+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | ######## Policy and Program Studies Service   |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

## Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE): First-Year Findings 

2004

+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
|                           |                           | ![           |
|                           |                           | ](media/imag |
|                           |                           | e1.wmf){widt |
|                           |                           | h="1.5173611 |
|                           |                           | 111111112in" |
|                           |                           | height       |
|                           |                           | ="1.51736111 |
|                           |                           | 11111112in"} |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
| **[U.S. Department of     | **[Office of the Under    |              |
| Education]{.smallcaps}**  | Secretary]{.smallcaps}**  |              |
|                           |                           |              |
| **[Doc \#                 |                           |              |
| 2004-01]{.smallcaps}**    |                           |              |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+

## Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE): First-Year Findings 

Prepared by:

SRI International:

Patrick M. Shields

Camille Esch

Andrea Lash

Christine Padilla

Katrina Woodworth

Policy Studies Associates:

Katrina G. Laguarda

Nicholas Winter

For:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

2004

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract Number ED00CO0091 with SRI International. Collette Roney served
as the contracting officer's representative. The views expressed herein
do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department
of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of
Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Rod Paige

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Eugene W. Hickok

*Under Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies**

David Goodwin

*Director*

April 2004

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 suggested citation is: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies
Service, *Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School
Improvement Efforts (TASSIE): First-Year Findings*, Washington, D.C.,
2004.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/tassie1/ and
<http://www.ed.gov/ous/ppss/reports.html#title>.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

Contents

**Executive Summary** vii

**I. Introduction** 1

> Background: Accountability Provisions of Title I 1
>
> Overview of the Study 5

**II. Identification of Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement** 9

> Characteristics of Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement\
> under Title I in 2001-02 9
>
> How States and Districts Define Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and
> Identify\
> Schools for Improvement under Title I 13
>
> Alignment of Title I Accountability with Accountability Systems\
> for All Schools 18
>
> Communication about Schools Identified for Improvement 19

**III. Support and Interventions for Low-Performing Schools and Title I\
Schools Identified for Improvement** 23

> District Support for School Planning and Data Use 24
>
> District Support for Professional Development 26
>
> District Support for Resource Allocation 27
>
> District Support for the Implementation of New Curricula 28
>
> Use of School Support Teams, Site-Based Professional Developers and\
> Special Grants 29
>
> Variation in Capacity to Provide Assistance by District Size 31
>
> Public School Choice 35
>
> Corrective Actions and School Restructuring 38

**IV. Conclusions** 43

**References** 45

**Exhibits**

Exhibit 1 Key Accountability Requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP)\
and Identifying Schools for Improvement 3

Exhibit 2 Key Requirements for Assistance and Consequences for Schools\
and Districts Identified for Improvement, Corrective Action and\
Restructuring 5

Exhibit 3 AYP Definitions in Five States, 2001-02 14

Exhibit 4 Distributions of School Performance, for Maryland Schools\
with Elementary Students 16

Exhibit 5 Distributions of School Performance, for Louisiana Schools\
with Elementary Students 16

Exhibit 6 Two Maryland Districts Provided Extensive Curricular Guidance
27

Exhibit 7 Washington State Targeted Identified Schools for the Adoption\
of New Reading Programs 27

Exhibit 8 Louisiana Provided Tools for Identified Schools to Use Data
in\
Their Improvement Plans 31

Exhibit 9 District Reports of Strategies Used to Provide Assistance to\
Low-Performing Schools 32

Exhibit 10 District Reports of Assistance Provided to Low-Performing\
Schools to Ensure Consistency of Curriculum and Instruction\
with State or District Standards 33

Exhibit 11 Arizona Department of Education Provided Grants to "Most\
in Need" Schools 35

Exhibit 12 District Reports of Available Public School Choice Options 36

Exhibit 13 District Reports of Corrective Actions Taken with Schools\
Identified for Improvement under Title I 39

**Tables**

Table 1 Schools Identified for Improvement and All Title I Schools,\
by District Size and Grade Level Distributions 11

Table 2 Size and Poverty Distributions of Districts with at Least One\
School Identified for Improvement under Title I and All\
Districts That Receive Title I Funds 12

Table 3 Public Reporting of Disaggregated Data, Among Districts with\
a Subgroup Enrollment of 10 Percent or More, by District Size 22

Table 4 District Rankings of School Improvement Strategies,\
Among Districts with Low-Performing Schools 25

Table 5 Districts with Low-Performing Schools Reporting That Schools
Had\
Access to Student Achievement Data, Disaggregated for Various\
Student Subpopulations 26

Table 6 Reasons Schools Were Required to Adopt New Curricula, Among\
Districts with Identified Schools That Reported Requiring Some or\
All Schools to Adopt New Curricula 29

Table 7 Strategies for Providing Assistance, as Reported by
Administrators\
of Districts with Low-Performing Schools and Principals of\
Identified Schools 30

Table 8 Source of Assistance Provided to Low-Performing Schools 34

Table 9 District Reports of Challenges to Successful Implementation of\
Public School Choice, Among Districts with Schools Identified for
Improvement under Title I 38

Table 10 District Reports of Assistance Provided to Schools in
Corrective\
Action, Among Districts with Schools in Corrective Action 40

Executive Summary

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) frames a common goal for educators:
to ensure that no child, regardless of background, is left behind by the
nation's education system. NCLB, the 2001 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), strengthened
accountability requirements for schools, districts and their states.

This report examines the implementation of ESEA Title I accountability
provisions in 2001-02, the first year of the three-year *Evaluation of
Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts* (TASSIE),
and the final year in which ESEA as it existed prior to NCLB, was still
in effect. The data reported here will serve as a baseline against which
to track the implementation of NCLB. Subsequent TASSIE reports will
focus on the implementation of NCLB in the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school
years.

The ESEA, as reauthorized by the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA)
of 1994, required states to establish challenging standards, implement
assessments that measure students' performance against those standards
and hold schools and school systems accountable for the achievement of
all students. States were also required to define criteria for measuring
*adequate yearly progress* (AYP) in school performance for Title I
schools and districts. Schools and districts that did not make AYP for
two consecutive years were identified for improvement. This document
focuses on Title I accountability provisions as they were implemented in
2001-02 for schools identified for improvement because of failure to may
AYP in previous years. Specifically, it covers:

1.  **Title I schools identified as in need of improvement,** including
    how many there were, their characteristics, the process by which
    they were identified and how states and districts communicated with
    and about them.

2.  **Support and interventions for Title I schools identified as in
    need of improvement,** including the types of support provided,
    efforts to offer school choice to students in identified schools and
    the corrective actions taken by districts in schools that did not
    make progress.

Throughout, the document contrasts IASA with NCLB and comments on the
implications of the findings for the implementation of NCLB. Evaluation
methods included surveys of districts and Title I schools identified as
in need of improvement in those districts, as well as case studies of a
set of identified Title I schools in districts in five states.

# Title I Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement

### Numbers and Characteristics

**In 2001-02, approximately 8,078 schools or 21 percent of all Title I
schools nationwide had been identified for improvement under Title I
based on previous years' assessment results.** These identified schools
were concentrated in a relatively small proportion (21 percent) of Title
I districts.

**Schools in the nation's very largest districts were more likely to be
identified for improvement, compared with schools in other districts.**
An estimated 37 percent of schools in very large districts (those with
enrollments over 37,740) were identified for improvement, twice the
identification rate of 17 percent in small and medium districts.

**However, because there are relatively few very large districts and
many more small and medium Title I districts in the nation, the largest
*numbers* of schools identified for improvement were located in small
and medium districts.** Districts with enrollments below 10,449
contained 52 percent of all identified schools, and districts with
enrollments under 3,504 contained nearly a third (32 percent) of
identified schools. Almost two-thirds of the districts with a school
identified for improvement under Title I were small, while very large
districts represented just 3 percent of the total number of districts
with identified schools.

**Districts with identified schools were more likely to be in the
highest-poverty category than were Title I districts in general.**
Forty-four percent of all districts with identified schools were in the
highest-poverty category (i.e., districts with poverty rates above 22
percent), compared with 26 percent of all Title I districts.

### How States and Districts Defined Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Identified Schools for Improvement Under Title I

How states and districts defined AYP under Title I of IASA affected the
number and types of schools identified for improvement. IASA required
states to set targets for school performance. These targets could be
absolute or relative, summarized across subjects and aggregated for all
students at a school. NCLB, in contrast, contains more specific criteria
for AYP, including an end point of all students achieving proficiency by
2013-14 and accountability for the achievement of key subgroups of
students. Both IASA and NCLB, however, place final responsibility for
the details of AYP definitions in the hands of state and local
policymakers.

**Under IASA, AYP definitions varied widely from state to state.**
States assessed AYP in different ways. Thirty-three states relied
entirely on relative-growth models where schools made AYP if their
assessment scores meet a target based on specific improvement compared
with their past performance and often their distance from state
performance goals. Twelve more combined some form of relative-growth
model with requirements that schools meet an absolute performance target
as well (Council of Chief State School Officers 2002). States also
differed in the measures they adopted to assess school performance.

**Great variation also existed in the identification rates of schools
across states. The difference among states in their AYP definitions was
one factor, along with the rigor of assessments and the actual
performance level of students, that accounted for this variation.** For
example, in 2000-01, based on previous years' assessment results, six
states reported identifying 1 percent or fewer of their Title I schools
(Florida and Wyoming identified no schools), 10 states identified
between 10 percent and 20 percent of their schools, and three states
identified more than 30 percent of their schools (Michigan, Hawaii and
Georgia) (U.S. Department of Education 2002).

**Under IASA, the majority of states relied primarily on relative-growth
models to define AYP, sometimes causing relatively high-performing
schools to be identified for improvement while other, lower-performing
schools were not identified.** Under NCLB, absolute measures of
performance are much more important in determining AYP. NCLB requires
that states adopt a status model for determining AYP, in which
benchmarks are the same for all schools statewide; measures of growth
(as provided for under the legislation's "safe harbor" provision) will
apply only if schools do not meet these absolute benchmarks. As states
comply with this requirement, less overlap in performance may occur
between identified and non-identified schools.

**The implementation of district identification systems, required under
both IASA and NCLB, was proceeding slowly in 2001-02.** In spring 2002,
two-thirds of districts reported that their state had begun to review
the progress of districts under a definition of AYP developed for the
districts by the state. Of these districts, 15 percent reported that
they were identified for improvement under Title I.

### Alignment of Title I Accountability with Accountability Systems for All Schools 

IASA called on states to have a single---or "unitary"---accountability
system in which Title I students are held to the same high standards for
achievement as their non-Title I peers. Yet states without statewide
assessment systems were allowed to have Title** **I-only accountability
systems. NCLB requires that states use the same accountability system
(including assessment instruments and goals for AYP) for all schools,
Title I and non-Title I.

**In 2001-02, most states did not have unitary accountability systems
that applied the same criteria for identification for improvement to
both Title I and non-Title I schools**.

### Communication about Schools Identified for Improvement

Under IASA, states and districts were required to inform schools of
their status and to issue individual school profiles. NCLB strengthens
the reporting provisions by specifying that states and districts must
issue "report cards" with state assessment results and lists of schools
identified for improvement. NCLB also requires that data on student
subgroups and the Title I improvement status of a school be reported.

**Under IASA, there was a lack of clarity about the particulars of how
and which schools are identified for improvement.** Forty-one percent of
principals of schools identified for improvement in 2001-02 reported
that they had not been identified or did not know if they had been
identified for improvement. Even among principals who agreed with their
districts or states that they were identified for improvement, almost a
third reported some uncertainty about the criteria they would need to
meet to exit improvement status. As AYP definitions become more standard
within and across states under NCLB, state education agencies and
districts may find it easier to communicate with schools about specific
expectations for performance.

**In 2001-02, report cards were prepared and actively disseminated in
almost all districts.** In addition, public reporting of achievement
data for student subgroups was relatively common: between one-half and
two-thirds of districts that enrolled significant proportions of
minority students, limited-English-proficient (LEP) students and
students with disabilities reported that data were already being
disaggregated for these groups, as well as by gender, in public
reporting on schools. (Disaggregation by economically disadvantaged
status was slightly less common, being reported by 45 percent of
districts that enroll significant numbers of economically disadvantaged
students.) State and district reporting often included information on
state assessment results (in 97 percent of districts), and comparisons
with other schools and districts in the state (in 81 percent of
districts). However, reporting on the Title I school improvement status,
as is now required under NCLB, was done much less frequently. In
2001-02, 46 percent of districts reported that their state reported this
information, about a third reported that the district itself reported
it, and about a third reported that schools did.

# Support and Interventions for Title I Schools Identified for Improvement

Under both IASA and NCLB, Title I identified schools must develop school
plans, are eligible for assistance and face increasingly strong
consequences the longer they do not make AYP. NCLB adds a much greater
emphasis on parental choice by providing options for parents to move
their children to schools not identified as in need of improvement and
to choose supplemental educational services for their children. NCLB
also provides more specific guidance regarding schools in corrective
action and those subject to restructuring, requiring districts to
implement one of the steps outlined in the legislation.

