accountability
Index= NRT scores, school process measures
Title r AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
28%
60
42
. 2,651
nla
Math
Sci.
72
73
Soc. Std . •
1997-98
4,021
3,269
1993-94
1996-97
6,4%
6.0%
Post secondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
69%
74%
(OME, K-12)
(WEDS, High school grads enrolled in,S:;:ol"'1e"ge:;(,)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1997-98
239,539
35,589
1,569
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
1993-94
I 83
Title I enrollment
1,594
(USEDINCBE, K-12)
Migrant
· Title I Schools
1996-97
Highschool
drop-out rate ((CD, even!)
39%
37
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Achieve acceptable rating, i.e.. Level 3,
(CCD, 1997-98)
Professional development
of teachers in field
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
Race/eth njcity
Combined Other
I 5,568 I 7,194 I 3.060 I 390
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
Other
68
Middle
I
-18:1
(CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
Race/ethnicity
1997-98
0,1%
0.4
65.3
0,4
33.8
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
$127,989,059
• Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program*
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1991-98)
Sources of funding
•
75-100%
• Five schools did not report
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
Schoolwide
631
35-49%
50-74%
Number of schools with Title I programs
School wide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
State
55.5%
Migrant Education, and Neglected 8. Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
367
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
�Mississippi
Student Achievement 1997-1998-
Percentage of students
Assessment Information
state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
Grade 4
: Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Form l, and-Test of Achievement
Proficiency, used since 1994. Test is administered in fall for
the previous school year.
Grade 8
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
NeE
Average
All Students--
NeE
Average
45.8
in- poveny
00-34
75-100
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty- .
00-34
75-100
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
46.4
State Definition of "Proficient"
NCE average; there is no definition of proficient
Exclusion .from Assessment.
i
Students with disabilities, students who are absent
,
I Other Assessments
None
I
lEP Students
Migr'lfl1 students
!
Grade
NeE
All Students
NeE
Average
Average
49.3
All Students
Title I Schoolwlde
47.1
Title I Targeted "
Percent of School
Povrrty
00-34
75-100
Percent of School
in POIiNty
00-34
75-100
All Student!>
I School wide
Title f Targeted
LEP Studen t,
.Migrantstll~t_s_ ,
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
E D U CAT ION
18%
48%
19%
61%
Math, 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
5 TAT E
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
8%
42%
I N D I CAT 0 R 5
WIT H A
F 0 C U SON
7%
36%
TIT LEI
51
�http://services.dese.state.mo.us/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
(CCD, 1997-98)
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCO, 1997-98)
(By state definition)
525
Number of districts
1989-90
1,205
Middle
High
I 357
Studentiteacher
ratio
Combined
I
495
Elementary
Middle
15: 1
(CCD, 199H8)
Elementary Middle
28,849
High
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
High
16:1
Number of FTE teachers in state
16:1
1990-91
Students with disabilities
0.3%
1.1
16.7
1.3
80.6
1989-90
Limited
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
1997-98
11.8%
11.5%
(OSEP, H2)
Professional development
of teachers in
proficient
3,349
81 I
Indicators for School Accountability
CRT scores, performance-based tests
Title IAYP Target for Schools
Five percent decrease in students performing at lowest level
every 2years
n/a
Sci.
Math
89 I
Soc. Std,
70 I
1997-98
2,413
4,730
1993-94
1996-97
7.1%
5.8%
Post secondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
51%
55%
Migrant
(OME, K-12)
•
• Title I enrollment
84
(lPEDS, Hi9h school grads enrolled in rollege)
1997-98
145,350
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
1993-94
25%
55
57
· Title I Schools
6,514
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, evenl)
Eng.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Five percent increase per year in top 3quintiles, or 5percent
• decrease bottom quintile
1996-97
(USEDINCBE,
Grade 8
26%
29
_ education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
1997-98
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Implementation in 2000. less than 40 percent of students in
bottom quintile
(CCD, 1997-98)
Combined Other
I 11,493 I 16,621 I 396
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
n/a
625,871
258,269
14,347
Other
I 108
29
1997-98
576,243
231,691
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
Elementary
· Statewide Accountability Information
6,480
7,027
Race/ethnicity
1997-98
0.9%
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
1.3
8.3
1.6
86.6
$128,881,344
Title I allocation
(Indudes Basic, Concentration. and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures. Even Start.
District average
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program*
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Oelinqu~nt USED. 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
',346
_
(USED)
Schoolwidel;i,)';~;;l Targeted Assistance
1,423
35-49%
408
1,255
State
Local
53.3%
40.3%
50-74%
75-100%
• 69 schools did not report
1995
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students
ALL _____
o Students
~'
Assessment Information
state proficiency levels
e_ _
~~~ _
_ _ e_
ReadinJl/Language Arts
level I
All Students
19%
Title I Schoolwide
ritle I Targeted
Percent of School
'irl-'Poverly' .. _-00-34
75-100
Grade~
_ _._.
lMathematics
Arts
level V
21%
33%
2%
,
Level V
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
________'_____,
.
"
__...5
Progr-
4%
level I
All Students
__Percen_t of S,cOOQl
22%
Grade 8
lMathematic;---
Nearing
_~p...L_essing~ficiel!9'
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
25%
43%
.
Progr-
Profident Advanc_ed
27%
5%
All Students-
_~p
I
:=J
Nearing
essing~ ProljdencY.l'xoficient
24% 35%
- - - _..
Assessment Reported
Reading/language Arts, Missouri Mastery and Achievement Test,
Revised, used since 1991-92;
Math, Missouri Assessment Program, used since 1997-98
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standardsmet review criteria of the u.S. Department of
Education.
State-Definition-ofuproficientc-"----------
Reading: Results are in quintiles, there is no definition of proficient
Math: See Appendix A
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
All students in Title I schools at tested
are 'inchideo inthe assessmenfresults.
Exclusion from Assessment
No attempt was made to administer the MMAT to all students.
Astatistical sample was used for the 8th and 10th grades.
Other Assessments
~o il1 formalion given,
28%
12%
Advanced
1%
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title'i'Targeted------'
Percent of School \
Povertv
00-34 '
75-100
lEP Students
M!grant students
Progr-
13
5
41
29
33
54
10
2
lEP Students
56
28
10
2
i'vIigrant students
64
22
11
10
..
Nearing
_.e.' _____ .. .. ._._.. _......... Jt~.pJ ..~.~~t~9_ "-[~.fifI~.n.~y~r9fifj~_nt. .M.,,~!lf.~.(L
5
5
All Students
Title' School wide
30%
35%
28%
7%
--
Title i
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
EDUCATION
29%
63%
29%
76%
Math, 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
20%
66%
INDICATORS
WITH
A FOCUS
ON
22%
64%
TITLE
�http://www.metnet.state.mt.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
(CCD, 1997-98)
477
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
(By state definition)
1989-90
472
Middle
I
High
240
175
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
15:1
Elementary Middle
I
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
High
16:1
Number of FTE teachers in state
4,814
Racefethnicity
2
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
2,158
I
°
I
3,232
10.0%
0.8
0.5
15
87.1
42
Grade 8
I
9.9%
(OSEP, K-12)
proficient
Grade 4
1997-98
9.8%
1989-90
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Eng.
75
Expected Schbol Improvement on Assessment
None
.
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Ninety-eight percent of students above 40th percentile
in 10 years
'
29%
28
nfa
3,877
Sci,
Math
771
76
1993-94
1997-98
1,381
1,313
1993-94
1996-97
Post secondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
54%
57%
(OME, K.::!lL
•
nfa
I 79
~h
school grads emolled in
5.1%
(Q1I~,,,,e)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1997-98
25,086
5,624
451
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
Migrant
Soc. Std,
• Title I enrollment
8,846
•
32%
55
53
· Title I Schools
1996-97
- school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
_ education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education>16 hours
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
1990-91
Students with disabilities
Professional' development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1997-98
484
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
(CCD, 1997-98)
Combined Other
High
111,221
50,288
Other
°
I
1997-98
109,791
41,474
nfa
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK .
(CCD)
Elementary
· Statewide Accountability Information
• Racefethnicity
1997-98
28.7%
0.8
0.7
2.6
67,1
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
$26,509.046 .
• Title I allocation
(includes Bask, Concenlration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Slart,
District average
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Local
34.1 %
COUNCil OF
"----Intermediate
9.2%
CHIEF
I 688
STATE
•
Schoolwide
622
'
35-49%
Federal
9.4%
State
47.4%
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. tarqeted assistance
0-34% I
r
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
105
50-74%
75-100%
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
�Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
1-
Grade 4
[fu!~din-g-/l-a-n-g-u-a-g-e-c.-<C7~t$.
Novice
AIiStudents
Title I Schoolwide
Grade 8
(94.2% of total SchoOlgr&~~toOk;;;J'
Nearing
Proficiency Proficient
[R;a~@i!la-ng-u-a-g-e-A-rt-s-'
Advanced
Novice
-13.lok~_15.2%_56.6%~_15.2%
20.0
46.0
Nearing
Proficiency Proficient
,
8.4
12.9
60.0
I
Advanced
12.6%~_13.1%_57.3%~_1.7.0%
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
7.0
79~.~f~ioial school grade took exam)
35.2
18.5
11
. .in f'overty.
00-34
27.0
i Assessment Reported used since 1990
l Multiple Assessment Tools,
n?
41.6
58.1
4.7
16.9
58.4
Q
18.9
3.2
.inJ~overty
18.8
3.1
00-34
10.3
44.2
i CTBSlTerra Nova, ITBS, Stanford, CAT, MAT
i Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
i Petformance standards did -not meet review criteria of the U.S.
! Department of Education.
I State Definition of "Proficient," used since 1997
-TProfiCient: Students scoring in stanines 5-7, from
I 45.2 to 76.9 NCEs, or from the 42nd to the 90th percentile
1 Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
_____ ~_f;!I.studentsJn_TIt!~ I.s<:h()()!s_ atJ~~tedgrade _
I are included in the assessment results.
1 Exclusion from Assessme'nt
IEP committee decision, tEP. team decision
i
---
IMathemat:iCs
(94.2%~1 ~()()I gr~~~~ook ~~~~l-l
Novice
(93.0%dftotal school grade took exam)
Advanced
Novice
Nearing
Proficiency Proficient
9.7
41.7
12.5
21.4
59.9
33.0
17.9
3.9
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade m~ets or exceeds Proficient
100
• All Students
• 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
80.2
75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
o
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant sttldents
~
~
_
••
_
Aii Students--14.1%
13.3%
iiiIeTSchoolwiCie'----3S:6---iOJ
Titfi! I Targeted
13.2
13.2
.
All Students
iitfe'Tschoolwide
TItlelTiirgeied'- Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
Nearing
Proficiency Proficient
~the~atics
_____.____.
11.2
48.9
12.2
23.4
I
~.-
---'---~'~~-~~-~~~--'~~----
Grade 11
['Reading
'---------'-'-----~.
Advanced
55.7%
Novice
Nearing
Proficiency Proficient
Advanced
16.8%
32:i}----ii
__ ._ ...•".___.........".e·'"._··.,·_·_..__
57.2
16.5
57.8
18.9
1.9
25.8
IMathematics
j'!l3~2% of total school grade ~(* ~xam) 1
Novice
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
!i.tl.e,-!arget~
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
100 I
(85.2% of total school grade;;;;;';';'!]
12.4%
33.8
12.5
Nearing
Proficiency
Proficient
13.7%
20.5
14.3
Advanced
55.6
18.6%
6.8
17.7
ON
TITLE
55.3%
38.8
• All Students
• 0-34% Free/Reduced lunch
G 75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
80
60
.,
40
20
o
1996-1997
1997-1998'
1998-1999
1996-1997
1997-1998
STATE
1998-1999
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
�http://www.nde.state.ne.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
194,227
76,693
n/a
197,170
90,997
4,514
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
1989-90
1997-98
1.1%
1.0
5.3
2.3
90.3
1.5%
1.4
6.2
5.3
85.7
1990-91
659
Number of districts
1997-98
10.7%
11.7%
Public school
enrollment
(CCD, 1997-98)
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary Midd'ie
High
Combined
910
I 109
Student/teacher
ratio
I
311
Elementary
3
High
14:1
15:1
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
9,973
I 2,980 ! 6,924 I
Students with disabilities
50
110
1989-90
Limited English proficient
Secondary teachers
major in
main assignment
(SASS. Percent, 1993-94)
Grade 8
Grade 4
•
950
Eng.
83
Math
Sci.
83 I
Soc. Std.
79
· Title I Schools
Title I enrollment
6,252
1993-94
36%
42
n/a
TItle I AYP Target for Schools
Avg. > 50th percentile on NRT in 10 years
1997-98
6,806
10,844
1993-94
1996-97
4.5%
4.3%
Post secondary enrollment .
1994-95
1996-97
60%
64%
Migrant
(OME, K-12)
•
90
(IPEDS. High school grads enrolled in college)
•
•
1997-98
37,964
1,161
798
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
(USEDINCBE. K-12)
n/a
23%
Indicators for School Accountability
None
1996-97
High school
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
n/a
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
(OSE?, K-12)
Professional development
of teachers in field
(NAEP, 1995-96. 1997-98)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None
Other
Middle
15: 1
(CCD, 1997-98)
(By state definition)
I
20
Statewide Accountability Information
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
1997-98
1.4
17.6
12.5
64.5
$36,505,330
Title I allocation
(Indudes Basic, Concentfation. and LEA grants. Capital Expenditures, Even 51aft,
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
35-49%
50-74%
local
61.2%
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide
0-34%
State
32.1%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
1,140
IJ
•
VS,
targeted assistance
Schoolwide
CHIEF
STATE
D
Targeted Assistance
570
,----
121
424
71
75-100% 1121
41
1995
COUNCIL OF
(USED)
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
70 t:'
91·1 ~
1996
1998
�Nebraska
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students
Assessment Information
state proficiency levels
Grades 3-5 Title I Students
Grades 6-9 Title I Students
~ading/Lan9uage Arts
_ _ l'reemerging_Emergiog
Proficient Advanced
17.7%
29.3
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
11.7
33.2
25.9
28.6
30.6
21.8
31.8
16.4
'---,~---'---']
Pre emerging Emerging
All Students
I Schoolwide
ritle I Targeted
Percent-of School in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Proficient Advanced
35.8%
12.1
30.5%
26.7
19.0%
30.7
14.7%
30.5
9.5
37.8
25.8
29.3
31.3
21.7
33.4
11.2
lEP Students
Migrant students
lEP Students
Migrant students
Grades 10-12 Title I Students
~matL~ic~s~___________________
Preemerging Emerging
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title 'Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
----~~.-
LEP Students
Assessment Reported
Multiple Assessment Tools. Scores reported by elementary, middle,
and high levels rather than by grade.
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the u.s. Department of
Education.
State Definition of ·Proficient"
Four LevelsJ)Umficie]lCY were defined: State standards were established
for the NRT. Each district submitted standard points for the CRT which we'-::re::---c--- j
reviewed by the SEA. Standard Criteria for the combined NRT and CRT
points determine the level of performance. The pre·emerging and emerging
levels represent the level of partially proficient as defined in the law.
Definition otTitle I Targeted Assistance
All students in litle I schools at tested grade
are included in the assessment results.
Exclusion from Assessment
No statewide testing, only Title I
Other Assessments
Locally determined
Proficient Advanced
Preemerging Emerging
'"
Preemerging Emerging
Proficient Advanced
Proficient Advanced
All Students
25.6%
14.0
25.5%
25.3
23.1 %
26.5
25.8%
34.2
------
in Poverty
10.7
28.8
24.2
26.0
28.1
17.6
37.0
27.6
00-34
75-100
9.0
20.5
32.3
28.0
------
29.1
20.0
41.4
L~!thematics--_--_--
_____
---~-
Preemerging Emerging
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
23.0%
8.9
Proficient Advanced
28.8%
20.9
23.7%
33.1
24.5%
37.1
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math, 1996: ~
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
Grade 8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
24%
31%
70%
76%
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
�http://www.nsn.k12.nv.us/nvdoel
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
17
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
137,455
49,379
n/a
216,265
77,801
1,905
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
(CCD, 1997-98)
1989-90
1997-98
(CCO)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High
Combined
291
I
64
Student/teacher
ratio
I
78
I
18:1
(By state delinition)
I 7
High
21:1
21 :1
White
(CCD, K-12)
N umber of HE teachers in'state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
8,595
I 2,908 -I 3,497 I 112
183
1997-98
7.9%
9.6%
(OSEP, K-12)
Eng.
I
(USED)
1997-98
1,404
781
1993-94
1996-97
10.3%
10.2%
Post secondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
38%
38%
n/a
n/a
Migrant
(OME, K-t2)
Math
Sci.
Soc. Std.
74
88
•
86
(lPED5, High school grads emolled in college)
..J
•
30,059 .
71
898
K-8
9-12
PreK
27,977
1993-94
27%
n/a
1997-98
• Title I enrollment
(U5ED/NCBE, K-12)
Grade 8
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, ....t)
28%
41
· Title I Schools
1996-97
7,423
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
85 I
(SASS, Percent. 1993-94)
1
4.8
9.7
20.5
63.2
1989-90
Reading education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education>16 hours
Secondary teachers
with major in
ma in assignment
2.0%
3.3
9.2
9.8
75.6
1990-91
Students with disabilities
Professional development
of teachers in field
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
>60 percent above bottom quartile on NRI Within the
state four reporting levels are used: Below Standard,
Approaching Standard, Meets Standard, and Exceeds
Standard.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Annual improvement in rating
Indicators for School Accountability
NRT scores, attendance, percent taking tests
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Increase average scores 5 percent every year-
Other
Middle
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
8
· Statewide Accountability Information
1997-98
Race/ethnidty
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
3.1%
2,8
19.1
45.4
29.7
White
(USED, K-12)
$22,897;453
Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
. Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program*
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
0-34%
208
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance (USED)
•
Schoolwide
•
Targeted Assistance
122
35-49% _ 6 7
State~
31.9%
r--local
64.0%
50-74%
75-100%
\!II
74
~
* 73 schools did not report
1995
COUNCIL
oF
CHI E F
S TATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Student Achievement 1'991-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage 01 students meeting state oroficiencv levels
I~~;~:s:-~:; Re~orte~--··----
Grade 4
I
Grade 8
I
Arts
Below Approaches Meets
Standard Standard Standard
Exceeds
Standard
Below Approaches Meets
Standard Standard Standard
Exceeds
Standard
"
. ...
29.8%
Percent of School
. in~Povert'/_"
Ofl-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
TerraNova Form AlB, used since 1997
i Progress TowardAssessment
~
~.-.-,.-,~-
25.5%
....
Performance standards are in development
Education extended a waiver.
I
I State Definition of "Proficient"
L>60 percent above bottom quartile on NRT.
I reporting levels are used: Below-Standardi'ApproachinQ-Standard,~ ---j---I
i Meets Standard, and Exceeds Standard.
Exclusion from Assessment
i IEP and lEP students scoring below prescribed levels
i
Percent of School
-'l~~~:;~:e~:::~~'-'
75-100
LEP Studl'nts
Migrant students
Standards
U.S. Department of
i
I
i
'
. . -~.
Nevada high school proficiency examinations in Reading,
Mathematics; and Writing required for' graduation and 4th
and 8th Grade Writing Exam.
_____.._~_____~
L.~~_.
