description: tags: sei 02-03 final

8/14/2019 description: tags: sei 02-03 final

1/139

Stte Eduti Idits

With Fus Title I: 2002-03

U. S. D E p a r T m E n T o F E D U c a T I o n


2/139

State Educat ion IndicatorsWith a Focus on Ti t le I

2002-03

ByAndra Wil l iamsRol K. Blank

Carla ToyeAdam Petermann

Counci l o Chie State School O icersWashington, D.C.

Prepared or:U.S. Department o Education

O ice o Planning, Evaluation and Pol icy Development2007


3/139

This report was prepared or the U.S. Department o Education under Contract No. ED-01-CO-0040-0001. The project monitors were Jessica Hausman and AdrienneHosek in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed herein are those o the contractor. No ocial endorsement by the U.S. Department o Education isintended or should be inerred.

U.S.DepartmentoEducaton

Margaret SpellingsSecretary

OfceoPlannng,EvaluatonandPolcyDevelopmentDoug MesecarActing Assistant Secretary

PolcyandProgramStudesServceAlan GinsburgDirector

ProgramandAnalytcStudesDvsonDavid GoodwinDirector

July 2007

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citationshould be: U.S. Department o Education, Oce o Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service,State Education Indicators With aFocus on Title I, 2002-03, Washington, D.C., 2007.

This report is available on the Departments Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/oces/list/opepd/reports.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate ormats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more inormation, please contact the DepartmentsAlternate Format Center at (202) 260-0852 or (202) 260-0818.


4/139

Contents

Tables.ivIntroduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................vAcknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ixNational.Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................... 1State.Profles .............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................... 11

Alabama ..........................................12Alaska .............................................14Arizona ............................................16Arkansas ..........................................18Caliornia .........................................20Colorado ..........................................22Connecticut ......................................24Delaware .........................................26District o Columbia ..........................28Florida .............................................30

Georgia ............................................32Hawaii .............................................34Idaho ...............................................36Illinois ..............................................38

Nevada ............................................68New Hampshire ...............................70New Jersey .......................................72New Mexico .....................................74New York .........................................76North Carolina .................................78North Dakota ...................................80Ohio ................................................82Oklahoma ........................................84Oregon ............................................86

Pennsylvania ....................................88Puerto Rico ......................................90Rhode Island ....................................92South Carolina .................................94

Indiana ............................................40Iowa ................................................42Kansas .............................................44Kentucky ..........................................46Louisiana .........................................48Maine ..............................................50Maryland .........................................52Massachusetts .................................54Michigan ..........................................56Minnesota ........................................58

Mississippi .......................................60Missouri ...........................................62Montana ..........................................64Nebraska .........................................66

South Dakota .................................. 96Tennessee ....................................... 98Texas ............................................ 100Utah ............................................. 102Vermont ........................................ 104Virginia ......................................... 106Washington .................................. 108West Virginia ................................. 110Wisconsin ..................................... 112Wyoming ...................................... 114

AppendixesAppendix A: Sources ................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................ 117Appendix B: State Denitions o Procient ......................................... .................................................................................................................................................. 121Appendix C: National Assessment o Educational ProgressDenitions and Further Inormation .......................................................................................................... 127


5/139

v

Tables

Table.1:.State.Assessments,.Number.o.Student.Profciency.Levels,.and.Years.o.Consistent.Assessment.Data,.2002-03 ....................................................................... 2Table.2:.Percentage.o.Students.Achieving.At.or.Above.Each.States.Profcient.Level,.by.Grade.Level,.in.Reading.or.Language.Arts.and.Mathematics,.2002-03. ......... 4Table.3:.Trends.in.the.Percentage.o.Students.Achieving.At.or.Above.Each.States.Profcient.Level,.in.Elementary.Reading.or.Language.Arts.and.in.Middle.Grades.......Mathematics,.1996.to.2003............................................................................................................................................................................ ..................................... 6Table.4:.Links.to.State.Report.Cards.or.More.Inormation.on.Student.Accountability.and.Assessment ................................................................................................. 8


6/139

v

IntroductionReport Objectives and Design

State Education Indicators With a Focus on

Title I 2002-03 is the eighth in a series o reportsdesigned to provide (1) consistent, reliable indicatorsto allow analysis o trends or each state over time,

(2) high data quality or comparability rom stateto state, and (3) accessible indicator ormats aimedtoward acilitating use by a variety o audiences.Since its inception, the report has provided two-pagestate proles that report the same indicators or eachstate. This 2002-03 report, the rst to refect theimplementation o the No Child Left Behind Actof 2001, has been reorganized to better refect therequirements o the law, adding indicators and trendson nances, demographics, sta, and accountability,and expanding the trends or assessment data. A ullexplanation o these indicators can be ound below.Title I, Part A

Title I, Part A, is the largest single grant program othe U.S. Department o Education, authorized underthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act(ESEA). For over 40 years, it has provided unds tostates, the District o Columbia, and the outlyingterritories or additional educational support or theneediest children. In 2004, the $14 billion program

served over 15 million students in nearly all schooldistricts and nearly hal o all public schools.

NCLB Accountability Requirements

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB),which reauthorized the ESEA, requires all schools,districts and states to work toward the goal o allstudents meeting state-dened levels o prociency inreading or language arts and math by 2014. Previousreauthorizations o the bill, such as the 1994 Im-

proving Americas Schools Act(IASA), requiredstates to monitor the progress o schools in improvingthe achievement only o students participating inTitle I, Part A, (i.e, educationally needy students inschools with high concentrations o students rom

low income amilies). States used assessments inreading or language arts and mathematics alignedto student learning standards to measure studentperormance in one grade each in elementary, middle,and high school, and reported the results to the pub-lic.

NCLB strengthens the requirements rom IASA byrequiring states to develop an integrated account-ability system, which combines testing all students ingrades 3-8 and one grade in the 10-12 grade span in

reading or language arts and mathematics by 2005-06 and using an other academic indicator to pro-vide additional inormation about student progress.For the latter, NCLB requires the use o graduationrate or high schools but allows states fexibility touse a number o other measures or elementary andmiddle schools. Data on assessment results and theother academic indicators are reported or all stu-dents in a school and by student subgroups, includingrace or ethnicity, poverty, disability status, Englishlanguage prociency, gender and migrant status.

States must set annual targets or school and districtperormance that lead all students to prociency onstate reading and mathematics assessments by the2013-14 school year. Schools and districts that do notmake adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward this goalor two consecutive years are identied as needingimprovement and are subject to increasing levels ointerventions designed to improve perormance andincrease options or students and parents.

Ater two consecutive years o missing AYP, schoolsare required to notiy parents that in most cases theymay choose to enroll their child in another publicschool in the district, thereby exercising their rightto public school choice under NCLB. I an identi-

ed school misses AYP or a third year, the district isrequired to provide supplemental educational servicesto students rom low income amilies in the school,which may include tutoring or other ater-schoolacademic programming provided by public or privateorganizations or rms.

Ater a ourth year o missing AYP, a school is subjectto corrective action, where the district implementsat least one statutorily required strategy to improvestudent learning, such as introducing new curricula

or replacing sta. Ater a th year o missing AYP,schools begin planning or restructuring and ater asixth year they implement their restructuring plan,which may include replacing all or most o the sta,reopening the school as a charter school, or othermajor reorms. I at any point a school under reviewmakes AYP or two consecutive years, it exits im-provement status and is no longer subject to theseconsequences. The school, however, must continue todemonstrate progress and consistently meet annualperormance targets or it will reenter the rst stage oimprovement ater missing AYP or two consecutiveyears.

It is important to note that each state establishesthe rules or schools to make AYP: the state designsits statewide assessment system, denes prociencylevels or students and designates the other academicindicator or schools and districts. Assessments andaccountability systems are not necessarily comparablestate-to-state.