**In 2001-02, districts were actively seeking to support schools
identified for improvement, most commonly through approaches such as
school planning, use of student achievement data to plan and monitor
progress and professional development for teachers.**

-   Ninety-five percent of districts with low-performing schools
    assigned staff to work with schools to analyze student achievement
    data to identify the specific academic problems that caused the
    school to be identified.

-   Eighty-four percent assigned staff to work with schools to identify
    research-based improvement strategies.

-   Half of districts with low-performing schools reported assisting
    these schools by placing a "major focus" on increasing the quality
    and quantity of professional development.

-   Seventy percent of these districts reported assigning staff to work
    with schools to analyze and revise the school's budget so that
    school resources were effectively allocated for the activities that
    were most likely to increase student performance.

-   Similarly, 69 percent of districts with low-performing schools
    reported assigning staff to work with schools to review staffing
    plans.

-   Almost 65 percent of districts with low-performing schools required
    some or all of their schools to adopt new reading and language arts
    curricula in the last three years; more than 50 percent required the
    adoption of new math curricula.

**However, few identified schools were receiving resource-intensive
support, such as coaches or distinguished educators.** Fewer than half
of all identified schools reported receiving assistance from school
support teams or additional staff assigned to provide professional
development or coach the principal. Overall, larger districts with
low-performing schools were more likely than smaller districts to report
the provision of resource-intensive support, including school support
teams, special grants, full-time staff developers and mentors for
principals. Similarly, larger districts were more likely than smaller
districts to provide more resource-intensive types of support for
curriculum alignment. Most districts, regardless of size, do appear to
have the capacity to pursue less-resource-intensive strategies, such as
helping schools develop school plans, providing support for professional
development and resource reallocation or requiring schools to adopt new
curricula.

District policy regarding support and assistance did not always
distinguish between schools identified for improvement under Title I and
other low-performing schools---or even all schools.

### School Choice 

**Nationwide, 41 percent of all Title I districts (an estimated 4,521)
reported offering some sort of public school choice option during the
2001-02 school year.** For Title I under IASA, Congress added
requirements in 1999 and 2000 that school choice be offered to students
in certain Title I schools. A little more than half (54 percent) of
districts (approximately 1,217) with identified Title I schools offered
public school choice during the 2001-02 school year. However, these
choice options did not necessarily meet the criteria now specified under
NCLB that parents be notified of choice options before the start of the
school year and that transferring students be provided with
transportation to nonidentified schools.

Under IASA, few districts provided parents of students in identified
schools with the choice to transfer to alternative public schools with
transportation provided in 2001-02. Only 7 percent of all Title I
districts and 12 percent of districts with schools identified for
improvement offered transfers to an alternate public school within the
district, with transportation provided.

**In making choice options available to parents, districts with
identified Title I schools often faced structural challenges: lack of
space in alternate schools, lack of transportation to alternate schools
and the lack of alternate schools within the district**. The new federal
requirements for Title I choice under NCLB, unlike the earlier IASA
policies, do not exempt districts facing these obstacles from the
requirement to offer choice.

### Corrective Actions and School Restructuring 

**Districts, allowed to define corrective actions locally under IASA,
were much more likely to take actions with identified schools that might
be characterized as assistance rather than as sanctions in 2001-02.**
Districts were required to take corrective actions with schools during
their third year in improvement status. Districts most frequently took
three corrective actions: requiring the implementation of a new
research-based curriculum (49 percent), extending the school day or year
(39 percent) and appointing an outside expert to advise the school (32
percent). These are among the corrective actions in NCLB that districts
must select from for schools that continue to not make AYP. Larger
districts were more likely than smaller districts to report that
corrective-action status schools receive greater monitoring and
oversight, more intensive support from technical assistance providers
and larger school improvement grants than other schools identified for
improvement.

**Overall, only 2 percent of districts with identified schools imposed
any one action associated with restructuring under NCLB, and fewer than
5 percent of districts that were required to take corrective actions
with identified Title I schools did so. In both cases, these more severe
actions were taken only in districts where the accountability system had
been in place at least three years.**

Under IASA, districts were not required to take corrective actions if
their states did not yet have an assessment system approved under Title
I, and only 21 states had these final assessment systems in place as of
October 2002. Unlike IASA, NCLB requires districts to impose corrective
actions no matter what the Title I approval status of their state's
assessment and accountability systems. Moreover, NCLB additionally
requires that districts begin to plan for "restructuring" actions (e.g.,
replacing the principal and staff) in schools that do not make AYP for
three years *after* being identified for improvement. As a result, these
stronger consequences may occur more commonly under NCLB.

# Conclusions

Findings from the first year (2001-02) of the *Evaluation of Title I
Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts* (TASSIE) suggest
that states, districts, and schools are well positioned to meet many of
the challenges of implementing rigorous accountability systems for NCLB
but will need to make substantial changes to meet certain provisions of
the law. Specifically, in terms of progress, the evaluation found:

-   Nearly all states and districts had standards that applied to all
    students, had or were developing assessment systems aligned with
    those standards and had processes in place for identifying
    low-performing schools.

-   Most states and districts had mechanisms---such as school report
    cards---for informing parents and the public about the achievement
    of students in individual schools.

-   In most places, publicly reported data were already being
    disaggregated by student subpopulations, although not by all
    subgroups required under NCLB.

-   Most districts were actively seeking to support schools identified
    for improvement, especially through school planning, the use of
    assessment data for decision-making, and teacher professional
    development.

-   Many states and districts already were providing some school choice
    options to parents, often through districtwide open enrollment
    policies.

At the same time, in other areas, states and districts have a long way
to go to meet both the letter and the spirit of NCLB. For instance, in
2001-02:

-   Many states continued to operate accountability systems that applied
    different standards to Title I schools.

-   The criteria used to identify schools for improvement under Title I
    varied widely from state to state, and some states relied heavily on
    measures of growth in student achievement to assess school
    performance.

-   Few states had fully implemented practices for identifying
    low-performing *districts* under Title I.

-   School staffs in particular were often confused about the specifics
    of the identification process and of how and whether their school
    was identified for improvement.

-   Few schools were receiving resource-intensive support, such as
    coaches or distinguished educators.

-   Many district efforts to support low-performing schools made little
    distinction between schools identified under Title I and other
    low-performing schools.

-   Most districts did not have experience implementing the corrective
    action strategies for schools outlined in NCLB.

-   State and district efforts to provide parental choice often would
    not meet the requirements in NCLB.

The *Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement
Efforts* (TASSIE) will continue to track state, district and school
implementation of the Title I accountability requirements in the 2002-03
and 2003-04 school years. Findings reported here profile the status of
implementation just prior to NCLB compared to the expectations NCLB sets
for Title I accountability. Future reports will further describe the
changes in state, district and school practice that occur under NCLB.

I Introduction

Local practitioners and state policymakers are focused on implementing
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110), which in 2001
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). At the
same time, federal policy- makers are working to help educators meet
both the letter and the spirit of the law: to ensure that no child,
regardless of background, is left behind by the nation's education
system.

This document reports the key findings from the first year of the
*Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement
Efforts* (TASSIE), which examines districts' and schools' implementation
of Title I of ESEA's accountability provisions. The data reported here
were collected during the 2001-02 school year and serve as a baseline
against which to track the implementation of NCLB. The 2001-02 school
year was the last year in which the 1994 reauthorization of
ESEA---entitled the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) (P.L.
103-382)---was still in effect.

NCLB provisions began to take effect in the 2002-03 school year.
Subsequent TASSIE reports will focus on the implementation of NCLB in
the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years. This document focuses on key
issues that have implications for the implementation of NCLB: the
process by which schools receiving Title I funds are identified as being
in need of improvement, which schools are identified, how districts
support identified schools and what interventions are taken with
identified schools.

# Background: Accountability Provisions of Title I

The Improving America's Schools Act (1994) introduced a standards-based
accountability system into the Title I program. IASA required states to
establish challenging standards, implement assessments that measure
students' performance against those standards and hold schools and
school systems accountable for the achievement of all students. IASA
also required states to define criteria for measuring *adequate yearly
progress* (AYP) in school performance for Title I schools and districts.
Schools and districts that did not make AYP for two consecutive years
were identified for improvement. These schools were required to develop
school improvement plans and were to be provided with technical
assistance. Schools that continued to not make AYP for more than two
consecutive years became subject to a series of more serious "corrective
actions."

The implementation of the IASA legislation and of the broader
standards-based reform movement has been far-reaching: nearly all states
have adopted standards, created assessment systems aligned with these
standards and implemented accountability measures for school
performance. Yet, progress toward meeting both the letter and spirit of
IASA was mixed. Periodic shifts in assessment measures limited the
number of states that could track student performance over a number of
years (Manise, Blank and Dardine 2001). As states struggled to meet
federal expectations, they settled on quite different definitions of
what it means for a school to make AYP. Partially as a result of these
differences, the proportions of schools identified for improvement
varied from a few percent in certain states to more than 70 percent in
others (U.S. Department of Education 2001). States have also struggled
to coordinate and align their own accountability provisions with those
called for in IASA. In many states, schools found themselves subject to
both state and federal systems of accountability---one for the state and
one for Title I (O'Day 1999). By school year 2001-02, IASA's final year,
only 21 states had achieved final approval from the U.S. Department of
Education for their assessment systems.

The No Child Left Behind Act seeks to address the shortcomings and
uneven implementation of accountability systems under Title I. NCLB
follows the basic philosophy of IASA: high standards for all students,
establishment of clear performance goals and accountability for results.
Yet, the new legislation clarifies a number of provisions, adds rigor to
AYP definitions and includes requirements that ensure more uniformity
across states.

Exhibit 1 compares the key Title I accountability provisions regarding
the definition of AYP and the identification of schools identified as in
need of improvement in IASA to those in NCLB. Both laws have the same
basic structure for accountability: establishment of a definition of AYP
toward state goals and the identification of schools and districts that
do not meet those goals. There are some important differences, however.
Under NCLB, states will have to test all students in each of grades 3
through 8 annually, as well as once between grades 10 and 12, in reading
or language arts and mathematics by 2005-06, and in science by 2007-08
(although NCLB does not require that science assessments be used to
determine AYP). IASA had required testing only in mathematics and
reading, and only once in each of the three grade spans (elementary,
middle, and high school). Under NCLB, states must also follow more
specific requirements for defining AYP. NCLB requires AYP definitions
based on goals of all students reaching proficiency in a specified time
period, where IASA did not require goals for all students reaching
proficiency or end dates for reaching student achievement goals. To AYP
calculations based primarily on state assessment results in reading or
language arts and mathematics, NCLB adds minimum assessment
participation rates of 95 percent, graduation rates for high schools and
at least one other state-selected academic indicator for elementary and
middle schools. States are required to establish baseline measures using
test data from the 2001-02 school year for both reading or language arts
and mathematics. States must then ensure that all students reach
state-defined proficiency levels in reading and mathematics in 12 years
or by the 2013-14 school year. In addition, states must set intermediate
goals between 2002-03 and 2013-14 that will be used to gauge schools'
AYP. Unlike IASA, NCLB requires that states hold schools accountable for
reaching AYP targets for students in each major subgroup at the school
(major racial and ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged students,
students with disabilities and LEP students).

Exhibit 1: Key Accountability Requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) and Identifying Schools for Improvement

+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Requir | **IASA**               | **NCLB**                         |
| ements** |                        |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Per      | Annual state           | Annual state assessments in      |
| formance | assessments in reading | reading or language arts and     |
| measures | or language arts and   | math. Assessments must be        |
| used in  | math at least once in  | administered at least once in    |
| AYP      | each of the following  | grades 3-5 and 6-9 until 2005-06 |
| def      | grade spans: 3-5, 6-9, | when all grades 3-8 must be      |
| initions | and 10-12. States      | assessed; assessments also must  |
|          | could include          | be administered at least once in |
|          | additional indicators. | grades 10-12. Assessment         |
|          |                        | participation rates, graduation  |
|          |                        | rates, and another academic      |
|          |                        | indicator for elementary and     |
|          |                        | middle schools. States can       |
|          |                        | include additional indicators.   |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Criteria | Targets for school     | Must include absolute targets    |
| for      | performance could be   | for each measure of school       |
| state    | absolute or relative,  | performance. Participation rate  |
| def      | summarized across      | targets must be at least 95      |
| initions | subjects or not.       | percent.                         |
| of AYP   |                        |                                  |
| for      | No timeline for gains  | Must provide for all students    |
| schools  | or students reaching   | reaching proficiency within 12   |
|          | proficiency.           | years, set annual objectives and |
|          |                        | intermediate goals. Baseline     |
|          | Results could be       | must be calculated following     |
|          | aggregated for all     | specific formula.                |
|          | students or            |                                  |
|          | disaggregated by       | Must include separate, absolute  |
|          | student groups.        | targets for key groups of        |
|          |                        | students (all, major racial and  |
|          | Districts could use    | ethnic groups, economically      |
|          | additional criteria to | disadvantaged students, students |
|          | add or delete schools  | with disabilities, and LEP       |
|          | from state lists.      | students).                       |
|          |                        |                                  |
|          |                        | Districts may use additional     |
|          |                        | criteria to add, but not         |
|          |                        | subtract, schools to state lists |
|          |                        | of identified schools.           |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| AYP for  | States created         | Formula for AYP for districts    |
| d        | definitions for        | same as for schools.             |
| istricts | district AYP based on  |                                  |
|          | state assessments in   |                                  |
|          | reading and math.      |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Identi   | Schools that do not    | Schools that do not make AYP:    |
| fication | make AYP:              |                                  |
| of       |                        | -   For two consecutive years    |
| schools  | -   For two            |     are identified as in need of |
| for      |     consecutive years  |     improvement under Title I.   |
| impr     |     were identified as |                                  |
| ovement, |     in need of         | -   For four years are           |
| co       |     improvement under  |     identified for corrective    |
| rrective |     Title I.           |     action.                      |
| action   |                        |                                  |
| and      | -   After three years  | -   For five and six years are   |
| restr    |     in improvement     |     identified for restructuring |
| ucturing |     status were        |     (planning for restructuring  |
|          |     identified for     |     for one year, then           |
|          |     corrective action. |     restructuring the following  |
|          |                        |     year).                       |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Identi   | Districts that did not | Districts that do not make AYP   |
| fication | make AYP               | for two consecutive years are    |
| of       |                        | identified as in need of         |
| d        | for two consecutive    | improvement under Title I.       |
| istricts | years were identified  |                                  |
| for      | as in need of          | Districts that do not make AYP   |
| imp      | improvement under      | for four years are identified    |
| rovement | Title I.               | for corrective action under      |
|          |                        | Title I.                         |
|          | After four years of    |                                  |
|          | improvement status     |                                  |
|          | were identified for    |                                  |
|          | corrective action      |                                  |
|          | under Title I.         |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+

Exhibit 1: Key Accountability Requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) and Identifying Schools for Improvement (Concluded)

  ------------------ ------------------------- ----------------------------------
  **Requirements**   **IASA**                  **NCLB**

  Single, statewide  States with a statewide   All students must be assessed by
  system             assessment required to    the same state assessment and AYP
                     apply AYP definitions to  definitions must apply to all
                     all schools in the state. schools in the state, Title I and
                     Other states allowed to   non-Title I.
                     implement assessment and  
                     accountability systems    
                     only for Title I.         