Grade
Below Approaches Meets
Standard Standard Standard
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
21.5%
24.3%
28.0%
Exceeds
Standard
26.2%
Below Approaches Meets
Standard Standard Standard
All Students
26.0%
23.5%
Title I SchooI1Nid<~_,. ___.
iftie I
Percent of School
in Poverty
00--34
Exceeds
Standard
26.8%
75-100
Students
Migrant students
23.7%
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
iiiielTargeted-
All Students
Title I Schoo!wide
Tit Ie I Targeted
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
EDUCATION
21%
53%
24%
69%
Math. 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above.
14%
57%
nfa
nfa
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
�New Hampshire
http://www.state.nh.us/doe/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
179
1989-90 • 1997-98
(CCO)
schools in state (CCO, 1997-98)
Elementary
Middle
High
94
78
I
341
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
o
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
14:1
Elementary Middle
I
Racefethnicity
High
16:1
Number of HE teachers in state
3,455
High
I
3,864
I
0.2%
1.0
0.9
0.9
97.0
0.2%
1.1
1.0
1.4
96.3
1990-91
0
Students with disabilities
0
1997-98
9.9%
11.3%
(OSEP, K-12)
1989-90
90
664
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Unknown
I
33%
nfa
nfa
Math
1993-94
•
nfa
nfa
nfa
Soc. Std,
Sci.
I 76 I 91
Grade 8
1997-98
177
177
1993-94
1994-95
1996-97
56%
73%
• Title I enrollment
Migrant
Racefethnicity
(OME, K-12)
•
I 90
nfa
nfa
(!PEDS, High school grads enrolled in mllege)
13,973
338
184
9-12
PreK
(USED)
(USED/NCBE, K-12)
1997-98
K-8
1996-97
Post secondary enrollment
· Title I Schools
1,590
High school
drop-out rate (CCO, event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education. > 16 hours
Eng.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
1996-97
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
1997-98
1,582
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None
(CCO, 1997-98)
Combined Other
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
142,969
Other
0
Elementary
(CCO, 1997-98)
6,021
(By state delinition)
124,410
47,286
nfa
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCO, 1997-98)
Number of
· Statewide Accountability Information
(USED,
1997-98
0.1%
1.2
2.2
3.8
92.6
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
K-12)
White
$17,689.101
• Title I allocation
(Includes BaSiC, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Stan.
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program*
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
State
Federal
7.4%
Number of schools with Title I programs
5choolwide vs. targeted assistance
1475
0-34% I
3.5%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
•
Schoolwide
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
369
35-49%
Local
21
50-74%
89.2%
75-100%
2
• 14 schools did not report.
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1998
�New Hampshire
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state oroficienev levels
Percent of
-in Poverty School
Grade 3
Migranl_~.t:~dents
Exclusion from Assessment
Disabled, lEP. absent, or other
Other Assessments
, None
Grade 6
~iishtL;;~guage Arts
(96,4%
Novice
Basic
28%
45%
61
AlrStlJdents
Title I
, Assessment Reported
New Hampshire State Assessment Test, used since 1994-1995;
1995-1996 (high school)
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Perfonnance standards met review criteria of the u,s. Department
, of Education.
State Definition of "Proficient"
Proficient5ee-APj:lendixMor complete defilliti()n~
, Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
: There is no distinction between schoolwide and targeted scores.
, Scores reflect current Title Istudents only.
1 ,
, ,-, ,-,
' ,
35
75-100
LEP-- Students --64
Migran!_ students
34
oi-;~ls(hool grade took exa~
Proficient
20%
[fulish/lang;;;;g-;'A';ts
Advanced
4%
4·
(97,0% of toia'i sch';;;;;;;;;-k:;mi]
Novice
AIIStudents
Title I
Basic
78
ntlf!J.larget~_
20
---- ----.--
Proficient
Ma!t'~!,"ati~~ ___ _:"'
"
Advanced
• or aboVl!
Grade 10
I~'----'--~-
I
Basic
2%
2·
10
~athematics
Novice
Advanced
14%
2
• or above
---------:=,
Proficient
42%40%
11i9Iis~l~~n~gu~a~g~e~A-rt-s-
(97,7% of total school
Novice
---c'=-------
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Novice
Basic
29%
59%
Novice
AilStudenfS'
ProfiCient
Basic
49%
29%
6%
Advanced
1%
Title I Schoolwide
!ltle I Targeted
in Poverty
ill Poverty
00-34
75-100
lEP Students
Migrant students
00-34
75-100
LEP Students---60
Migrant students
44
41
15
'----'-32
8
----
• or above
• or above
All Students
Proficient
15%
Advanced
2%
Title I Schoolwide
Title I
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Reading. 1998:
Profident level and above
Basic level and above
Grade 8
38%
75%
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
Math,1996:
Profident level and above
Basic level and above
S TAT E
E DUe A T ION
I N Die A TOR S WIT H A
Foe U SON
TIT l E I
61
�New Jersey
http://www.state.nj.us/education/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
Public school
enrollment
(By state definition)
Number of public schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary
Middle
High
I 406
1,453
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
313
ElementafY
16:1
1997-98
9-12
765,810
310,195
PreK
nfa
842,215
306,327
9,854
Racefethnicity
1989-90
American Indian/Alaskan
AsianlPacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
Middle
13:1
(CCD. 1997-98)
1989-90
Other
I 134
7
K-8
(CCD)
608
Number of districts
((CD. 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
1997-98
0.1%
4.1
18.5
11.1
66.1
0.2%
5.7
18.3
14.0
61.9
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Under development
•
I
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
• i None
: !
• "
•
•
i
i TItle I AYP Target for Schools
• I
•
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Seventy·five percent at passing level grade 8, 11
LJ!.~~g~r:!s~M.a~1_ .__~
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
40,595
Middle
High
Combined
I 17,051 I 24,163 I 329
3,353
1997-98
14.8%
13.7%
(OSEP, K-12)
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
_ education> 16 hours
Mathematics' education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
........
nfa
22%
Eng.
87 I
Grade 8
I
•
43,176
1997-98
3,115
-------
(OME, K-12)
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
Math
Sci.
69
82
•
1996-97
n/a
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
64%
Soc. Std.
1993-94
nfa
74%
93
(IPEDS. High sch(J{)1 grads enrolled In college)
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
Sources of funding
District average
(CCD.
1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
9-12
PreK
• Racefethnicity
,1997-98
White
(USED. K-12)
$165,698,522
• Title I allocation
(includes Bask. Concenlration. and LEA grants. Capital Expenditures. Even Start.
Migrant Education. and Negleded & Delinquent USED. 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
::=-_ _ _-'---.:.
1
0.2%
2.4
36.2
32.0
29.0
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
•
0
Schoolwide
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
2,600
35-49%
State
Local
38.7%
57.8%
50-74%
75-100%
1.075
536
682
46
1995
COUNCIL
121,244
12,324
1,929
K-B
(USED)
1,799
1997-98 '
• Title I enrollment
49,300
(USED/NCB.Ee:...'...-K-_12,--)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Migrant
Title I Schools
1996-97
1.993-94
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
-_ _........,.--
(SASS. Percent. 1993-94)
Students with disabilities
1989-90
Professional development ,
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1990-91
Other
oF
CHI E F
S TAT E
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
nla
1996
1998
�New Jersey
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
No information provided
Grade 4
Grade 8
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
!Read~gllan~uage Arts
Below State
Minimum,
Minimally
Competent
All
Title I Schoolwide
TitlelTargeted
Percent' ofSCh(J()I--~-"
in PovertV-- .
00-34
7'HOO
Below State
Minimum
LEP Students
M'igrant students
~the~ati~
~hematics
Clearly
Competent
79.9
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of
the ,U.s. Department of Education.
State Definition of ffProficient"
17.6
44.7·
on ·from ·Assessment···
No information provided
Other Assessments
No information provided
52.9
17.0
17.8
2.3
Grade 11
~----~~
Below State
Minimum
of
Minimally
Competent
Title I Schoolwide
39.8
42.6
Title' I Targeted
16.3
39.0
Perceni-o(School --. . . - - - - -
'inPoverty.-....._-.
00-34
10.2
36.9
75-100
40.5
42.5
LEP _,~~"':-__,
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title! Targeted
Percent Schoo!
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
]
IReadin~t~
_____
Below State
Minimum
Minimally
Competent
Minimally
Competent
Clearly
Competent
, AKSchQOlS-----io.OO;';--41.1 %'--39.0%-'
Titl~1
Schoolwide--47::3----- .... ---,0.,.--
----------
------~---~--
Title I Targeted
21.5
Percent ofSchooi--~'--"
in Poverty
00-34
14.5
75-100
46.5
LEP Students
Migrant students
Title I Schoolwide
50.0
35.7
41.9
43.3
fMathem~a~ti~c~s;~-_________
,-_...
43.6
10.2
26.5
65.7
Pass
. ~
All:,:::.:;.:;:.=;c=-;-:-~.-...-..._:7~8:.::::f..:.:%-.-.........._ ...... c_._.....___ ...
Schools····
7.7
Pass
7
A;';'1IS::-ch-;-o~o-cls------8=0.6%
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
66.9
79.8
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Clearly Competent
100
•
I
All Students
II 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
0 75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
80
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
60
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
25%
n/a
n/a
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1997-1998
1998-1999
S TAT E
68%
1999-2000
E DUe A T ION
I N Die A TOR S
WIT H A
Foe U SON
TIT l E I
63
�New Mexico
http://sde.state.nm.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
89
(CCD. 1997-98)
K-8
(CCD)
Number of
Elementary
Middle
I
432
High
153
132
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
17: 1
PreK
1989-90
203,157
92,900
nfa
1997-98
231,464
96,080
1989-90
9.8%
0.9
2.2
44.7
42.5
1997-98
10.6%
1.0
2.4
48.0
38.0
1990-91
11.0%
1997-98
12.9%
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Planned for future
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
Other
Racefethnicity
14
13
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Middle
Elementary
(CCD. 1997-98)
9-12
(By slate definition)
schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
16:1
18:1
White
(CCD. K-12)
Indicators for School Accountability
None
• I
TItle I AYP Target for Schools
Increase students above 40th percentile by 5 percent
oyer 2 years.on N~T.
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary
9,677
Middle
I
4,610
High
I
Combined
I
4,861
Professional development
of teachers in field
Grade 4
disabilities
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Eng.
76 I
1993-94)
2.2%
26
nfa
Math
Sci.
69
Grade 8
I 26%
27
•
1989-90
58,752
Title I enrollment
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. H2)
White
1993-94
3,842
1997-98
3,161
1993-94
8.5%
1996-97
7.5%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
54%
1996-97
58%
60
1997-98
18.5%
0.5
2.2
59.1
19.3
9-12
•
(OME. K-12)
So(. Std.
PreK
1997-98
82,770
6,777
972
K-8
1996-97
78,107
(USEDINCBE. K-12)
Migrant
36
71
· Title I Schools
(OSEP, K-12)
High school
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Per(en~
Students
331
Limited English proficient
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
(SASS.
Other
I
171
(lPEDS. High school grads enrolled in college)
(USED)
• Race/ethnicity
$64,712,144
• Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, (oncenlralion, and LEA
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD,
(CCD, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
1996-97)
grant~
Migrant Education. and Negle<led & Delinquent. USED. 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
Local
(apital Expenditures. Even Start,
Schoolwide
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
14.3%
408
Federal
data not available
12.7%
State
73.1%
1995
COUNCIL
oF
CHI E F
S TAT E
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�New Mexico
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students
fEp·OStlldents
Migrant students
; Assessme·nt Reported
: New Mexico Achievement Assessment, used since 1997
1998
: Progress Towa rd Assessment AI igned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of
: the U.S. Department of Education.
, State Definition of Proficient
Sco~ing as ·Competent Readers" and between a 40
.
and 59 on Math Problem solVing subset
Exclusion from Assessment
_. 0 · . · .
No Information given
Other Assessments
CTBS5
[Mathematics
Grade
state proficiency levels
Grade 4
(#%oftotaIS(h~lgradetookexam) I
~ding/Language Arts
Beginning Nearing
Step
Proficiency Proficient Advanced
811 Students
Tit!e I Schoolwide
Title.ITargeted___
Percent of School
34%
10%
34%
Grade 8
[ileading/ia ng ua 9~J).~-ts--·
(# % oftoulischool grade look exam)l
Beginning Nearing
-".._-:-_ _ _ _-=-St-:-:ep:.,.-_pr_o-::fic:-::ie~n-=Cy- Proficient Advanced
22%
All Students.
TT~tI!e IiTilrgele
SChoolwdide
It e
Percent 0\ 5;:-ho-ol-··
in
24%
42%
25%
9%
.--
in Poverty
. 00-34
75-100
IMathematics
.
(#'~~~I!I;~detook-exam)
I
Beginning Nearing
Step
Proficier.:y Proficient Advanced
All Students
21%
49%
19%
11%
Beginning Nearing
Step
Proficiency Proficient Advanced
All Students
27%
53%
Title I Schoolwide - - - - - - - - - ..
TItle I Targeted
---
in Poverty
00-.34
75.. 100
lEP Students
Migrant students
16%
---~~
Perceni·oTSchool
5%
All Students
Title!SchOolwide
Targeted
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Students
.----~.
Migrant students
All Students
Schoolwide
I ttle I
_ _ ....._ .... ..c.:.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _•.
Ti lie I Targeted .
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
EDUCATION
22%
52%
24%
70%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
13%
51%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
14%
51%
TITLE
�http://www.nysed.gov/
Scho.ol and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
(CCO)
schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Middle
High
702
2,447 .
765
S
tudentlteacher
ratio
Combined
K-8
9-12
(By state definition)
707
(CCD. 1997-98)
PreK
1989-90
143
775,698
. 28,172
1997-98
1,897,457
775,467
32,070
1989-90
0.3%
3.9
20.5
13.2
62.1
1997-98
0.5%
5.4
20.4
17.8
55.9
1990-91
10.6%
1997-98
11.8%
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
>90 percent score on CRT (4 subj).
Expected School Improvement on Assessment'
Annual progress toward goals
Other
I 138
Race/ethnicity
152
Elementary
Middle
15: 1
.
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
High
16:1
16:1
(CCD. 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
White
(CCD. K-12)
Indicators for School Accountability
CRT, attendance, dropout, suspension rates, high school
dropout rate <5 percent
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Reduce gap toward 90
every 2 years
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
87,577
Middle
Students with disabilities
! 35,027
'(OSEP, K-12)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Limited English profident
Grade 4
(NAEP. 1995-96, 1997-98)
1989-90
158,007
35%
21
Sci.
1993-94
4.1%
1996-97
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
70%
996-97
84%
(OME, K-12)
Soc. Std.
•
87
89
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
9-12
(IPEDS. Hi9h school grads enrolled in college)
PreK
(USED)
1997-98
11,303
Migrant
41
n/a
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1993-94
9,065
32%
40
1997-98
540,182
125,511
15,387
K-8
(U5ED/NCBE. K-12)
Grade 8
I
• Title I enrollment
1996-97
220,840
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
· Title I Schools
Race/ethnidty
1997-98
0.5%
6.1
33.6
33.5
25.5
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
$691,343.186
• Title I allocation
(Includes Basic. Concentration. and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start.
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD,
(CCD, 1997-98)
1996-97)
Intermediate
Migrant Education. and Neglected & Delinquent USED. 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
•
0-34%
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
2,600
0.4%
•
Schoolwide
•
Targeted Assistance
3,387
35-49%
State
(USED)
50-74%
39.4%
Local
54.8%
75-100%
682
n/a
n/a
--:f997~-§8
C
a
U .N C I L
aF
CHI E F
S TAT E
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
�Assessment Information-
Student Achievement ·1997-1998
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade l
Grade 6
-,--------.- ----_.-----_.
6.5
34.8
49.9
56.3
lEP Students
Mi9!<lllt.students
43.6
8.9
9.0
39.1
32.9
45.1
58.0
15.8
1.2
10.6
Grade 11
Partially
Proficient
1.0
13.7
35.7
65.4
Partially
Proficient
Advanced
63.3
20.9
Proficient
Above
Proficient Advanced
Partially
Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Above
Proficient Advanced
Title I Schoolwide
Title I
Student achievement trend
Student achievement trend
Reading 3rd grade meets or exceeds Proficient
Reading 6th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
•
All Students
•
All Students
III
0-34% Free/Reduced lunch
III
Ill!!i
0-34% 'Free/Reduced lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
NAEP State Reslilts
1996-1997
1997-1998
1995-1996
1996-1997
Grade 8
29%
62,%
34%
78%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and· above
Basic level and above
1995-1996
Gratle 4
Reading, 1998:,
Proficient level and
Basic level
20%
64%
22%
61%.
1997-1998
S T.A TEE DUe AT ION
I N Die A TOR S
IN
I T H
A
Foe U S
ON
TIT l E
�North Carolina
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
119
Number of districts
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
769,825
310,919
nfa
898,132
329,647
8,082
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCO, K-12)
White
1989-90
1997-98
Public school
enrollment
(CCD, 1997-9B)
(CCo)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High
Combined
1.229
I 416
Student/teacher
ratio
I
15:1
59
I 11
High
14:1
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Middle
High
Combined
41.373
1.6%
0.8
30.4
0.7
66.5
1990-91
Other
Students with disabilities
I 18)06 I 22,220 ! 1,468 I 510
1 5%
1.6
31.0
2.7
63.2
11.1%
SOSEP, K-12)
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Grade 8
•
4,586
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Eng.
87 I
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
44%
19
nfa
Math
Sci.
79
73
I
•
277,822
4,302
8,550
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
1997-98
13,885
1993-94
nfa
1996-97
nfa
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
(OME, K-12)
Soc. Std.
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
1997-98
(USED)
10,103
Migrant
Title I enrollment
24,771
(USEDINCBE, K-12)
1993-94
21%
37
44
•
1996-97
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education>16 hours
Title I Schools
1997-98
10.2%
1989-90
Professional development
of teachers in field
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
>50 percent students at/above grade level
(Reading, Writing and Math at grades 3-8; Reading
Science & Social Studies at grades 9-12)
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Annual growth over a baseline set for each school
Indicators for School Accountability
Primarily End of Grade and End of Course Tests;
additional components in high school
Title I AYP target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
Other
14:1
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
(8y state definition)
Middle
333
· Statewide Accountability Information
88
56%
(lPEDS, Highsdlool 9radsenrolled in college)
White
(USED, K-12)
•
3.8%
1.0
46.2
4.2
43.9
$144,468,525
Title I allocation
(Indudes Basic. Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures. Even Start.
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program*
(CCD,
(CCD, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
1996-97)
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide
0-34%
~~"'-~~ 1,047
VS,
•
targeted assistance
Schoolwide
Targeted Assistance
824
35-49%
State
•
(USED)
50-74%
572
75-100%
* 101 Schools did not report
nJa
n/a
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHI E F
S TAT E
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�North .Carolina
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
I Ass;~;;'e~'i"R~-port'e-d~' North Carolina End of GradelEnd of Course Test, used since
I 1992-1993
I Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Grade 8
Grade 4
IReadingiLan-guage Arts
level 1
(95.4% of total s<:hool grade look ex~~
level 2
Level 3
LReadinglLanguage Arts
Level 1
level 4
_
LEP Students
Migrant students
5.4
14.0
22.8
22.0
15.2
33.1
42.1
35.6
39.9
39.9
30.6
35.3
39.5
13.0
4.5
7.1
Percent of Schoorin Poverty
00 - 34
75-100
LEP Students
5.1
8.3
21.4
33.7
44.9
49.0
level 4
37.5%
28.6
9.0
2.7
7.6
9.1
8.7
11.8
27.4
28.9
28.2
37.9
44.9
48.8
43.4
47.7
20.2
13.2
19.7
Level 1
level 2
Level 3
-"4.0%-'- 16.8% --. 41.7%
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds Level 3
,
• All Students
• 0-34% Free/Reduced lunch
100
75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
79.4
80
77.3
o
Level 2
'2%
2
.6
Level 3
43.7%
48 8
45:7
-- - - . ..