7/139v

Guide to State Indicator Profles

The state proles in this report contain key indicatorsor K-12 public education. They ocus on the statuso each indicator as o the 2002-03 school year, therst year o the implementation o NCLB, and many

indicators also include data or a baseline year or thepurpose o analyzing trends over time. The sourcessection at the end o the publication provides moredetailed inormation and explanations or the indica-tors. The indicators in each state prole are organizedinto seven categories:

Districts and Schools

The indicators in this category provide a statewidepicture o characteristics o the public K-12 school

system as o 2002-03, including the number o dis-tricts, public schools, and charter schools in the state.A comparison number rom 1993-94 is provided togive a picture o how the states school systems havechanged over time, and to refect change since the1994 ESEA reauthorization. These data are rom theCommon Core o Data (CCD), collected rom statedepartments o education by the National Center orEducation Statistics (NCES).

Finances

Four nancial data elements are included in thisreport: total current expenditures, including in-structional, noninstructional, and support; per-pupilexpenditures; sources o unding; and Title I, Part A,allocation. These gures provide a picture o schoolnances or each state, demonstrating how unding isdistributed, as well as the relationship between ed-eral unding allocations and state and local resources.Data are collected rom CCD surveys through NCESand the Budget Oce o the U. S. Department o

Education.

Students

An important aspect o the accountability systemrequirements under NCLB is the disaggregation ostudent achievement results by student subgroup.This section o the prole reports student enroll-

ment across grades, as well as trends in the studentpopulations in each state, particularly characteristicso students by race or ethnicity, poverty, disabilitystatus, English language prociency, and migrant sta-tus. The bar graph showing counts o public schoolsby the percentage o students eligible or the reeor reduced-price lunch program (i.e., students romlow-income amilies) is useul or reviewing the disag-gregated student achievement results reported on thesecond page o each prole. Data on students in eachstate are collected rom several sources, includingNCES, program oces within the U. S. Department oEducation, and the National Assessment o Educa-tional Progress (NAEP).

Sta

This section provides inormation about educators,including the number o teachers and non-teach-ing sta in each state rom data collected by NCESthrough the CCD. A third data element, the percent-age o teachers with a major in the main subject

taught, grades 7-12, is reported rom results o theSchools and Stang Survey, a periodic sample surveyo teachers and schools conducted by NCES.

The nal gure in this section, percentage o corecourses taught by highly qualied teachers, 2002-03, was reported by states through the Consoli-dated State Perormance Report. In 2002-03, NCLBrequired that all newly hired teachers in assignmentssupported with Title I, Part A, unds be highly

qualied, and by 2005-06 all teachers teaching

in core academic subjects had to be highly quali-ed. NCLB provides a ramework by which stateslabel teachers as highly qualied. Because thelaw requires each state to create its own rubric orevaluating experienced teachers, these indictors are

not comparable across states.

Outcomes

Three measures o student outcomes are reportedin the national and state proles: the high schoolevent dropout rate; the averaged reshman gradu-ation rate, a calculation o high school graduationrates; and the college-going rate.

The high school dropout rate is based on the CCDevent rate that reports the annual percent ostudents in grades 9-12 that drop out o school.This measure may underestimate the actual numbero students that drop out o high school, because itindicates only the percent o students that droppedout o high school within a single year and not thecumulative dropout rate or each student cohort overa lietime.

An alternate estimate o student attrition, the aver-aged reshman graduation rate, is reported or com-

parison purposes. The indicator is a new calculationrom NCES. It uses aggregate student enrollment datato estimate the size o an incoming reshman classand aggregate counts o the number o regular di-plomas awarded our years later. While the averagedreshman graduation rate is the best measure o thegraduation rate that is currently available, it has sev-eral faws that aect its accuracy and reliability. Thecalculation or each state is based on local denitionso what constitutes a high school diploma, which varyconsiderably. For example, this denition may or may


8/139

v

not include students graduating with a GED or otheralternative credential. The graduation rate also doesnot take into account student mobility across districtsor states, or into or out o pr ivate schools, nor does itinclude students who repeated a grade in high school

or those who graduated early. Another outcome pro-vided is the college-going rate, which measures thepercent o high school graduates in a state enrolled inany postsecondary education institution in the all othe ollowing school year, as reported by NCES.

Finally, this section also includes test results rom theNational Assessment o Educational Progress (NAEP)in reading and mathematics, which are comparableacross states. Prior to the passage o NCLB, stateparticipation in NAEP was voluntary and reading and

mathematics tests were given in our-year cycles.Under NCLB, each state is now required to partici-pate in each two-year cycle o the NAEP, starting with2002 or reading and 2003 or mathematics. TheNAEP or these subjects is administered to a repre-sentative sample o students in each state (approxi-mately 2,000 students), producing state-level scoresor grades 4 and 8 reading and mathematics. Dataor 1994 (reading) and 1996 (mathematics) NAEP areprovided in order to show trends, as these years areclosest to the 1993-94 baseline used or the remain-der o the report.

Statewide Accountability Inormation

The rst column on the second page o each stateprole provides a snapshot o state accountabilitysystems or the 2002-03 school year, the rst year oNCLB implementation. Accountability inormation ispresented or each state, including the name o thestates accountability system, the assessments used,the subjects included or state-level accountability

determinations, and the perormance levels used toreport student achievement.

This section provides inormation on accountabilitygoals or one grade in elementary, middle, and high

school (the same as the assessment data reportedin the second column o the second page o eachprole) in reading or language arts (or the statesequivalent) and mathematics. The annual measurableobjective (AMO) target provides an indication o howmany students in each student group must perorm ator above the state-dened procient level or 2002-03 in order to make adequate yearly progress (AYP)on the states trajectory toward 100 percent pro-ciency by 2013-14. The starting point o the trajec-tory or most states was 2001-02, and the target or

2002-03 is also displayed. The latter number is useulor reviewing the achievement inormation presentedin the second column on the second page.

Accountability results are based on school and districtperormance against three criteria: disaggregatedstudent assessment results, student participation onstate assessments, and perormance on the otherindicator selected by the state. Any consequences areapplied in the ollowing school year. The middle parto this column provides inormation on school anddistrict perormance, including the number that madeAYP, the number identied or improvement (due tomissing AYP two or more years in a row), and thenumber that exited school improvement status (atermaking AYP two years in a row).

Each state chooses its own assessment, sets itsown learning standards, and determines the level oprociency expected o its students. As a result, AYPresults, as well as AMOs and targets are not compa-

rable rom state-to-state.

Student Achievement 2002-03

The second column on page 2 o the prole includesstate student assessment inormation, including thename o the assessment, the subject assessed, anddisaggregated results or one grade in elementary,

middle, and high school. Due to limited space, theprole does not include all disaggregated scoresand grades assessed. However,NCLB requires theassessment o all students in grades 3-8 and once inthe 10-12 grade span in reading or language arts andmathematics by the 2005-06 school year, and thatthese assessment results be reported or state-de-ned perormance levels by the ollowing categories:all students and students disaggregated by economicdisadvantage, limited English prociency, disability,migrant status, gender, and race or ethnicity. (Whilereporting by migrant status and gender is required byNCLB, these two indicators are not used in deter-mining AYP.) In the 2002-03 school year, all statesreported in all o these categories, according to theguidelines o NCLB.

To illustrate recent achievement trends, two charts areprovided showing a three-year trend, where available,or the percentage o students achieving at the statesprocient level or above in reading and mathematics

or one grade each in elementary, middle, and highschool.

Nationwide Data

In addition to providing individual state proles, thisreport includes three tables that provide nationalsummary inormation. Table 1 on page 2 provides asummary o state assessments, the number o levelsor which student achievement is reported, and thenumber o years consistent data is available. Table

2 on page 4 provides a summary o student per-


9/139v

ormance in elementary and middle schools at theprocient level or higher by state. Table 3 on page 6provides a summary o student achievement trendsor elementary reading or language arts and middlegrades mathematics rom 1995-96 through 2002-03

or states that have used consistent tests, standardsand perormance levels. Finally, Table 4 on page 8provides a table o links to state reports where disag-gregated state reporting data are located.


10/139

x

AcknowledgmentsThe Council o Chie State School Ocers receivedvaluable contributions rom many organizations andindividuals in preparing State Education IndicatorsWith a Focus on Title I 2002-03. We consider thereport a collaborative eort.