  Public reporting   Districts required to     State and district report cards
                     publish "individual       required to include information on
                     school profiles."         state assessment results, schools
                                               and districts identified for
                                               improvement, and certain other
                                               information.
  ------------------ ------------------------- ----------------------------------

Exhibit 2 compares the key provisions regarding assistance to and
consequences for schools and districts identified as in need of
improvement in IASA to those in NCLB. Again there are many similarities:
under both IASA and NCLB identified schools must develop school plans,
are eligible for assistance, and face increasingly stronger consequences
the longer they do not make AYP. Yet, NCLB also places much greater
emphasis on parental choice, providing options for parents to move their
children to schools not identified as in need of improvement and to
choose supplemental educational services for their children. NCLB also
provides more specific guidance regarding schools in corrective action
and those subject to restructuring, requiring districts to implement one
of the steps outlined in the legislation. Under IASA, corrective actions
were defined by the district and state.

Exhibit 2: Key Requirements for Assistance and Consequences for Schools
and Districts Identified for Improvement, Corrective Action and
Restructuring

+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Requir | **IASA**               | **NCLB**                         |
| ements** |                        |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Cons     | Schools must develop   | Schools must develop or revise a |
| equences | or revise a school     | school improvement plan.         |
| for      | improvement plan.      |                                  |
| schools  |                        | Districts must provide technical |
| id       | Districts must provide | assistance to identified         |
| entified | technical assistance   | schools.                         |
| as in    | to identified schools. |                                  |
| need of  |                        | Parents of students in           |
| imp      |                        | identified schools must be       |
| rovement |                        | offered school choice.           |
|          |                        |                                  |
|          |                        | Districts must offer students    |
|          |                        | from low-income families in      |
|          |                        | identified schools supplemental  |
|          |                        | educational services from an     |
|          |                        | approved provider (beginning     |
|          |                        | year 2).                         |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Cons     | Districts must         | Consequences from years 1 and 2  |
| equences | implement "corrective  | of improvement continue.         |
| for      | action" as defined by  |                                  |
| schools  | the state and district | Districts must implement one of  |
| id       | if state assessment    | a series of "corrective actions" |
| entified | system was approved by | defined in legislation.          |
| for      | ED.                    |                                  |
| co       |                        |                                  |
| rrective |                        |                                  |
| action   |                        |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Cons     | Not applicable.        | Districts must spend first year  |
| equences |                        | planning to implement at least   |
| for      |                        | one of a series of school        |
| schools  |                        | "restructuring efforts." During  |
| id       |                        | second year, district must       |
| entified |                        | implement school restructuring   |
| for      |                        | plan.                            |
| restr    |                        |                                  |
| ucturing |                        |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Cons     | Districts must develop | Districts must develop or revise |
| equences | or revise a district   | a school improvement plan.       |
| for      | improvement plan.      |                                  |
| d        | State must provide     | States must provide technical    |
| istricts | technical assistance   | assistance to identified         |
| id       | to the district.       | districts.                       |
| entified |                        |                                  |
| for      |                        |                                  |
| imp      |                        |                                  |
| rovement |                        |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Cons     | States must implement  | States must implement one of a   |
| equences | "corrective action" as | series of "corrective actions"   |
| for      | defined by the state   | for identified districts.        |
| d        | for identified         |                                  |
| istricts | districts.             |                                  |
| id       |                        |                                  |
| entified |                        |                                  |
| for      |                        |                                  |
| co       |                        |                                  |
| rrective |                        |                                  |
| action   |                        |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+
| State    | States required to     | States required to have school   |
| as       | have school support    | support teams to assist with     |
| sistance | teams to assist        | schools identified for           |
| for      | schoolwide programs    | corrective action, schools       |
| id       | and, if funds          | identified for improvement, and  |
| entified | available,             | other Title I schools.           |
| d        | high-poverty schools   |                                  |
| istricts | and schools identified | States are required to use teams |
| and      | for improvement under  | of distinguished teachers and    |
| schools  | Title I.               | principals to support identified |
|          |                        | Title I schools and districts.   |
|          | States required to     |                                  |
|          | establish a corps of   |                                  |
|          | distinguished          |                                  |
|          | educators to assist    |                                  |
|          | schools and districts  |                                  |
|          | identified for         |                                  |
|          | improvement.           |                                  |
+----------+------------------------+----------------------------------+

# Overview of the Study

The timeline for TASSIE data collection spans the last year of IASA and
the first two years in which states, districts and schools will be
operating under NCLB. Thus, the evaluation will be able to track changes
in state and local Title I accountability practices during this
transition period.

TASSIE addresses the four key evaluation questions listed below:

-   How have districts and schools implemented accountability provisions
    under Title I?

-   To what extent are Title I accountability systems aligned with state
    and district accountability systems?

-   What assistance and incentives are provided to Title I schools to
    help them improve?

-   What is the impact of district accountability policies and practices
    on Title I schools?

The evaluation consists of four related, longitudinal components
spanning three years of data collection beginning in school year
2001-02:

-   **A survey of Title I administrators in a nationally representative
    sample of approximately 1,300 districts that receive Title I
    funds**. The universe of eligible districts was developed with
    information from the 1999 Common Core of Data and the 2000 Quality
    Education Data database. Districts were stratified according to size
    (enrollment), poverty (based on the percentage of children living in
    poverty within each district) and geographic region. The
    stratification by geographic region was done to facilitate selection
    of an oversample from three states that are the focus of the
    analysis of school performance. Districts were selected using a
    simple random sample without replacement within each stratum. All
    very large districts were sampled; approximately equal numbers of
    districts were selected from the other size strata. Each poverty
    stratum includes approximately one-third of all children in the
    sampling frame.

-   **A survey of principals in a nationally representative sample of
    739 Title I schools identified as in need of improvement**. The
    sampling frame for schools in need of improvement was developed in a
    two-stage process. First, lists of the schools in each of the
    sampled districts were developed from the 1999 Common Core of Data
    (CCD) and the 2000 Quality Education Data database. Schools eligible
    for the sample were classified as regular, but not charter, in the
    CCD and served a grade range that could be classified as elementary,
    middle, or high school. In the second stage, sampled districts were
    asked to provide a list of current Title I schools in need of
    improvement at the time of the request in fall 2001. In states where
    Title I schools in need of improvement are identified by the state
    education agency, the list of schools identified on the basis of
    2000-01 assessment data was requested. Only Title I schools
    identified for improvement in reading, math, or both subjects were
    included in the sampling frame. The sampling frame of the resulting
    4,054 Title I schools in need of improvement was stratified by
    district size, school level (elementary, middle or high), poverty
    and geography. [^1]

-   **Case studies of 20 schools identified for improvement under Title
    I in 15 districts in five states**. Case study schools were selected
    through a multiple stage process in which states, then districts
    within those states, and then schools within those districts were
    chosen. Three critical dimensions for state sample selection were
    identified: state AYP definition, alignment of Title I and the
    general state accountability systems, and the process of identifying
    schools in need of improvement. States were sorted along these three
    dimensions and selected through an iterative process to represent
    the actual variation. Within states, the largest urban districts
    were targeted as well as one suburban and one rural district, in
    consultation with the state Title I director. Within each urban
    district, two elementary schools identified for improvement were
    selected in consultation with the district Title I coordinator.
    Within the rural and suburban districts, one elementary school was
    chosen, often the only identified school in those districts.

-   **Secondary analyses in three of the case study states of school
    performance data** for all schools in the state that serve
    elementary students. Eligible schools were those classified as
    regular, but not charter schools, in the Common Core of Data. The
    analysis contrasts scores of Title I schools in need of improvement,
    other Title I schools, and non-Title I schools for each state.[^2]

The district and school surveys and the case studies are being repeated
in school years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Secondary analysis of school
performance data will be carried out again in school year 2003-04. The
study is also adding data collection components to examine state
policies.[^3]

This document reports on findings related to the first three evaluation
questions above---the emphases of TASSIE's first year of data
collection. It is based on data only from the first year of data
collection, 2001-02, during which IASA was still in effect. As noted
earlier, these findings can serve as a baseline against which to examine
activities under NCLB.

The remainder of this document presents findings on the implementation
of IASA accountability provisions, and discusses the implications for
the implementation of NCLB. The following section focuses on which
schools have been identified for improvement and the process through
which identification has been made. The third section focuses on the
support provided to and interventions taken with schools identified as
in need of improvement. The central theme running through the findings
is that states, districts and schools are well positioned to implement
many of the NCLB provisions but will need to make substantial changes to
meet other provisions.

II Identification of Schools and Districts in Need of Improvement

A pivotal component of Title I accountability is the identification of
schools and districts that have not met their goals of adequate yearly
progress (AYP) for two years. This section of the report provides
estimates of the number and distribution of schools and districts
identified for improvement in school year 2001-02, the year prior to the
enactment of NCLB. It also examines the process and definitions used to
identify schools and districts, and describes the results of different
approaches. Third, the section discusses the alignment of the Title I
accountability system with state and local accountability systems. The
final portion of this section focuses on the key issue of communication
to stakeholders about the status of schools identified for improvement.
Wherever possible, the document focuses on the degree to which state,
district and school practice in 2001-02 was already aligned with the
NCLB accountability provisions.

# Characteristics of Schools and Districts Identified for Improvement Under Title I in 2001-02

**In fall 2001, the school year before NCLB went into effect, an
estimated 8,078 schools had been identified for improvement under Title
I based on previous years' assessment results representing 21 percent of
all Title I schools nationwide.**[^4] This estimate, based on the data
gathered from states, districts, and schools in the *Evaluation of
Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts* (TASSIE),
is consistent with the number of identified schools reported by states
in their Title I performance reports and reported by the U.S. Department
of Education.[^5]

**More than three-quarters of Title I schools identified for improvement
served the elementary grades, reflecting the grade-level distribution of
all Title I schools.** Of schools identified for improvement under Title
I, 78 percent were elementary schools, nearly the same proportion as
among all Title I schools. Of identified schools, 15 percent
(approximately 1,248) were middle schools; in comparison 14 percent of
all Title I schools were middle schools. Relatively few high schools
were identified for improvement nationwide (approximately 538), although
the proportion of identified schools that were high schools is roughly
the same as the proportion of all Title I schools that were high schools
(see Table 1).

**Schools in the nation's very largest districts (those with enrollments
over 37,740) were more likely to be identified for improvement, compared
with schools in other districts.** An estimated 37 percent of schools in
very large districts were identified for improvement, as were 17 percent
of the schools in small and medium districts (see Table 1). Thus, an
estimated 75 of the nation's largest school districts contain an
estimated 2,200 identified schools.

**However, the largest numbers of schools identified for improvement
were located in small and medium districts.** As shown in Table 1, 52
percent of schools identified under Title I were located in districts
with enrollments under 10,449 students. Because there are relatively few
very large districts and many more small and medium Title I districts in
the nation, these smaller districts contain large numbers of identified
schools. Nearly a third of identified schools were located in districts
with enrollments under 3,504. Districts with enrollments below 10,449
contain the majority of identified schools and therefore hold primary
responsibility for providing support and assistance to more than half of
all identified schools nationwide.

