DOCUMENT RESUME ED 427 135 UD 032 782 Title I in Midstream: State Examples. TITLE INSTITUTION Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC. PUB DATE 1998-00-00 NOTE 15p. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Accountability; *Compensatory Education; Disabilities; Educational Assessment; Elementary Secondary Education; *Federal Legislation; School Districts; *Standards; *State Programs; Testing Programs IDENTIFIERS *Improving Americas Schools Act 1994 Title I ABSTRACT The progress states have made toward fulfilling their requirements under Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act is reported. Some states are reporting that they have developed content standards for some subjects, but not for others. In some states, both local school district and state standards are being developed. In all, 43 states had content standards in mathematics as of January 1998, and 42 states had content standards in English language arts. By July 1998, the Department had approved the strategies and timetables for performance standards of 20 states and Puerto Rico toward implementing the kinds of assessments Title I requires, but 30 states and the District of Columbia were without an approved process for developing performance standards. By the time the law was enacted, a number of states had already mad-d gignifi_cant progress toward implementing the types of assessments Title I requires, but-many states had not, and many were silent on the subject of inclusion of limited-English-proficient students in assessment. Other assessment issues considered by some states and ignored by others were including native language assessments, assessing disabled students, and the disaggregation of assessment data. The accountability of states during the transition period is also discussed. Overall, states present a very mixed picture with regard to the requirements of Title I. (SLD) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Title I in Midstream State Examples By Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND CENTER (ERIC) DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS This document has been reproduced as BEEN GRANTED BY received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to pit improve reproduction quality. Vizen-sTcmissievvaliddeilifs. a Points of view or opinions stated in this TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES document do not necessarily represent INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) official OERI position or policy. 1 BEST COPY AVABABLE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON CIVIL*RIGHTS Washington, D.C. 20036 2000 M Street, N.W. 2021659-5565 Suite 400 (FAX) 2021223-5302 Title I in Midstream State Examples STANDARDS High Standards Only in Some Subjects that it had developed content In its consolidated state plan, Delaware informed the Department studies in June 1995, and was standards in mathematics, English language arts, science, and social linked to developing standards in additional subjects. The state also reported that assessments beginning in the these standards were being developed, and would be used for Title I purposes transitional assessment for Title 1998-99 school year. Until then, the state said, it would use a difficulty is that the state furnished the I accountability in math and reading/ language arts. The and running in science Department no evidence that it intended, once final assessments were up accountability system. In fact, the and social studies, to include their results in the state's Title I that, as required by plan is completely silent on the matter. So the Department has no assurance material expected by the state for Title I, students will be expected to master the broad range of all its students. reading, and writing which Kansas has content standards in mathematics, science, social studies, System. But the state plan requires only that reading and are aligned with the Kansas Assessment adequate progress. math scores be used to determine whether Title I schools are making standards in a wide range of Although Virginia indicated in its state plan that it had adopted science), and discussed subjects (including English, mathematics, history and social sciences, and limits Title I accountability plans to develop assessments aligned with these standards, the plan and reading/ language arts. (and school improvement) during the transition period to mathematics when, or whether, the state The plan does not clearly specify, and the Department did not ask, final assessments are will expand its Title I accountability system to include other subjects once in place. The Local Option: Dual Standards Within States statewide content standards, but The Department unconditionally approved Arizona's plan to have standards.) to let districts define their own Title I performance local standards. The state Alaska is a state which not only allows, but actually encourages, by districts is circulates model state standards to guide local school districts, but their adoption July 10, 1997, the voluntary. Districts may discard the models and start from scratch. As late as equaled or State had still not devised a way to ensure that Alaska's local districts' standards 3 In its own report reviewing federal education programs exceeded the model state standards. "The State must establish a process ... operating in the state, the Department noted at the outset: educational agencies, i.e., school districts] set standards for to determine that LEAs [local in the portion of the report spelling out themselves that meet or exceed [state standards]...." But, problems (and giving the state 60 days to specific steps needed to correct Title I compliance action. Further, the standards which are adopted respond), the Department required no corrective Matanuska- In the same review, the Department also found that the may not be taken seriously. have adopted the state's standards, did not Susitna Borough school district, which purported to been aligned with state standards; "staff members actually apply them. The curricula had not the standards"; and there were no plans to align produced desired outcomes that were not tied to curricula and assessments to state standards. and mathematics until December, 1997. Until California had no statewide standards in English left to develop its own