We received strong support rom chie state schoolocers, state assessment directors, and state Title Idirectors or the idea o a 50-state report prolingkey statewide education indicators and indicators oprogress o Title I programs. States provided excellentcooperation in reporting not only the state assessmentdata required under Title I but also urther detailsabout state assessment systems and student demo-graphics that provide the context or analyzing assess-ment results. State education sta careully reviewed

the data in the state proles and provided importantsuggestions or improving the report, and we thankthem or their continued assistance which makes theproles possible.

Funding support or the State Education Indicatorsreport was provided under a task order rom the U.S.Department o Education, Policy and Program Stud-ies Service. We very much appreciate the guidanceand assistance provided by sta in the Policy andProgram Studies Service, especially Jessica Hausmanand Adrienne Hosek, as well as sta rom the Oce oElementary and Secondary Education, especially MaryMoran and Chuck Laster. The National Center or Edu-cation Statistics provided access to data les rom theCommon Core o Data, NAEP, and Schools and Sta -ing Survey, and we particularly thank John Sietsemaand Lee Homan or their assistance. The database orthe state proles was developed in collaboration withWestat, Inc., and we appreciate the eorts o Beth

Sinclair, Nina Blecher, and Babette Gutmann in datacollection and project support.

We appreciate the support and encouragement romour Technical Working Group, who contr ibuted signi-cantly to the prole redesign: Dale Carlson, Kerstin Le-Floch, Peter Prowda, Pat Roschewski, Lani Seikaly, BethSinclair, Robin Taylor, Lee Homan, Daphne Kaplan,Joseph McCrary, Mary Moran, and Stephanie Stullich.

The data were prooed by Carla Toye, Nina de las Alas,and Carlise Smith. The state assessment directors,Title I coordinators, and CCD coordinators reviewedthe proles and prooed the state assessment data.The EIMAC subcommittee on assessment, co-chairedby Sally Tiel (Idaho) and Louis Fabrizio (North Carolina),

reviewed the design and oered suggestions.


11/139


12/139

KEY: * =Less than 0.5 percentKEY: =Not applicableKEY: n/a =Not available

# = Sample size too small to calculateFTE = Full Time Equivalent

^ = Interpret with caution, total does not include all states or districts

Staff

NumberoFTE 1993-94 2002-03teachers(CCD) Elementary 1,188,537 1,341,125

Middle 473,922 507,940High 655,858 754,324

Combined 69,336 85,342Other 29,539 23,069Total 2,417,192 2,711,800

NumberoFTEnon-teachersta(CCD) Instructional aides 448,519 664,618

Instructional coordinators 31,939 48,358Administrators 170,695 230,079

Other 1,676,783 2,011,754Total 2,327,936 2,954,809

Percentageoteacherswithamajorinthemainsubjecttaught,grades7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000 English 78% 70%

Mathematics 72 67Science 74 75

Social studies 80 78

Percentageocorecoursestaughtbyhighlyqualifedteachers,2002-03 (Asdefnedandreportedbystates,collectedbyED)

Students

Publicschool 1993-94 2002-03enrollment(CCD) Pre-K 557,199 754,040

K-8 30,898,963 33,280,335 9-12 11,874,991 14,039,773

Total (K-12) 42,773,954 47,320,108Race/ethnicity(CCD) American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1%

Asian/Pacic Islander 4 4Black, non-Hispanic 17 17

Hispanic 13 19White, non-Hispanic 66 58

Studentswithdisabilities(OSEP) 8% 11%

Studentswithlimited 7% 8%Englishprofciency(ED /NCELA)

Migrantstudents 1% 3%(OME)

Eighth-gradestudentsenrolledin1996 2003AlgebraIorhighschoolcredit 24% 27%(NAEP)

StudentseligibletoparticipateintheFreeorReduced-PriceLunchProgram,2002-03 (CCD) 13,611,199 Outcomes

1993-94 2000-01Highschooldropoutrate(NCES) 5% 5%Avg.reshmangraduationrate(NCES)75 72College-goingrate(IPEDS/NCES) 58 63

NAEPstateresults(NCES)Reading, Grade 4 1994 2003

Procient level or above 28% 30%

Basic level or above 59 62

Math, Grade 8 1996 2003

Procient level or above 23% 27%

Basic level or above 61 66

Numberodistricts 1993-94 2002-03(CCD) 15,046 14,518

Numberopublicschools(CCD)

Elementary 50,978 53,530Middle 14,345 16,182

High 15,715 17,958Combined 2,703 4,994

Other 1,450 1,190Total 85,179 93,854

Numberocharterschools 2,648(CCD)

Districts and schools

Numberoschools,bypercentostudentseligibletoparticipateintheFreeorReduced-PriceLunchProgram,2002-03 (CCD)

Sourcesounding

(CCD, 2001-02)

TitleIallocation2001-02 $11,568,554,258(ED;IncludesTitleI,PartA)

Totalcurrentexpenditures 1993-94 2001-02(CCD , adjusted or infation to 2001-02, in thousands)

Instructional $177,059,666 $228,097,714Noninstructional 13,288,231 15,574,173

Support 98,615,160 126,578,578Total 288,963,057 370,250,465

Per-pupilexpenditures $6,613 $7,734(CCD, adjusted or infation to 2001-02, in thousands)

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

14,631

18,129

14,884

39,226

Finances

National Summary*

*Totals include 50 states, and the District o Columbia and PuertoRico, unless otherwise noted.

Federal

%

State

49%

Local43%

^

^

^

^

^

Only state data available.

^

^

^6,984 schools did not report.


13/139

Table 1: State Assessments, Number o Student Prociency Levels, andYears o Consistent Assessment Data, 2002-03State Number o student Years o

State assessment* prociency levels consistent dataAlabama Stanord 10 n/a Alaska Alaska Benchmark Exams 4 2Arizona Arizonas Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) 4 Arkansas Arkansas Benchmark Exams 4 Caliornia Caliornia Standards Tests, Caliornia High School Exit Exam 5 3 (Reading)Colorado Colorado Student Assessment Program 4 7Connecticut CMT 5 4Delaware Delaware Student Testing Program 5 4District o Columbia Stanord 9 4 Florida Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 5 3Georgia Criterion-Reerenced Competency Tests (CRCT) 3 4

Georgia High School Graduation Tests 3

Hawaii Hawaii Content and Perormance Standards II 4 2Idaho Idaho State Achievement Tests 3 Illinois Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) 4 5Indiana Indiana Statewide Testing or Educational Progress Plus (ISTEP+) 3 3Iowa Iowa Tests o Basic Skills, Iowa Test o Ed. Dev. 3 3Kansas Kansas Assessment Program 5 4Kentucky Kentucky Core Content Test 4 5Louisiana Louisiana Educational Assessment Program 5 3Maine Maine Educational Assessment 4 5Maryland Maryland School Assessments 3 Massachusetts Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System 4 4Michigan Michigan Educational Assessment Program 4 7 (Reading)

Minnesota Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment 5 7 (Math)Mississippi Mississippi Curriculum Test 4 Missouri Missouri Assessment Program 5 6Montana Montana Comprehensive Assessment System 4 3Nebraska School-based Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System (STARS) 4 Nevada Nevada Criterion-Reerenced Tests 4

Assessments


14/139

State Number o student Years oState assessment* prociency levels consistent dataNew Hampshire New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program 4 New Jersey New Jersey Skills and Knowledge Assessment 3 5New Mexico New Mexico Standards Based Assessment 4 New York New York State Tests 4 North Carolina North Carolina End o Grade Mathematics/Reading 4 8North Dakota North Dakota State Assessment 4 Ohio Ohio Prociency Test 4 3Oklahoma Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests 4 4Oregon Oregon State Assessments 5 3Pennsylvania Pennsylvania System o School Assessment 4 3Puerto Rico Pruebas Puertorriqueas de Aprovechamiento Acadmico 3 Rhode Island New Standards Reerence Exam 2 South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test 4 5South Dakota Dakota State Test o Educational Progress 4 Tennessee Tennessee Achievement Test 3

Texas Texas Assessment o Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) 3 Utah Utah Perormance Assessment System or Students 4 Vermont New Standards Reerence Examinations 5 Virginia Standards o Learning Assessments 3 6Washington Washington Assessment o Student Learning 4 3West Virginia WESTEST 5 Wisconsin Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations, WAA-SWD, WAA-LEP 4 5Wyoming Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System 3 Nation (50 states plus the 3 levels: 15 states At least 3 years: 35 statesDistrict o Columbia and 4 levels: 24 states 4-6 years: 12 statesPuerto Rico) 5 levels: 11 states More than 6 years: 4 states

*More inormation on assessments can be ound in state proles beginning on page 12.Source: State assessment results submitted in the Consolidated Report, Section B, 2002-03, and ollow-up by CCSSO with the State Education Accountability Reports and IndicatorReports: Status o Reports across the States, 2003.Note: The column showing Years o Consistent Data indicates the number o years that the state had a consistent test in the same grades and a consistent denition o procient in atleast one subject and grade included in this report. See state proles beginning on page 12 or more details.