**A relatively small proportion of Title I districts had schools in need
of improvement---approximately one in five Title I districts
nationwide.** As shown in Table 2, an estimated 2,313 districts, or 21
percent of districts that received Title I funds, reported that they had
at least one school identified for improvement under Title I. Almost
two-thirds of the districts with a school identified for improvement
under Title I (an estimated 1,475 districts) were small; very large
districts represented just 3 percent of the total number of districts
with identified schools.

**Districts with identified schools were more likely to be in the
highest-poverty category than were Title I districts in general.**
Forty-four percent of districts with identified schools were in the
highest poverty category (i.e., above 22 percent), compared with 26
percent of all Title I schools (Table 2).

Table 1

Schools Identified for Improvement and All Title I Schools,\
by District Size and Grade Level Distributions[^6]

  --------------------- --------------- --------------- ----------- --------------
                        **Estimated     **Percent of    **Percent   **Percent of
                        Number of       All Schools     of All      Schools
                        Schools         Identified for  Title I     Identified
                        Identified for  Improvement**   Schools**   Within
                        Improvement**                               Categories**

  **District size, by                                               
  student enrollment**                                              

  Small (200 to 3,503)  2,597           32              41          17

  Medium (3,504 to      1,611           20              25          17
  10,448)                                                           

  Large (10,449 to      1,669           21              19          23
  37,740)                                                           

  Very large (\>        2,200           27              16          37
  37,740)                                                           

  **Total**             8,078*\**       100             100*\**     21

  **Grade level**                                                   

  Elementary            6,292           78              79          21

  Middle                1,248           15              14          24

  High                  538             7               8           18

  **Total**             8,078           100             100*\**     21
  --------------------- --------------- --------------- ----------- --------------

> \* Totals may not be exact because of rounding.

Exhibit reads: An estimated 2,200 schools in very large districts were
identified for improvement, which represents 27 percent of all
identified schools in the nation. Very large districts contain an
estimated 5,975 Title I schools overall, or 16 percent of all Title I
schools. In very large districts, an estimated 37 percent of Title I
schools (i.e., 2,200 divided by 5,975) have been identified for
improvement.

Note: The denominator for computing the percent of schools identified
for improvement in each category is 8,078 schools (unweighted N = 578).
The denominator for computing the percent of all Title I schools in each
category is 38,194 schools (unweighted N = 1,030); this is the weighted
N based on the TASSIE survey sample described on page 6. The
identification rate for schools was computed by dividing the number of
identified schools by the number of all Title I schools in each
category.

Source: National estimates of the numbers (and associated percentages)
of schools identified for improvement were derived from a weighted
analysis of the number of respondents to the TASSIE principal survey.
Estimates for all Title I schools are based on the numbers of Title I
elementary, middle, and high schools reported by districts on the TASSIE
district survey, weighted up to estimate the responses of all districts
nationwide.

Table 2

Size and Poverty Distributions of Districts with at Least One School
Identified for Improvement under Title I and All Districts That Receive
Title I Funds

  -------------------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- --------------
                                         **Estimated     **Percent of    **Percent of
                                         Number of       Districts with  All Districts
                                         Districts with  Schools         That Receive
                                         Schools         Identified for  Title I
                                         Identified for  Improvement**   Funds**
                                         Improvement**                   

  **District size, by                                                    
  student enrollment**                                                   

  Small (200 to 3,503)       1,475                       64              76

  Medium (3,504 to 10,448)   472                         20              17

  Large (10,449 to 37,740)   290                         13              6

  Very large (\> 37,740)     75                          3               1

  **Total**                  2,313*\**                   100             100

  **District poverty, by                                                 
  percent of children living                                             
  in poverty**                                                           

  Highest poverty (\>22      1,021                       44              26
  percent)                                                               

  Middle poverty (11-22      820                         36              39
  percent)                                                               

  Lowest poverty (\<11       471                         20              35
  percent)                                                               

  **Total**                  2,313*\**                   100             100
  -------------------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- --------------

> \* Totals may not be exact because of rounding.
>
> Exhibit reads: An estimated 75 very large districts have schools
> identified for improvement, which represents 3 percent of the total
> number of districts with identified schools. The nation has an
> estimated 125 very large Title I districts, which represent 1 percent
> of Title I districts.
>
> Note: The denominator for computing the percent of districts with
> schools identified for improvement in each category is 2,313 districts
> (unweighted N = 404). The denominator for computing the percent of all
> districts that receive Title I funds in each category is 11,208
> districts (unweighted N = 1,141); this is the weighted N based on the
> TASSIE survey sample described on page 6.
>
> Source: National estimates of the numbers (and associated percentages)
> of all districts and districts with schools identified for improvement
> under Title I were computed from a weighted analysis of responses to
> the TASSIE district survey.

**Among districts that reported that their state had begun to identify
districts for improvement, 15 percent---an estimated 1,075 districts
nationwide---reported that they were identified for improvement under
Title I.** Identification for improvement did not vary by district size,
but did appear to be related to the degree of district poverty:
high-poverty districts were more likely to report that they were
identified as in need of improvement (28 percent) than medium-poverty
districts (12 percent) or low-poverty districts (8 percent).

# How States and Districts Define Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Identify Schools for Improvement under Title I

How states and districts define AYP under IASA affected the number and
types of schools identified for improvement. IASA required states to set
targets for school performance. These targets could be absolute or
relative, summarized across subjects, and aggregated for all students at
a school. NCLB, in contrast, contains more specific criteria for AYP,
including an end point for all students achieving proficiency by 2013-14
and accountability for the achievement of key subgroups of students.
Both IASA and NCLB, however, place final responsibility for the details
of AYP definitions in the hands of state and local policymakers.
Examination of the implementation of AYP definitions under IASA provides
a context for understanding how state systems may transition to meet
NCLB requirements.

**Under IASA, AYP definitions varied widely from state to state.** The
five states in the TASSIE case study sample illustrate this variation in
2001-02 (see Exhibit 3). For example, Maryland adopted a simple
relative-growth measure that allowed schools to make AYP if they showed
growth, of any magnitude, on the state's school performance index.
Michigan's AYP definition called for narrowing the gap in performance
among student groups by reducing the number of students scoring at the
lowest performance levels. Arizona, Louisiana and Washington adopted
multipart AYP definitions that combined criteria based on absolute
thresholds (e.g., 90 percent of students scoring "proficient" in both
reading and mathematics) with criteria based on relative progress (e.g.,
making a two-year growth target that would enable schools to achieve the
state's standard for proficiency in 10 years). States also differed in
the measures they adopted to assess school performance: two states
combined test scores across multiple subjects with attendance and
dropout rates to create a weighted average index that served as a single
measure of school performance; the remaining three set separate
performance goals for each subject area. Michigan required schools to
meet targets in four subject areas, two more than most other states.

In all of these states, AYP definitions (either the benchmarks set for
individual schools or the assessment measures on which they were based)
were complex and could not be summarized easily in a single sentence or
reduced to a single numerical goal for any one school. Two reviews of
Title I accountability systems conducted in 1999-2000 found similar
variation in AYP definitions across states nationwide (U.S. Department
of Education 2001; Schenck and Carlson 2002).

**Great variation also existed in the identification rates of schools
across states. The variation among states in AYP definitions is one
factor, along with the rigor of assessments and the actual performance
level of students, that accounts for this variation.** For example, in
2000-01, based on previous years' assessment results, six states
reported identifying 1 percent or fewer of their Title I schools
(Florida and Wyoming identified no schools), 10 states identified
between 10 percent and 20 percent of their schools, and three states
identified more than 30 percent of their schools (Michigan, Hawaii and
Georgia) (U.S. Department of Education 2002).

Exhibit 3

**AYP Definitions in Five States, 2001-02**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Arizona** schools had to meet absolute or growth targets separately |
| for both reading comprehension and mathematics in a single grade      |
| level for each school. Schools made AYP if 90 percent of students     |
| scored "proficient" or above on the state test in both reading        |
| comprehension and math, or if no student scored below "basic" on      |
| either test. If the school did not meet these absolute targets, it    |
| could make AYP if it reduced the gap between the state goal and its   |
| 1997 performance by the average change needed to achieve the state    |
| goal by 2005. Districts had responsibility for making final AYP       |
| determinations and could use additional local measures to add or      |
| remove schools from the state list.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| In **Louisiana**, the state combined scores from multiple grade       |
| levels on two different assessments of reading, mathematics, science  |
| and social studies, as well as attendance and dropout rates, in a     |
| complex weighted composite known as the School Performance Score      |
| (SPS). Louisiana had defined a growth target for each school that     |
| represented the amount of progress it must make every two years to    |
| reach the state's 10- and 20-year goals. The state established        |
| separate targets for students with disabilities and for               |
| limited-English-proficient (LEP) students and combined them in a      |
| weighted average to calculate the overall growth target for the       |
| school (thus, a school's growth target depended in part on how many   |
| students it had in these subgroups). Schools made AYP if their SPS    |
| was 100 or above (the state goal), regardless of growth; schools were |
| automatically identified for improvement if their SPS was 30 or       |
| lower. For schools between 30 and 100, identification depended on     |
| meeting the growth target.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| In **Maryland**, the state combined scores on the state assessment    |
| from multiple grade levels across six subject areas with attendance   |
| rates to create a School Performance Index (SPI). The SPI measured    |
| each school's distance from the state's goal of having 70 percent of  |
| students scoring "satisfactory" or above in each subject included in  |
| the state assessments. Schools that showed an increase in SPI---no    |
| matter what the size---over the average of the previous two years     |
| were considered to have made AYP. There was no clearly specified      |
| timeline that required all schools to meet the state goal of 100 on   |
| the SPI.                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| In **Michigan**, schools were identified for improvement on the basis |
| of their performance in each of four subject areas (reading,          |
| mathematics, science, and writing). Deficient performance in any one  |
| of these subject areas could cause a school to not make AYP. The      |
| Michigan AYP definition was based on a relative-growth model that was |
| defined in terms of narrowing the gap between the percentages of      |
| students scoring in the highest and lowest achievement categories.    |
| Schools had to reduce the gap every year by 10 percent. Individual    |
| school targets changed every year in every subject and varied across  |
| schools within the state.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| In **Washington**, the state had developed nine separate criteria for |
| determining AYP among elementary schools. These criteria were based   |
| on the school's performance on the state assessment: five addressed   |
| reading and four addressed mathematics. Four of the nine criteria     |
| were absolute targets for performance, and five were relative-growth  |
| targets. Schools that had met any five of the nine criteria (across   |
| either or both subjects) were judged to have made AYP.                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Under IASA, the majority of states relied primarily on relative-growth
models to define AYP, with the expected gain varying for each school
depending on its baseline performance.** In 2001-02, data collected on
AYP definitions indicated that 33 states relied entirely on
relative-growth models and that 12 more combined some form of relative
growth with an absolute target (Council of Chief State School Officers
2002). Under NCLB, absolute measures of performance are much more
important in determining AYP. NCLB requires that states adopt a status
model for evaluating AYP, in which benchmarks are the same for all
schools statewide; measures of growth (as provided for under the
legislation's "safe harbor" provision) will apply only if schools did
not meet these absolute benchmarks.

**As states move away from relative-growth AYP models under NCLB, it is
likely to affect the types of schools that are identified for
improvement. School performance data collected in Maryland and Louisiana
show that AYP definitions built on growth in achievement rather than
absolute levels of performance can cause some relatively high-performing
Title I schools to be identified for improvement, whereas some
lower-performing Title I schools may not be identified.** Because both
Maryland and Louisiana examined growth in school performance to assess
AYP, some Title I schools with low performance levels were not
identified for improvement if they showed adequate growth, whereas
higher-performing schools that did not achieve growth targets were
identified. Nonetheless, in both states, identified Title I elementary
schools scored lower than nonidentified Title I elementary schools, on
average, on their state's measures of school performance (see Exhibits 4
and 5).

Differences in the AYP definitions between Maryland and Louisiana helped
to explain the extent of overlap in school performance for identified
and nonidentified schools. In Maryland, schools were identified if they
did not show growth of any size, regardless of the school's absolute
level of performance. As shown in Exhibit 4, approximately 95 percent of
the identified schools scored higher than the lowest scoring
nonidentified school, and 95 percent of the nonidentified schools scored
lower than the highest scoring identified school. In Maryland, half of
identified schools scored as well as or better than 25 percent of the
nonidentified schools.

In Louisiana (see Exhibit 5), scores overlapped somewhat less than in
Maryland, in part because Louisiana's AYP definition combined absolute
and relative criteria; thus, no schools attaining a school performance
score of 100 or more were identified for improvement, and all schools
scoring 30 or lower were identified. In addition, the growth criteria
for AYP for schools scoring between 31 and 99 varied, depending on the
score of the school: lower scoring schools required higher growth to
meet AYP. In this state, slightly more than one-quarter of the
identified schools scored as well as or better than 25 percent of the
nonidentified Title I schools.

Exhibit 4

Distributions of School Performance, for Maryland Schools\
with Elementary Students

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.75in" height="2.6251968503937007in"}

Exhibit reads: The school performance score for identified Title I
schools ranged from about 10 to 100 with a median of 40. In this type of
plot, the vertical line spans the range of scores obtained in the group.
The box spans the range for the middle 50 percent of the distribution,
from the 25th to the 75th percentile, and the horizontal line within the
box identifies the 50th percentile, or median. The horizontal line that
spans the width of the figure identifies the 50th percentile (median)
for the total population of schools in the analysis.