2. 5
13 . 3
31.1
6.2
17.7
47.1
39.4
!Mathematics .', ~ "
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
(95.8% of total school grade look ~~~~)
41. 4
46.6
31.0
33.8
I
i Department of Education.
Level 4 r l s t a t e Definition of "Proficient", used since 1992-1993
35:7%
Level 3:.Students.performing.auhisJevel consistently,_ _ _- !__
25 2
demonstrate mastery of grade level subject matter and skills
I and are well prepared for the next grade level.
4.0-
42 . 9
16.1
4.2
10.2
. . . . . .------.--~
(95.9% of total school ~~~~ too~ exam)
Levell
Level 2
Level 3
I Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
I
Exclusion from Assessment
. LEI'. first year.. LEP second.year. exempted by.lEP.commrttee,
identified under Section 504, temporary disability. or other
End of Course Test
lIIiglishT-'7------(9-6.-1%-O-f-tot-a-1
s-ch-ijO-1g-ra-de-t-oo-~-ex-am-')
Level 4
All Students
riiie I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
3.9
10.4
15.9
14.4
14.4
28.4
34.1
30.1
35.7
41.6
34.3
38.0
46.0
19.6
15.7
17.6
Levell
11.5%
20.5
33.8
Level 2
27.8%
42.2
27.0
Level 4
23.0%
8.9
21.6
level 3
41.9%
38.1
level 1
All Students
Level 3
37.7%
28.5
17.6
level 4
19.6%
20.2
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Level 3
•
All Students
•
100
0-34% Free/Reduced lunch
75·100% Free/Reduced Lunch
o
---.-~.~-'~---~'--~~-----". -------------~
NAEP State Results
1996-1997
1997-1998
Grade 8
'28%
62%
31%
76%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1995-1996
Grade 4
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
80
21%
64%
76.3 81.7
Reading, 1998:
1996
1997
S TAT E
20%
56%
1998
E D U CAT ION
I N D I CAT 0 R S
WIT H
A
F 0 C U SON
TIT l E I
69
�North Dakota
http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
237
(CCD)
schools in state {(CD. 1997-98)
Middle
High
38
330
190
Studentlteacher
ratio
Combined
I
Elementary
Middle
Race/ethnicity
2
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
High
.I
15:1
15:1
(CCD, 1997-98)
PreK
1989-90
84,920
32,896'
nJa
1997-98
79,617
38,242
713
1989-90
6.1%
0.7
0.6
0.6
92.0
1997-98
8.3%
0.8
0.9
1.1
88.9
990-91
9.4%
1997-98
9.5%
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
Other
I
5
K-8
9-12
(By state definition)
(CCD. 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
15:1
White
«(CD. K-12)
Indicators for School Accountability
None
TItle I AYP Target for Schools
Average >40th percentile on a8S-5, or 2 percent
4
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
3,983
Middle
I 921
High
Combined
I 2,739 I
Professional development
of teachers in field
66
Students with disabilities
142
(OSE?, K-12)
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP. 1995-96, 1997-98)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Grade 8
1989-90
7,187
Math
80
Sci.
87
85
• Title I enrollment
9-12
(USED/NCBE. K-12)
Migrant
1997-98
982
Soc. Std. •
77
1994-95
68%
1996-97
74%
(IPEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
1997-98
23.2%
0.9
1.5
2.0
72.4
American Indian/Alaskan
AsianlPacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, H2)
White
1996-97
2.7%
Postsecondary enrollment
19
PreK
Racefethnicity
(OME. K-12)
1993-94
2.5%
1997-98
17,822
K-8
(USED)
1993-94
nfa I nfa
22%
44%
nJa
38
· Title ISchools
1996-97
6,340
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCO. event)
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
(SASS, Percent. 1993-94)
Other
$18,866,355
• TItle I allocation
(Includes Ba.ie, Concentration. and LEA grants. Capital Expenditure•• Even Start.
Sources of funding
District average
(CCD,
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
1996-97)·
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent. USED, 1997-98)
(CCD. 1997-98)
•
0-34%
Intermediate
'1.3%
State
41.4%
429
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance (USED)
•
Schoolwide
301
35-49%
50-74%
Local
45.3%
75-100%
1995
COUNCil
Targeted Assistance
oF
CHI E F
S TAT E
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1998
�North Dakota
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Version 5
Grade 4
Grade 8
National
Percentile
All Students
Title I
Title I Targeted
- -Percent-of -School
in Poverty
68%
43
National
Percentile
All Students
Title I
Title I Targeted
Percent_of-School_
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
ooo~=~_~
32
~
- ..
~~--
Grade 10
National
Percentile
National
Percentile
All Students
Title I
Title I Targeted
in
68%
41
[~ath~!Tlati~
00-34
75-100
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
........ --
.,- --,
63%
38
in Poverty
~
21
-,--~~
National
Percentile
State Definition of "Proficient"
National-percentile;,there-is-no.definition-of-proficient__ _
No information provided
LEP Students
Migrant students
I
...... _ _ _ :
Exclusion from Assessment
No information provided
33
00-34
75-100
~Mathernatics
All Students
65%
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards,
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
26
LEP Students
24
All Students
71%
iitie~,-~
Migrant students
39
TItleITa~~~e~re~d~_____________________________
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
E D U CAT ION
nfa
nfa
Math, 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
S TAT E
nfa
nfa
24%
75%
33%
77%
I N D I CAT 0 R S
WIT H
A
F 0 C U SON
TIT LEI
71
�http://www.ode.state.oh.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
661
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
1,238,917
525,493
nfa
1,273,892
572,280
20,804
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
(CCD, 1997-98)
1989-90
1997-98
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High
Combined
2,216
I 734
Student/teacher
ratio
I 118
725
Elementary
I 48
16:1
18:1
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High
Combined
4U51
(By state definition)
I 22,915 I 32,117 I 3,519
Students with disabilities
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
nfa
nfa
nfa
-Eng,
Math
74
64
(SASS. Percent. 1993-94)
Sci.
Title I Schools
10.1%
I enrollment
Grade 8
•
8,526
1997-98
5,357
1993-94
1996-97
5.3%
5.2%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
51%
59%
•
(OME, K-12)
Soc. Std.
•
79
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
1997-98
(USED)
4,993
Migrant
317,469
1,267
12,391
(USED/NCBE, K-12)
1993-94
nfa
nfa
nfa
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
Highschool
drop-out rate ((CD, event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education>16 hours
Title I AYP Target for Schools
(OSEP. K-12)
limited English proficient
Grade 4
Indicators for School Accountability
Dropout, attendance rates, proficiency tests
1997-98
10.8%
1989-90
INAEP, 1995-96. 1991-98)
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
2.5 percent gain in two thirds of performance indica
tors not met the previous year
0.1% .
1.0
15.5
1.5
81.9
0.1%
0.9
14.2
1.2
83.6
1990-91
Other
729
Professional development
of teachers in field
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Grade 4,6 >75 percent; grade 10 >85 percent, grade 12
>60 percent passing score on CRT (4 subjects)
Other
Middle
(CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
(WEDS, High school Jlrads enrolled in college)
0.7
36.9
3.1
58.1
White
(USED. K-12)
--
•
0.1%
$307,720,914
Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration. and LEA grants. Capi!al Expenditures. Even Start,
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
ICCD,
((CD. 1997-98)
Sources of funding
1996-97)
Intermediate
0.1%
local
53.1%
0-34%
•
oF
CHI E F
S TAT E
Schoolwide
2,528
50-74%
75-100%
COUNCil
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
35-49%
State
40.7%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1991-98)
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
•
(USED)
Targeted ASSistance
�Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
~~~~~-e~~~-~~;~~~d
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
I Ohio 4th and 6th Grade Proficiency Test
Grade 6
Grade 4
IReading/Language Arts
{89.7% of total school grade ~;;;U
Partially
Proficient
Proficient
45%
44
AIrStud~
51"10
Title I Schoolwide
TItle ITargeted
Percent of School
in Poverty-00-34
75-100
53
46
46
36
62
61
LEP Students
Migrant students
41
63
57
37
37
Advanced
3%
3
8
3
1
2
IReading/Lang~age Arts
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
.. J'e!ct!.ntof Scho()1
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
I Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
. Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
! Department of Education.
(89.7% of total school grade took exam"
Partially
Proficient
47%
53
45
II'
Proficient
39%
36
38
Advanced
14%
11
17
38
64
48
33
40
31
---t Mathematics at Grade 4. Scaled score of222' - ..
i 200 in Mathematics at Grade
I Allst\l<len.~JnJitie ,-schools at tested gragegrgjnclu9~din the,
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
L
6.
i assessment results.
14
3
48
69
State Definition of "Proficient"
J~!.~cient: Scaled scor:.~()f 217J!1 Reading_a_nd L,'.!"O.!',"'.'~-"7--+--
12
!.
lEX~IUSlOn~romAs~essment
No mformatlon prOVided
Other Assessments
I'oIgj!lfQ[!T11!ti()l1provid~ ~~.
Grade 10
[Mathematics:; , ~
Partially
Proficient
(89.7% of total5(ho~~:~~mil
Proficient
46
25
48
73
Advanced
6
2
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Partially
Proficient
53%
66
59
Proficient
42%
29
32
37
13
59
86
Advanced
5%
5
9
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targl:ted
fjliathematjes
4
1
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds
•
100
•
80
o
601
Proficient
All Students
1}34% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
64
55
Student achievement trend
Math 6th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
• All Students
• 0-34% Free/Reduced Lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced Lunch
100
o
80
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
nfa
n/a
n/a
n/a
Math, 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
59
60
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
40
20
o
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
S TAT E E D U ( A T ION
I N D I ( A TOR S WIT H A
F 0 ( U SON
TIT LEI
73
�http://sde.state.ok.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
550
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
(CCD, 1997-98)
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High
Combined
986
I 350
Student/teacher
ratio
I
461
Elementary
19,809
I
8,318
Race/ethriicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
High
16:1
15: 1
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined
I
I 10,634 I
1997-98
420,940
157,640
2,940
439,905
177,929
2,494
0
1989-90
1990-91
Other
Students with disabilities
749
1997-98
11.4%
1,1
9,9
2.6
75.0
15.5%
1.3
10,6
4.5
68.1
1997-98
10.3%
Grade 4
(NAE P, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Grade 8
.
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Eng.
78
(SASS, Percent. 1993-94)
17%
n/a
n/a
Math
Sci.
74 ! 62
•
Limited English proficient
10,606
.
· I Title I AYP Target for Schools
•
I
I
t.,.~_~_rrl.~~~~2!ate~!~~_9oll!-. ___ ~_~_~,i:;~~.:. __~"_~~~ ___ J
I enrollment
1997-98
5,948
1993-94
1996-97
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
49%
50%
n/a
Soc. Std.
.
71
n/a
n/a
(WEDS, Hi2h school grads enrolled in coilege)
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
173,323
14,371
4,949
• Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
1997-98
(USED)
3,699
Migrant
'.
Title I Schools
31,941
1993-94
18%
I
n/a
I
1
• ~
21,2%
0.6
16.0
6.4
55.7
$89,482,299
• Title I allocation
(Indudes BasiC. Concentration. and LEA granlS, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
District average
All schools by percent Df students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program*
(CCD.
«(CD, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
1996-97)
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent. USED, 1997-98)
Number Df SChODls with Title I prDgrams
Schoolwide
0-34%
721
•
VS,
targeted assistance
Schoolwide
(USED)
o Targeted Assistance
35-49%
Federal
8.3%
1,043
50-14%
State
623%
Intermediate
,1.8%
75-100%
• 28 schools did not report.
1995
C 0 U N C IL
OF
CHIEF
S TAT E
S C H 0 0
OFFICERS
I
!
1 OK Core Curriculum scores
1996-97
(USEDINC8E, K-12)
,
!Indicators for School Accountability
•
(OSEP, K-12)
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Reading education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education>16 hours
Ex~ected School Improvement on' ~ssessment
: i Annual improvement toward satisfactory rating
11.3%
1989-90
Professional development
of teachers in field
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
>70 percent of students scoring satisfactory, currently
de~eloping performance index
I
I 21
0
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
Other
Middle
16:1
(CCD, 1997-98)
(By state definition)
· Statewide Accountability Information
1996
1998
�Oklahoma
Student Achievement 1997-=1998
Percentage of students
Assessment Information
iAs"sessrile-rirReporfe(J------ ...
state proficiency levels
i Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests; used since 1994-1995
Grade 5
!Reading/linguage Arts
Satisfactory
Title I Schoolwide
33
I Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
I Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Grade 8
IRea~ing/language Arts
. 67
i Department of Education..
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
--AII.5tudents .._ _ 25% _ _ .75%
Title I Schoolwide
34
66
used since 1994
I· State Definition ofof"Proficient,"subject matter and
Satisfactory: Students performing at this level consistently
: demonstrate mastery grade level
i
s:..k_il_ls~-+
'I
-
._JrLPOyerty: ___ _
c·-in -Poverly
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
1
r and are well prepared for the next gradeleveC--'
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
Only TItle I student scores at tested grade are reported in the
. J
+~~~!llent re~ll1!~_
I Exclusion from Assessment
00··34
7~HOO
I
i'EP and lEP plan
LEP Students
I
!
I
I ther Assessments
O
IIBS
l_._..at grades 3 and 7
__.. _______._
Grade 11
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
in
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
63
Unsatisfactory
'----m.
A Stu-;-de-n-:-ts-----:2:-:9c;-;o;.;·
TIiieiSChoolwide--3a----62
TItle I Targeted ---5i---43
Percent of School
in Poverty
7 ;7n::cc-
._-_.. .
Title I Targeted
Satisfactory
_ .._._-_
._..
53
......:
.._._-_..
47
00-·34
Unsatisfactory
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Satisfactory
39%
48
61
61%
52
39
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
30%
66%
29%
80%
·nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
""-----~-
S TAT E
E 0 U CAT ION
I N 0 I CAT 0 R S
WIT H A
F 0 C U SON
TIT l E I
75
�http://www.ode.state.or.us/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
217
Statewide Accountability Information
Public school
enrollment
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High
Combined
I 219
760
Student/teacher
ratio
I
212
Elementary
9-12
1989-90
340,264
132,130
PreK
nfa
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
High
20:1
20:1
White
(CCD. K-12)
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCO. 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High' Combined
12,465
I 5,720 I 7,603 I 648
Professional development
of teachers in field
38%
24
nfa
Eng.
Math
Sci.
61
1993-94)
61
93
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
1997-98
2.1%
3.5
2.6
8.1
83.7
1990-91
10.3%
1997-98
10.6%
(OSEP, K-12)
Grade 8
I
1989-90
1.7%
2.8
2.4
4.0
89.2
•
1989-90
7.557
38%
38
nfa
1993-94
23,958
1997-98
26,319
1993-94
7.1%
1996-97
6.9%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
57%
1996-97
54%
(OME, K-12)
Soc. Std.
•
79
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Annual increase in percent proficient (lang. Arts, M)
!O!'-<l.'!I_1c:O_O,."r_o_c.::.::::,,:_;.:.:.c:,~ ,:,::c..,"_____ ,___""''' ___".. _.,_._____-'
:
L...
· Title I Schools
•
Title I enrollment
PreK
1997-98
96,942
5,406
1,075
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
1997-98
3.3%
3.0
6.2
16.8
69.4
K-8
9-12
(USW)
(USEO/NC8E, K-12)
Migrant
Indicators for School Accountability
None
1996-97
33,559
school
drop-out rate (CCO, event)
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Percen~
Students with disabilities
I 109
Grade 4
Reading education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
(SASS,
Other
Limited English proficient
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
1997-98
378,571
160,221
781
Other
I 10
51
Middle
21:1
(CCO. 1997-98)
K-8
(By stale definition)
Number of districts
(CCO. 1997-98)
(IPEDS, Hi~h school ~rads enrolled in (oll~)
$80,242,807
• Title I allocation
(Indudes Basic, Concentration. and LEA grants. Capital Expenditures. Even Start.
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD.
(CCD, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
1996-97)
Migrant Education. and Neglected lit Delinquent USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
858
•
Schoolwide
777
35-49%
State
52.6%
_._ov
~"--Intermediate
1.4%
~
COUNCil
OF
CHI E F
S TAT E
50-74%
75-100%
S C H 0 0
OFFICERS
•
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
�Oregon
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Porronbno
of students
Assessment Information
----~-------
state oroficiencv levels
Assessment Reported
Oregon StatewideAssessment System, used since 1991-1992
Grade 3
!Read~uage Art~__
Grade 8
{89.0% of total school grade to<lk examl]
Does Not Meet
Benchmark
Title I Schoolwide
TItle 1Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Meets
Benchmark
Exceeds
Benchmark
30.7
22.8
40.3
40.0
29.0
37.3
16
33
35
44
49
23
IReadingfLa~9l1age Arts
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
{!ll.So/. of total school grade !O<lk ~~~fllli
Does Not Meet
Benchmark
45.4%
58.6
52.9
Meets
Benchmark
26.6%
22.5
25.3
40
66
28
19
Exceeds
Benchmark
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
All students at tested grade are included in the assessment
results..
Exclusion from Assessment
Absent, individually determined Special Education and LEP
students
32
15
LEP Students
Migrant students
L~atheiilaticS
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
lEPc,~,~,,,~
{89.8'10 of total school grade
took;~;fll)-l
Does Not Meet
Meets
Exceeds
Benchmark
Benchmark
Benchmark
33.2%
41.3%-----25.6%
43.5
39.4
17.1
33.8
42.3
23.9
25
42
46
40
33
14
Other Assessments
None
r
(93.1 ~~
Mathematics
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Does Not Meet
Benchmark
49.4%
66.2
56.8
44
72
~ft~tal school grade took exam)
Meets
Benchmark
24.3%
18.2
23.2
26
16
I
26.3%
15.7
20.0
II All Students
II 0-34% FreefReduced Lunch
100
o 75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
________~f
Grade 10
IReading
(87,2%
Exceeds
Benchmark
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted
Does Not Meet
Benchmark
52.6%
76.2
57.7
IMathematics
31
11
____________________________
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds benchmark
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.s.
Department of Education.
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
of total school grade took eXilfll)
Meets
Benchmark
31.8%
19.3
29.2
II All Students
II 0-34% FreefReduced lunch
o 75-100% FreefReduced lunch
{880% of totaIS~h~~I~~:;~}]
Does Not Meet
Benchmark
67.7 %
89.1
72.8
Meets
Benchmark
21.9%
9.5
20.2
1997-1998
1998:1999
Exceeds
Benchmark
10.4%
1.4
7.0
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
28%
33%
78%
1996-1997
1997-1998
STATE
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
61 %
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
80
60
1996-1997
Exceeds
Benchmark
15.6%
4.5
13.1
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds benchmark
100
65%
21 %
26%
67%
1998-1999
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
I
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
�Pennsylvania
http://www.pde.psu.edu/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
501
(CCD. 1997-98)
Elementary
1/927
Middle
High
I 539
Combined
I
598
Student/teacher
ratio
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
High
. 17:1
19:1
(CCD. 1997-9B)
PreK
1997-98
1/247/509
535/069
2/979
1997-98
Statewide Goal (or
None
0.1%
1.5
13.1
2.6
82.7
on State Assessment
Expected School Improvement on Assessment .