15/139

State term orprocient

Elementary school Middle school High school

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics Reading MathematicsAlabama Grade 4, 63% Grade 4, 64% Grade 8, 59% Grade 8, 56%

Alaska Procient Grade 3, 74% Grade 3, 72% Grade 8, 68% Grade 8, 64% High school,70% High school, 70%

Arizona Meets the standard Grade 3, 64% Grade 3, 57% Grade 8, 46% Grade 8, 18% High school, 52% High school, 32%

Arkansas Procient Grade 4, 61% Grade 4, 60% Grade 8, 42% Grade 8, 22% High school, 41% High school, 43%

Caliornia Procient Grade 4, 39% Grade 4, 46% Grade 8, 31% Grade 8, 29% High school, 48% High school, 39%

Colorado Procient Grade 4, 87% Grade 5, 87% Grade 8, 89% Grade 8, 69% Grade 10, 88% Grade 10, 64%

Connecticut Procient Grade 4, 69% Grade 4, 81% Grade 8, 78% Grade 8, 77% High school, 78% High school, 74%

Delaware Meets the standard Grade 3, 79% Grade 3, 74% Grade 8, 70% Grade 8, 47% Grade 10, 67% Grade 10, 45%

District o Columbia Procient Grade 4, 46% Grade 4, 54% Grade 8, 42% Grade 8, 40% High school, 30% High school, 44%

Florida Level 4 Grade 4, 61% Grade 4, 56% Grade 8, 49% Grade 8, 57% Grade 10, 37% Grade 10, 62%

Georgia Meets the standard Grade 4, 80% Grade 4, 74% Grade 8, 81% Grade 8, 67% Grade 11, 95% Grade 11, 92%

Hawaii Meets prociency Grade 3, 43% Grade 3, 24% Grade 8, 39% Grade 8, 17% High school, 40% High school, 18%

Idaho Procient Grade 4, 75% Grade 4, 77% Grade 8, 74% Grade 8, 53% High school, 75% High school, 71%

Illinois Meets standards Grade 3, 62% Grade 3, 76% Grade 8, 64% Grade 8, 53% Grade 11, 56% Grade 11, 53%

Indiana Pass Grade 3, 72% Grade 3, 67% Grade 8, 64% Grade 8, 66% High school, 68% High school, 68%

Iowa High Grade 4, 76% Grade 4, 75% Grade 8, 69% Grade 8, 72% High school, 77% High school, 79%

Kansas Procient Grade 5, 69% Grade 4, 74% Grade 8, 71% Grade 7, 60% Grade 11, 61% Grade 10, 46%

Kentucky Procient Grade 4, 62% Grade 5, 38% Grade 7, 57% Grade 8, 31% High school, 31% High school, 33%

Louisiana Basic Grade 4, 61% Grade 4, 60% Grade 8, 55% Grade 8, 52% High school, 53% High school, 59%

Maine Meets the standard Grade 4, 49% Grade 4, 28% Grade 8, 45% Grade 8, 18% High school, 46% High school, 20%

Maryland Procient Grade 3, 58% Grade 3, 65% Grade 8, 60% Grade 8, 40% High school, 61% High school, 43%

Massachusetts Procient Grade 4, 56% Grade 4, 40% Grade 7, 66% Grade 8, 37% High school, 61% High school, 51%

Michigan Meets expectations Grade 4, 66% Grade 4, 66% Grade 7, 59% Grade 8, 54% High school, 64% High school, 43%

Minnesota Level III Grade 3, 76% Grade 3, 74%

Mississippi Procient Grade 4, 87% Grade 4, 74% Grade 8, 57% Grade 8, 48% High school, 35% High school, 45%

Missouri Procient Grade 3, 34% Grade 4, 37% Grade 7, 32% Grade 8, 14% High school, 22% High school, 12%

Montana Procient Grade 4, 77% Grade 4, 75% Grade 8, 71% Grade 8, 70% Grade 11, 78% Grade 11, 77%

Nebraska Procient Grade 4, 83% Grade 4, 82% Grade 8, 80% Grade 8, 75% High school, 77% High school, 65%

Table 2: Percentage o Students Achieving At or Above Each States Procient Level,by Grade Level, in Reading or Language Arts and Mathematics, 2002-03

Summary o student perormance 2002-03


16/139


17/139

Student achievement trends

Table 3: Trends in the Percentage o Students Achieving At or Above Each States Procient Level,in Elementary Reading or Language Arts and in Middle Grades Mathematics, 1996 to 2003

State Grade Test Subject State term or Procient** 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Caliornia 4 Caliornia Standards Tests English/Lang. Arts Procient 33% 36% 39%

Connecticut 4 Connecticut Mastery Test Reading Procient 71% 71% 69% 69%8 Mathematics 77% 76% 77% 77%

Delaware 3 Del. Student Testing Program Reading Meets Standard 77% 78% 80% 79%8 Mathematics 36% 43% 48% 47%

Georgia 4 Criterion-Reerenced Comp. Test Reading Meets Standard 65% 74% 77% 80%8 Mathematics 54% 58% 65% 67%

Illinois 3 Illinois Standards Achiev. Test Reading Meets Standards 61% 62% 62% 63% 62%8 Mathematics 43% 47% 50% 52% 53%

Iowa 4 Iowa Tests o Basic Skills Reading Procient 68% 69% 76%8 Mathematics 74% 73% 72%

Kansas 5 Kansas Assessment Program Reading Procient 62% 63% 63% 69%7 Mathematics 53% 57% 56% 60%

Kentucky 4 Kentucky Core Content Test Reading Procient 32% 57% 58% 60% 62%8 Mathematics 33% 25% 27% 26% 31%

Maine 4 Maine Educational Assessment Reading Meets the Standard 47% 45% 51% 49% 49%8 Mathematics 19% 21% 20% 21% 18%

Mass. 4 Mass. Comp. Assmt. System English Lang. Arts Procient 20% 51% 54% 56%8 Mathematics 34% 34% 34% 37%

Michigan 4 Mich. Educ. Assmt. Program Reading/Lang. Arts Met Expectations 49% 59% 59% 58% 60% 57% 66%Missouri 3 Missouri Assessment Program Comm. Arts Procient 29% 32% 32% 36% 34%

8 Mathematics 13% 11% 14% 14% 14% 14%Montana 4 Iowa Tests o Basic Skills Reading Procient 79% 73% 77%

8 Mathematics 69% 68% 70%

New Jersey 4 New Jersey Prociency Test Language Arts Literacy Procient 57% 55% 79% 79% 78%8 Mathematics 62% 60% 62% 58% 57%

N. Carolina 4 N.C. End o Grade/Course Test Reading Level III 69% 68% 71% 71% 72% 74% 77% 81%8 Mathematics 68% 69% 76% 78% 80% 80% 83% 82%

Ohio 4 Ohio Prociency Test Reading Procient 56% 66% 53%6 Mathematics 61% 59% 65%

Oklahoma 5 Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test Reading Satisactory 68% 66% 63% 65%8 Mathematics 65% 63% 64% 65%


18/139

State Grade Test Subject State term or Procient** 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Oregon 3 Oregon State Assmts. Reading Meets Standard 84% 85% 83%

8 Mathematics 55% 58% 59%Pennsylvania 5 Penn. System o School Assmts. Reading Procient 56% 57% 58%

8 Mathematics 51% 52% 51%S. Carolina 4 Palmetto Achiev. Challenge Test English Language Arts Procient 29% 37% 37% 34% 32%

8 Mathematics 15% 20% 18% 19% 19%Virginia 3 Standards o Learning English Pass/Procient 54% 61% 61% 64% 71% 72%

8 Mathematics 61% 68% 70% 75%Washington 4 Wash. Assmt. o Student Learning Reading Level 3 67% 66% 67%

7 Mathematics 27% 30% 37%Wisconsin 4 Wis. Knowl. and Concepts Exam. Reading Procient 81% 78% 78% 79% 81%

8 Mathematics 43% 42% 39% 44% 73%

*Note: Trend indicates at least one subject and grade in the state has had a consistent test, denitions o procient, and grade tested across the years reported.**More inormation on assessments can be ound in state proles beginning on page 12.