Exhibit 5

Distributions of School Performance, for Louisiana Schools\
with Elementary Students

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.422047244094488in"
height="3.1346456692913387in"}

Exhibit Reads: The school performance score for identified Title I
schools ranged from about 29 to 92, with a median of 61.5. Also see the
note to Exhibit 4 above.

**As states comply with NCLB and use an AYP based on absolute scores as
opposed to relative growth models, less overlap in performance may occur
between identified and nonidentified schools---especially in
higher-performing schools.** Under NCLB, all schools that attain the
benchmark target that the state sets will make AYP, whether or not their
scores have risen or declined from the year before. As a result, overlap
in performance between identified and nonidentified schools should
decrease at the higher end of the achievement spectrum, with fewer
high-scoring schools identified for improvement, all other factors being
equal. At the same time, other factors may contribute to the overlap in
distributions. Because under NCLB's "safe harbor" provision strong
growth in the percentage of students scoring "proficient" will allow a
school to make AYP even if it does not attain the state's benchmark, the
ranks of nonidentified schools may continue to include some schools that
are relatively low performing but have demonstrated strong growth.
Finally, because AYP definitions under NCLB will hold schools
accountable for attaining the same intermediate benchmark and 95 percent
assessment participation rates for all subgroups of students, a number
of schools with high average scores may nevertheless be identified on
the basis of subgroup performance.[^7]

**Other changes to AYP definitions required under NCLB are likely to
influence the number of schools identified as in need of improvement
under Title I, but the net effect of the various changes is difficult to
predict.** Some potential changes could result in more schools being
identified. Schools of all types may have difficulty meeting
progressively more challenging benchmarks that states must establish on
the road to ensuring that all students reach the state's standard for
proficiency in both reading and mathematics within 12 years. Schools
with high or moderate average scores but large gaps in performance among
subgroups may now be identified for the first time. On the other hand,
given the absolute targets required for AYP under NCLB, some higher
achieving schools that are declining in achievement will not necessarily
be identified as long as their achievement levels remain above the
target. Yet, until states' NCLB AYP definitions, including definitions
of "proficient" and the measures used to measure proficiency, are put in
place, the impact of the new law on the number and types of schools is
uncertain.

**The implementation of district identification systems, required under
both IASA and NCLB, was proceeding slowly in 2001-02.** In spring 2002,
two-thirds of Title I districts reported that their state had begun to
review the progress of districts under a definition of AYP developed for
the districts by the state. A third of districts reported either that
their state did not review the progress of districts or that they were
not sure whether their state had begun that function. There was some
confusion among respondents within states about whether or not the state
had begun to review the progress of districts. For example, of the 113
districts that responded to the district survey in California, 41
indicated that the state had not begun to review district performance,
57 indicated that the state had begun to do so, and 15 reported that
they were not sure.

**Among districts that reported that their state had developed a
definition of AYP for districts, four-fifths reported that they had made
AYP in the 2000-01 school year**. The percentage of districts reporting
that they had made AYP did not vary significantly by district poverty or
by district size.

NCLB strengthens and standardizes AYP requirements for districts. Under
NCLB, districts will be held accountable for the same goals for student
performance as schools, both in the aggregate districtwide and for each
subgroup of students enrolled by the district. Students whose
performance is not disaggregated at the school level because there are
not enough students in the subgroup at the school will be considered
separately at the district level if enough students in that subgroup are
enrolled in the district. Under NCLB, more states are likely to identify
districts for improvement, and districts will be held accountable for
many more benchmarks for student performance. As a result, more
districts may be identified for improvement, all other things being
equal.

# Alignment of Title I Accountability with Accountability Systems for All Schools 

IASA called on states to hold all schools and districts accountable to
the same standards for achievement through the development of aligned
systems of high standards and challenging assessments to determine AYP,
and by aligning their Title I programs with these requirements. Yet
states without statewide assessment systems were allowed to have
Title** **I-only accountability systems to identify low-performing
schools. NCLB strengthens this provision, requiring that states use the
same accountability system (including assessment instruments and goals
for AYP) for all schools, Title I and non-Title I.

**In 2001-02, most states had still not established unitary (i.e.,
single, statewide) accountability systems that applied the same criteria
for identification for improvement to both Title I and non-Title I
schools**. Only 18 states reported that they had unitary identification
systems to measure AYP; 13 other states reported Title I-only systems
(Council of Chief State School Officers 2002). States had not made
progress toward implementing unitary systems in the few years before
these data were collected. In 1999-2000, 22 states operated unitary
accountability systems (U.S. Department of Education 2001). In 19
states, Title I was the only system in operation; the remaining states
operated dual systems (one for Title I and one for non-Title I schools).
The existence of different accountability systems can send mixed
messages about what constitutes the attainment of standards.

**Establishing unified systems was a challenge for many states under
IASA and is likely to continue to be a challenge under NCLB.** The
experiences of the TASSIE case study states in 2001-02 pointed to a
number of the challenges in creating such a system. Only two of the five
case study states operated unitary accountability systems with the same
or very similar criteria applied to both Title I and non-Title I
schools. The other three states faced serious obstacles to passing new
accountability legislation that would both satisfy the requirements of
NCLB and apply to all schools in the state. In Washington, the state
legislature failed to pass legislation to establish a new statewide
accountability system that would apply to both Title I and non-Title I
schools. The Arizona legislature, in contrast, had recently passed
legislation establishing a new statewide accountability system that,
according to the Arizona Department of Education, would not meet the
requirements of NCLB. In spring 2002, the Michigan State Board of
Education approved a plan for a new statewide accreditation system that
assigns schools a letter grade on the basis of achievement status,
achievement trends over three years, achievement growth for individual
students and indicators of engagement, instructional quality and
learning opportunities. This new system may operate in conjunction with
a Title I-based accountability system because the measures and criteria
used to accredit schools under this system are so different from those
required under NCLB. These challenges that states faced in meeting the
requirements of IASA will, of course, remain as they seek to build
accountability systems in line with NCLB.

# Communication about Schools Identified for Improvement

A central principle underlying the Title I accountability system is that
local educators, as well as parents, have a clear understanding of the
progress for which schools are being held accountable. For
accountability systems to be effective, local educators and parents must
understand the criteria by which their schools are held accountable and
must be aware of whether or not their schools have been identified for
improvement. Without such an understanding, the Title I accountability
system can be expected to have a limited impact. Under IASA, states and
districts were required to inform schools of their status and to issue
individual school profiles. NCLB strengthens the reporting provisions by
specifying that states and districts issue "report cards" with state
assessment results and lists of schools identified for improvement.

### Communication with Educators

**Under IASA, there was a lack of clarity about the particulars of how
and which schools are identified for improvement.** Fifty-nine percent
of the principals surveyed, all of whom had been selected for the TASSIE
sample because they were included on a district or state list of
identified schools for 2001-02, reported that they had been, in fact,
identified for improvement; 41 percent reported that they had not been
identified or did not know if they had been identified for improvement.
This finding replicates the results of another survey of identified
schools conducted in 1999-2000, which also found that 41 percent of
principals disagreed that their school had been identified or reported
that they did not know (U.S. Department of Education 2002). This
discrepancy between principal reports and district and state lists
suggests that considerable confusion exists among principals, district
Title I directors, and state education agency staff about which schools
have been identified for improvement at any one time. This confusion
does not appear to have lessened over the last several years.

**Principals may confuse program improvement status with adequate yearly
progress determinations; confusion may also stem from the complexity of
AYP definitions and the measures used to track progress.** Identified
schools that make AYP for one year remain in program improvement until
they make AYP a second time. But of the 42 percent of schools identified
as in need of improvement in 2001-02 that had made AYP the year before,
only 36 percent agreed with their states or districts that they
continued to be identified for improvement. One explanation for the
extent of this disagreement is that principals do not distinguish
clearly between making AYP and exiting improvement status. Some
principals whose schools have made AYP for just one year appear to
believe that their school has exited improvement status. (Principals
whose schools had not made AYP the year before were much more likely to
agree that their school was identified for improvement.) Even among
principals who agreed with their districts or states that they were
identified for improvement, almost a third reported some uncertainty
about the criteria they would need to meet to exit improvement status.

As noted in Exhibit 3 above, AYP definitions in the case study states
were multifaceted and generally could not be reduced to a single number
or criterion. As a result, school staff in the TASSIE case study sites
generally were unfamiliar with the fine points of the AYP definitions
under which they had been identified for improvement or with the
particulars of their Title I identification status. Many of the
principals interviewed, for example, disagreed with their districts
about the length of time their school had been identified for
improvement.

**Confusion may also stem from the presence of state accountability
systems that operate in conjunction with Title I.** About a third of the
schools that disagreed with their states or districts that they were
identified for improvement under Title I reported that they *were*
identified for improvement under their state's accountability system.
Overall, close to 68 percent of schools reported that they were
identified for improvement, either under the state system or under Title
I (conversely, 32 percent reported that they were not identified or did
not know if they were identified under either system). This finding
suggests that most schools that are designated as in need of improvement
under Title I by their states and districts recognize that they are in
some kind of improvement status; however, they are not always clear
about the role that Title I accountability requirements played in their
identification.

**Despite this confusion about the particulars of Title I
identification, school staff in the TASSIE case study sites understood
that their schools were low-performing and that student achievement
needed to improve.** School staff across the TASSIE case study
sites---both teachers and principals---had carefully reviewed the
achievement data provided by their states and districts and were
familiar with the public reporting that had been done on the performance
of their schools. As a result, teachers and principals shared the
general perception that their schools were low-performing and that they
needed to improve their scores, especially on state assessments. In
these sites, regular participation in state assessments, public
reporting of assessment results and regular review of assessment data
had contributed to a general understanding that the school was being
held accountable for student results.

As AYP definitions become more standard within and across states under
NCLB, state education agencies and districts may find it easier to
communicate with schools about specific expectations for performance.
However, to the extent that states use additional rating systems for
evaluating the performance of schools, confusion may persist.

### Communication with Parents

**In 2001-02, report cards were prepared and actively disseminated in
almost all districts.** By spring 2002, some form of public reporting on
school performance was nearly ubiquitous: 92 percent of schools
identified for improvement under Title I reported that their state or
district prepared a school report card or profile of their performance.
A large majority of districts (78 percent or more) reported that school
report cards were distributed to parents in a newsletter or other
publication, reported in local newspapers, or posted on the state or
district Web site. Similarly, a 2002 report indicated that all 50 states
required dissemination of some sort of report card, and 42 states
included data at the school level (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2002).

**Public reporting of achievement data for student subgroups was
relatively common in 2001-02 with many districts making the data
available to the public in some form.** In spring 2002, between one-half
and two-thirds of districts (see Table 3) that enrolled significant
proportions of minority students, LEP students and students with
disabilities (i.e., districts where these subgroups accounted for at
least 10 percent of total enrollment) reported that data were already
being disaggregated for these groups in public reporting on schools.
More than half of districts reported that data were disaggregated by
gender. Disaggregation by economically disadvantaged status was slightly
less common, being reported by 45 percent of districts that enroll
significant numbers of economically disadvantaged students.

Among districts with student subgroups of significant size, larger
districts were more likely than smaller districts to report that student
data were disaggregated by subgroups on school report cards or other
public reporting, regardless of the student feature used to define
subgroups. These patterns suggest that larger districts have greater
capacity to produce disaggregated data for school report cards or to
support schools in reporting disaggregated data, a finding confirmed in
the TASSIE site visit districts. NCLB requires that this information be
included in report cards.

**States, districts, and schools did not commonly include information
about Title I improvement status in their reporting to the public in
2001-02, as is now required under NCLB.** State and district reporting,
which can include school report cards as well as press releases and
other kinds of reporting to the media, most often included information
on state assessment results (in 97 percent of districts), comparisons
with other schools and districts in the state (in 81 percent of
districts), attendance rates (in 81 percent of districts), and
graduation rates or dropout rates (in 79 percent of districts). Public
reporting by states, districts and schools was less likely to include
information on a school's Title I accountability status. Fewer than half
of districts (46 percent) reported that their state indicated whether a
school was identified for improvement under Title I in its reporting to
parents and the general public. About a third of districts reported that
they included Title I improvement status in their reporting to parents,
and about a third of districts reported that schools did.