None
Other
I 29
22
9-12
(By state definition)
1989-90
1/147/986
507,293
nfa
1989-90
K-8
(CCO)
Number of public schools in state (CCO. 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
Indicators for School Accountability
None
0.1%
1.8
14.5
3.9
79.7
Title IAYP Target for Schools
No· information available
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
46/195
Middle
High
...
Combined
1990-91
Other
I 21/156 I 32,416 I 553
Students with disabilities
853
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
Reading education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education > 16 hours
nfa
17%
nfa
Math
74 I
(SASS. Pera!nt. 1993-94)
Sci.
98
85
1989-90
nfa
1997-98
8,424
12,549
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
1993-94
3.9%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
57%
65%
74
(IPEDS, High school
1997-98
~rads
enrolled in college)
290/201
27,238
7,879
PreK
• Racefethnicity
1997-98
0.1%
2.1
41.4
11.0
42.7
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Padfic Islander
Black
(OME, K-12)
Soc. Std,
...
K-8
9-12
1996-97
4.1%
.....
• Title I enrollment
(USED)
Migrant
... ...
- Title I Schools
1996'-97
nfa
1993-94
nfa
nfa
nfa
-,
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
9.7%
(USED/NCBI'. K-12)
Grade 8
I
11.6%
(OSEP, K-12)
Professional development
of teachers in field
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
1997-98
White
(USED, K-12)
$274,238,269
• Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures. Even Start,
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
District average
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD,
(CCD, 1997-98)
1996-97)
Number of schools with Title I programs
•
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
Intermediate
Schoolwide
2,106
0.2%
State
39.1%
Migrant Education. and Neglected 8. Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
data not available
Local
55.2%
• 76 schools did not report.
COUNCil
oF
CHI E F
S TAT E
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
�Pennsylvania
Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
I
I Assessment Reported
Grade 5
=:J
~ding/language Arts
Bottom
AII.Students
Title I
23.7.%
50.1
low
Middle
24.0.%
31.0
High
Middle
25.6% '
13.9
I Pennsylvania System of Student Assessments, used since 1996
Grade 8
Bottom
TOp
26.7%
5.0·
Ip
I Reading/L~§;;--Art~-:AII.Students
Title I
24.3.%
54.2
M~~dle
24.8%
29.3
•
'
I rogress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
.
M~~:re
2~.J%
12.4
i Performance standards met the review criteria of the U.S.
Top
}4.9%
4.2
ntle I Targeted
Percent of School
.. i!L!'\1v~rJL
LEP Students
~i.9rant students
75-100
72.0
68.4
18.8
20.5
5.5
8.5
3.7
2.6
I State Definition of "Proficient"
'!"Student results'are placed in quartiles;
proficient
I Exclusion from Assessment
_.! l~ .exdl!siQ.I1s, par~ngl ex.cmsiqn~for.9[agEl1,l , ~I)Q ..
incomplete assessments
i
00··34
75-100
I Department of Education.
lEP Students
Migrant students
69.4
66.1
21.1
25.4
7.5
6.8
1.9
1.7
! Other Assessments
.
Writing examination at grades 6,and 9 will become mandatory
in 2000. .
'
l
~---,~-
..
.
.
~-- ~-.---------.'---
Grade 11
All Students
Title'l
Bottom
24.4%
51.7
low
Middle
' 27.0%
32.3
High
Middle
24.4%
12.1
Top
24.2%
3.9
Bottom
AiiStlideirtS ---m.y;Title I
56.5
Title I Targeted
28.3%
31.3
High
Middle
low
Top
25: ~22.5%
9.4
2.9
Bottom
All Students
25.3%
Middle
25.6%
High
Middle
25.5%
Top
23.5%
Title I Tilrgl?ted
Perlent of School
in Poverty
low
Middle
in Poverty
Percent 01' School
00-34
00·-34
75--100
:-lE::-::P:--:S:-t~ud-;-ents
75-·100
68.5
20.4
tJI ig!~.!!!. s.!ljdents __6p.8_.__ 2~~~
7.1
9.2
4.0
4.2
:-:LE=P-=S:-tu"'dc
ents
M~grant students
6.2
62.6
21.1
10.0
72.9 _--=-'-'-'-_ _ _ _ __
S TAT E E DUe A T ION
Bottom
low
Middle
High
Middle
I N Die A TOR S WIT H A Foe U SON
TIT LEI
79
�Puerto Rico
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
(CCD, 1997-98)
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
903
Middle
High
I 217
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
(CCO, 1997-98)
nfa
1989-90
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
1997-98
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
1990-91
nfa
1997-98
Students with disabilities
Racefethnicity
High
16:1
18: 1
16:1
PreK
442,814
160,044
358
Other
I 41
Middle
Elementary
486,247
164,978
(By state definition)
I 183
172
1997-98
(CCD)
Elementary
1989-90.
K-8
9-12
0.0%
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
No information available
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Title I AYP Target for Schools
None
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
18,281
Middle
High
Combined
Other
I 6,667 I 6,794 I 6,254 I 568
Professional development
of teachers in field
(OSEP. K-12)
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
5.6%
Grade 8
•
1989-90
nfa
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
nfa
nfa
nfa
14,837
1993-94
nfa
1996-97
nfa
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
nfa
1996-97
nfa
(OME, K-12)
Eng.
Math
Sci.
Soc. Std.
nfa
(lASS, Percent, 1993-94)
1997-98
16,288
Migrant
nfa
nfa
•
nfa
(lPEDS, High schoolgrads enrolled in college)
All sch,?0.ls by ~ercent of students eligible.
to participate In the Free Lunch Program .
Sources of funding
District average
(CCD,
1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Federal
28.3%
State
71.6%
PreK
1997-98
• Racefethnicity
0-34% li6
0.0%
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12l
White
$338,980,985
• Title I allocation
(Includes 8asic. Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Stan,
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent. USED. 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
Schoolwide
•
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
1.230
35-49%
50-74%
75-100%
',222
• Two schools did not report.
COUNCIL
9-12
(USED)
1993-94
[nfa
nfa
nfa
308,771
38,094
188
K-8
16,618
(U5EDIN(BE, X-12)
1997-98
• Title I enrollment
1996-97
Highschool
drop-out rate «(CO, event)
Reading education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
· Title I Schools
OF
CHIEF
S TAT E
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1995
1996
1998
�Puerto Rico
Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1991-1998
-
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grades 3,6,9,11
Grade
~adingflanguage Arts
Partially
Proficient
--All Students
TItle I Schoolwide
litle I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
~
Proficient
66:3%---20:8%66.4
20.3
73.9
16.4
Advanced
51.0
25.6
Proficient
Advanc~d
,State~~D.efjnitjon_of-"~r~oficient'_·-:-_______~-~
---------
13.3
9.7
23.4
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards"'"
Perfonnance standards met review criteria of the u.s. Department
of Education.
Arts
~~12.9%~~~-~~~
00-34
75-100
lEP Students
Migrant students
Assessment Reported
Prueba Puertorriguena de Competenaas Esrolares
i Profident met or exceeded state criteria for academic progress
TItle I Targeted
Percent of School
in-Poverty
00-34
75-100
'Ii
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
No information provided
~ ~~~~L~.
I
,
LEP Students
Migrant students
.
~__
~.
. .
~
. _
Exclusion from Assessment
No information provided
i Other Assessments
I ______
No information provided
L
__ ____
._~_~~~w~
~.~
~
Grade
Partially
Proficient
Partially
Partially
Proficient
Advanced
Proficient
All Students
44.0%
35.5%
20.5%
Title I Schoolwide
38.3
24.4
37.3
~fi.3
17.7
",:;"
litle I Targeted---;-_ _--:.:::..=-=-_ _----===-----__-=-:..::..._
Pen:ent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Advanced
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in POVNty
00-34
LEP Students
Migrant students
Profident
lEP Students
Migrant students
40.9
38.3
20.8
Proficient
Proficient
Advanced
Proficient
Advanceo
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Parti8i1y
Profjekmt
7)-100
All Students
Title 1Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
E D U CAT I ON
nfa
nfa
Math, 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
S TAT E
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
I N D I CAT 0 R S WIT H
A
F 0 C U SON
TIT l E I
81
�Rhode Island
http://instruct.ride.ri.netlride_home_page.html
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
36
Number of districts
PreK
1989-90
98,412
37,317
n/a
1997-98
107,948
41,373
629
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
1989-90
0.4%
12
6.4
5,9
84.1
1997-98
0.5%
3.4
7.5
11.5
77.2
Student/teacher
ratio,
I
16: 1
1990-91
13.3%
1997-98
Students with disabilities
9-12
High
13: 1
13: 1
Number Of FTE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
4,824
I 2,541 I 3,163 I
Professional development
of teachers in field
Eng,
Grade 8
18%
21
n/a
Math
Sci.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Meet the target defined by school every 3 years
1989-90
7,592
28%
37
50
Soc. Std . •
81 I 94 I
Indicators for School Accountability
Test scores, Teacher survey on practices
TItle I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
· Title I Schools
K-8
1996-97
10,009
9-12
1993-94
247
1997-98
169
1993-94
4.6%
1996-97
4.7%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
65%
1996-97
77%
(OME, K-12)
93
PreK
(USED)
(USEDINCBE, K-12)
Migrant
1997-98
14,243
331
153
• Title I enrollment
{OSEP. K-..!.32
High school
drop-out rate (CCO. event)
94
(SASS, Pelcent. 1993-94)
20
Grade 4
_ education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
50
Limited English proficient
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Growth in percent of students at proficient level
Other
,3
Middle
Elementary
(CCD. 1997-98)
K--8
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High
Combined
216 I 51
42
I
2
Public school
enrollment
(By state definition)
(CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
(IPEDS, High school 91ads en/oiled in colle9')
•
997-98
0.3%
13.2
15.7
29.0
41.6
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
AsianlPacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED. K-12)
White
$25,482,356
• Title I allocation
(Includes Basic. Concentration. and LEA grants, Capital Expendilules, Even Start.
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program *
(CCD. 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
Sources of funding
0-34%
Migrant Education. and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
5choolwide vs. targeted assistance
215
•
(USED)
School wide
Targeted Assistance
145
35-49%
State~
40.6%
Local
54.0%
50-74%
75-100% 1_ 38
• Four schools did not report,
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1995
1996
1998
�Rhode Island
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
[I.iglish language Arts-All Students in-Gr.;de4
Little
Evidence
of,Achiev.
Reading Interp-,.
Writing Stand.
W. Cant. Stand.
0.2%
0.5
0.4
Below
Standard
14.5%
24.4
24.7
Nearly
Achiev.
Standard
36.0%
36.0
30.2
m~
Assessment Reported
Grade 10 RI Writing Assessment Program, used since 1997
Rhode Island New Standards Reference Exams, used since 1997
(Please note: grade 10Writing scores are by student category, all other
scores are by content area)
Grade 8
1l'igli,sh-l-~n-g-u-ag-,. 'Arts-AIi Students in Grade 8
e
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.s. Department of
Little
Achiev.
Achiev.
Standard w/Honors
48.1%
36.9
43.5
1.2%
2.2
1.3
State Definition of "Proficient"
Proficient/Achieved Standard: At this level, students demonstrate the
ability to apply concepts and processes effectively and accurately.
S!Udents communicate ideas in clear a.nd effect!~~ 'IIays;
Exclusion from Assessment
Extended absences, alternate assesssments
Other Assessments
Rhode Island Health Performance Assessment Program
[Mathematics-All Students in Grade4~··.~;...."'...c'_'_-_ _-'
Little
Eviden<e
of Achiev.
LM~the~~tics-AIi Stu9_ents fit ~ade 8
Nearly
Below
Standard
Little
Evidence
of Achiev,
Achiev.
Achiev.
Standard wlHonofS
Below
Standard
Nearly
Achiev,
Standard
-----.--j
Grade 10
Considerably
Below
Profident
Below
Prolicient
21.5%
48.4
Achiev.
Standard
37.8%
36.5
~~~
30.8% .' ".",-._---_ ..-.__._._--
46.5% 10.3%
41.1
18.7 .. 1.1
20.3
11.2
2.5
--,-.---~~
Skills
"-------_. __._-_.. _ 5.2%
....
Concep~"
31.5
Problem Solving
27.0
-~.
19.5%
24.9%
30.8% 19.6%
37.6
15.3
19.1
6.8'-g.0
'ii6"----;9~f"----,
All Students
Title I
Exemplary
Profi(ient
--,.'---'~-
36.0%
15.1
4.8%
0.0
1.0
1Ma~,~matics-AIi Students ~n Grade 1.~.__.____ ]
Little
Eviden<e
of Achiev.
Below
Standard
Nearly
Achiev.
Standard
Achiev.
with
Honors
Achiev.
Standard
16.5%
46.1 %
13.8
14.7
~r()~I~IT1~?IY!~~L~~ __ ""~Q:~, ____ ,!,~___ ,,,,_11.0
Skills
f.oncepts
1.0%
34.2
15.0%
30.0
21.3%
7.3
5.6
NAEP State Results
J
Grade 4
Reading, 1998:
Grade 8
32%
65%
30%
74%
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
17%
61 %
ON
20%
60%
TITLE
�South Carolina
http://www.state.sc.us/sde/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCO)
I
schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Middle
High
Combined
242
191
I 19
(By state definition)
Other
12
I
Student/teacher
ratio
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
High
7:1
(CCD, 1997-98)
White
(CCD. K-12)
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
19,638
I
9,731
I
10,956
I
1997-98
464,117
186,638
nfa
n/a
1989-90
0.1%
0.6
41.1
0.3
57.9
1997-98
0.2%
0.8
42.2
1.0
55.8
1997-98
12.5%
n/a
1989-90
Grade 8
35%
49
49
Grade 4
education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education>16 hours
39%
27
n/a
Math
Sci.
78
I 721
74
Soc. Std. •
I
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
: Indicators for School Accountability
• ! None
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Reduce percent of students in bottom
_
p.ercent!yeilr:. --"--
n/a
Title I enrollment
K-8
9-12
PreK
1997-98
191,932
6,922
7,745
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
1997-98
0.2%
0.4
60.7
1996-97
3,202
(USED)
Migrant
Postsecondary enrollment
72
1993-94
2,227
1997-98
1993-94
1996-97
2.7
n/a
1994-95
58%
1996-97
59%
(lPEDS. High school grads enrolled in Cllilege)
by 25
· Title I Schools
•
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Eng.
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Implementation 2001. Provisional Plan.
(OSE? K-12)
proficient
(NAEP. 1995-96, 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent. 1993 94)
68
646
Professional development
teachers in
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Students with disabilities
1989-90
443,712
172,465
1990-91
Public school
enrollment
95
(CCD, 1997-98)
Number of
Elementary
. 591
· Statewide Accountability Information
•
1.2
White
(USED, K-12)
•
37.4
$95,786,176
Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capilal Expenditures, Even Start,
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program *
Sources of funding
Di strict average
(CCD. 1996-97)
-(CCD, 1997-98)
0-34%
Local
39.1%
35-49%
• 25 schools did not report.
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
Number of schools with Title I programs
•
349
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
(USED)
Schoolwide
Targeted Assistance
329
50-74%
Federal
8.4%
State
52.5%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent. USED, 1997-98)
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1995
1996
1998
�South Carolina
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
Metropolitan Achievement Test version 7, used since 1995-96
Grade 4
Grade 7
FRe~ding/language Arts
(91.6% of lotal school grade took exam)
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
~lff Pove-rty-
.. - ... --.
(91.6% of total school grade took exam)
Lower
Quartile
Lower
Middle
Upper
Middle
22%
22%
19%
38%
• Other Assessments
•. BSAP _
IMathematics
Upper
Quartile
-- .--. . ._- . .
Exclusion--from Assessment·-
Self contained classes, students with documented disabilities,
absences, and students who did not attempt exam
LEP Students
Migrant students
[=Mattlematics .
GO~-34
Student results are placed in quartiles;
there is no definition of proficient.
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
Percent of Smool
in Poverty
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the
U.S. Department of Education.
(92.9% of total school grade took exam)
Title I Ta rgcted
Percent of School
. in ·poverty
00-34
75-100
All Students
Title! School wide
Titi~,-@rg~~L __
Reading/language Arts
(92.9% of total school grade took exam)
Lower
Quartile
Lower
Middle
. Upper
Middle
I
Grade 11
Reading
(94.1 % of total school grade took exam)
Lower
Quartile
Upper
Quartile
All Students
29%
23%
21%
27%
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
PercentOfSchooT"------------·---------·_-----------
Lower
Middle
Upper
Middle
Upper
Quartile
25%
29%
23%
I
22%
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
in Poverty
00-34
75-100...-.-.-..-.-..-.--.....-..-.-...-.....--.-..-.-------...-----...----.--......--.------- ..--...-.-.----------
.LEP Students
Migrant students
Math
(94.1 % of tolal school grade took exam)
Lower
Quartile
Lower
Middle
Upper
Middle
Upper
Quartile
26%
25%
21%
28%
All Students
Title.l Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
E DUe A T ION
22%
55%
22%
65%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
S TAT E
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
12%
14%
48%
48%
I N Die A TOR S
WIT H
A
Foe U SON
TIT LEI
85
�South Dakota
http://www.state.sd.us/state/executive/deca/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
(CCD, 1997-98)
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
K-8
(CCD)
9-12
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
(By state definition)
Elementary
415
177
· Statewide Accountability Information
High
Combined
190
I
Student/teacher
ratio
Elementary
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
1989-90
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
1997-98
14.4%
0,8
1.0
0.9
82.9
1990-91
9.6%
1997-98
9.1%
Racefethnicity
High
15: 1
15: 1
Elementary
3,991
(OSEP, K-12)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Grade 4
Eng.
73 I
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
nfa
nfa
nfa
Math
Sci.
67 I 72
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
Grade 8
•
I
nfa
nfa
nfa
Soc. Std.
Indicators for School Accountability
None
TItle I AYP Target for Schools
Five percent gain from Below Basic to Basic and from
(. Basic to Prof!~i~n.! ...
!
i
•
· Title I Schools
• Title I enrollment
(USED)
(USED/NCBE. K-12)
1993-94
1,733
1997-98
1993-94
nfa
1996-97
nfa
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
50%
1996-97
50%
Migrant
(OME. K-12)
I 61
(!PEDS. High school grads -"ruolledJn_coliege)
1997-98
19,829
1,434
220
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
6,515
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1989-90
6,048
Limited English proficient
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
DevelopinQ by 2000
Other
I 10
Middle
I
17: 1
(CCD, 1997-98)
2
1997-98
96.484
44,300
924
Students with disabilities
Middle
I 197
PreK
1989-90
93,596
33,733
nfa
Racefethnicity
1997-98
36.5%
0.4
0.9
1.1
59.9
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
White
(USED, K-12)
• Title I allocation
$20,536,068
(Includes Basic, Concentration. and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures. Even Start,
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible*
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
0-34%
_ _ _ _ _ _-.J
35-49%
1.2%
35.5%
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
Intermediate
State
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent. USED, 1997-98)
165
434
•
Schoolwide
(USED)
•
Targeted Assistance
418
75-1
Local
53,6%
• Three schools did not report.