19/139

State report cards

State WeblinkAlabama tp://tp.alsde.edu/documents/ReportCards/2002-2003/000.pd

Alaska http://www.eed.state.ak.us/reportcard/2002-2003/2State%20Report%20Card/2002-2003%20Report%20Card.pdArizona http://www.ade.az.gov/srcs/statereportcards/2002-2003.pdArkansas http://www.as-is.org/reportcard/rc2003Caliornia http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2003/viewreport.aspColorado http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/Reports/download/NCLBRptCrd/NCLBRprtCrdsFull0203.pdConnecticut http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/ssp/sch0203/school.htmDelaware http://www.doe.k12.de.us/les/pd/de_edreportcard200203.pdDistrict o Columbia http://silicon.k12.dc.us/NCLB/reportcards.aspFlorida http://schoolgrades.fdoe.org/deault.asp?schoolYear=2002-2003Georgia http://reportcard2003.gaosa.org/Hawaii http://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/nclb/2003/SEArptFinal021204_rev062104.pdIdaho http://www.sde.state.id.us/ipd/reportcard/SchoolReportCard.asp

Illinois http://webprod1.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getsearchcriteria.aspxIndiana http://www.doe.state.in.us/asap/pd/2003IndianaAnnual.pdIowa http://www.iowaccess.org/educate/ecese/nclb/doc/reportcard03.pdKansas http://www3.ksde.org/accountability/accountability_report_2002_2003.pdKentucky http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2F3C178D-15D7-47FD-8B0A-399E22E29E2A/0/NCLBmediareport.docLouisiana http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/pair/1794.aspMaine http://www.state.me.us/education/proles/getproles.htmMaryland http://mdreportcard.org/Massachusetts http://proles.doe.mass.edu/staterc/Michigan http://www.michigan.gov/documents/State_Report_Card_2003-04_120358_7.docMinnesota http://education.state.mn.us/ReportCard2005/

Mississippi http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/Account/RC3B/RC02-03.pdMissouri http://dese.mo.gov/commissioner/statereportcard/Montana http://www.opi.state.mt.us/ReportCard/Index.html

Table 4: Links to State Report Cards or More Inormation on Student Accountability and Assessment


20/139

State WeblinkNebraska http://reportcard.nde.state.ne.us/20022003/Main/PDFDownload.asp

Nevada http://www.nevadareportcard.com/New Hampshire http://www4.measuredprogress.org/NHProle/New Jersey http://education.state.nj.us/rc/2003/index.htmlNew Mexico http://www.ped.state.nm.us/div/ais/data/dcractsheets.htmlNew York http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrdall2003/home.htmlNorth Carolina http://www.ncreportcards.org/src/stateDetails.jsp?Page=1&pYear=2002-2003North Dakota http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/ reports/prole/0203/ProleDistrict/99999.pdOhio http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEPrimary.aspx?page=2&TopicRelationID=1266Oklahoma http://apps.sde.state.ok.us/apireports/deault.htmlOregon http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/annreportcard/rptcard2003.pdPennsylvania http://www.pde.state.pa.us/pas/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=97989Puerto Rico Not available

Rhode Island http://www.inoworks.ride.uri.edu/2003/state/South Carolina http://www.myscschools.com/reportcard/2003/South Dakota https://sis.ddncampus.net:8081/nclb/portal/portal.xsl?&extractID=1Tennessee http://evaas.sas.com/tn_reportcard/welcome.jspTexas http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perreport/aeis/2003/index.html/Utah http://u-pass.schools.utah.gov/u-passweb/Vermont http://crs.uvm.edu/schlrptVirginia http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Publications/asrstat/2002-03/asrbook.htmlWashington http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspxWest Virginia http://wveis.k12.wv.us/nclb/publ ic03/nclbmenu.aspWisconsin http://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/wsas/deault.asp

Wyoming https://wdesecure.k12.wy.us/stats/wde.esc.show_menu


21/139

0


22/139

S T A T E P R O F I L E S


23/139

Sta

Number o FTE 1993-94 2002-03teachers (CCD) Elementary Middle High Combined

Other Total

Number o FTE non-teacher sta(CCD) Instructionalaides Instructionalcoordinators Administrators Other Total

Percentage o teachers with a major in the main subjecttaught, grades 7-12 (SASS) 1994 2000 English

Mathematics Science Socialstudies

Percentage o core courses taught by highly qualifedteachers, 2002-03 (As defned and reported by states, collected by ED)

Students

Public school 1993-94 2002-03enrollment (CCD) Pre-K K-8 9-12

Total(K-12)Race/ethnicity (CCD) AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative Asian/PacicIslander Black,non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic

Students with disabilities (OSEP)

Students with limitedEnglish profciency (NCELA)

Migrant students (OME)

Eighth-grade students enrolled in 1996 2003Algebra I or high school credit(NAEP)

Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 (CCD)

Outcomes 1993-94 2000-01High school dropout rate (NCES)Avg. reshman graduation rate (NCES)College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES)

NAEP state results (NCES)Reading,Grade4 1994 2003 Procientlevel orabove

Basiclevelorabove

Math,Grade8 1996 2003 Procientlevel orabove

Basiclevelorabove

Number o districts 1993-94 2002-03(CCD)

Number o public schools (CCD) Elementary Middle High Combined Other Total

Number o charter schools (CCD)


Number o schools, by percent o students eligible toparticipate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program,2002-03 (CCD)

Sources o unding

(CCD,2001-02)

Title I allocation 2001-02 (ED; Includes Title I, Part A)

Total current expenditures 1993-94 2001-02(CCD,adjustedorinfationto2001-02,inthousands)

Instructional Noninstructional Support

Total

Per-pupil expenditures(CCD,adjustedorinfationto2001-02)

KEY: * =Lessthan0.5percent = Notapplicable

K n/a = Notavailable # =Samplesi zetoosmall toca lculate FTE = Ful lTime Equi va lent

Finances

18,619 21,325 6,474 7,436 9,699 10,962 5,898 5,455

2,312 1,927 43,002 47,104

3,897 6,169 393 667 2,384 4,697 31,246 30,245 37,920 41,778

75% 63%

89 83 73 78 80 69

8,445 n/a

527,373 523,594 198,651 203,117

726,024 726,711 1% 1% 1 1 36 36 * 2 62 60

12% 11%

* 1%

1% 1%

20% 17%

364,226

6% 4%6464

6458

23% 23%

52 53

12% 16%

45 53

127 129

664 710 218 231 246 274 155 167 11 9 1,294 1,391

n/a

Alabama http://www.alsde.edu

$154,938,816

$2,249,389 $2,721,721 284,407 307,556 935,139 1,415,114 3,468,935 4,444,391

$4,898 $6,029

12

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

281

445

362

301

35%

29%

36%Low-poverty schools

High-poverty schools

All schools

Federal10%

State59%

Local

31%

^

^2schoolsdidnotreport.


24/139

S tuden t A ch i e vemen t 2002 - 03S t a t ew i de A c coun t ab i l i t y I n f o rma t i on

SeeAppendixBorAlabamasdefnitionsoprofcientorreading/languageartsandmathematicsorgrades4,8,andhighschool.