standards, and even that time, each of the state's 1,052 school districts was their own is voluntary. Districts may choose to develop and use now, adoption of state standards be as rigorous as the state's, the reality often standards. While theoretically local standards must of standards example, the Sacramento Bee reported that the absence may be quite different. For of partially grasped concepts and diminished in Sacramento schools "translates into a subculture students to learn half the alphabet; third-grade expectations: first-grade teachers whose goal is for memorize the multiplication tables, hand out cheat teachers who give up trying to get students to read the social studies text aloud because the sheets and move on; fifth-grade teachers who teachers who assign posters for projects students can't understand it on their own; middle-school because the student's can't write reports." standards in six subject areas "to ensure a consistent Colorado has developed "model" content equity throughout the state," but each local level of educational quality, and race and gender Are and be able to do in content areas. district could define what its students should know of whom are eligible for the federal free-lunch standards for Denver students -- more than 50% the same as English proficient, and 70% of whom are minorities -- program, 20% are limited In the course of reviewing Colorado's students in predominantly white and affluent districts? Nor does the Department collect or assess plan, the Department did not ask and does not know. actually being applied locally. In a classic information that may have a bearing on the standards did not take knowing what the left hand was doing, the Department case of the right hand not reviewing Colorado's plan, its own Office for Civil account of the fact while its Title I office was Schools for possible civil rights violations that Rights (OCR) was investigating the Denver Public Denver's bilingual Title I compliance. OCR ultimately found that were substantially related to because, among other with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 program did not comply unqualified teachers, identify limited-English proficient students, used reasons, the district failed to exited the bilingual program. These findings were and did not follow up with students who had Department's Title I office gave the state a free pass issued in final form by OCR shortly after the OCR by removing conditions on its state plan. for the remainder of the authorization period, of Justice because it had been unable to negotiate since has referred the matter to the Department with the district. a compliance agreement reviewers generalized content standards, leading peer In its state plan, Virginia presented broad, concerning content "Does Virginia have more detailed guidance to question their workability: the is no other guidance and each LEA is given standards that it will provide to LEAs? If there 2 4 standards means and at what flexibility of defining for itself what each of these broad content grade levels it applies, how will Virginia align its assessment with what is being taught?" Virginia then clarified that standards are set at the state level, but they are optional for local districts, which have their own standards and can choose to conform them to state standards (or not). Content Standards 43 states had content standards in mathematics, as of January, 1998. Council of Basic Education concluded that, of these states: 16 states had very rigorous standards o 24 states had rigorous standards o states had less than rigorous standards. o 3 1998. 42 states had content standards in English language arts, as of January, Council of Basic Education concluded that, of these states: states had very rigorous standards o 7 21 states had rigorous standards o 14 states had standards of very low rigor. o The Default on Performance Standards Initial Plan Reviews: Plans Approved Without Standards performance standards Reviewers of the District of Columbia's plan noted that it had "student curricular area was not in writing, but a plan for developing similar standards for any other standards, and without found." The Department approved the District's plan without performance for developing performance standards. even the condition that they submit a strategy Inadequate Petformance Standards of performance as required by In its consolidated state plan, New Mexico outlined three levels levels were no more than Title I: "advanced," "proficient," and "partially proficient." But these standardized test, proposed for the purpose of cut-scores on the transitional assessment, a 3, 5, and 8, students would satisfying interim accountability requirements. For example, in grades low as the 1st percentile on the reading be considered "partially proficient" even if they ranked as (ITBS), a norm-referenced test. comprehension and math portions of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and 39th percentiles). Such a (The state defined "partially proficient" as scores between the 1st Nor were these standards aligned standard is not set at the high level called for under the law. valid performance standards within with state content standards. Therefore, they did not constitute Mexico's state plan on July 1, 1996, the meaning of the law. But the Department approved New and did not condition approval on correcting this defect. 3 5 Standards Revisited As of July 20, 1998: strategies and timetables for The Department had approved 20 states' and Puerto Rico's o Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, the development of performance standards: Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Texas, Vermont, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). approved process for developing 30 states and the District of Columbia were without an o performance standards. ASSESSMENTS The Local Option - Part II Uniform, Statewide Standards including Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, At the time the law was enacted, a number of states, toward developing statewide assessment and Texas already had made significant progress criterion-referenced assessments (CRTs). programs, usually based on Mixed State and Local Assessment Systems will participate in the state assessment program In Colorado, every school with grades 4, 8 and I I be Local assessments related to district standards will also at least once every three years. the comparability of achievement administered in these same grades by the year 2000. To ensure their assessment results with those from the state across the state, districts must compare (The state sample may not be the same every year assessment in the schools in the state sample. only once every three years.) because each school needs to participate in the state testing program locally developed standards, it still While this method provides some safeguards with respect to complicate the identification of schools allows for dilution of uniform state standards and could and districts failing to make adequate yearly progress. 