Chapter III:
Disaggregation and Public Reporting

What does the law require?

Section 1111(b) (3)(I) of Title I requires that state assessment results be disaggregated at the State, local educational agency, and school level by the following categories:  “by gender, by each major racial and ethnic group, by English proficiency status, by migrant status, by students with disabilities as compared to non-disabled students, and by economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged.” 

Why is disaggregation an important civil rights provision?

When assessment results and other outcome measures are reported by race, gender and other categories, parents and others have help in determining whether schools, districts and states are providing all children with equal educational opportunities.  Often average scores are reported, which mask achievement gaps.  When disaggregated scores are reported over time, parents and school administrators can determine which schools are making progress in closing achievement gaps and which ones need to change what they are doing.

How have the states fallen short of the requirement?

Thirty of the thirty-four states reviewed were advised by the Department that their plans for disaggregating assessment results did not fully satisfy Title I requirements.  For example:

·        Some states did not include a migrant category.  These states included California, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

·         Others did not disaggregate by disabled and non-disabled students including: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

·        Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington did not meet requirements for disaggregating results for economically disadvantaged versus non-economically disadvantaged students.

·        States including Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and Vermont did not disaggregate for limited English proficient students.

There were also states whose failures were across-the-board.  They were not ready, even after six years of notice, to disaggregate the data as required by the Title I statute and the 1994 amendments.

·        West Virginia will be disaggregating data for the first time with the 2000-01-test administration.

·        The method used by Nebraska to “collect individual student data does not readily accommodate the aggregation of data from the school level to the state and district level and disaggregation of student performance information by the six categories required by the Title I statute.”

·        Peer reviewers found that Mississippi had not yet begun to disaggregate by the categories required by Title I.