Seehttp://www.alsde.edu/html/reports1.asp?systemcode=000&schoolcode=0000ormoredetailson

thestatewideaccountabilitysystem.State assessment or NCLB accountability:n/aState student achievement levels: n/a

NCLB Accountability Goals 2001-02 Annual measurable Target

objective starting point (2002-03)Grade4 Reading/LanguageArts

Mathematics

Grade8 Reading/LanguageArts

Mathematics

Grade- Reading/LanguageArts

Mathematics

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school yearAYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts

MadeAYP n/a n/a n/aIdentiedorimprovement:Year1 n/a n/a n/aYear2 n/a n/a n/aCorrectiveaction n/a n/a n/aRestructuring n/a n/a n/a

Exitedimprovementstatus(madeAYPtwice n/a n/a n/aatermissingtwiceormore,includestotalmadeabove)

Other indicator, 2002-03 State Target State Outcome

Elementaryindicator:Attendance Middleindicator:Attendance Highschoolindicator:Graduationrate

NCLB choice participat ion Number o Title I students Percent o eligible students

TitleIschoolchoice: 836 *Supplementaleducationalservices: 726 1%

*AYPoutcomesorthisstatearenotavailableduetoissueswithdatacollection,measurement,orotherreasons.FormoreinormationpleasevisitthestatesWebsite,above.

ReadingProfcient level or above or: Grade 4 Grade 8 GradeAllstudents 63% 59% Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 50 42

Migrantstudents 43 38 Studentswithdisabilities 25 16 StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 32 14 Black,non-Hispanicstudents 45 38 Hispanicstudents 49 38 White,non-Hispanicstudents 76 71

Studentachievementtrend:Readingpercentprofcientlevelorabove

Alabama

Stanord 10, not used or NCLB accountability in 2002-03

13

MathematicsProfcient level or above or: Grade 4 Grade 8 GradeAllstudents 64% 56% Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 53 41 Migrantstudents 50 45 Studentswithdisabilities 26 14 StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 46 34 Black,non-Hispanicstudents 49 38 Hispanicstudents 52 42

White,non-Hispanicstudents 74 67

Studentachievementtrend:Mathematicspercentprofcientlevelorabove

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

5664

200320022001

HighSchoolGrade8Grade4

n/an/a

n/a

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

5963

200320022001


n/an/a

n/a


25/139

Sta


Other Total





Students


Total(K-12)Race/ethnicity (CCD) AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative Asian/PacicIslander Black,non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic


Students with limitedEnglish profciency (NCELA)



Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 (CCD)

Outcomes 1993-94 2000-01High school dropout rate (NCES)Avg. reshman graduation rate (NCES)College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES)


Basiclevelorabove


Basiclevelorabove






Sources o unding(CCD,2001-02)




Total



K n/a = Notavailable # =Samplesi zetoosmall toca lculate FTE = Ful lTime Equ iva lent

Finances

$662,113 $754,660 39,683 42,850 581,611 487,344 1,283,408 1,284,854

$10,190 $9,563

3,067 3,401 756 1,095 1,479 1,816 1,109 1,555

782 214 7,193 8,080

2,146 2,328 102 172 603 1,094 5,362 5,427 8,213 9,021

84% 64%

50 57 79 77 66 73

2,787 1,391

90,814 92,991 32,347 39,984

123,161 132,975 23% 26% 4 6 5 5 2 4 65 59

12% 12%

22% 15%

14% 10%

26% n/a

34,846

n/a 8%74% 68

3744

28%

58

30% 30%

68 70

56 53

175 175 31 35 70 65 204 225 3 n/a 483 500

15

Alaska http://www.eed.state.ak.us

$29,751,500

14

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

54

81

76

168

31%

16%



All schools

Federal17%

State57%

Local

27%

^



26/139


SeeAppendixBorAlaskasdefnitionsoprofcientorreadingandmathematicsorgrades3,8,andhighschool.

Seehttp://www.eed.state.ak.us/stats/ormoredetailsonthestatewideaccountabilitysystem.

State assessment or NCLB accountability:AlaskaBenchmarkExamsState student achievement levels: FarBelowProcient,BelowProcient,Procient,Advanced


objective starting point (2002-03)Grade3 Reading 64.03% 64.03%

Mathematics 54.86 54.86

Grade8 Reading 64.03 64.03


HighSchoolReading 64.03 64.03


2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school yearAYP outcomes and consequences Title I schools All schools All districts

MadeAYP 118 (40%) 206 (42%) 13 (24%)Identiedorimprovement:Year1 46 (16%) 49 (10%) 4 (7%)Year2 9 (3%) 9 (2%) 2 (4%)Correctiveaction 8 (3%) 8 (2%) 0Restructuring 0 0 0

Exitedimprovementstatus(madeAYPtwice 0 0 0atermissingtwiceormore,includestotalmadeabove)

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcomeElementaryindicator:Averagedailyattendance 85% MetMiddleindicator:Averagedailyattendance 85% MetHighschoolindicator:Graduationrate 55.58% Met



ReadingProfcient level or above or: Grade 3 Grade 8 High SchoolAllstudents 74% 68% 70%Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 58 48 47

Migrantstudents 44 39 44Studentswithdisabilities 45 26 24StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 44 34 32Black,non-Hispanicstudents 71 63 47Hispanicstudents 73 56 63White,non-Hispanicstudents 85 81 82


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

706874 70

9275

200320022001


n/a

Alaska

Alaska Benchmark Exams, used or NCLB accountability

15

MathematicsProfcient level or above or: Grade 3 Grade 8 High SchoolAllstudents 72% 64% 70%Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 58 45 51Migrantstudents 48 42 52Studentswithdisabilities 49 22 27StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 47 39 45Black,non-Hispanicstudents 62 52 51Hispanicstudents 69 46 62

White,non-Hispanicstudents 82 75 79Studentachievementtrend:Mathematicspercentprofcientlevelorabove

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

706472

64

40

71

200320022001


n/a


27/139

Sta


Other Total





Students


Total(K-12)

Race/ethnicity (CCD) AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative Asian/PacicIslander Black,non-Hispanic Hispanic White,non-Hispanic


Students with limited

English profciency (NCELA)



Students eligible to participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program, 2002-03 (CCD) Outcomes

1993-94 2000-01High school dropout rate (NCES)Avg. reshman graduation rate (NCES)College-going rate (IPEDS/NCES)


Basiclevelorabove


Basiclevelorabove










Total




Finances

3,164 7,434 519,054 644,438 182,737 272,679

701,791 917,117

7% 7% 2 2 4 5 28 36 60 50

9% 9%

12% 15%

2% 3%

26% 22%

111,717

19,983 25,716 6,453 7,880 8,624 11,269 69 437

2,636 1,799 37,493 47,101

9,519 13,650 180 187 2,040 2,397 25,447 33,304 37,186 49,538

65% 52%

61 49 73 66 65 75

14% 11%72 74

4450

24% 23%

52 54

18% 21%

57 62

217 323

720 1,008 193 240 176 399 12 143 11 11 1,112 1,801

319

Arizona http://www.ade.state.az.us

$173,246,701

$2,151,235 $3,123,642 243,677 346,134 1,332,105 2,029,869 3,727,017 5,499,645

$5,254 $5,964

16

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

83

98

35

276

95%

90%



All schools

Federal10%

State50%

Local40%

^

^1,309schoolsdidnotreport.


28/139


SeeAppendixBorArizonasdefnitionsoprofcientorreadingandmathematicsorgrades3,8,andhighschool.