Table 3

Public Reporting of Disaggregated Data, Among Districts with a Subgroup
Enrollment of 10 Percent or More, by District Size[^8]

  -------------------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------
  **Data Disaggregated **Percent of  **Percent                            
  by:**                All           of                                   
                       Districts**   Districts                            
                                     by Size**                            

                                     **Very      **Large**   **Medium**   **Small**
                                     Large**                              

  LEP Status           61            81          79          80           47

  Racial and Ethnic    64            82          73          68           59
  Group                                                                   

  Gender               54            66          69          54           53

  Special Education    52            69          63          57           50
  Status                                                                  

  Economically         45            65          62          47           43
  Disadvantaged Status                                                    

  Migrant Status       27            \*          \*          \*           \*
  -------------------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------

> Exhibit reads: Among respondents in very large districts with LEP
> students accounting for at least 10 percent of total enrollment, 81
> percent indicated that data disaggregated by LEP status are publicly
> reported. Among comparable small districts, 47 percent indicated that
> data disaggregated by LEP status are publicly reported.\
> \
> Note: The number of districts included in these analyses varies for
> each row and cell because only districts reporting each subgroup were
> included. The weighted sample size for LEP status = 47 to 1,318
> (unweighted = 42 to 263) for all districts; for racial and ethnic
> group = 104 to 3,744 (unweighted = 92 to 624) for all districts; for
> gender = 121 to 10,273 (unweighted = 106 to 1,061) for all districts;
> for special education status = 81 to 7,687 (unweighted = 71 to 812)
> for all districts; for economically disadvantaged status = 111 to
> 8,857 (unweighted = 98 to 936) for all districts; for migrant status =
> 1 to 471 (unweighted = 1 to 51) for all districts. \* = too few cases
> to report; data are reported for a subgroup only when that group
> accounts for at least 10 percent of the district's student
> population.\
> \
> Source: TASSIE district survey

None of the report cards developed for 20 case study schools included
specific information about Title I improvement status. Although lists of
identified schools were printed in local newspapers and included in
other publicly available documents in a number of case study sites, none
of the school report cards posted on the Web or distributed to parents
contained specific information about Title I improvement status. In
several cases, report cards prepared by states included information
about the school's performance relative to goals set by the state
accountability system, rather than Title I benchmarks.

III Support and Interventions for Low-Performing Schools and Title I
Schools Identified for Improvement

Once a Title I school was identified for improvement under IASA, a
sequence of increasingly serious interventions was set in motion.
Initially, schools were to receive assistance from the district and
state. Districts were required to provide technical assistance to
identified schools during the process of planning and implementing an
improvement strategy. States were required to establish school support
teams and a corps of distinguished educators to support districts and
schools. If schools continued to not make adequate yearly progress (AYP)
for two years after identification, the district must implement some
form of "corrective action," such as withholding funds or decreasing
school-site decision-making authority. The parents of students in
schools identified as in need of improvement were also to be given the
choice to transfer to another school, if feasible.

As with other provisions of Title I, NCLB clarifies and strengthens
requirements associated with assistance to and interventions in schools
identified as in need of improvement. Where IASA called for technical
assistance to identified schools, and some state or locally defined
forms of corrective action, NCLB also mandates school choice options for
parents, the offering of supplemental educational services to children
from low-income families, certain forms of technical assistance, a
specific menu of corrective actions, and, eventually, school
restructuring. For schools identified for improvement, NCLB calls for
districts to provide those schools with at least three certain kinds of
technical assistance. Specifically, districts must require the
development or revision of school plans designed to address the problems
that caused the school to be identified. Districts also must assist in:

-   Analyzing data from state assessments to identify problems and
    solutions.

-   Identifying and implementing professional development and
    instructional strategies that have proven effective in addressing
    the issues that caused the school to be identified.

-   Analyzing and revising the school's budget to allocate resources
    more effectively.

    States continue to have the responsibility for establishing a
    statewide support system comprised of school support teams and
    distinguished teachers and principals from successful schools.

    Under NCLB, as soon as a school is identified as in need of
    improvement, districts must provide parents of students enrolled in
    that school the option to transfer their children to a school that
    has not been identified for improvement. If the school does not make
    AYP the following year, low-income parents also must be provided
    with the option of supplemental educational services (e.g.,
    tutoring) from state-approved providers for their child.

    If schools continue to not make AYP for two years after initial
    identification, NCLB requires districts to take at least one of a
    series of "corrective actions," including:

-   Replacing school staff responsible for the continued inability to
    make AYP.

-   Implementing a new curriculum based on scientifically based
    research.

-   Significantly decreasing management authority at the school level.

-   Appointing an outside expert to advise the school.

-   Extending the school day or school year.

-   Reorganizing the school internally.

Ultimately, if a school does not make AYP after one full school year of
corrective action, NCLB calls for major restructuring of school
governance through one of the following interventions:

-   Reopening the school as a public charter school.

-   Replacing the principal and staff.

-   Contracting with a private management company with demonstrated
    effectiveness.

-   Having the state take over school operation.

-   Undertaking any other major restructuring of school governance.

Findings from the 2001-02 school year suggest that states and districts
are well positioned to implement some---but not all---of these NCLB
requirements.

In this section, the various forms of district support are discussed,
focusing on districts with low-performing schools (defined broadly, see
footnote).[^9] Next is a discussion of school choice among all Title I
districts, as well as the subset of districts that have schools
identified for improvement under Title I. Finally, corrective actions
implemented by all districts with Title I schools in need of improvement
and then by the subset of districts with Title I schools in corrective
action, are described.

# District Support for School Planning and Data Use

**In keeping with IASA requirements---as well as with the new
requirements under NCLB---most districts with low-performing schools
(estimated to be 4,290 districts nationwide) reported focusing support
for low-performing schools on planning, including the use of student
achievement data to inform improvement efforts.** In 2001-02, 86 percent
of districts with low-performing schools identified school planning or
the use of student achievement data to plan improvement efforts and
monitor progress as among their two most important school improvement
strategies (see Table 4). Such efforts are consistent with the NCLB
requirement that districts provide technical assistance to identified
schools as they develop and implement a two-year school improvement plan
designed to address the academic achievement problems that caused them
to be identified.

Almost all (95 percent) of the identified Title I schools reported that
they had school improvement plans. Though the prevalence of school
improvement plans is encouraging, it must be considered in light of the
Title I requirement that all identified schools have such plans.

**To support data analysis and the development of school improvement
plans, many districts with low-performing schools were providing the
types of technical assistance called for in NCLB: assigning staff to
work with schools to analyze student achievement data to identify the
specific academic problems that caused the school to be identified (95
percent of districts) and assigning staff to work with schools to
identify research-based improvement strategies (84 percent).** In
addition, 90 percent of districts reported assigning staff to work
directly with schools to write or revise a school improvement plan, and
74 percent reported providing feedback on early drafts of the school
improvement plan.

Table 4

District Rankings of School Improvement Strategies,\
Among Districts with Low-Performing Schools

  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------
                                                 **Percent of Districts
                                                 Ranking Each Strategy\
                                                 1 or 2 out of 5,\
                                                 Where 1 Is the "Most
                                                 Important Strategy"**

  School planning or the use of student          86
  achievement data to plan improvement and       
  monitor progress or both                       

  Teacher and principal professional development 51

  Adoption of new curricula and instructional    34
  programs or curriculum guidance or both        

  Reallocation of resources (i.e., time, money,  20
  staff) to support school improvement           

  Adoption of school reform models               10
  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------

Exhibit reads: Among respondents from districts with low-performing
schools, 86 percent identified "school planning and/or the use of
student achievement data to plan improvement and monitor progress" as
their district's most important *or* second most important school
improvement strategy.

Note: Weighted N = 4,290; unweighted N = 642.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

**Districts with low-performing schools are also well positioned to
comply with the NCLB requirement that student achievement data be
disaggregated and reported for key student subgroups.** In 2001-02, most
districts with low-performing schools reported that data were being
disaggregated and provided to schools in line with NCLB's public
reporting requirements (see Table 5). (It should be noted that two of
the subgroups included in public reporting requirements, migrant and
gender, are not included in AYP requirements.)

Table 5

Districts with Low-Performing Schools Reporting That Schools\
Had Access to Student Achievement Data, Disaggregated\
for Various Student Subpopulations

+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| ####  Data disaggregated by:                     | **Percent of      |
|                                                  | Districts**       |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Limited-English-proficient (LEP) status          | 98                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Migrant status                                   | 96                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Racial and ethnic group                          | 95                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Special education status                         | 93                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Gender                                           | 83                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Economically disadvantaged status                | 68                |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------+

> Exhibit reads: Among respondents from districts with low-performing
> schools,\
> 98 percent reported that schools had access to student achievement
> data disaggregated\
> by LEP status.\
> \
> Note: The number of districts included in these analyses varies for
> each row because\
> only districts serving each subpopulation were included (weighted Ns
> from 246 districts\
> for migrant to 3,962 districts for gender; unweighted Ns from 30
> districts for migrant to\
> 617 for gender). Data are reported for a subpopulation only when that
> group accounts for\
> at least 10 percent of the district's student population.\
> \
> Source: TASSIE district survey.

# District Support for Professional Development 

**Half of districts with low-performing schools reported assisting these
schools by placing a "major focus" on increasing the quality and
quantity of professional development.** NCLB requires this type of
technical assistance to identified schools, augmenting the emphasis on
professional development for school planning under IASA. Site visits in
spring 2002 revealed that many districts were focusing their
professional development resources on literacy and were beginning to
increase the support they provided in mathematics. In many cases,
district-supported professional development activities focused on the
implementation of new curricula and other efforts to align curricula
with standards and assessments (for an example, see Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 6

Two Maryland Districts Provided Extensive Curricular Guidance

Two large Maryland districts developed tools and provided professional
development to support the alignment of curriculum and instruction with
standards. Both developed curriculum frameworks that set out learning
objectives by grade level. One district also issued detailed curriculum
guides for mathematics instruction in grades 1 through 5, and recently
unveiled new reading curriculum guides for grades 1 and 2, which were
accompanied by extensive summer training for teachers and follow-up
during the year. Similar guides were to be issued for additional grade
levels in succeeding years. These efforts were designed to create
consistent reading and language arts instruction in all
schools---"Everyone in first grade should be teaching personal
narratives," one district official explained---and to ensure that all
instruction reflected the state standards and thus prepared students for
the state assessment. Similarly, the other district provided teachers
with a thick binder that lays out, by grade level, the Maryland Learning
Outcomes (MLOs) in mathematics, examples of the kind of learning the
MLOs require, directions for pacing and sequencing material and
suggestions for resources and instructional materials to be used in
teaching each of the objectives. Teachers explained that they used
mathematics textbooks sporadically, as a source of supplemental
material, rather than as a *de facto* curriculum or set of content
standards. In contrast, teachers referred to the county's mathematics
framework as "the bible."

Much of this support was targeted toward all schools or all schools
serving a particular grade span. Nonetheless, in 89 percent of districts
with low-performing schools, respondents reported that low-performing
schools were provided with additional professional development or
special access to professional development resources. In some cases,
identified schools received more intensive professional development or
participated in special programs (see Exhibit 7 for an example of states
providing identified schools with special access to professional
development resources).

Exhibit 7

Washington State Targeted Identified Schools\
for the Adoption of New Reading Programs

Washington Reads was a state grant program supported with federal funds.
Selected Washington schools received up to \$200,000 a year for two
years to "systematically use practices which increase reading
achievement in grades K through three." In accordance with federal
requirements, the grant served schools identified for improvement under
Title I and schools in districts with the highest or second-highest
poverty rates. Washington Reads provided grantees with a full-time
reading coach (for the two years of the grant), training for teachers,
reading coaches and principals in reading strategies and interventions.
Instructional materials were also provided.

# District Support for Resource Allocation

**Aligning resources---money, staff, instructional materials, equipment,
and time---with instructional goals is a key school improvement strategy
that should be an outcome of a careful school planning process. Unlike
IASA, NCLB calls specifically for districts to assist schools in their
efforts to allocate resources in the service of their instructional
goals. In 2001-02, many districts with low-performing schools reported
that they were already providing this assistance.** As districts worked
with schools to develop improvement plans, 70 percent of districts with
low- performing schools reported assigning staff to work with schools to
analyze and revise the school's budget so that school resources were
effectively allocated for the activities that were most likely to
increase student performance. Similarly, 69 percent of districts with
low-performing schools reported assigning staff to work with schools to
review staffing plans.

In addition to providing support through the planning process, more than
seven in 10 districts reported providing low-performing schools with
technical assistance on ways to focus resources on instruction (74
percent) and allocate resources more effectively to the activities most
likely to increase student achievement (72 percent). Although both IASA
and NCLB require identified schools to spend a minimum percentage of
their Title I funds on professional development, only 52 percent of
districts with low-performing schools reported that they require their
low-performing schools to do so.

Despite these reports of assistance being provided, most districts were
not focusing their improvement efforts on resource reallocation. Only 20
percent of districts with low-performing schools ranked resource
reallocation among their two most important school improvement
strategies (see Table 4).

# District Support for the Implementation of New Curricula 

**Almost 65 percent of districts with low-performing schools required
some or all of their schools to adopt new reading and language arts
curricula in the last three years; similarly, more than 50 percent
required the adoption of new math curricula.**[^10] TASSIE also examined
the reasons why districts required schools to adopt new curricula,
focusing on those districts with Title I schools identified for
improvement. Among districts with identified schools that required
schools to adopt new curricula, most reported that requiring new
curricula was a strategy aimed at improving and aligning instruction
(see Table 6). Importantly, the regular textbook adoption cycle appeared
to drive these district requirements more often than the fact that a
school was identified for improvement under Title I. Of districts with
identified schools that required the adoption of new reading and
language arts curricula, 56 percent did so as part of their regular
textbook adoption cycle, whereas 30 percent did so because schools were
identified for improvement. The pattern was similar for mathematics.