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOO
OFFICERS
1995
1996
1998
�South Dakota
Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1"997-1998
Percentage of students
state oroficiencv levels
. Assessment Reported
i Stanford Achievement Test Version 9, used since 1997-98
Grade 4
Assessm~nt
Grade 8
IReading/Language Arts
i
----
National
,:::':~-'-.::-=~.c:.:,..::.:c._,---
National
---------- ....... _.....,...,...... ------
in
. Exclusion
from Assessment
: Information will be available from 1999-2000 results
in
---_.
__
._-
[Mailiemati~~_._
National
Percentile
All Students
Title I Schoolwlde
Title I Targeted
'----'--,- --~_:=:J
00··34
75·100
Grade 11
=:==J
~eading/Lan_9ua9~ Arts _
National
Percentile
National
Percentile
62%
Percent of School
Poverty
i
Other Assessments
Under development
75-100
75··100
!Matilem~tics
Progress Toward
Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I
Title I Targeted
54%
Percent 01 School
in Poverty
00--34
75-~lOO
National
Percentile
LEP Students
All Students
Title I Schoolwkie
Title I
Mi9ran!_5ltJ~.i1_t~ ___...
66%
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading/1998:
Proficient level and above
Bask level and above
EDUCATION
n/a
nfa
Math/1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
INDICATORS
WITH
A FOCUS
ON
TITLE
�Tennessee
http://www.state.tn.us!education!
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
140
Public school
enrollment
1989-90
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
590,121
229,539
nfa
626,729
238,714
207
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
*
(CCD, 1997-98)
1989-90
1997-98
*%
0.7
22.4
0.1%
1.0
23.2
0.9
74.8
(CCD)
Number of
Elementary
936
schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Middle
High
Combined
I 248
Student/teacher
ratio
Elementary
nfa
(CCD, 1997--98)
(By state definition)
I
12
Middle'
nfa
High
. nfa
Number of FTE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
nfa
I
nfa
I
nfa
nfa
1997-98
11.7%
12.7%
1989-90
Grade 8
Grade 4
proficient
Eng.
n/a
Sci.
59 I 52
Indicators for School Accountability
None
Title I AYPTarget for Schools
One percent gain per year in percentage of students
p_erf()~rr:!!"-ga!J)r.ofic_i~!1~-'ev~U)IlJCAP
· Title I Schools
•
Soc. Std. •
Title I enrollment
209,718
10,946
2,948
Racefethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
AsiimiPacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
1997-98
(USED)
1993-94
1997-98
391
1,174
1993-94
nfa
1996-97
nfa
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
Migrant
(OME, K,.12)
I 81
54%
(lPEDS, Hi9h SdlOOI grads enrolled in college)
997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
7,223
•
24%
36
40
22%
19
Math
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
1996-97
2,829
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD,ev.nt)
73
(SASS, Pe"ent, 1993-94)
76.6
(OSEP, K-12)
Limited
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
OJ
1990-91
Students with disabilities
nfa
Professional development
of teachers in field
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Gain on NRT scores at national average
Other
I 47
279
· Statewide Accountability Information
•
0.1%
0.5
41.5
1.1
56.8
$130,600,154
Title I allocation
(lnciudes Bask, Concentration, and LEA grants. Capital Expenditures, Even Start.
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
Sources of funding
Migrant Education, and Neglected 8< Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
Local
42.9%
•
Schoolwide
(USED)
~ Targeted Assistance
721
. data not available
State
48.5%
Federal
8.5%
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Tennessee'
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of stude nts
Grade 4
[[ea~i~g'la,!guage Arts"~------~~:-------
Pro
Step 1 gressing
Assessment Information
state proficiency levels
,"'
'~:l
_ Assessment Reported
Tennessee Comprehensive Achievement Program, new version
in 1997-98.
Grade 8
r~eadingiLa~--_g-ua-g-e-Arts
Nearing
Proficiency Proficient Advanced
----'---------':',-,--"-.~
Pro
gressing
Nearing
Proficiency Proficient Advanced
State Definition of "Proficient"
No information-available
19%
AIiStijoiffits
lltle I Schoolwide
Title I
Exclusion from Assessment
IEP team decision and local decision
Titl!U_ Targeted -,-_ __
Percent of School
- - - iiI' PO'ifcrtf " ------
00-34
75-100
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
Education.
I'OtneFA'sse-ssinents --.
TCAP Writing Assessment
75-100
,Gradt'
[Mathem~_~.::ccs=____-'-_ __
ProNearing
Step 1 gressing Proficiency Proficient Advanced
"'"'-c:--:-----'''
ProStep 1 gressing
Nearing
Proficiency Proficient Advanced
Nonmastery _
NDomastery
I
Title I
Partial
Mastt,ry
All StLJd('nr,
Title I Schoolwide
in Poverty
AfiStUde;,i·s18%-·--f~300;;----23%-----9;;;o-
Partial
Mastt'!y
-
,,11'f"1f"1IIAJI(lp
in Povertv
00-34
0'0--34
75,-100
75-100
M"5.tery
~------
NAEPState Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
25%
26%
71%
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
58%
17%
15%
58%
53%
--)
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
�http://www.tea.state.tx.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
Middle
3,589
I
1,477
Student/teacher
ratio
High
I
1,361
Combined
I
405
9-12
(By ,tate definition)
Numberof public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
K-8
(CCD)
1,043
(CCD, 1997-98)
PreK
I
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
High
5:1
(CCD, K-12J
Elementary Middle
117,995
I
59,499
High
I
66,956
Professional development
of teachers in field
1997-98
0.3%
2.4
14.4
37,9
45.0
I
. Students with disabilities
1997-98
2,555
Eng.
Grade 8
46
I 64
54%
nfa
57
52%
Math
race/ethnic groups, low-income
•
i
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Pass rate increases 5 percent per year
Indicators for School Accountability
Assessment scores, attendance, dropout rates
I
TItle I AYP Target for Schools
, Same as statewide goal
•
1989-90
309,862
Sci.
Soc. Std.
993-94
121,054
1997-98
116,912
1993-94
2.7%
1996-97
3.6%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
50%
1996-97
54%
(OME, K-12)
(lPEDS, High school grads enrolied in coliege)
223,091
92,682
9-12
PreK
(USED)
Migrant
1997-98
K-8
1996-97
513,634
(USED/NCBE, K-I2)
I 65 I 70 I 67
· Title I Schools
• Title I enrollment
(OSEP, K-12)
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
71
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
6,669
Grade 4
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Sesondary teachers
with' major in
main assignment
White
Limited English proficient
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
1989-90
0.2%
1.9
14,6
33.1
50.3
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
;?:40 percent passing on CRT (Lang. Arts, Math) for all
(CCD, 1997-98)
Combined Other
I
1997-98
2,696,845
1,059,416
135,616
1990-91
9.2%
Racefethnicity
221
16:1
Number of HE teachers in state
1989-90
2,443,245
885,269
nfa
Other
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
Racefethnicity
1997-98
0,2%
.2
16.6
56.9
25.1
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
$682,083,931
• Title I allocation
(IncludeS Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Starl,
Sources of funding
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
0,4%
3,265
'.\
"
1,359
50-74% ~ 1,488
~~
4. #'\I'\nl
Local
51.6%
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
•
Schoolwide
D
(USED)
Targeted Assistarce
3,452
35-49%
State
40.3%
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
Intermediate
Migrant Education, and Neglecled & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
OFFICERS
3,210
�Texas
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
[ Reading/language A~ts
(86:4% of total school
gr;;';;;~m)
1
Grade 8
[Readin9!Language Arts
Partially
(88.6% of total school Jil!ade
~~k exam)
I
Partially
Proficient
Proficient
All Students~"rO}%-·-61.2%--Title ISchoolwide
14.3
64.3
Title 'Targeted
8.6
61~.3--·
Percent of School
in Poverty --
00-34
4.5
55.2
75-100
18.0
65.3
Advanced
Proficient
Proficient
Advanced
28:2%
21.5
3~-
40.3
16.8
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
8.0
27.2
68.2
63.6
40.5
58.3
~-----~,--~,~-
23.8
9.2
--
1.6
4.7
_
..'------.- -=:::;-1
~--------
L~ema!ics _______(_88A% of !otal school grade took~
Partially
Assessment Reported
: Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, used since 1990
, Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
State Definition of "Proficient," used since 1995
; Writing: Score of 1500 and above
'-Reading:.-TLl-score.of-70.and.above__________---<;-_ _
Math: Tli score of 70 and above
: Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
, All students in Title I schools at tested grade
...~ are included in the-assessment results.... _
Exclusion from Assessment
, Students with disabilities and lEP students
1 Other Assessments
None
Grade 10
rr eading-
R
Partially
Partially
Proficient
Proficient
Advanced
Proficient
Proficient
Proficient
Advanced
Proficient
Advanced
All Students
14.3%
61.4%
24.3%
Title IsciloOlwide---1S:0 . - - _. 62.3 ·-----19.7---Title I Targeted
11.9
62.5
25.5
Percent of 5chool
in Poverty
00-34
7.8
59.2
33.1
75-100
22.0
61.5
16.5
All Students
16.9%
MelSdloOiWiae----23.3
Title I Targeted
13.4
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
10.4
75-100
27.9
67.4%
66.1
69.4
15.7%
10.6
17.2
All Students . ·--'2.0%
66.0%
22.1%
Title I Schoolwide
···17:868.2...- ----_._ ..
14.0
Title '-Targeted
11 ----~-- 66.9
21.9
68.2
63.6
21.4
IMathematics
LEP Students
LEP Students
48.3
!:Alg!"(I,!1t students_31.:.!..
48.6
62.6
3.1
6.3
24.4
62.5
13.1
14.3
Student achievement trend
Reading 4th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
•
•
o
100
All Students
0-34% Free/Reduced lunch
75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
87.4
8.4
1997-1998
__
(91.3% of t~!al school
grad~..!.':ok-e;~;QJ
Partially
Proficient
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title'
•
Proficient
22.3%
28.2
21.6
60.7%
60.1
62.2
Advanced
17.0%
11.8
16.2
All Students
• o· 34% Free/Reduced lunch
o 75-100% Free/Reduced lunch
100
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
80
1996,1997
".
Student achievement trend
Math 8th grade meets or exceeds Proficient
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
1995-1996
1996-1997
STATE
29%
63%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
o
1995-1996
:2
25%
69%
Grade 8
28%
76%
21%
59%
1997-1998
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
1
�http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us!
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
(CCD. 1997 98)
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
K-8
(CCD)
Number of public schools in state (CCD. 1997-98)
(By state definition)
Elementary
447
40
Middle
High
I 125
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
149
Elementary
Middle
22:1
"
Number of HE teachers in state
Elementary Middle
11,598
! 4)68
High
I
PreK
n/a
1989-90
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
5)47 1 112
Students with disabilities
.",.,,,,-
Grade 8
'
i
n/a
I
Sci.
Soc. Std.
55 I 66 I
2,793
1993-94
1996-97
3.5%
4.5%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
56%
44%
61
(lPEDS. Hi9~S(ho"lgrads enrolled in college)
" " " "
51,073
2,103
, 9-12
1997-98
2,302
".
1997-98
K-8
PreK
Race/eth nidty
1997-98
6.1%
4.7
19.3
2.0
67.9
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
(OME. H2)
'
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
(USED)
Migrant
143
.
35,286
1993-94
43%
46
" "
• Title I enrollment
(USED/NCBE. H2)
High school
drop-out rate (CCD. event)
29%'1
32
.
Title I Schools
1996-97
18,636
School Accountability
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Three percent more students achieving "basic profi c
ci~ng:. Jl'~~year .~nJ!!Cl,h.E~9_ogeyef}e~! ~ _.
1997-98
9.5%
(OSEP. K-121
Limited English proficient
Math
Indicators
t None
" " " "
480
I
Grade 4
Eng.
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
None
1.5%
2.5
0.8
6.6
88.6
1989-90
education > 16
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None
1997-98
.4%
1.8
0.5
3.7
92.6
1990-91
Combined Other
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
(SASS. Percent. 1993-94)
9-12
319,036
149,238
1)86
(CCD. 1997-98)
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1997-98
324,004
114,550
Race/ethnicity
High
I '22:1
21: 1
(CCD. 1997-98)
1989-90
Other
I 26
12
Statewide Accountability Information
White
(USED. K-l1)
$35,269,813
• Title I allocation .
(Includes Basic. Concentration. and LEA grants. Capital Expenditures. Even Start.
District average
All schools by 'percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program *
{CCD. 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
Sources of funding
local
35-49%
50-74%
State
Number of schools with Title I programs
•
0-34%
30.9%
Migrant fducation. and Neglected & Delinquent. USED. 1997-98)
544
Schoolwide VS, targeted assistance' (USw)
•
Schoolwide
278
C]83
46
62.8%
Federal
75-100%
6.3%
16
• 54 schools did not report.
co
U N elL
0 F
CHI E F
5 TAT ESC H 0 0 L
0 F Fie E R 5
.
Targeted Assistance
�Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
---- .---C]
iReadi,!g
Below
Basic
Basic
Proficient
--All Students
39;0%
28;0%
Title I Schoolwide
57.0
21.5
'I!!I~_J.!~..r:g~!~«! ____ }~:L____ 27.0
Percent of School
. - -in Poverty - -~ --- - - -
Advanced
29,0%
18.8
31.0
4.0%
2.8
5.8
00-34
75-100
LEP Students
t,;1igrant students
~~athematics5
,'"
Below
Basic
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title -1 Targeted
Basic
40.0%
57.2
23.0%
20.1
~7 ~
11 Sl
c'
IJ
Proficient
Advanced
29.0%
19.0
30.4
8.0%
3.7
9.3
Per(entof~S~(~ho~o~I----~~----~~----~~----~~-
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Assessment Reported
Utah End of Level Test. District participation is voluntary as
opposed to mandated. At least 37 out of 40 districts
Grade 6
participated in both subjects at both grade levels.
[j§ading- ------------ -~- - - . - ,
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U.S.
Below
Basic
Basic
Proficient Advanced
Department of Education.
All Students
49.0%
21.0%
230.
since 1995
Score
Title I Schoolwide
67.1
18.6
12.5
Title I Targeted
48.6
26.8
22.5
2.1
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
01----------------------------------·--------
All students in Title I schools at tested grade
.____ jn.~overty- _ _ ______ __ _ _________ _
_______. __ ;--aLe inciL!ge_d.!n.!~e_ass~ss!!)~nt.!esul.ts. _ ~,_
00-34
i Exclusion from Assessment
75-100
i Certain IEP and LEP students
LEP Students
, Other Assessments
~lstrant students
: Stanford 9 at grades 5, 8, and i 1
Perc~;;t'-ot5cho
[Matt1emat!cS-i----·-~
Below
Basic
AITStudents ............................... ···60:0%
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
75.0
60.3
--,~----:
Basic
18.0%
10.9
17.4
- -- --- -0-1
Proficient
5.0%
2.9
5.5
lIP Students
All StudE'nts
Title I Schoolwide
Title Ilaigeted
-._~ ,
Basic
,:,
Proficient
-,'j
Advanced
- - - - --- --_...._...
f~
•• ;;:
• ');:
.~j
,
Below
I.EP Students
Migrant students
Below
Basic
!Math·'t: . .,,,,
00-34
75-100
--------- - - - - - - - 1
rReading/lang\lage ArtS'i-:~ . ,J
Advanced
17.0%
11.1
16.9
Grade
f-·--------·-·---·-'----
Migrant students
Basic
.Basic
Proficient
Advanced
All Stude,.nt---;-s----;-c,--_________________________
Title I Schoolwide
Tide Iia
fgeied
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
28%
62%
31%
77%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WI.TH
A
FOCUS
23%
69%
ON
24%
70%
TITLE
�Vermont
http://www.state.vt.us/edud
School and Teacher Demographics
of
Student Demographics
286
Public school
enrollment
Statewide Accountability Information
(CCD)
Elementary
248
Middle
I
High
24
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
47
Elementary
1989-90
0.5%
0.5
0.4
0.2
98.4
1997-98
0.5%
1.1
0.9
0.4
97.1
1990--91
1.4%
1997-98
10.1%
K-8
1997-98
72,471
30,836
1,222
Other
I
5
Middle
Race/ethnicity
High
14:1
13:1
14:1
(CCD, 1997 98)
21
PreK
1989-90
69,103
25,676
n/a
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
9-12
(By state definition)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
< 30 percent in lowest level. or >60 percent in top 2
levels on NRT. and 50 percent passing on Higher
Thinking Test
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
No information available
Indicators for School Accountability
Assessment scores
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
Number of HE teachers in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
3,963
Middle
I
High
687
Combined
2,457!
664
Other
81
Professional development
of teachers in field
Grade 4
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
n/a I n/a
41%
58%
n/a
60
Eng,
Math
75
Sci.
81
Soc. Std. •
1989-90
384
PreK
1997-98
1
2,327
2,386
Migrant
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
1997-98
0.3%
1.2
2.4
Postsecondary enrollment
9-12
(USED)
1993-94
1,403
1997-98
1,265
1993-94
n/a
1996-97
n/a
(CCD, K-12)
I 81
K-8
1997-98
750
(CCD. K-12)
Grade 8
Title I Schools
__________________•______
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
87
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
~~~,K~-1=2)
Limited English proficient
(NAEP, 1995-96, 199/-98)
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
Students with disabilities
1994-95
51%
1996-97
54%
(lPEDS, High_scilo-"'-grads enrolled in colloqe)
Race/ethnicity
0.7
94.5
White
(USED, K-12)
Title Iallocation
$17,774,160
(Includes Basic, (oncentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start, Migrant
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program *
Sources of funding
District average
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD,1997-98)
Federal
4.6%
State
28.6%
~98
0-34%
Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs, targeted assistance
•
299
35-49%
48
50-74%
75-100%
Local
o
66.7%
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
• Interpret with caution. 158 schools did not report.
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
(USED)
Schoolwide
Targeted Assistance
297
�Vermont
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
ffii!glishfla'!.9uage Arts='!eading, All Students
Assessment Reported
New Standards Reference Exam
--=:J
Grade 8
r,:::::-- : : - - - ..- _....
L~!~Jllishflan.guage Arts, Reading-All
----~
.Achieved
Standard
~~~~~~~~~======~~=====
~
Students
---
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
1
State Definition of "Proficient," used since 1996-97
No information provided. Please note scores are disaggregated
by content· area only...- - - ...- - -_ _ __
Achieved
Standard ..
..--... -.-.-..- ....~--- .. - - -.....- - - - .
!
Definition in Title I Targeted Assistance
All students of TItle I schools at tested grade
are induded in the assessment results.
Exclusion from Assessment
No information provided
Other Assessments
;_ Noinformatiol1.prQvid~d.
Grade 10
~glishflanguage Arts, Reading::~J s"tUdeiiiS'-- _~
~thei1iatics-AII Students
~matkS-AIi Stude'!.ts
Achieved
Standard
Mathematical Concepts
32%
Mathematica( Sklls---"
..~
MatherTi~ti~Pro~le~ Solving=~"==-:=:':-29"":~=~='=
Achieved
Standard
Mathematical Concepts .