1987, it has been limited to math and While Indiana has had a statewide assessment since standards in other subjects since the mid- reading/ language arts. Although the state has also had in these subjects, leaving to local school 1980s, it has chosen not to have statewide assessments if so, what assessments to use. districts the option of whether to test in these subjects and, Local Assessments school districts would develop their own California declared in its state plans that local (which could then supplement the comprehensive assessment systems during the transition period 4 6 (California since has designated the Stanford statewide assessment, once developed). Achievement Test, 9th edition (SAT-9), as its statewide assessment. Testing using the SAT-9 began in the 1997-98 school year). approved by the Montana allows each school district to select one of three norm-referenced tests adopting a uniform, statewide state Office of Public Instruction. There appears to be no plan for assessment. (Non-)Alignment with Standards that The District of Columbia submitted a plan which contained the vague assurance with the "[u]ltimately, [it] will have a comprehensive student assessment system that is aligned portfolios performance-based curriculum frameworks and includes alternative assessments such as Peer reviewers noted, however, that and student projects." The District has not described a plan for adopting assessments that are clearly aligned norm-referenced with the District's content standards. The plan discusses the adoption of with the content standards. tests, but does not describe any process for ensuring alignment teach one If the content standards are not aligned with the assessments, teachers may concept and students be assessed on something completely different. for aligning It should be noted that the Department did not require alignment, or even a strategy Instead, it raised the issue of standards and assessments, as a condition of plan approval. alignment as a "concern" when reviewing revisions to the District's plan. Assessing Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students Inclusion Policies silent on the subject of An astonishing number of state plans obtained by the Commission were Hawaii, Florida, LEP students' inclusion in assessments, including Alabama, Colorado, Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. inclusion, including the Most other states described or at least mentioned a state policy on LEP Delaware, District of Columbia, states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Mississippi, Nevada, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Rhode New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, majority of these Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. But the vast requirements for inclusion of LEP states failed to indicate how they would comply with Title I's students, appropriate accommodations, and native language assessments. said in their plans that Some states, like California, Indiana, Minnesota, and South Carolina, local school districts, they would leave decisions about whether or how to include LEP students to from the Title I leaving virtually no safeguards against unwarranted exclusion of LEP children accountability system. 5 EgT COPY AVAHABLE 7 Deficient State Plans for Inclusion and Accommodation Virginia's state plan contained no description of how (or whether) LEP students would be included in Title I assessments, whether they would be tested in their native languages, or whether students would receive testing accommodations, where appropriate. Apparently recognizing these deficiencies, the peer review panel asked for detail on the last two issues. However, by the time the state received these comments, the Department already had approved the state plan without, And when the state submitted plan conditioning approval on curing these deficiencies. amendments, it informed the Department that No process has been established by the state to identify languages other than English that may be spoken by students, regardless of the programs under which they may be served (e.g., Title I, Part A). Local school divisions, however, bear the responsibility of putting into practice the processes and procedures necessary to enable effective communication both in the provision of academic and educational services to students, and between the schools and parents. Based on the Virginia Constitutional provision that English is the language of the Commonwealth, it has been the consistent direction of the Board of Education that The Assessment Policy Advisory assessments will be provided in English only. Committee has recently reviewed the current policies related to LEP students and the new been approved assessment program. The draft of their findings is not complete nor has it at this time. Virginia's position Although an undated Department staff memo indicated a "major concern" with recommended, or taken, to the knowledge of the on LEP assessment, no enforcement action was Citizens' Commission. equity issues, the In response to questioning by the Department on a number of educational declined by Indiana Department of Education reported that while its total school enrollment had increased by 78 six percent, the number of LEP and language minority students in the state had submitted a plan which did percent in eight years. Despite this growing LEP population, Indiana in assessments, law by providing for not comply with the new Title inclusion full I that accommodations, and native language assessments, where appropriate. Instead, the plan said in the state the state would allow LEAs to exempt LEP