Table 6

Reasons Schools Were Required to Adopt New Curricula,\
Among Districts with Identified Schools That Reported Requiring Some or
All Schools to Adopt New Curricula

+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| #                             | **Percent of     | **\              |
|                               | Districts        | Percent of       |
|                               | Reporting Reason | Districts        |
|                               | for Requiring    | Reporting Reason |
|                               | the Adoption of  | for Requiring    |
|                               | New Reading and  | the Adoption of  |
|                               | Language Arts    | New Mathematics  |
|                               | Programs**       | Programs**       |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| To support instruction that   | 92               | 96               |
| is consistent with our state  |                  |                  |
| or district standards         |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| To establish consistency in   | 90               | 94               |
| instruction across schools,   |                  |                  |
| classrooms, and grade levels  |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| To focus teachers on          | 89               | 87               |
| improving instruction         |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| As part of our regular        | 56               | 64               |
| textbook adoption cycle       |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Because schools were          | 30               | 23               |
| identified for improvement    |                  |                  |
| under Title I                 |                  |                  |
+-------------------------------+------------------+------------------+

### Exhibit reads: Among respondents from districts with identified schools that reported requiring some or all schools to adopt new reading and language arts curricula, 56 percent reported that they required adoption as part of their district's regular adoption cycle, and 30 percent reported that they required adoption because schools were identified for improvement under Title I.  Note: Weighted N = 1,382 (unweighted N = 244) for calculating the percent of districts reporting reason for requiring the adoption of new reading and language arts programs. Weighted N = 1,313 (unweighted N = 218) for calculating the percent of districts reporting reason for requiring adoptions of new mathematics programs.  Source: TASSIE district survey.

# Use of School Support Teams, Site-Based Professional Developers and Special Grants 

Both IASA and NCLB call for the use of school support teams and
distinguished educators to support schools identified for improvement.
Administrators from districts with low-performing schools and principals
of identified schools were generally consistent in their responses to
questions about the relative use of these strategies for providing
assistance to schools. Both reported that school support teams and
special grants were more common means of delivering assistance than the
use of additional staff to provide professional development or coach the
principal (see Table 7). **Principal reports, indicate that
resource-intensive improvement strategies, such as school support teams
and additional staff assigned to provide professional development or
coach the principal, were used with fewer than half of all identified
schools.** Case study data suggest that, because of limited state and
district capacity, these strategies were often used with only a subset
of identified schools. This finding that many schools are not receiving
intensive support for instructional improvement also raises questions
about expectations for fundamental improvements in classroom practice
and student learning. Such a finding is consistent with previous
research that districts and states are not adequately helping
low-performing schools build the capacity they need to improve
performance because they themselves lack the capacity to assist
individual schools (U.S. Department of Education 2001).

Table 7

Strategies for Providing Assistance, as Reported by Administrators of
Districts With Low-Performing Schools and Principals of Identified
Schools

  -------------------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   **Percent of        **Percent of
                                   Districts Reporting Principals
                                   Assistance          Reporting
                                   Provided**          Assistance
                                                       Received**

  School support teams or other    74                  39
  staff assigned to provide                            
  technical assistance                                 

  Special grants to support school 66                  59
  improvement                                          

  Additional full-time             27                  16
  school-level staff to support                        
  teacher development                                  

  A mentor or coach for the        26                  14
  principal                                            
  -------------------------------- ------------------- -------------------

Exhibit reads: Among respondents from districts with low-performing
schools, 74 percent reported that "school support teams or other staff
assigned to provide technical assistance" were provided to
low-performing schools. Among principals of schools identified for
improvement under Title I, 39 percent reported receiving assistance from
"school support teams or other staff assigned to provide technical
assistance."\
\
Note: Weighted N = 4,290 (unweighted N = 642) for calculating the
percent of districts reporting assistance provided. Weighted N = 8,078
(unweighted N = 578) for calculating the percent of principals reporting
assistance received.\
\
Source: TASSIE district and principal surveys.

**District policy does not always distinguish between schools identified
for improvement under Title I and other low-performing schools---or even
all schools.** The provision of technical assistance in support of
school planning was, in some cases, targeted to schools identified for
improvement (for an example, see Exhibit 8). In other cases, as site
visits to districts in spring 2002 suggest, districts were engaged in
district-wide efforts to support educators as they learned to make
better use of data.

Exhibit 8

Louisiana Provided Tools for Identified Schools\
to Use Data in Their Improvement Plans

The Louisiana Department of Education (LDE) provided tools for use in
the school improvement process. LDE developed the School Assessment
Model (SAM), which lays out a needs assessment and planning process for
schools identified for improvement. The SAM includes a faculty needs
assessment (including observation of instruction), an administrator
questionnaire, a faculty questionnaire, interviews with 30 percent of
faculty, focus groups with another 30 percent of faculty, a parent
questionnaire, and a student questionnaire. LDE had also developed the
School Implementation Model (SIM), which provides guidance on how
districts and schools should monitor their progress on implementing
activities outlined in the school improvement plan. Training on each of
these models had been provided to District Assistance Teams, made up of
district and school staff, through the state regional assistance
centers.

### 

# Variation in Capacity to Provide Assistance by District Size

**In 2001-02, larger districts with low-performing schools were more
likely than smaller districts to report the provision of
resource-intensive support, including state or district school support
teams, full-time staff developers and mentors for principals, as well as
special grants** (see Exhibit 9).[^11] Similarly, larger districts were
more likely than smaller districts to provide more resource-intensive
types of support for curriculum alignment (see Exhibit 10). These
findings indicate that the question of whether districts have the
capacity to support low-performing schools may be especially salient for
small districts.

Exhibit 9

District Reports of Strategies Used to Provide Assistance\
to Low-Performing Schools

![](media/image4.wmf){width="7.000694444444444in"
height="4.364583333333333in"}

Exhibit reads: Among districts with low-performing schools, 68 percent
of the very large districts, 53 percent of the large districts, 32
percent of the medium districts, and 18 percent of the small districts
deliver assistance to low-performing schools through mentors or
coaches.\
\
Note: Weighted N for very large districts = 107 (unweighted = 94), for
large districts = 413 (unweighted = 217), for medium districts = 946
(unweighted = 188), and for small districts = 2,824 (unweighted = 143).

Source: TASSIE district survey.

Exhibit 10

District Reports of Assistance Provided to Low-performing Schools to
Ensure Consistency of Curriculum and Instruction with State or District
Standards

> ![](media/image5.wmf){width="7.001388888888889in"
> height="5.696527777777778in"}

Exhibit reads: Among districts with low-performing schools, 88 percent
of the very large districts, 82 percent of the large districts, 75
percent of the medium districts, and 59 percent of the small districts
assist schools by publishing detailed curriculum guides with standards,
frameworks, and pacing sequences.\
\
Note: Weighted N for very large districts = 107 (unweighted = 94), for
large districts = 413 (unweighted = 217), for medium districts = 946
(unweighted = 188), and for small districts = 2,824 (unweighted = 143).

Source: TASSIE district survey.

In contrast, smaller districts with low-performing schools were similar
to larger districts in terms of how they set priorities: when asked to
rank order school improvement

strategies (see Table 4), the pattern was the same, regardless of
district size. Similarly, the technical assistance that districts
reported providing to identified schools in the development of their
school plans did not show a consistent pattern by district size. Nor
were there significant differences in district reports of support for
professional development and resource reallocation or in the rate at
which districts required schools to adopt new curricula. These findings
suggest that most districts, regardless of size, have the capacity to
pursue these types of less resource-intensive strategies.

**Limited district capacity, especially among smaller districts, is
particularly important because districts were the primary providers of
assistance to low-performing schools under IASA and may still be under
NCLB.** More than three-fourths of districts with low-performing schools
reported that they, not states, were the source of four types of
assistance provided to their low-performing schools: additional
professional development, school support teams or other staff assigned
to provide technical assistance, additional full-time school-level staff
to support teacher development and a coach for the principal (see Table
8). Only in the case of special grants to support school improvement did
districts report that states were the primary source of assistance (see
Exhibit 11 for a description of the state grant program in Arizona).
Although NCLB calls on states to help districts comply with their school
improvement responsibilities and, if necessary, provide direct
assistance to schools, districts are still expected to be the primary
providers of assistance.

Table 8

Source of Assistance Provided to Low-Performing Schools

+-----------------------------------+-----------------+-------+-------+
| ######## Type of Assistance       | **Percent of    | **\   |       |
|                                   | Districts       | S     |       |
|                                   | Reporting       | ource |       |
|                                   | Assistance      | of    |       |
|                                   | Provided**      | As    |       |
|                                   |                 | sista |       |
|                                   |                 | nce** |       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------+-------+-------+
|                                   |                 | **    | **St  |
|                                   |                 | Distr | ate** |
|                                   |                 | ict** |       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------+-------+-------+
| > Additional professional         | 89              | 88    | 35    |
| > development or special access   |                 |       |       |
| > to professional development     |                 |       |       |
| > resources                       |                 |       |       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------+-------+-------+
| > School support teams or other   | 74              | 79    | 37    |
| > staff assigned to provide       |                 |       |       |
| > technical assistance            |                 |       |       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------+-------+-------+
| > Special grants to support       | 66              | 36    | 80    |
| > school improvement              |                 |       |       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------+-------+-------+
| > Additional full-time            | 27              | 77    | 33    |
| > school-level staff to support   |                 |       |       |
| > teacher development             |                 |       |       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------+-------+-------+
| > Mentor or coach for the         | 26              | 90    | 17    |
| > principal                       |                 |       |       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------+-------+-------+

Exhibit reads: Among the 74 percent of districts with low-performing
schools that reported that low-performing schools in their district had
been provided with assistance from "school support teams or other staff
assigned to provide technical assistance," 79 percent reported the
district provided the assistance, and 37 percent reported that the state
provided the assistance.\
\
Note: Weighted N = 4,290; unweighted N = 642.\
\
Source: TASSIE district survey.

Exhibit 11

Arizona Department of Education Provided Grants to "Most in Need"
Schools

The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) administered a grant program,
the Title I Accountability Planning Grant, to provide assistance to
schools identified by the state as "most in need of improvement;" that
is, they have the largest gap between the state goals for student
achievement in reading and mathematics and their current status, and
they have not made AYP for two consecutive years. To receive these
grants (\$30,000 per grantee), schools were asked to select, contract
and work with an ADE-approved external facilitator; develop a school
improvement plan as specified in the Arizona School Improvement Guide;
provide in-depth, frequent professional development for instructional
staff and administrators based on school needs and focused on
instructional strategies and content; implement research-based
strategies that show a strong relationship with student achievement; and
attend ADE school improvement training. This state-run grant program was
funded with federal Title I Accountability Grant funds.

# Public School Choice 

**Nationwide, 41 percent of all Title I districts (an estimated 4,521)
reported offering some sort of public school choice option during the
2001-02 school year.** For Title I under IASA, Congress added
requirements in 1999 and 2000 that school choice be offered to students
in certain Title I schools. **A little more than half (54 percent) of
districts (approximately 1,217) with identified Title I schools offered
public school choice during the 2001-02 school year, but the choice
options did not necessarily meet the criteria now specified under NCLB**
that parents be notified of choice options before the start of the
school year and that transferring students be provided with
transportation to nonidentified schools. In many cases, these choice
options were in place as a result of broader state policies that were
not necessarily connected to Title I or to low-performing schools. As of
the 2000-01 school year, 33 states had enacted various open enrollment
policies (Education Commission of the States 2002).

**Under IASA, few districts provided parents of students in identified
schools with the choice to transfer to alternative public schools with
transportation provided, as NCLB now requires.** Only 7 percent of all
Title I districts and 12 percent of districts with schools identified
for improvement offered transfers to an alternate public school within
the district, with transportation provided (see Exhibit 12).

**The most frequently reported option was residential assignment with
the option to transfer to schools outside of a student's attendance area
(27 percent for all districts; 40 percent for districts with schools
identified for improvement)**. The next most frequent choice option was
transfer to an alternative public school outside the district (22
percent of all districts; 26 percent of districts with identified
schools).

**The likelihood that some choice options were offered during the
2001-02 school year depended on the size of the district (as measured by
student enrollment).** Smaller districts were more likely than larger
districts to offer transfers to schools outside their boundaries.
Conversely, larger districts were more likely than smaller districts to
offer open enrollment among magnet schools or public charter schools,
transfers to an alternate public school within the district (without
transportation) and residential assignment with the option to transfer
to schools outside a student's attendance area. This was the case
whether or not districts had Title I schools identified for improvement.

**Most (68 percent) of the districts with identified Title I schools
that offered public school choice reported that they did not give
students in identified schools priority over other students in
exercising the district choice options available to them under IASA.**
Policies in these districts typically provided all students
opportunities to select alternative public schools, regardless of the
status of their own

Exhibit 12

District Reports of Available Public School Choice Options

![](media/image6.wmf)

Exhibit reads: Among all Title I districts, 11 percent allowed open
enrollment for all schools in the district; among Title I districts with
schools identified for improvement, 20 percent allowed open enrollment
for all schools in the district.

Note: Weighted N = 11,208 for all Title I districts (unweighted N =
1,019); weighted N = 2,313 for Title I districts with schools identified
for improvement (unweighted N = 404).

Source: TASSIE district survey.

school. Under NCLB, such policies will likely change because the new
legislation requires choice for parents of students in Title I schools
identified as in need of improvement as soon as a school is identified
and that such choice be provided regardless of structural constraints
(e.g., space).