37%
MathematicilTskW;·-- - - 5 7
t\1(lthe~~tic~ Probf;;m"S"o1Vi~g_'~~===-29 __
Achieved
Standard
45%
Basic Understanding
Analysis & Interp'!~ation
32
!Mathematics-AII..Students
'"Achieved
Standard
Mathematical Concepts
Mathematical Skills
Mathematics Problem Solving
. '''':1
33%
78
26
r
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
23%
67%
27%
72%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
�http://www.pen.k12.va.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
(CCD, 1997-98)
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 199798)
(By state definition)
141
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCOl
Elementary
1,121
Middle
High
I 329
Student/teacher
ratio
I
Elementary
nfa
I
High
nfa
nfa
nfa
nfa
Reading education > 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
11.7%
28%
30
nfa
Math
• !
Indicators for School Accountability
Assessment scores
Title I AYP Target for Schools
No information available
r
\
I
Sci.
69 I 67
• Title I enrollment
n/a
1997-98
106,302
204
5,050
K-8
9-12
nfa
(USED)
1993-94
29%
50
41
Soc. Std.
Title I Schools
1996-97
Grade 8
Migrant
1997-98
1,835
1.933
1993-94
1996-97
(OME. K-12)
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD, !!'lent)
93 I
(SASS, Percent. 1993-94)
1997-98
10.1%
(OSEP, K-12)
proficient
Grade 4
Eng,
0.2%
3.6
27.0
3.6
65.5
1989-90
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Improve percent of students passing to 70 percent
1997-98
nfa
nfa
nfa
n/a
nfa
1990-91
Students with disabilities
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
nfa
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
>70 percent pass standards-based tests (4 subjects)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Combined Other
nfa
772,563
. 303,531 .
4,036
1989-90
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
Hig h
nfa
Number of HE teachers in state
Elementary Middle
Race/ethnicity
I 42
21
Middle
I
nfa
(CCD, t997-98)
1997-98
712,297
273,049
,Other
Combined
298
• Statewide Accountability Information
. Postsecondary enrollment
I 84
(lPEDS, High
schO<ll grads enrolled in college)
nfa
nfa
1994-95
1996-97
53%
55%
Racefethnicity
1997-98
0.2%
.5
55.8
5.0
37.3
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
White
(USED, K-12)
$111,611,041
• Title I allocation
(Indudes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
Sources of funding
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program*
District average
..
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD. 1997-98)
0-34%
State
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs: targeted assistance
1,098
•
Schoolwide
808
32.5%
35-49%
50-74%
75-100%
Local
62.6%
• 97 schools did not report.
COUNCIL
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
(USED)
~ Targeted Assistance
�Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of
Assessment Information
meeting state proficiency levels
Assessment Reported
Virginia Standards of Learning
used since 1997-98
Grade 8
fRe~g/l-a-n-g-ua~~-e-A-r-ts--Did not
Pass
(94.3%
Did not
Pass
Advanced
Passed!
Proficient
35%
Proficient
'
of total school grade took exam)
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
Passed!
Advanced
50%
State-Definition-of-"Proficient-"----~
National percentile; levels available in 1997-98
in Poverty
in Poverty
--. -_. - .-.
.. .. ---.-
75-101i
LEP Students
75--'00
25
Migf~l1lstuj_el__
l!,,-S_ _ _ _ __
LEP Students
Migrant students
[Math~fu"atTc~----' .~,~_i96.1 % of tot~1 school grade took exam) I
69
[Mathematics
73
Did not
Pass
Passed!
Proficient
Did not
Pass
Passed!
Proficient
7%
33
'0
!
End of Course
lligiiSh
----(9-5-.1-%-0-1t-ot-al-sc-h-oo-I-gr-ad-e-to-ok-e-xa-m-'d
Passed!
Advanced
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
57
Other Assessments
None
2
46%
Passed!
Advanced
75-'}
Migrant students
29
(95.1 ~ of total school grade took exam)
All Students
LEP~tudents
Exclusion from Assessment
Absent, refusal, disruptive, medical emergency,
LEP documen-tation,o( disabilit{status' . .-...
. _.. - -
-OO~'34-
Did not
Pass
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Tille I Targeted
Passed!
Proficient
Passed!
Advanced
28%
55%
17%
(96.4% of t~!al school
tA!9_ebra I
LEP Students
Migrant students
63
33
4
grade~
Did not
Pass
Passed!
Advanced
60%
All
Passed!
Proficient
37%
3%
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
EDUCATION
30%
64%
32%
78%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
19%
62%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
21%
58%
TITLE
�Washington
http://www.k12.wa.us/
School and Teacher Dempgraphics
Student Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
296
(CCD, 1997-98)
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCO)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary
1,141
Middle
Combined
411
I 340
Student/teacher
ratio
I
Elementa ry
Racefethnicity
I 26
98
21: 1
White
(CCD, K-l1)
Elementary Middle
24,012
1
9,650
High
I
1
936
Students with disabilities
486
1
2.8%
6.9
4.9
8,6
76.8
1997-98
8.5%
9.5%
(OSEP, K-Il)
Limited English proficient
Grade 4
24,279
Eng,
641
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
long term >80 percent meeting standards; 4th grade short term
WAS!., reduction of students not meetina standard over three
years
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Increase perfonnance to meet 3-year goals and 10-year goal
Indicators for School Accountability
Assessment scores, attendance, dropout rate, mobilitv and
poverty rates
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Transition for 1997-1998 school year, reduction in the percent of
students scoring in the bottom quarter over time
37%
47
56
nfa
Math
Sci.
49
83
Soc. Std.
• Title I enrollment
1993-94
1997-98
31,025
32,813
1993-94
1996-97
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
(OME, K-12)
nfa
nfa
1996-97
I 75
58%
(lPEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
1997-98
157,314
10,448
1,780
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
Migrant
•
· Title I Schools
55,773
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, elll?n1)
education> 16 hours
Mathen;atics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
I
1996-97
(USEDINCBE, K-Il)
Grade 8
49%
33
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
1997-98
2.4%
5.3
4.1
5.2
82.9
1989-90
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
nfa
·
•
(CCD, 1997-98)
Combined Other
12,502
687,820
296,744
6,671
1990-91
22:1
Number of FTE teachers in state
585,818
224,414
1989-90
American Indian/Alaskan
AsianlPacific Islander
Black
High
I
1997-98
Other
Middle
20:1
(CCD, 1997-98)
(By state definition)
High
· Statewide Accountability Information
Race/ethnicity
1997-98
5.0%
6.7
8.4
23.4
56.6
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
$123,403,830
I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquenl, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
Schoolwide
•
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
1,083
data not available
State
67.1%
Federal
5,9%
1995
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1996
1998
�Washington
Assessment Information
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
Grade 4
IDft~~;".
~g/Language Arts
(93% of total school~ grade took exam) I
I
~g/Lang~~ge Arts
Perceni of
".
00':'34
75-100
(92% of total school grade took exam)
I
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards for one grade met review criteria of
h '
t e U.S. Department of Education.
Bottom
Quartile
Bottom
Quartile
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
School
in Poverty
Assessment Reported
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills version 4, used since 1991
Grade 8
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
24%
38
23
21 %
40
24
State Definition of "Proficient"
Reduction·in·the·percent·ohtudents·scoring
in the bottom quarter over time
-.--.-------
PercentofSciloor·········
. '
in Poverty
00=34 . ~ - "17 .
17
47
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant students
1.,,1
Exclusion from Assessment
IEP,HP
52
LEP Students:--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Migrant students
. Other Assessments
WASL, CTBS, ITBS
Grade
Mathematics
(92% of total school grade took exami
Mathematics
(92% of total school grade took exam)
Bottom
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
Bottom
Quartile
Quartile
27%
40
27
21
47
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
00-34
75-100
/\ilStUdents·-
24%
38
27
TIt!C I Schoolwidc
Title I Targf>ted
IlVIathemaiks
j
21
55
All Students
...... _..............._....................
LEP Students
Migrant students
rReading
LEP Students
Migrant students
Tiile-TS(hool~:;ide
--.-------. "_...._----.-----_.. --._.---.
Title I Targeted
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
29%
62%
19%
63%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
Grade 8
27%
74% :
14%
54%
TITLE
�West Virginia
http://wvde.state.wv.us/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
(CCD. \997-98)
Public school
enrollment
Number of public schools in state (CCD, \997-98)
(By state definition)
Number of districts
55
(CCD)
Elementary
528
Middle
I
High
132
130
Student/teacher
ratio
Combined
I
9,847
Racefethnicity
16:1
High
I 4,095 I 5,209 I 619
Students with disabilities
63
0.1%
0.3
4.1
0:5
95.1
1997-98
12.3%
14.4%
(OSEP, K-12)
74 I
273
Grade 4
27%
20
nfa
Math
80
Indicators for School Accountability
, NRT; attendance, dropout, and graduation rates; and
class size
Title I AYP Target for Schools
>50 percent above 50th percentile on NRT for 2 years
Sci.
I
1993-94
13%
46
59
1997-98
256
281
1993-94
1996-97
4.2%
4.1%
Soc. Std.
76 I
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
50%
54%
Migrant
(OME, K-12)
•
• Title I enrollment
83
(IPEDS, High school grads enrolled in college)
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
(USED)
(USED/NCBE, K-12)
Grade 8
· Title I Schools
nfa
Highschool
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
Eng.
• i
1996-97
Limited English proficient
Reading education> 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education>16 hours
(SASS, Percent, \ 993-941
1997-98
0.0%
0.4
3.9
iO
,2
95.5
1989-90
(NAEP, \995-96, \997-98)
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1989-90
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Achieve goals for school by the target year
(CCD, \997-98)
Combined Other
Professional development
of teachers in field
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
>50 percent atfabove 3rd quartile, <15 percent in 1st
quartile, or decrease in 1st quartile in 2 of last 3 years
nfa
1990-91
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD, K-12)
White
High
Elementary Middle
1997-98
I
10
19
15:1
Number of HE teachers in state
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
Other
Elementary
(CCD, \997-981
Statewide Accountability Information
2,570
2,600
• Racefethnicity
1997-98
0.1%
0.2
5.1
0.2
94.3
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
(USED, K-12)
White
$74,226,290
• Title I allocation
(Includes BaSiC, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free Lunch Program *
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
0-34%
Local
28.6%
Federal
8.3%
50-74%
75-100%
• One school did not report.
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
Number of schools with Title I programs
Schoolwide vs. targeted assistance
•
Schoolwlde
468
35-49%
State
63.0%
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
•
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
�West Virginia
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Percentage of students
Assessment Information
state proficiency levels
Grade 4
IReading/Language Arts
Grade 8
I
rRea~ing/language Arts
National
Percentile
All Students
57%
Title I Schoolwide
51
TItieTTargeted --'---57
Percent of'School .
------
in Poverty
, Assessment Reported
Stanford Achievement Test Version 9,
used since 1996-97
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards did not meet review criteria of the U,S,
Department of Education,
National
Percentile
All Students
60%
iitfel'SchooIWiEe=S6--
i'iii;,-rTargeted
61
Percent of'School "
in Poverty
Definition-of~Proficient" ..
National percentile; no levels
.--... - - - - ,
.- --00-34'
00:--34
75-100
LEP Students
Migrant SIU(J"r:~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
75-100
LEP Students
IMathematics
r.:-::-'.-;---:---
L~athematics
Exclusion from Assessment
IEP
National
Percentile
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
TItle I Targeted.
Percent of SchOOi---
Poverty
64%
62
65
Grade 10
[i§i!fu~iL'-a_-ng-u~a-ge-A-:-rt-s--
National
Percentile
All Students
1
__J
National
Percentile
62%
All Students
56%
-=-=----
00,-34
LEP
75-100
Students······-~··------
National
Percentile
Migrant students
All Students
56%
Title I Schooiwlefe---S3--'-----·-------TItle I Targeted
55
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
ED'UCATION
29%
62%
27%
74%
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
Grade 8
Reading. 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
19%
63%
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
14%
54%
TITLE
�http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/
Student Demographics
School and Teacher Demographics
Number of districts
Public school
enrollment
426
(CCD, 1997-981
1989-90
of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-981
1,239
Middle
High
I 373
Student/teacher
ratio
I 40
447
Racefethnicity
13
Middle
5:1
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/eacifk Islander
Black
Hispanic
(CCD. K-12)
White
High
16:1
16:1
Number of FTE teachers in state
Elementary Middle
High
1.4%
10
9.8
16
82.2
1990-91
Combined Other
Students with disabilities
102
1997-98
9.2%
10.1%
(OSEP. K ·12)
1989-90
Professional development
of teachers in
proficient
Grade 8
Grade 4
(NAEP, 1995-96, 1997-98)
Eng.
75 I
I
Expected School Improvement on Assessment
Calculated growth indicator each year
Indicators for School Accountability
Assessment scores
• !
J
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Same as statewide goal
. . -.
13,120
32%
18
n/a
54
Sci.
Math
76 I
68
Soc. Std . •
• Title I enrollment
(USEDI
1993-94
1997-98
1,707
1,814
1993-94
1996-97
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
60%
60%
Migrant
I 85
nfa
(lPEDS, High 5(Molgrads enrolied in (oliege)
32,997
20,631
9,302
• Race/ethnicity
. (OME, K-12)
nfa
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
23,270
•
34%
40
· Title I Schools
1996-97
High school
drop-out rate (CCD. '''''nI)
_ education > 16 hours
Mathematics education> 16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
(SASS. Percent, 1993-94)
1997-98
1.3%
1.8
8.6
2.4
86.0
•
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
Percent proficient exceeds standard for 5 subjects and 3
grades
(CCD, 1997-98)
I 11,439 I 17,327 I 838
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
nfa
584,081
278,072
19,627
Other
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-981
26,013
(By state definition)
Combined
1997-98
549,143
233,762
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCD)
Elementary
· Statewide Accountability Information
(USED,
1997-98
2.1%
3.4
41.3
10.7
42.5
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
K-12)
White
$128,104,771
• Title I allocation
(Includes Basic, Concentration, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Start,
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible
to participate in the Free lunch Program*
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCO, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
Migrant Education, and Negle(ted & Delinquent, USED, 1997-98)
Number of schools with Title I programs
School wide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
1,823
•
Schoolwide
D
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
1,520
local
35-49% i 35
State
42.6%
53.1%
1,324
50.;. 74% 11213
75-100%
/
• 40 schools did not report,
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
1995
�"
~
Wisconsin
c
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state proficiency levels
.E..'-.
Grade 4
Assessment Reported
Knowledge and Concept Examinations, used since 1992-93
Grade 8
IReading_
Minimal
Performance Basic
Not
Proficient Advanced Tested
Minimal
Performance Basic
Not
Proficient Advanced Tested
State~Definitionof :'.P-roficient_"__ _
Competent in the important academic knowledge and skills
tested.
----All Students
TiiiC-i Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
. Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
i Performance standards met review criteria of the u.s.
Department of Education.
_ Exclusion from Assessment
: Somesfudents wiifi'aisabilities i3ndsoriie lEP stuaerits'-
!
75-1DO
75-100
LEP Students
Other Assessments
none
LEP Student;
rv1igr.ilI!L~t~g,~!1~._2~_,~___.lj.,
33
14
10
V'
Grade 10
.l1!@!~li
[Mathematics
Minimal
Performance Basic
All Students
17%
15%
48%
16% -
Not
Proficient Advanced Tested
~
5%
in Poverty
/
in Poverty
Minimal
Performance Basic
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
75-100
24
14
47
11
4
9%
20%
38%
------------
Minimal
Performance Basic
32
42
18
Not _
Proficient Advanced Tested
25%
8%
,
00-34
75-100
00-34
Migrant students
Minimal
Performance Basic
Not
Proficient Advanced Tested
6
2
All Students
Title I Schoolwide
Title I
30%
26%
Not
Proficient Advanced Tested
8%
27%
8%
NAEP State Results
Grade 4
Grade 8
34%
33%
79%
Reading, 1998:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math,1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
72%
27%
74%
ON
32%
75%
TITLE
�Wyoming
http://www.k12.wy.us/
School and Teacher Demographics
Student Demographics
Public school
enrollment
49
Number of districts
(CCD, 1997-98)
1989-90
K-8
9-12
PreK
(CCO)
Number of public schools in state (CCD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High
Combined
231
I
Student/teacher
ratio
94
I
76
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
(CCD. K 12)
8
High
5:1
14:1
Number of FTE teachers in state «(CD, 1997-98)
Elementary Middle
High Combined Other
2,992
I 1,587 I 1,935 I
16
n/a
n/a
1989-90
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Grade 8
•
Eng.
75 I
I
n/a
Math
Sci
Soc. Std.
80 I
78
18%
34
49
11.6%
Title I AYP Target for Schools
Average 46th percentile on district NRT.
Title I Schools
1,850
(US!:D)
1993-94
1997-98
483
438
1993-94
1996-97
6.7%
6.2%
Postsecondary enrollment
1994-95
1996-97
53%
49%
Migrant
•
(OME, K-12)
(IPEDS, High «hool grads enrolled in college)
11,779
289
301
Race/ethnicity
American Indian/Alaskan
AsianlPacific Islander
Black
1997-98
7.3%
0.8
2.0
12.1
77.6
White
(USED, K-12)
•
1997-98
K-8
9-12
PreK
1996-97
2,272
• Title I enrollment
(USED/NCBE. K-12)
81
._--,._---,---
Indicators for School Accountability
None
1997-98
9.4%
High school
drop-out rate (CCD, event)
22%
18
Expectea School Improvement on Assessment
None
2.9%
0.8
1.1
6.6
88.6
(OSEf', K-12)
limited English proficient
Reading education > 16 hours
Mathematics education>16 hours
Science education> 16 hours
Statewide Goal for Schools on State Assessment
None
1997-98
1990-91
Students with disabilities
56
Grade 4
(NAEP. 1995-96. 1997-98)
(SASS, Percent, 1993-94)
65,390
31,388
1989-90
Professional development
of teachers in field
Secondary teachers
with major in
main assignment
1997-98
70,130
27,042
Other
3
I
15:1
(By state definition)
Middle
Elementary
(CCD, 1997-98)
· Statewide Accountability Information
$16,623,672
Title I allocation
(Indudes Basic. Concentralion, and LEA grants, Capital Expenditures, Even Sian,
District average
All schools by percent of students eligible .
to participate in the Free lunch Program
(CCD, 1996-97)
(CCD, 1997-98)
Sources of funding
332
37.3%
Intermediate
COUNCil
75-100% 1113
Federal
6.6%
OF
CHIEF
STATE
46
50-74%
7.6%
State
•
Schoolwide
(USED)
Targeted Assistance
145
35-49%
48.5%
Number of schools with Title I programs
School wide vs. targeted assistance
0-34%
Local
Migrant Education, and Neglected & Delinquent, USED, \997-98)
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
�Wyoming
Student Achievement 1997-1998
Assessment Information
Percentage of students meeting state oroficiencv levels
Grade 3
Grade 8
~g/~n~~g~e~Ar~ts~____.
All Siudent~
Levell
.
Levpl3
Level 2
~~-.
TIiieiSCiioolwide
TItle I Targeted
Percent oJ S.chooC _
in Poverty
rReadingl~~.!!.guage Arts
Level 4
-------~
24.6%
23.9
23.3%
22.3
26.3%
30.6
25.9%
23.1
00-34
:~~~c·~·7.5,-. .10.().........____._.__.._
............___~......_____._._ ................._
. ....••.
........__
level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
All Student~
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of Schaol
in Poverty· -
34.0%
24.0
29.8%
29.3
27.7%
24.8
8Ylo
21.9
O()-34
Definition of Title I Targeted Assistance
A" students in Title I schools at tested grade
are included in the assessment results.