and disabled students from participation Individual Education Plan." assessment, "based on their proficiency with the language and/or their LEP The plan went on to say that when LEAs and schools develop standards and assessments for and students, they "are assisted in developing tools that are appropriate for these students," provided that "alternative assessments that are performance based are to be tied to the same Indiana's plan without any content standards as the mainstream." The Department approved conditions related to LEP or disabled students' assessment. No Native Language Assessments than English for a A number of states exclude LEP students from assessments in subjects other Illinois is one of number of years, although the law does not expressly permit them to do so. from these states. Illinois' plan provided that it would exclude LEP students for up to three years time, the state the IGAP, the state assessment, while they attend bilingual classes. During this (although planned to assess such children in English proficiency, but in no other subject 6 8 The state plan explicitly presumably the children would be taught more than just English). admitted that Illinois "will not be translating tests into other languages" for its large LEP population, and conceded that until such children were deemed ready to take the English-only IGAP, "there will be no data about mathematics ability." Noting that 100 languages were spoken by its students, Connecticut's state plan maintained that it was "not feasible to develop assessments in languages other than English" and exempts English language learners enrolled in bilingual or English as a Second Language classes for less than three years. institute Many states, including some with large numbers of LEP students, expressed no intent to statewide assessments in languages other than English. Peer reviewers of New Mexico's plan, for example, noted as a plan weakness that there was "[n]o mention of non-English tests except in [discussion on optional] local assessment .... This is a serious concern given the demographics of New Mexico." Plans Including Native Language Assessments Unlike many of their compatriots, several state plans at least said that they would develop or use native language assessments. These states included Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Texas. However, in many cases even these plans were inadequate. For example, burden on local districts to develop or a number of states, including California, placed the Further, two years after states submitted these procure suitable native language assessments. plans, many states still have not developed native language assessments. Assessing Disabled Students Many state plans made no mention of a policy for including disabled students in state assessments. These included states like At best, they noted that accommodations would be provided. North Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as well as Puerto Rico. In states whose plans did provide for inclusion, the inclusion policy was often vague or unclear. applied to For example, state plans frequently were vague about whether inclusion provisions students transitional assessments, final assessments, or both. They omitted criteria for excluding provide. with disabilities. Or they neglected to describe what accommodations, if any, they would Indiana, States in this category include Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Dakota, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont. LE AVM114k rn IEST COPY 7 9 Disaggregation After Final Assessments in Place that the results of their final assessments Only a few states' plans and Puerto Rico's clearly said Alabama, Illinois, New York, would be reported by all six categories. These states included: Wyoming. Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and with respect to disaggregation of Many plans approved by the Department were completely silent Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, final assessment results, including the District of Columbia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Washington. Many plans were approved South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and by the required categories. without a clear commitment to report final assessment results Missouri, New Some states, like Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, o of the required Jersey, North Dakota, and Rhode Island, mentioned only some categories. they would disaggregate Others (such as Michigan and New Hampshire) flatly stated that o by which categories. -- but did not say Still others, like Louisiana, Minnesota, and Nevada, were unclear or vague. o ACCOUNTABILITY Accountability During the Transition Period Poor Transitional Criteria schools and districts in need of Washington, during the transition period, proposed to identify testing program" in Grades improvement by using reading and math scores from the "current state (The state will be piloting a new grade 11. 4 and 8, and results from math and English in proposed to identify as "potential candidates" assessment during the transition period). The state period, "the percentage for district improvement those districts that do not reduce, over a two-year reading or math." But the plan failed of students scoring at or below the 25th percentile in either Washington will actually place its candidates in district to specify on what, if any, basis again set no definitive criteria, improvement. As for schools in need of improvement, the state schools in need of improvement. A panel but merely said it would assist districts in identifying high standards for all students?" of three peer reviewers questioned, "Will this criterion lead to rather low and fuzzy bar for school The panel apparently recognized that the state had set a Yet modification of improvement, and did not intend to require any substantial progress. approval. transitional improvement criteria was not a condition of plan yearly progress as "grade level West Virginia's original plan simply defined adequate achievement at or above the 50th achievement at the elementary level and standardized test When the Department required percentile at the secondary level," with no further explanation. outlined the following process for further clarification of the transitional criteria, the state - 8 - 1 0