Partly as a result of the varying policies and practices involving
public school choice, many districts were not able to specify the number
of students who have exercised the option to transfer from a Title I
school identified for improvement. Of the districts that were able to
provide information, 76 percent said that no students exercised their
choice options, another 22 percent said fewer than 10 students chose to
move, and the remaining 2 percent said that 10 or more students had
moved.

**Even when districts with identified schools made choice options
available to parents, they often faced structural challenges: lack of
space in alternate schools, lack of transportation to alternate schools,
and the lack of alternate schools within the district** (e.g., there was
only one school per grade level, or all schools were identified for
improvement) (see Table 9). Only a small portion of districts was
affected by these challenges to a great extent (20 percent to 29
percent). On the other hand, the challenges differed by the size of the
district. Only 17 percent of the small districts reported lack of space
to be a challenge. This percentage increased to 37 percent in medium
districts, 50 percent in large districts, and 62 percent in very large
districts. In contrast, 40 percent of small districts reported the lack
of alternate schools to present a challenge while less than 7 percent of
medium, large, and very large districts reported this challenge. The new
federal regulations for Title I choice under NCLB, unlike the earlier
IASA policies, do not exempt districts facing these obstacles from the
requirement to offer choice.

**In 2001-02, 43 percent of districts with schools identified for
improvement indicated that they provided some form of supplemental
services as a strategy for helping students in identified schools, but
districts' definition of what constituted supplemental services would
not necessarily meet NCLB requirements**. Thus these data can be used
only to consider the general use of supplemental services before
enactment of NCLB and not for understanding the implementation of NCLB
supplemental services provisions.

Table 9

District Reports of Challenges to Successful Implementation of Public
School Choice, Among Districts with Schools Identified for Improvement
under Title I

  ----------------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ----------
                                            **Percent of               
                                            Districts                  
                                            Reporting                  
                                            Extent of                  
                                            Challenge**                

                                            **Not at All  **Moderate   **Great
                                            or Small      Extent**     Extent**
                                            Extent**                   

  No alternate schools within the district  70            10           20
  (e.g., there is only one school per grade                            
  level, or all schools are identified for                             
  improvement under Title I)                                           

  Lack of space in alternate schools        53            17           29

  Lack of transportation to alternate       54            21           25
  schools                                                              

  Inadequate information for parents about  85            12           3
  school choice options                                                

  Inadequate information for parents about  80            15           4
  the status of their child's school as                                
  identified for improvement under Title I                             
  ----------------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ----------

Exhibit reads**:** Among districts with identified Title I schools, 70
percent reported that having no alternate schools in the district did
not pose a challenge to the successful implementation of public school
choice or posed a challenge only to a small extent. Ten percent of
respondents reported that a lack of alternate schools posed a challenge
to a moderate extent, and 20 percent said it posed a great challenge.\
\
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Weighted N =
2,313; unweighted N = 404.\
\
Source: TASSIE district survey.

# Corrective Actions and School Restructuring 

**Districts, allowed to define corrective actions locally under IASA,
were much more likely to take actions with identified schools that might
be characterized as assistance rather than as sanctions in 2001-02.**
Districts were required to take corrective actions with schools during
their third year in improvement status. Districts with identified
schools most frequently reported four corrective actions: requiring the
implementation of a new research-based curriculum (49 percent),
extending the school day or year (39 percent), appointing an outside
expert to advise the school (32 percent) and decreasing school-level
decision making (14 percent). These and all of the other strategies
included in Exhibit 13 are among the corrective actions or restructuring
efforts in NCLB that districts must select from for schools that
continue to not make AYP. As Exhibit 13 shows, districts rarely reported
pursuing those options associated with restructuring.

Exhibit 13

District Reports of Corrective Actions Taken\
With Schools Identified for Improvement under Title I

Exhibit reads: Fewer than half (45 percent) of districts with schools
identified for improvement under Title I required identified schools to
implement a new research-based curriculum or instructional program.\
\
Note: Weighted N = 2,313; unweighted N = 404.

Source: TASSIE district survey.

When comparing improvement efforts taken with schools identified for
corrective action to those with schools identified for fewer years,
districts with schools in corrective action reported that corrective
action schools were more likely to receive assistance (e.g., adoption of
a school reform model, more-intensive support from school support teams)
than sanctions (e.g., reduced autonomy in selecting school improvement
strategies) (see Table 10). As was true for providing resource-intensive
support, these findings varied by district size: larger districts were
more likely than smaller districts to report that corrective action
schools received greater monitoring and oversight, more intensive
support from technical assistance providers and larger school
improvement grants than other schools identified for improvement.

Table 10

District Reports of Assistance Provided to Schools in Corrective
Action,\
Among Districts with Schools in Corrective Action

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  **\                                               **Percent Reporting
  Compared with other schools identified for        to a Moderate or
  improvement, schools identified for corrective    Great Extent**
  action under Title I...**                         

  Are more likely to adopt a new instructional      71
  program or school reform model.                   

  Receive greater monitoring and oversight from the 61
  district or the state or both                     

  Receive more intensive support from school        57
  support teams or other technical assistance       
  providers                                         

  Are more likely to receive regular monitoring of  48
  classroom instruction by district staff           

  Receive larger school improvement grants          40

  Have principals who are more closely supervised   36

  Have less autonomy in selecting school            28
  improvement strategies                            

  Have less discretion over school-level spending   22
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

Exhibit reads: 71 percent of districts reported that, to a moderate or
great extent, Title I schools identified for corrective action are more
likely to adopt a new instructional program or school reform model than
other schools identified for improvement.\
\
Note: Weighted N = 1,224; unweighted N = 209.\
\
Source: TASSIE district survey.

**Overall, no more than 2 percent of districts with identified schools
imposed any one action associated with restructuring, and fewer than 5
percent of districts that were required to take corrective actions with
identified Title I schools did so. (Only districts with identified
schools in states with approved assessment systems were required to take
corrective action under IASA.) In both cases, these more severe actions
were taken only in districts where the accountability system had been in
place at least three years.** The stability of the accountability system
may have influenced which corrective actions were taken---the longer an
accountability system was in place, the more likely that sanctions were
imposed, because schools could be identified for improvement for a
longer period. In addition, under IASA, districts were not required to
take corrective actions if their states did not yet have an assessment
system approved under Title I, and only 21 states had these final
assessment systems in place as of October 2002.

NCLB requires districts to impose corrective actions no matter what the
approval status of their state's assessment and accountability systems.
Moreover, it requires that districts begin to plan for "restructuring"
actions (e.g., replacing the principal and staff) with schools that do
not make AYP for three years *after* being first identified for
improvement. As a result, these stronger consequences may occur more
commonly under NCLB.

#  

#   {#section-3 .unnumbered}

# IV Conclusions

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) seeks to ensure that all children have the
opportunity to learn to high standards. NCLB's requirements for rigorous
accountability systems at the state and local levels are meant to
further this goal by creating incentives and support for local educators
to improve student performance in low-achieving schools. Findings from
the first year (2001-02) of the *Evaluation of Title I Accountability
Systems and School Improvement Efforts* (TASSIE) suggest that states,
districts, and schools are well positioned to meet many of these
challenges, but will need to make substantial changes to meet certain
provisions of the law.

In terms of progress in implementing rigorous accountability systems,
the evaluation found:

-   Nearly all states and districts had standards that applied to all
    students, had or were developing assessment systems aligned with
    those standards and had processes in place for identifying
    low-performing schools.

-   Most states and districts had mechanisms---such as school report
    cards---for informing parents and the public about the achievement
    of students in individual schools.

-   In most places, publicly reported data were already being
    disaggregated by student subpopulation.

-   Most districts were actively seeking to support schools identified
    for improvement, especially through school planning, the use of
    assessment data for decision-making and teacher professional
    development.

-   Many states and districts already were providing some school choice
    options to parents, often through districtwide open enrollment
    policies.

At the same time, progress in these areas did not always meet the
requirements of NCLB; and in other areas, states and districts have a
long way to go to meet both the letter and the spirit of NCLB. For
instance, in 2001-02:

-   Many states continued to operate accountability systems that applied
    different standards to Title I schools.

-   The criteria used to identify schools for improvement under Title I
    varied widely from state to state, and some states relied heavily on
    measures of growth in student achievement to assess school
    performance.

-   Few states had fully implemented practices for identifying
    low-performing *districts* under Title I.

-   School staffs in particular were often confused about the specifics
    of the identification process and of how and whether their school
    was identified for improvement.

-   Few schools were receiving resource-intensive support, such as
    coaches or distinguished educators.

-   Many district efforts to support low-performing schools made little
    distinction between schools identified under Title I and other
    low-performing schools.

-   Most districts did not have experience implementing the corrective
    action strategies for schools outlined in NCLB.

-   State and district efforts to provide parental choice often would
    not meet the requirements in NCLB.

The evaluation found that policymakers were aware of these problems and
were seeking ways to address them. Of particular concern was the
capacity of states and districts---especially small districts---to
provide the resource-intensive support thought to be needed to turn
around low-performing schools. TASSIE will continue to track changes at
the state, district, and school levels in school years 2002-03 and
2003-04 to assess progress in meeting the goals of No Child Left Behind.

# References

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). *State accountability
profile, 2001-02 school year.* Unpublished data.

Education Commission of the States. (2002, March). *No state left
behind: The challenges and opportunities of ESEA 2001.* Denver,
Colorado: Author.

Esch, C., Lash, A., and Shields, P. M. (2003). *Demographic
characteristics of Title I schools in need of improvement*. Menlo Park,
California: SRI International.

Goertz, M. E., Duffy, M. C., and Le Floch, K. C. (2001, March).
*Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000.*
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,
University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.

Manise, J., Blank, R. K., and Dardine, C. (2001). *State education
indicators with a focus on Title I.* Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief
State School Officers.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). *Common core of data.*
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Author.

O'Day, J. (1999). *One system or two? Title I accountability in the
context of high stakes for schools in local districts and states.*
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Schenck, A., and Carlson, D. (2002, January). *Standards-based
assessment and accountability in American education: Progress of the
states in implementing the requirements of IASA, Title I, from 1997
through 2000* \[draft\]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
Planning and Evaluation Service.

Shields, P., Laguarda, K.G., Lash, A., Padilla, C., Winter, N.,
Woodworth, K., Uperesa, L., and Javitz, H. (2003). *Evaluation of Title
I accountability systems and school improvement efforts (TASSIE):
First-year technical report.* Menlo Park, California: SRI International.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001, January). *First annual school
improvement report: Executive order on actions for turning around
low-performing schools.* Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). *Schools identified as in need of
improvement under Title I: Recent evidence from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Schools* \[Evaluation Brief\]. Washington, D.C.:
author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). *State ESEA Title I participation
information for 2000-01.* Washington, D.C.: Author.

[^1]: Response rates for the district and principal survey were 88
    percent and 86 percent, respectively.

[^2]: In the analysis of school performance and throughout this report,
    group differences that are reported are statistically significant at
    p [\<]{.underline} .05. Details on the statistical tests and the
    standard errors of statistical estimates are found in the TASSIE
    technical report (Shields et al. 2003).

[^3]: For more information about TASSIE and to view the district and
    principal surveys, see http://www.TASSIEonline.org.

[^4]: The estimate of 8,078 schools was computed from a weighted
    analysis of the number of schools responding to the principal
    survey. Once weighted, the count of the number of schools in the
    respondent sample projects up to the number estimated in the
    national population of schools in need of improvement. The weights
    were derived from the sampling frame that contained the lists of all
    Title I schools in the TASSIE district sample that were identified
    to be in need of improvement. The TASSIE technical report (Shields
    et al. 2003) describes in detail the sampling strategy and
    derivation of weights.

[^5]: In July 2002, the U.S. Department of Education reported that 8,652
    schools had been identified for improvement under Title I, based on
    the most recently submitted Consolidated State Performance Reports;
    however, some states' lists in these Consolidated State Performance
    Reports were for the 2000-01 or 1999-2000 school years rather than
    the 2001-02 school year examined by this study (U.S. Department of
    Education 2003).

[^6]: See Esch, Lash and Shields 2003, for a more comprehensive picture
    of schools identified under Title I.

[^7]: Few states used subpopulation performance as a criterion for AYP
    under IASA (Goertz, Duffy, and Le Floch 2001).

[^8]: For tables in this report, statistics are reported only when the
    unweighted sample is 30 or more.

[^9]: For almost all analyses of district support, TASSIE included those
    districts that reported having at least one school in at least one
    of five categories of low-performing schools: schools identified for
    improvement under Title I; schools identified under the state's own
    accountability system; schools identified under the district's own
    system; schools about to be identified under Title I, state or
    district accountability systems; and schools in danger of being
    identified in future years. The single exception is in the area of
    curriculum adoption, where we also separately describe the subset of
    districts that have schools identified for improvement under Title
    I.

[^10]: Although requiring the implementation of new curricula is listed
    as a corrective action in NCLB, TASSIE findings suggest that
    districts and schools generally see it as an assistance strategy.
    For this reason, it is included in the discussion of technical
    assistance.

[^11]: Analyses of principal reports by district size show a similar
    pattern: principals of schools in larger districts were more likely
    than principals in smaller districts to report receiving assistance
    from both school support teams and site-based professional
    developers.