E)(c'l~si~n from As~essment
Schools are not required to include a" students.
Other Assessments
none
l. __ _
Grade 10
[Mathi--.- . - .
rReadi.,!gil:.ang uage Arts
Mathematics
Levell
Assessment Reported
NRTs, Multiple Assessment Tools including ITBS, Stanford,
CTBS, and others.
f
Progress Toward Assessment Aligned with Standards
Performance standards met review criteria of the U.S.
Department of Education.
State Definition of "Proficient"
-----i-~Le-v-e;1 3: 46%andab-=o.:..v-e...:....:..::..:.:==.:..------~
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
level 1
Title I Schoolwide
Title I Targeted
Percent of School
in Poverty
level 2
level 3
Level 4
36.2%
25.1
.
-~-,-,",~,
-
'levell
level 2
level 3
Level 4
Levell
AU St'udems
level 2
level 3
level 4
----.-~-
40.4%
26.4
14.9%
28.8
8.5%
19.8
00-34
TIili~~(h~~~-···=1!~~~"·~~
__~~____% __
2
33.6
NAEP State Results
Reading, 1998:
Grade 4
,
Grade 8
30%
29%
65%
76%
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
Math. 1996:
Proficient level and above
Basic level and above
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
19%
22%
64%
68%
ON
TITLE
�Sources
School and Teacher Demographics
Notes: Information is shown for three major revenue sources: Federal, State, and Local. A fourth category,
Intermediate, is shown only for those states which have funds in this category.
Number of districts
Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 1997-98
Notes:
All local school districts are included in these counts. Separate supervisory unions, regional education
services agencies, and state-operated institutions are excluded.
Number of public schools in state
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 1997-98
Notes:
School counts based on NCES definitions in Digest of Education Statistics. Schools are broken into five
categories: Elementary, Middle, High, Combined, and Other. A school is classified as combined if it pro
vides instruction at both the elementary (grade 6 or below) and the secondary (grade 9 or above) levels.
Student/teacher ratio
Source: u.s. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 1997-98
. Note:
Public school enrollment
Source: u.s. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 1989-90
and 1997-98
Notes:
These numbers do not include ungraded students. Public Preschool Enrollment is recorded according
to state definition of public preschools and state decision on data collection.
Race/ethnicity of K-12 students
Source: u.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, State Summaries of Elementary and Secondary
School Civil Rights Survey and the National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data,
1989-90, 1997-98
Number of Dublic school students divided by number of teachers in full-time equivalents.
Students with disabilities (K-12)
Number of FTE Teachers in state
Source: u.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 1990-91 and 1997-98
Source: u.s. DeP<lrtment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 1997-98
Notes:
Student Demographics
Teacher counts based on NCES definitions in Digest of Education Statistics. Schools are broken into five
categories: Elementary, Middle, High, Combined, and Other. A school is classified as combined if it pro
vides instruction at both the elementary (grade 6 or below) and the secondary (grade 9 or above) levels.
Notes: The figures shown represent the percentage of children ages 6 to 17 served under IDEA, Part B.
Limited
Education. 1989-90, 1996-97
Source: u.s. Department of Education, National Clearinghouse for
Notes: The number of LEP students enrolled in public schools
Professional development of teachers in field
Source: u.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Mathematics and Sci
ence Teacher Questionnaire, 1996
Migrant (K-12)
Note:
Source: u.S. Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, 1993-94, 1997-98
Percent of teachers with 16 or more hours professional development or inservice education in the fields
of mathematics/science in the past 12 months. Standard errors reported in NAEP Mathematics Cross
State Compendium, NCES, 1998; NAEP Science Cross-State Compendium, NCES, 1998.
Race/ethnicity and gender of teachers
Source: U.S_ Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,
Public School Teacher Questionnaire, 1994
Notes:
Standard errors reported in SASS by State, NCES, 1996
Source: u.s. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey,
Public School Teacher Questionnaire, 1994
Teachers have undergraduate or graduate major in the same field as their main
Standard errors reported in SASS by State, NCES, 1996.
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
Notes: Only states whose definitions complied with NCES's definition were included. Annual, or "event," rate is
the percentage of 9-12 students dropping out during one school year. (1996-97 most recent year
available_)
Post-secondary enrollment
Source: u.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data,
National Public Education Financial Survey, 1996-97 school year.
OF
High school drop-out rate
assignment.
Sources of funding
COUNCIL
The criterion for migrant status was reduced from six to three years in 1994. Data will only be tracked
from that point forward. The figures shown represent the" 12-month" count of students identified for the
Migrant program. The 12-month count is the unduplicated number of eligible children ages 3-21 who,
within three years of making a qualifying move, resided in the state for one or more days during the
reporting period.
Source: u.s. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data,
1993-94,1996-97
Secondary teachers with major in main assignment
Notes:
Notes:
- STATE
Source: u.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Residence and Migration of
First-Time Freshmen Enrolled in Higher Education Institutions, Fall 1994 and Fall 1996; Common Core
of Data; and Private School Universe Survey.
Notes: Accounts for first-time students attending
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
in any state, and does not account for graduates who
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
- 1 999
�attended college outside of the United States. The Residence and Migration portion of the Fall Enroll
ment Survey is administered every two years. The Common Core of Data provides the number of public
school graduates for the prior school year; the Private School Universe Survey provides the number
of Private high school graduates.
All schools by percent of students
for the Free Lunch Program
Source: u.s. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 1997-98
Notes: The figures shown represent the percentage of students eligible to participate in the Free Lunch Pro
gram under the National School Lunch Act This does not include those eligible only for reduced-price
lunch.
Statewide Accountability Information
Title I Schools
Title I enrollment
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Compensatory Education Programs, 1998 Title I Performance Report
for 1997-98 school year.
Notes:_Data_coliected_and_reported_bptate_departments_oLeducation.
Title I race/ethnicity
Source:
u.s. Department of Education, Compensatory Education Programs, 1998 Title I Performance Report
for 1997-98 school year.
Notes: Data collected and reported by state departments of education. Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance
schools are averaged together.
Sources: State Departments of Education websites and printed reports.
C(sSO-State Education Accountability Systems: At, C1; GA, KY, MD, MA, NJ, NC OR, RI, and VT Case Studies.
Taylor, B, 1999.
Title I allocation
Title I Report-1999, Small Axe Educational Communications, Inc., Alexandria, VA, Miller, J.
Source: u.s. Department of Education, Compensatory Education Programs, FY 1997 Title I Allocation for School
Arkansas-Standards for Accreditation: AR Public Schools, 1996
Year 1997-98
California-Public Schools Act of 1999
Expenses, Even Start, Migrant Edu
Notes: Sum of Basic Grants, Concentration -Grants, LEA Grants,
Colorado-Proposed Rules for the Administration of the Accreditation of School Districts, 1999
cation, and Neglected and Delinquent Grants.
Delaware-AcccountabiJity, a Process Designed to Improve Student Learning, 1998
Number of schools with Title I programs
Department of Defense-www.odedodea.edu
Florida-State Board of Education Rule 6A 1.09981, Implementation of FL System of Schoo/Improvement and Ac
Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Compensatory Education Pro
Source: U"S.
countability, 1999.
grams, 1994-95,1995-96, and 1997-98
IdahO-Accreditation Standards and Procedures for ID Schools, 1996.
Notes: Data collected and reported by the state departments of education regarding the number of schools
Indiana-AssessmentlSchoollmprovement Plan, 199B
with schoolwide and targeted assistance programs"
Kansas-Accountability Report, 1997-98"
Louisiana-School and District Accountability System, 1999
Michigan-State Accountability Profile, 1999
Mississippi-Accreditation Requirements of the State Board of Education Bulletin 171, 1998
Missouri Consolidated State Plan: Improving Ameri(a 's School's Act, 1999
Montana Statewide Education Profile: Indicators of Quality in Education, 1999
Student achievement
Nebraska-State Board of Education Accountability Reporting Policy, 1998
Source: State Departments of Education, assessment results for 1997-98 school year, reported in Title I
Nevada-Overview of NV School Accountability System and Review of School Year 1996-97 Reporting, 1998
Performance Report, Part 7, U"S. Department of Education
New Mexico-Incentives and Interventions, 1999
Notes: Trend results for 1995-96 through 1997-98 reported in bar graphs for states with consistent tests
New York-A Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Edcuational Status of the State's School: 1998
over two or more years. See Appendix D for a summary of disaggregated categories by states"
North Dakota-School Ameditation Rule, 1999
Ohio-Reference Guide 10 Continuous Improvement Planning for Ohio School Districts, 1999
NAEP state results
Oklahoma-Profiles 1997: State Report, 1998
South Carolina-Accountability Education Act of 1998
Source: Reese, CM., Miller, K.E., Mazzeo, J. Dossey, JA; NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Na
South Dakota-Artide 24:03 School Accreditation, 1999
tion and the States. U.S_ Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National
TexaS-Accountability Rating Standards for 1998
Assessment of Educational Progress, 1997.
Virginia-Standards of Accreditation: At a Glance, 1998
Donohue, PJ", Voelkl, K.E., Campbell, J.R., and Mazzeo, J.; NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the
Washington-Accountability System Recommendations Adopted by the Commission on Student Learning, 1999
Nation and the States. u.s. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Na
West Virginia-Title 126: Legislative Rule (Board of Education) A Process for Improving Education Performance
tional Assessment of Educational Progress, 1999.
Based on Accreditation System, 1996
Notes: Data reported for public schools only. Some states did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample
Wisconsin-Measuring the Progress of Schools, 1999
Student Achievement
Notes:
See Printed Reports and web pages for
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
partiCipation rates. See Appendix Efor further information and definitions of proficient and basic.
information"
SCHOOL
OFFICERS
-
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS
WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TiTlE
I
1 999
�Appendix A
Further State Proficiency Level Definitions
Colorado
Proficient: Students understand directions,
author's point of view, explain reaction, define prOblem or
solution, make predictions and draw conclusions, differen
tiate among printed materials, discriminate among various
extract information from complex stimulus, identify
character's reactions/motives, identify sequence, support
classify familiar vocabulary, and interpret poetry
in a concrete manner.
Connecticut
Grade 4
Reading Score Band 3: Scores in this band are at or above the
statewide goal for reading. Students who score in this range
possess the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully per
form the tasks and assignments appropriately expeded of fourth
graders with minimal teacher assistance. Generally students who
score in this range can comprehend textbooks and other mate
rials typically used at grade four or above.
Math Score Band 4: Scores in this band are at or above the
statewide goal for mathematics. Students who score in this range
possess the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the tasks
and assignments
of fourth graders with minimal
teacher assistance. Generally, these students demonstrate
well-developed computational skills, conceptual understandand problem-solving abilities. .
with minimal teacher assistance. Generally, these students
demonstrate well-developed computational skills, conceptual
mrlpr~t;mrlinCl~ and problem-solving abilities.
Grade 10
Reading Score Band 3: Scores in this band are at or above
the response to literature standard. Students at this level have
demonstrated perceptive and insightful comprehension of the
text. They have presented their interpretation of the text and
have supported it by making connections between the text
and other experiences or sources. Students at this level have
also demonstrated the ability to apply the conventions of En
glish.
Math Score Band 4: Scores in this band are at or above the
goal for mathematics. Students who score in this range have
demonstrated a strong understanding of the concepts and
skills expected of Connecticut high school students. These stu
dents have the problem solving abilities required to apply ~hat
know to complex problems and effectively communicate
their understanding.
Florida
Proficient: Above the 50th percentile for distrid norm-refer
enced tests in reading comprehensi~n and math concepts/.ap
at grades 4 and 8; a passing score on Communlca
tions and Mathematics
of the High School Competency
Test.
Grade 8
Reading Score Band 3: Scores in this band are at or above
the statewide goal for reading. Students who score in this
range posses the knowledge and skills necessary to success
fully perform the tasks and assignments appropriately expected
of eighth graders with minimal teacher assistance. Generally,
students who score in this range can comprehend textbooks
and other materials tVDicaliv used at grade eiaht or above.
Math Score Band 4: Scores in this band are at or above the
statewide goal for mathematics. Students who score in this
range possess the knowledge and skills necessary to per
form the tasks and assignments expected of eighth graders
COUNCIL OF
CHIEF
Intermediate: Understands some factual information; sometimes
can draw conclusions; make inferences about the motives and
feelings of characters; and apply what has been read to new situ
ations; and sometimes can identify the main idea, evaluate the
style and strudure of the text, and interoret non-literal
•
: Grade 8 Mathematics
• Intermediate: Is beginning to develop an understanding of most
math concepts and to develop the ability to solve complex word
• problems, use a variety of estimation methods, and interoret data
from araphs and tables.
:
•
•
•
•
•
Intermediate: Understands some factual information; sometimes
can make inferences about the characters; identify the main idea,
and identify author viewpoint and style; occasionally can inter
pret non-literal language and judge the validitv of conclusions.
Grade 11 Mathematics
Intermediate: Is beginning to develop the ability to apply a vari
• ety of math concepts and procedures, make inferences about quali
• tative information, and solve a variety of novel, auantitative rea
• soning problems.
Kentucky
• Student demonstrates knowledge of major concepts even though
she/he overlooks or misunderstands some less obvious ideas or
details. Student can apply core concepts and skills to solve prob
lems. Student makes connections among major concepts. Stu
dent communicates ideas ... ff...,till... 11I
Iowa
Grade 4
Intermediate: Understands some fadual information; sometimes
can draw conclusions and make inferences about the motives
and feelings of the characters; and is beginning to be able to
the main idea, evaluate the style and structure of the
text and interpret non-literal language
,
. '
Grade 4 MathematiCs
Intermediate: Is beginning to develop an understanding of most
math concepts and to develop the ability to solve complex word
problems, use a variety of estimation methods, and interpret data
from graphs and tables.
STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS·
: Grade 8 Reading
STATE
EDUCATION
Maine
Basic: Students de~onstrate a command of essential knowledge
and sk~lIs wlt.h partial. success on ta.sks involVing higher level con
cepts, including applications of Skills, make connections among
and successfully address problems and tasks. Communica
tions are direct and reasonable effective, but sometimes lack the
substance or detail necessary to convey in-depth
of concepts.
INDICATORS WITH A FOCUS
ON TITLE
I . 1999
�Missouri
Proficient: Students communicate math processes; recognize
transformations; solve problems using units of measurement;
interpret data from multiple representations; extend and de
scribe patterns and relationships using algebraic expressions;
and apply number theory concepts; use inductive and
deductive reasoning to solve problems.
multiply whole numbers up to five. They are able to: demon
strate an understanding of place value as well as the relation
between simple fractions and decimals; read charts and
graphs; make measurements; and recognize and extend pat
terns.
.
Grade_6Readmg/LanguageArts---------
Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate an overall under
standing of literary, narrative, factual, informational, and prac
tical works. They extract main ideas, analyze text, evaluate and
-. - f
. d
I'
d k' f
organize In ormation, raw conc USlons, an ma I" In erences
and interpretations. They critically evaluate materials they
hear, and view. They effectively organize, develop, and
ideas so that a reader can easily understand the intent of their
writing. They demonstrate a firm grounding in the mechanics
of written expression; however, they may still make some er
rors.
Grade 10 Mathematics
Grade 6 Mathematics
Proficient: Students communicate math processes; usually ana
lyze and evaluate information; estimate; recognize reasonable
needed information; make predictions; find
representations of data; represent situ
ations algebraically; apply properties of real numbers: use mul
strategies to solve problems.
Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate an overall under
standing of mathematical concepts and skills. They make few, if
any, errors in computation. They use tables and graphs to orga
nize, present, and interpret data. They employ appropriate strat
egies to solve a wide range of problems. They clearly communi
cate their solutions and problem-solving strategies.
Grade 4 Math
Proficient: Students communicate math processes; add and
subtract common fractions, and decimals (money only); use stan
dard units of measurement; identify attributes of plane and solid
__
figlJres; create -,w!LloterpreLdata .from _g raphs;_recognize, -ex
and describe pictorial or numeric patterns; apply strate
gies to solve multistep and logic problems.
·
Gra de 8 MathematlCs
• connections among important concepts in algebra, geometry,
• measurement, and probability and statistics. They identify and
• use appropriate information to solve problems. They provide sup
evidence for inferences and solutions. They communi
• cate mathematical ideas effectively, with sufficient substance
and detail to convey understandi
•
• Grade 4 Reading
•
•
:
•
•
•
•
Grade 3 Reading/language Arts
Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate an overall under
standing of the materials they read, hear, and view. They are
able to identify main ideas and draw conclusions. Their responses
show thought and are supported with some detail. When writ
ing, they communicate competently and are able to adequately
develop and support their ideas. Although they demonstrate a
firm grounding in the mechanics of written expression, they
may make errors in spelling and grammar. However, these do
not interfere with a reader's ability to understand the text.
Proficient: Students at this level demonstrate a solid under
of a wide range of literary, narrative, factual, infor
and practical works. They make meaningful con
nections between and among ideas and concepts in materi
als they read, hear, and view. They evaluate and organize in
fnrm"tion, make and communicate informed judgements, and
evidence for inferences and interpretations. Their writ
is clear, logical, and shows evidence of fluency and
They effectively control the mechanics of language
capitalization, grammar, and punctuation.
• Proficient: Students compare, order, and round whole numbers;
• know place value to thousands; identify fractions; use computation
and estimation strategies; relate multiplication to addition; mea
• sure to the nearest half inch and centimeter; measure and find pa
• rameters; estimate measures; find elapsed times; combine and sub
• divide shapes; identify parallel lines; interpret tables and
• solve two-step problems.
Grade 10 Reading/language Arts
Grade 8 Reading
Grade 3 Mathematics
COUNCil
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
Grade 10 Mathematics
Proficient: Students <;1t this level demonstrate a solid under
of mathematical concepts and skills. Their work
displays a high degree of accuracy. They make meaningful
OFFICERS
- STATE
Proficient Students interpret figures of speech. They recognize para
phrase of text information and retrieve information to complete
forms. In more complex texts, they identify themes, main ideas, or
author purpose/point of view. They analyze and apply information
in graphic and text form, make reasonable generalizations, and draw
conclusions. In written responses they can identify key elements
from text.
Grade 4 Mathematics
New Hampshire
Proficient: Students at this level are able to estimate and com
pute solutions to problems and communicate their understand
ing of mathematics. They can, with reasonable accuracy, add 3
whole numbers; subtract any two-digit numbers: and
Tennessee
EDUCATION
• Proficient Students identify genre and author craft. They recognize
consistency in attitudes or viewpoints expressed in text. They syn
thesize ideas across various parts of the text to identify theme or
• central purpose. They infer connections between characters and
• events across texts and interpret data in graphic organizers. In writ
• ten responses, they provide some justification or support for their
• answers.
Grade 8 Mathematics
•
•
•
•
Proficient: Students round to the nearest 10 or 100; compare and
order integers; understand percents; solve proportions; compute
with rational numbers; interpret division remainders in real world
contexts; find volumes; use concepts of similarity, congruence and
symmetry; find average of whole numbers, use data to solve prob
lems and understand trends; evaluate algebraiC expressions; solve
• multistep nrnhl"m<
INDICATORS WITH
A FOCUS
ON
TiTlE
I
- 1999
�Appendix B
Actual
Title'/ Allocation, 1997-98
1996-97
Expenditures per
Actual
Adjusted
AL
$4,595 ...... $5,148
MT .............. $5,481 ....... $6,032
AL ............... $131,409,069
MT ................ $26,509,046
AK
$8,231 ....... $6,497
NE .............. $5,848 ....... $6,604
AK ................. $26,661,743
NE ................ $36,505,330
AZ ............... $4,413 ....... $4,447
NV .... " ........ $5,084 ....... $5,336
AZ ............. $121,119,108
NV ................ $22,897,453
AR .............. $4,535 ...... .