Seehttp://www.ade.az.gov/researchpolicy/srcs.aspormoredetailsonthestatewideaccountability

system.State assessment or NCLB accountability:ArizonaInstrumenttoMeasureStandards(AIMS)State student achievement levels: ApproachestheStandard,FallingFarbelowtheStandard,MeetstheStandard,ExceedingtheStandard


objective starting point (2002-03)Grade3 Reading 44% 44%

Mathematics 32 32

Grade8 Reading 31 31

Mathematics 7 7

HighSchoolReading 23 23 Mathematics 10 10


MadeAYP 564 (72%) 1,294 (76%) 331 (66%)Identiedorimprovement:Year1 99 (13%) 99 (1%) 193 (34%)Year2 100 (13%) 100 (1%) 0Correctiveaction 20 (3%) 20 (*) 0Restructuring 0 0 0

Exitedimprovementstatus(madeAYPtwice 0 0 0atermissingtwiceormore,includestotal

madeabove)

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcome

Elementaryindicator:Attendance Meetorexceed94% n/aMiddleindicator:Attendance Meetorexceed94% n/aHighSchoolindicator:Graduationrate Meetorexceed71% Met


TitleIschoolchoice: 149 *Supplementaleducationalservices: 2,815 1%

ReadingProfcient level or above or: Grade 3 Grade 8 High SchoolAllstudents 64% 46% 52%Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 48 28 31

Migrantstudents 33 20 21Studentswithdisabilities 32 17 19StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 37 15 14Black,non-Hispanicstudents 59 34 38Hispanicstudents 49 29 33White,non-Hispanicstudents 80 62 67


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

5246

64

200320022001


n/an/a

Arizona

Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards, used or NCLB accountability

17

MathematicsProfcient level or above or: Grade 3 Grade 8 High SchoolAllstudents 57% 18% 32%Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 41 7 13Migrantstudents 37 7 10Studentswithdisabilities 28 5 8StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 37 5 9Black,non-Hispanicstudents 45 8 18Hispanicstudents 44 8 16


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

3218

57

200320022001


n/an/a


29/139

Sta


Other Total





Students

Public school 1993-94 2002-03enrollment (CCD) Pre-K K-8 9-12 Total(K-12)










Basiclevelorabove


Basiclevelorabove










Total




Finances

12,440 13,521 5,050 6,040 7,623 8,859 390 468

3,511 1,442 29,014 30,330

2,501 6,217 784 613 2,076 2,439 19,145 24,216 24,448 33,485

78% 82%

70 79 66 57 70 64

1,248 1,938

314,617 315,854 125,801 131,716 440,418 447,570

* 1% 1% 1 24 23 1 5 74 71

10% 12%

1% 3%

3% 5%

18% 18%

+

218,277

5% 5%77 74

48 53

24% 28%

54 60

13% 18%

52 57

315 311

564 571 161 199 324 326 6 9 15 24 1,070 1,129

7

Arkansas http://arkedu.state.ar.us

$97,234,354

$1,429,709 $1,739,455 155,090 144,218 697,321 939,213 2,282,121 2,822,886

$5,137 $6,276

18

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

299

460

167

203

97%

97%

Low-poverty schools


All schools

Not Available

Federal11%

State56%

Local34%


30/139


SeeAppendixBorArkansassdefnitionsoprofcientorreadingandmathematicsorgrades4,8andhighschool.

Seehttp://www.as-is.org/reportcard/rc2003/ormoredetailsonthestatewideaccountabilitysystem.

State assessment or NCLB accountability:ArkansasBenchmarkExamsState student achievement levels: BelowBasic,Basic,Procient,Advanced






HighschoolReading 19.5 26.21


2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school yearAYP outcomes and consequences* Title I schools All schools All districts

MadeAYP n/a n/a n/aIdentiedorimprovement:Year1 227 (28%) 227 (21%) 0Year2 15 (2%) 15 (1%) 0Correctiveaction 2 (*) 2 (*) 0Restructuring 0 0 0

Exitedimprovementstatus(madeAYPtwice n/a n/a n/aatermissingtwiceormore,includestotalmadeabove)


Elementaryindicator:Attendance 92.70% MetMiddleindicator:Attendance 92.70% MetHighschoolindicator:Graduationrate 86.7% Met


TitleIschoolchoice: 175 *Supplementaleducationalservices: 3 *

*SomeAYPoutcomesorthisstatearenotavailableduetoissueswithdatacollection,measurement,orotherreasons.FormoreinormationpleasevisitthestatesWebsite,above.

ReadingProfcient level or above or: Grade 4 Grade 8 High schoolAllstudents 61% 42% 41%Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 50 27

Migrantstudents 47 24 13Studentswithdisabilities 11


31/139

Sta


Other Total





Students











Basiclevelorabove


Basiclevelorabove










Total




Finances

113,113 158,983 39,438 51,595 51,143 75,318 268 10,032

17,796 11,745 221,779 307,672

55,984 72,242 4,248 6,664 12,231 16,228 136,843 178,858 209,306 273,992

76% 68%

50 57 62 77 77 84

61,281 n/a

3,772,731 4,373,967 1,393,530 1,807,054 5,166,261 6,181,021

1% 1% 11 11 9 8 37 46 42 34

9% 9%

23% 26%

4% 8%

27% 46%

3,002,890

n/a n/a82%72%

6148

18% 21%

44 49

17% 21%

51 55

1,002 988

4,943 5,550 1,101 1,305 1,382 1,788 167 426 141 18 7,734 9,087

408

California http://www.cde.ca.gov

$1,448,883,975

$19,239,205 $28,566,063 1,345,311 1,739,089 11,600,235 15,960,392 32,184,751 46,265,544

$6,040 $7,434

20

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

1,164

2,029

2,246

3,562

48%

35%



All schools

Federal9%

State59%

Local31%

^



32/139


SeeAppendixBorCaliorniasdefnitionsoprofcientorEnglishlanguageartsandmathematicsorgrades4,8,andhighschool.

Seehttp://star.cde.ca.gov/star2003/viewreport.aspormoreonthestatewideaccountabilitysystem.

State assessment or NCLB accountability:CaliorniaStandardsTests(CSTs)grades2-8,Cali-orniaHighSchoolExitExam(SCSAHSEE)grade10State student achievement levels: BelowBasic,Basic,FarBelowBasic,Procient,Advanced


objective starting point (2002-03)Grade4 Englishlanguagearts 13.6% 13.6%

Mathematics 16 16

Grade8 Englishlanguagearts 13.6 13.6

Mathematics 16 16

HighschoolEnglishlanguagearts 11.2 11.2

Mathematics 9.6 9.6

2002-03 NCLB accountability results, applied to 2003-04 school yearAYP Outcomes and Consequences Title I schools All schools All districts

MadeAYP 2,786 (51%) 4,874 (54%) 456 (44%)Identiedorimprovement:Year1 644 (54%) 644 (7%) 0Year2 216 (18%) 216 (2%) 0Correctiveaction 329 (27%) 329 (4%) 0Restructuring 11 (1%) 11 (*) 0

Exitedimprovementstatus(madeAYPtwice 191 (16%) 191 (2%) 0atermissingtwiceormore,includestotalmadeabove)

Other indicator, 2002-03 State target State outcomeElementary,Middle, andHigh school indicator: MeetingAPI Met target.AcademicPerormance Index (API ), refectinggrowth t argetor growing inallperormanceareas. atleastoneAPIpoint.


TitleIschoolchoice: 3,609 *Supplementaleducationalservices: 41,198 1%

English or language artsProfcient level or above or: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10Allstudents 39% 31% 48%

Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 24 16 28Migrantstudents 13 9 17Studentswithdisabilities 15 5 14StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 21 14 25Black,non-Hispanicstudents 27 17 33Hispanicstudents 24 16 30White,non-Hispanicstudents 59 47 67

Studentachievementtrend:Englishorlanguageartspercentprofcientlevelorabove

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

48

3139

333236 313233

200320022001

Grade10Grade8Grade4

California

Caliornia Standards Tests and Caliornia High School Exit Exam, used orNCLB accountability

21

MathematicsProfcient level or above or: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10Allstudents 46% 29% 39%Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 33 16 23Migrantstudents 25 13 17Studentswithdisabilities 20 6 10StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 34 18 24Black,non-Hispanicstudents 29 12 19Hispanicstudents 33 15 21

Whitestudents 61 42 56Studentachievementtrend:Mathematicspercentprofcientlevelorabove

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

3929

46

200320022001


n/an/a


33/139

Sta


Other Total





Students











Basiclevelorabove


Basiclevelorabove










Total



K n/a = Notavailable # = Sampl esi zetoosmall toca lcul ate F TE = F ul lTi me E qui va le nt

Finances

16,771 22,407 7,267 9,288 8,681 12,010 67 1,337

876 359 33,661 45,401

4,995 11,008 670 926 2,592 3,313 21,102 29,748 29,359 44,995

91% 80%

65 68 78 72 61 88

7,249 20,005

451,469 513,918 164,260 217,133 615,729 731,051

1% 1% 2 3 5 6 17 24 74 66

12% 9%

4% 11%

1% 3%

28% 27%

214,115

n/a n/a77% 73%

52 53

28% 37%

59 70

25% 35%

67 74

176 178

817 959 246 291 243 339 14 72 18 1 1,373 1,662

92

Colorado http://www.cde.state.co.us

$96,384,762

$2,324,087 $2,976,088 142,061 183,604 1,316,544 1,991,311 3,782,691 5,151,003

$6,051 $6,941

22

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

275

302

116

966

86%

85%

Low-poverty schools


All schools

Not Available

Federal6%

State42%

Local52%

^



34/139

S tuden t A ch i e vemen t 2002 - 03S t a t ew i de A c coun t ab i l i t y I n o rma t i on

SeeAppendixBorColoradosdefnitionsoprofcientorreadingandmathematicsorgrades4,8,and10.

Seehttp://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeunied/NCLBProles0506/index.aspormoredetailsonthestate-wideaccountabilitysystem.

State assessment orNCLB accountability :ColoradoStudentAssessmentProgramandColoradoStudentAssessmentProgram-AlternativeState student achievement levels: Unsatisactory,PartiallyProcient,Procient,Advanced









MadeAYP 454 (75%) 1,322 (75%) 105 (59%)Identiedorimprovement:

Year1 39 (6%) 39 (2%) 0Year2 37 (6%) 37 (2%) 0Correctiveaction 1 (*) 1 (*) 0Restructuring 3 (*) 3 (*) 0

Exitedimprovementstatus(madeAYPtwice n/a n/a 0atermissingtwiceormore,includestotalmadeabove)


E lementaryandMiddle i ndi cator :Percentageo s tudents 1%orgreater MetintheadvancedcategoryontheCSAP.Highschoolindicator:Graduationrate 55.3%orgreater Met


TitleIschoolchoice: 368 *Supplementaleducationalservices: 2,149 2%

ReadingProfcient level or above or: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10Allstudents 87% 89% 88%

Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 77 77 76Migrantstudents 66 62 55Studentswithdisabilities 55 52 52StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 69 67 68Black,non-Hispanicstudents 78 82 79Hispanicstudents 76 76 77White,non-Hispanicstudents 93 93 91


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%888987 2003

20022001

Grade10Grade8Grade4

n/an/a

Colorado

Colorado Student Assessment Program and Colorado Student AssessmentProgram - Alternative, used or NCLB accountability

23

MathematicsProfcient level or above or: Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 10Allstudents 87% 69% 64%Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 76 45 39Migrantstudents 67 39 27Studentswithdisabilities 58 24 18StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 71 42 34Black,non-Hispanicstudents 72 44 33Hispanicstudents 76 49 37


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

6469

87 200320022001

Grade10Grade8Grade5

n/an/a


35/139

Sta


Other Total





Students











Basiclevelorabove


Basiclevelorabove










Total



K n/a = Notavailable # = Sampl esi zetoosmall toca lcul ate F TE = F ul lTi me E qu iva le nt

Finances

16,018 19,004 7,409 9,712 8,561 12,603 368 823

2,170 154 34,526 42,296

6,178 12,076 416 400 2,442 3,507 18,452 28,082 27,488 44,065

84% 71%

84 62 90 77 92 79

6,216 11,133

352,360 394,795 127,655 164,008 480,015 558,803

* * 2% 3% 13 14 11 14 73 69

12% 10%

4% 4%

1% 1%

28% 31%

145,017

5% 3%

80 77

5962

38% 43%

68 74

31% 35%

70 73

166 166

625 654 177 193 162 197 15 40 18 3 997 1,087

13

Connecticut http://www.state.ct.us/sde

$104,126,530

$3,201,775 $3,861,634 243,055 216,609 1,604,096 1,952,819 5,048,927 6,031,062

$10,174 $10,577

24

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

94

107

138

736

96%

95%



All schools

Federal5%

State43%

Local53%

^



36/139


SeeAppendixBorConnecticutsdefnitionsoprofcientorreadingandmathematicsorgrades4,8,andhighschool.

Seehttp://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/edacts/perormance.htmormoredetailsonthestatewide

accountabilitysystem.State assessment or NCLB accountability:ConnecticutMasteryTest(CMT)State student achievement levels: Basic,BelowBasic,Procient,Goal,Advanced


objective starting point (2002-03)Grade4 Reading 57% 55%

Mathematics 65 64

Grade8 Reading 57 55

Mathematics 65 64

HighschoolReading 62 62

Mathematics 59 59


MadeAYP 341 (71%) 799 (81%) 141 (82%)Identiedorimprovement:

Year1 77 (15%) 95 (10%) 0Year2 0 0 0Correctiveaction 8 (2%) 8 (1%) 0Restructuring 0 0 0

Exitedimprovementstatus(madeAYPtwice 0 0 0atermissingtwiceormore,includestotalmadeabove)


ElementaryandMiddleindicat or: 70% ormorest udentsat basicor Met Writingassessment above,orincreaserompreviousyear.

Highschoolindicator:Graduationrate n/a n/a



ReadingProfcient level or above or: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10Allstudents 69% 78% 78%

Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 42 53 51Migrantstudents n/a n/a n/aStudentswithdisabilities 28 38 40StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 18 20 27Black,non-Hispanicstudents 42 55 53Hispanicstudents 39 50 50White,non-Hispanicstudents 79 87 84


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%7878

697978

697877

71

200320022001

Grade10Grade8Grade4

Connecticut

Connecticut Mastery Test/Academic Perormance Test, used or NCLBaccountability

25

MathematicsProfcient level or above or: Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10Allstudents 81% 77% 74%Economicallydisadvantagedstudents 61 50 42Migrantstudents n/a n/a n/aStudentswithdisabilities 47 36 39StudentswithlimitedEnglishprociency 45 31 32Black,non-Hispanicstudents 59 48 39Hispanicstudents 60 48 42


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%77

81 787780

7776200320022001

Grade10Grade8Grade4

8174


37/139

Sta


Other Total





Students











Basiclevelorabove


Basiclevelorabove


Number o public schools(CCD)

Elementary Middle High Combined Other Total








Total



K n/a = Notavailable # = Sampl esi zetoosmall toca lcul ate F TE = F ul lTi me E qu iva le nt

Finances

2,376 3,213 1,741 1,764 1,435 2,178 n/a 361

828 182 6,380 7,698

846 1,388 61 181 491 640 3,862 4,542 5,260 6,751

90% 61%

# 74 82 68 77 n/a

565 665

76,052 81,556 28,930 34,121 104,982 115,677

* * 2% 3% 29 31 3 7 66 58

11% 12%

1% 3%

1% 1%

39% 21%

41,319

5% 4%

74 71

6560

23% 33%

52 71

19% 25%

55 68

19 19

86 104 41 44 32 32 18 21 n/a n/a 177 201

11

Delaware http://www.doe.state.de.us

$27,673,805

$510,983 $660,857 34,687 50,033 278,661 361,985 824,332 1,072,875

$7,810 $9,284

26

0-34%

35-49%

50-74%

75-100%

62

48

8

82

85%

85%



All schools

Federal9%

State64%

Local

27%

^

^1schooldidnotreport.


38/139


SeeAppendixBorDelawaresdefnitionsoprofcientorreadingandmathematicsorgrades3,8,and10.

Seehttp://www.doe.state.de.us/docs/pd/de_edreportcard200304.pdormoredetailsonthestate-

wideaccountabilitysystem.State assessment or NCLB accountability:DelawareStudentTestingProgramState student achievement levels: WellBelowtheStandard,BelowtheStandard,MeetstheStandard,Distinguished,ExceedstheStandard


objective starting point (2002-03)Grade3 Reading 62%

description: tags: sei 02-03 final

Documents