NH .............. $5,920 ....... $5,649
AR ................ $80,475,746
NH ................ $1
CA .............. $924,683,568
NJ ............... $165,698,522
CA .............. $5,260 ....... $4,711
NJ ............... $9,588 ....... $8,321
CO ................ $74,147,303
NM ....... :........ $64,712,144
CO .............. $5,312 ....... $5,389
NM .............. $4,682 ....... $5,039
CT ................. $71,835,314
Ny .............. $691,343,186
CT ............... $8,580 ....... $7,453
Ny .............. $8,525.".... $7,601
DE .............. :$19,068)80
NC .............. $144,468,525
DE .............. $7,135
NC .............. $4,929 ....... $5,372
$6,972
DC ................ $23,309,146
ND ................ $18,866,355
FL ............... $358,106,126
OH .............. $307,720,914
GA .............. $200,419,145
OK ................ $89,482,299
DC ............. $8,048 ....... $7,494
ND .............. $4,808 ....... $5,638
FL ............... $5,360 ....... $5,601
OH .................. $5,935 ...... $6,005
GA .............. $5,369 ....... $5,764
OK
HI ................ $5,633 ....... $5,649
OR.... ... ......... $5,920 ...... $6,127
ID ................ $4,447 ....... $4,833
PA .................... $7,106 ...... $6,932
IN ................ $117,422,643
RI .................. $25,482,356
RI ........
IA ................. $53,355,268
5 C ................ $95,786,176
K5 ................. $64,478)67
5 D ................ $20,536,068
Ky .............. $137,956,427
TN ............... $130,600,154
$5,940 ....... $5,756
... $4,817 ...... $5,342
...... $7,612 ..... $6,904
$5,578
HI .................. $20,746,182
OR ................ $80,242,807
ID .................. $26,091,926
PA ............... $274,238,269
I L ................ $334,054,531
P R .............. $338,980,985
IN .............. $6,161 .......
SC.................. $5,050
IA ..... :.......... $5)38 ....... $6,505
5D .......... $4,375 ...
LA ............... $197,893,618
TX ............... $682,083,931
KS ............... $5,508 ....... $6,158
TN ....
........ $4,581 ...... $5,020
ME ................ $32,817,893
UT ................ $35,269,813
Ky ............... $5,155 ....... $5,766
TX ...... ... $5,267 ....... $5,587
MD .............. $101,036,890
VT ................. $17,774,160
LA ............... $4)24 ....... $5,286
UT ..................... $3,783 ... .. $3,962
MA .............. $148,845)65
VA ............... $111,611,041
MI ............... $340,649,296
WA .............. $123.403,830
MN ................ $90,942,205
WV ................ $74,226,290
MS .............. $127,989,059
WI ............... $128,104,771
MO .............. $128,881,344
WY ................ $16,623,672
ME .............. $6,327 ....... $6,447
VT
....... $6,753
$6,828
MD .............. $6)55 ....... $6,619
VA
$5)88
$5,972
MA .............. $7,331 ....... $6,253
WA .................... $5.734 ...... $5,522
MI ............... $6,932 ....... $6,826
WV ... ....... $6,076 ...... $6)82
MN .............. $6,005 ....... $6,124
Wi .................. $6)96 ..
MS .............. $4,039 ....... $4,634
WY ....
$6,520
MO .............. $5,304 ....... $5,586
Demrtment of Education, National (enter for Education Statistics, (omman (ore of Data, National Public
Finance Survey, School Year 1996-97.
Geographic adjustments made by Cost of Education Index, 1. Chambers in connection with NCES, 1994.
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS·
STATE
Source: U.S. Department of Education. Compensatory Education Programs. FY 1997 Title I Allocation for School
Year 1997-98. '
.
EDUCATION
INDICATORS WITH
A
FOCUS
ON
TITLE
1·1999
�Sources of Funding, 1996-97
(in Thousands)
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
Total Funding
$3,955,039
Local
27.1%
$8,129,251
$1,215,924
$1,251,263
$13,161,954
$7,638,406
39.4%
Intermediate
0.2%
State
63.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
53.7%
89.5%
63.5%
27.0%
50.5%
Federal
9.6%
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
2.4%
29.8%
66.7%
44.7%
8.1%
6.7%
6.3%
4.2%
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
PR
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VI
VA
WA
Total Funding
$991,653
Local
34.1%
Intermediate
9.2%
$12,587,117
$3,251,303
$3,472,609
$14,441,125
$1,832,790
$1,193,754
$3,889,383
$747,324
$4,411,971
$22,372,809
$2,198,285
$812,166
53.1%
27.7%
39.8%
55.2%
0.0%
54.0%
39.1%
53.6%
42.9%
51.6%
30.9%
66.7%
State
47.4%
0.1%
1.8%
1.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
52.6%
39.1%
71.6%
40.6%
52.5%
35.5%
48.5%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
40.3%
62.8%
28.6%
Federal
9.4%
6.1%
8.3%
6.2%
5.5%
28.3%
5.4%
8.4%
9.7%
8.5%
7.7%
6.3%
4.6%
WV
WI
WY
Source:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, National Public Education Finance Survey, School Year 1996--97.
COUNCIL OF CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL OFFICERS· STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS WITH A FOCUS ON TITLE
I . 1999
�Appendix B (cont'd)
School Age Population
1995
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA _
_
CO
~
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
19%
18%
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
-NY
NC
23%
21%
20%
19%
19%
19%
_____ . 18%
__
__
.~w_·.
19%
________
19%
18%
18%
21%
,~
~~~~_~~·
19%
17%
16%
17%
-------,.---~
-------~-----~~
14%
13%
17%
16%
--~~----~--
19%
19%
--,---,~~~-~~----...-'-----~--
.~----
18%
18%
ID
22%
23%
IL
IN
IA
KS
19%
18%
19%
19%
19%
19%
20%
19%
------------------
~
18%
17%
-------~-
17%
16%
-~---~~~~
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
-SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
~
1990
-------~---~~
20%
19%
-
20%
19%
---
-~------~
20%
---~---.---
--~~-~~------~---
19%
~----
19%
~~--~
18%
------~-,-----
18%
17%
~~----,---------~-~--------.
19%
19%
20%
~------,.---
--,~--
18%
___ ___
~--~~--
18%
------~----------~~--
-----
1995
19%
,~
--~--------
~"
1990
21%
~~~_w
~-----
---.--CT
1995
1990
---------~-~-
~--,-~~
19%
----_ .._
21%
21%
19%
18%
21%
20%
20%
20%
18%
17%
19%
17%
18%
16%
_w___ 21%
_____
21%
~~
18%"
18%
~~--~
17%
17%
----------.----
16%
------_.
19%
19%
20%
21%
18%
18%
20%
20%
24%
27%
19%
18%
18%
17%
19%
18%
----~--
~---~---
_._~
17%
..... ~--.•.~---.
17%
19%
20%
19%
22%
INV
22%
----------~------
WI
WY
~~---~
--------~
Source:
u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports;
COUNCil OF
CHIEF
1990. 1995.
STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS·
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS WITH
A FOCUS
ON TITLE
I . 1999
�Percent of Children in Poverty
1995
1995
1990
1990
1995
~~~~----
Al
AK
23%
29%
KY
26%
14%
LA
35%
35%
25%
21%
ME
15%
ND
16%
13%
15%
OH
21%
11%
0
19%
18%
- - - - , - - - ---------
-----~-----
AZ
"-,'.....-----"~----
OK
24%
---,-,-----~---
AR
22%
28%
MD
CA
25%
20%
MA
CO
-------CT
12%
19%
MI
DE
13%
16%
1990
---
20%
--~------~---
16%
14%
13%
OR
16%
15%
PA
17%
20%
20%
RI
17%
12%
_ _- _ 0 ·
________
~_~_
16%
----~---
------------
19%
------------- ------.------
7%
---13%
MN
14%
18%
SC
26%
22%
MS
32%
34%
SD
17%
19%
18%
-------19%
TN
23%
26%
TX
25%
24%
DC
39%
26%
MO
20%
MT
GA
24%
._---
20%
23%
HI
15%
17%
NE
.-._--_.
NV
18%
NH
10%
21%
-----17%
NJ
14%
NM
-----Fl
--_._--.
ID
18%
---.----- ------20%
Il
14%
_c_~
__
..
23%
-----.--------~--
13%
UT
-_._--
10%
12%
14%
.-----
16%
13%
VT
13%
13%
--------
6%
VA
14%
15%
13%
WA
16%
14%
30%
28%
WV
28%
27%
25%
21%
WI
14%
12%
18%
WY
13%
15%
..
--------
IN
~~------------,-~-
18%
----~
._---
'---
---~----
IA
---KS
Source:
.
- - - - ..
15%
14%
-~---~---
15%
13%
._------,
NY
----------NC
------~--.
20%
u.s. Department 01 Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey; 1990, 1995.
COUNCIL OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS·
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS WITH A FOCUS ON TiTlE
I . 1999
�Appendix B (cont'd)
Education Level of Adults, 1990
Per Capita Personal Income, 1998
Hjgh School
High School
College
Graduates
Graduates
AL
................... $21,500
MT
.$25,771
NE
AK.
AZ
... H
.....H $23,152
NV .....
A R . . H .. $20,93
NH
........H $20,247
..
$24,786
H., $27,360
......H $29,219
...
CA ....... H........................ $27,579
$33,953
CO....
$20,008
H." .. $28,821
NY
CT .................HH ............ $37, 700
$29,932
DC ....
NC......
$37,325
H ........................ .
ND...
.. H
.................$31,679
. ............. $24,122
.................. H.$21,708
$25,922
OH .........H ...... $25,239
$25,106
OK .H.
HI ........
$26,210
OR . . . .................... $24,775
ID ...............
$21,080
PA .... ...•. ... H .... $26,889
FL
........... $21 ,056
College
Graduates
AL
--.----.
66.9
15.7
M:-::T=----- 81.0
86.6
78.7
66.3
76.2
23.0
20.3
3.3
23.4
CO
CT
DE
84.4
79.2
77.5
73.1
27.0
NE
81.8
NV
78.8
NH
82.2
NJ
NM
75.1
NY
76.7
NC
70.0
ND
76.7
OH
75.7
OK
74.6
OR
81.5
PA
74.7
PR
N/A
RI
72.0
5C68.3
SD
77.1
TN
67.1
-----. - - - - - - - - TX
72.1
UT
85.1
VT
80.8
AK
AZ
AR
CA
IN ..........
H
N/A
$24,302
................... .
PR
RI
$26,924
$24,007
SC
$21,387
$22~201
KS
KY
$21,551
T N H ...c$i3.615
LA
$21,385
TX
ME ...
MD
.... $25,028
. . . ......... $23,002
$21,096
..... $30,023
V L H.... $24,217
. . H " $32,902
VA
$27,489
M I . . . H.. H... $25,979
WA
.........H
$28,066
MN ....
WV.........
MA ....
........... $27,667
MS ...................... $18,998
WI.....
MO
WY
Source:
$24,447
............ $1
CHIEF
STATE
---
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
7~4
70.9
80.1
79.7
76.2
.----
75.6
80.1
--------~~
27.2
21.4
33.3
--~
1&3
19.3
22.9
17.7
21.0
15.6
16.9
-~--~--~~~-.-
..
KS
81.3
KY
64.6
LA
68.3
ME
78.8
MD
78.4
-----------MA
80.0
--- -----MI
76.8
MN
82.4
MS
64.3
21.1
13.6
16.1
18.8
26.5
27.2
17.4
21.8
14.7
__
--~.~------~-----
--~~--
_-'-'-''--_ _ _-'-=-= _ _ _ _
.7.8
16.6
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ w~ _ _ _ _ _
-----.----------.VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
1U
_
16.0
20.3
22.3
24.3
-~-----
75.2
83.8
66.0
78.6
83.0
24.5
22.9
12.3
17.7
18.8
. .................. $25,184
$23,225
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1997.
COUNCIL OF
19.8
8.9
15.3
24.4
24.9
20.4
23.1
17.4
18.1
17.0
17.8
20.6
17.9
-~------
-~- . .
~-.-
$28,976
Graduates
SCHOOL OFFICERS·
Source:
STATE
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census, 1990.
EDUCATION
INDICATORS WITH
A FOCUS
ON
TiTlE
I
.
1999
�Public K-12 Teachers, 1997-98
(
Elementary
Middle
20,313
(in Full-Time Equivalents)
7,135
High
Combined
Combined
Other
5,777
257
Other
------~--.---.
Alabama
--"
Alaska
.--~~-
3,427
~--
987
1,799
Nebraska
84
250
Arkansas
876
._--'-------'------'------ ._--
566
-~---
625
18
------
--
329
. -...-
nla
n/a
n/a
Florida
62,904
_~?~gia
44.Cll6 _ _ _~7.78L~ ___ 19,525~_. 3.468
Hawaii
229
7,014
---~-
North Carolina
------
22,220
1,468
510
3,983
921
2,739
66
142
Ohio
47,251
22,915
32,117
3,519
729
Oklahoma
19,809
8,318
n/a
North Dakota
911
nla
331
5,341
New York
267
Dis!. 01 Columbia
3,353
171
~-"~~--
Delaware
183
___ ~_
3,455
6,021
-----.-
50
112
3,497
2,908
359
Connecticut
8,595
New Hampshire
-
6,006
Colorado
110
Nevada
New
California
42
...
5
158
Arizona
1,365
Montana
~o_
749
10,634
--~----
5,720
77
7,603
648
109
853
Idaho
131
Illinois
699
Puerto Rico
18,281
Indiana
433
Rhode Island
4,824
Iowa
170
South Carolina
- - ----South Dakota
19,638
------,.----
Kansas
126
89
196
186
--------
Utah
23,349
Massachusetts
8
26
nla
117,995
nla
41,515
18,769
n/a
n/a
nla
1
Vermont
59,499
66,956
-------
3,963
nla
687
-----nla
Minnesota
n/a
24,078
1,773
n/a
n/a
nla
112
390
Wisconsin
26,013
11,439
1,145
Wyoming
2,992
1,587
2,457
480
----
664
n/a
._---
--~-.---~
81
nla
-~----
West Virginia
---.-- -
Missouri
Source:
...
1,375
396
Michigan
nla
3,060
~-~----------
6,669
- - -----2,555
..
nla
936
299
nla
68
nla
-~-
Maine
20
646
n/a
Texas
5
louisiana
50
3,991
Tennessee
395
-~---
568
2,541
486
-------
619
63
17.327
838
102
1,935
16
56
U.s, Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 1997-98,
COUNCIL
OF
CHIEF
STATE
SCHOOL
OFFICERS·
STATE
EDUCATION
INDICATORS WITH
A FOCUS
ON
TITLE
I
.
1999
�Appendix C
National Assessment for Educational Progress-Definitions and Further Information
Mathematics Achievement levels-Grade 4
Basic
Fourth-grade students performing at the basic level should show some evidence of
understanding the mathematical concepts and procedures in the five NAEP content
strands. Fourth graders performing at the basic level should be able to estimate and
use basic facts to perform simple computations with whole numbers; ,show some un
derstanding of fractions and decimals; and solve some simple real-world problems in
all NAEP content areas. Students at this level should be able to use-though not
always accurately- four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. Their writ
ten responses are often minimal and presented without supporting information.
Proficient
Fourth grade students performing at the proficient level should consistently apply inte
grated procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding to problem solving in the
five NAEP content strands, Fourth graders performing at the proficient level should be
able to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are
reasonable, They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals;
be able to solve real-world problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four function
calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes appropriately. Students performing at the
proficient level should employ problem-solving strategies such as identifying and us
ing appropriate information. Their written solutions should be organized and presented
both with supporting information and explanations of how they were achieved.
Note
The following states did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample participa
tion rates-Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont.
Proficient Eighth-grade students performing at the proficient level should apply mathematical
concepts and procedures consistently to complex problems in the five NAEP content
strands. Eighth graders performing at the proficient level should be, able to conjec
ture, defend their ideas, and give supporting examples. They should understand the
connections between fractions, percents, decimals, and other mathematical topics
such as algebra and functions. Students at this level are expected to have a thor
understanding of basic level arithmetic operations-an understanding suffi
cient for problem solving in practical situations. Quantity and spacial relations ,in
problem solving and reasoning shou,ld be familiar to them, and they should be able
to convey underlying reasoning skills beyond the level of arithmetic. They should be
able to compare and contrast mathematical ideas and generate their own examples.
students should make inferences from data and graphs; apply properties of
informal geometry; and accurately use the tools of technology, Students at this level
should understand the process of gathering and organizing data and be able to
calculate, evaluate, and communicate results within the domain of statistics and
probability.
Note
The following states did not satiSfy one of the
for school sample participa
tion rates-Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa,
Michigan, Montana, New York, South
Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Readi
Achievement levels-Grade 4
,
Basic
Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate an under
standing of the overall meaning of what they read. When reading text appropriate for
fourth graders, they should be able to make relatively obvious connections between
the text and their own experiences, and extend the ideas in the text by making simple
inferences.
Mathematics Achievement Levels-Grade 8
Basic
Eighth-grade students performing at the basic level should exhibit evidence of con
ceptual and procedural understanding in the five NAEP content strands. This level of
performance signifies an understanding of arithmetic operations -including estima
tion- on whole numbers, decimals, fractions, and percents, Eighth graders performat the basic level should complete problems correctly with the help of
prompts such as diagrams, charts, and graphs, They should be able to solve problems
in all NAEP content strands through the appropriate selection and use of strategies
and technological tools-including calculators, computers, and geometric shapes. Stu
dents at this level also should be able ,to use fundamental algebraic and informal geo
metric concepts in problem solving. As they approach the proficient level, students at
the basic level should be able to determine which of the available data are necessary
and sufficient for correct solutions and use them in proble'm solving, However, these
eighth graders show limited skill in communicating mathematically.
C 0 U N elL
Proficient Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to demon
strate an overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal infor
mation. When reading text appropriate to fourth grade, they should be able to extend
the ideas in the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connec
tions to their own experiences. The connection between the text and what the student
infers should be clear.
Note
0 F CHI E F S TAT ESC H 0 0 L 0 F Fie E R S . S TAT E E 0 U CAT ION
The following states did not satisfy one of the guidelines for school sample
rates-Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ten
nessee, and Wisconsin,
I N 0 I CAT 0 R S WIT H A Foe U SON
TIT L E I , ' 9 9 9
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Kendra Brooks - Printed Materials Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/648021" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36030">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Description
An account of the resource
The Kendra Brooks Printed Materials series consists of publications related to national and state education goals and standards, funding for education, class-size reduction, school safety, after-school programs, reading reform, teacher quality and preparation, and student assessments.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office FIles
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
130 folders in 13 boxes
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Kendra Brooks
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[State Eduation Indicators with a Focus on Title 1, 1999]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Kendra Brooks
Printed Materials
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 26
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/KendraBrooksPrintedMaterials.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/648021" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1/20/2012
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
648021-state-education-indicators-with-a-focus-on-title-1-1999
648021