Archived Information

FIRST ANNUAL

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT REPORT

EXECUTIVE ORDER ON ACTIONS FOR

TURNING AROUND LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS

![](media/image1.png){width="3.3916666666666666in"
height="2.7534722222222223in"}

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT

JANUARY 2001

This publication 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 citation should be:

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education, January 2001, *School Improvement
Report: Executive Order on Actions for Turning Around Low-Performing
Schools*, Washington, DC.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT REPORT: EXECUTIVE ORDER ON ACTIONS FOR TURNING AROUND
LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS

January 2001

> Michael Cohen

Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary

> and Secondary Education
>
> Alan Ginsburg
>
> Director, Planning and Evaluation Service
>
> U.S. Department of Education
>
> Office of the Under Secretary
>
> Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
>
> Washington, DC 20202

Table of Contents

Executive Summary [1](#executive-summary)

Key Findings [1](#key-findings)

Who Attends Low-Performing Schools
[1](#who-attends-low-performing-schools)

Identifying Low-Performing Schools
[1](#identifying-low-performing-schools)

Repairing Low-Performing Schools [2](#repairing-low-performing-schools)

Implications [3](#implications)

Introduction [4](#introduction)

Characteristics of Low-Performing Schools
[7](#characteristics-of-low-performing-schools)

Identification of Low-Performing Schools: State Systems in Flux
[8](#identification-of-low-performing-schools-state-systems-in-flux)

State Responsibility [8](#state-responsibility)

How States Identify Low-Performing Schools
[9](#how-states-identify-low-performing-schools)

Context [10](#context)

Dual Accountability Systems [11](#dual-accountability-systems)

Selecting Performance Measures [12](#selecting-performance-measures)

What Tests Are Used? [13](#what-tests-are-used)

What Subjects Are Included? [13](#what-subjects-are-included)

What Other Factors Are Included in Accountability?
[14](#what-other-factors-are-included-in-accountability)

Who Gets Tested? [15](#who-gets-tested)

Whose Scores Count for the Accountability System?
[16](#whose-scores-count-for-the-accountability-system)

Establishing School Performance Goals
[16](#establishing-school-performance-goals)

Definitions of Adequate Yearly Progress
[17](#definitions-of-adequate-yearly-progress)

Identifying Schools in Need of Improvement
[21](#identifying-schools-in-need-of-improvement)

Summary [23](#summary)

Trends in State Identification of Low-Performing Schools
[23](#trends-in-state-identification-of-low-performing-schools)

Turning Around Low-Performing Schools
[27](#turning-around-low-performing-schools)

Research on Effective Schools [27](#research-on-effective-schools)

Turning Low-Performing Schools into High-Performing Schools
[29](#turning-low-performing-schools-into-high-performing-schools)

School, District, and State Capacity for Effective Reform
[30](#school-district-and-state-capacity-for-effective-reform)

State and District Roles in Turning Around Low-Performing Schools
[31](#state-and-district-roles-in-turning-around-low-performing-schools)

Needs Assessment and Goal Setting
[31](#needs-assessment-and-goal-setting)

Planning [32](#planning)

Implementation [33](#implementation)

Staff Development [34](#staff-development)

Time [36](#time)

Expert Advice [37](#expert-advice)

Parent and Community Involvement [38](#parent-and-community-involvement)

School Reform Models [39](#school-reform-models)

Flexibility [41](#flexibility)

Evaluation and Feedback [41](#evaluation-and-feedback)

Responses to Schools that Fail to Turn Around
[43](#responses-to-schools-that-fail-to-turn-around)

North Carolina's Program to Turn Around Low-Performing Schools
[44](#north-carolinas-program-to-turn-around-low-performing-schools)

The Federal Role in Turning Around Low-Performing Schools
[46](#the-federal-role-in-turning-around-low-performing-schools)

Needs Assessment [46](#needs-assessment)

Planning [47](#planning-1)

Implementation [47](#implementation-1)

Staff Development [47](#staff-development-1)

Time [48](#time-1)

Expert Advice [48](#expert-advice-1)

Parent and Community Involvement
[51](#parent-and-community-involvement-1)

Models [51](#models)

Flexibility [52](#flexibility-1)

Evaluation and Feedback [52](#evaluation-and-feedback-1)

Responses to Schools that Fail to Turn Around
[53](#responses-to-schools-that-fail-to-turn-around-1)

Implications [56](#implications-1)

Balancing the Need to Strengthen State Title I Performance and
Accountability Systems with the Need to Stabilize Them
[56](#balancing-the-need-to-strengthen-state-title-i-performance-and-accountability-systems-with-the-need-to-stabilize-them)

Aligning Title I and State Accountability Systems
[56](#aligning-title-i-and-state-accountability-systems)

Improving Data Quality and Timely Reporting
[57](#improving-data-quality-and-timely-reporting)

State Plans for Improving Low-Performing Schools
[58](#state-plans-for-improving-low-performing-schools)

Evaluating the Role of Federal Programs in School Reform
[58](#evaluating-the-role-of-federal-programs-in-school-reform)

Conclusion [59](#conclusion)

**Acknowledgements**

The principal author of this report is Elizabeth Ann Witt. Kathryn
Doherty also did extensive work on early drafts of the report.

Department of Education staff members in many offices read the report
and provided useful comments. Michael Cohen, Alan Ginsburg, Susan
Wilhelm, Hugh Burkett, and the entire Low-Performing Schools team
provided particularly useful comments. The authors wish to thank these
people, as well as all the other staff members in the Title I office and
in the Planning and Evaluation Service who assisted in producing this
report. Much of the data in the report came from the Title I office.

Thanks are also due to researchers at the Consortium for Policy Research
in Education who provided extensive information on state accountability
systems.

# Executive Summary

On May 3, 2000 President Clinton signed Executive Order 13153, which
directed the U.S. Department of Education to undertake actions to
improve low-performing schools. The Executive Order directs the U.S.
Department of Education to provide technical assistance to state and
local education agencies to develop and implement a comprehensive
strategy for improving school performance; strengthen monitoring of
state and local compliance with Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) requirements around identifying and turning around low-performing
schools; and report on the progress of these efforts through an annual
school improvement report.

This is the first annual school improvement report in response to the
Executive Order on Actions to Improve Low-Performing Schools. The report
presents state by state data on the numbers of schools identified as in
need of improvement through Title I of the ESEA and describes the
factors that account for the variance in schools identified for
improvement across the states. The report also highlights research and
examples of promising practices associated with turning around
low-performing schools and describes the school district, state, and
federal roles in supporting efforts to turn around low-performing
schools.

## Key Findings

### Who Attends Low-Performing Schools

Schools identified as in need of improvement serve disproportionately
poor and minority students. Almost half of Title I schools in need of
improvement (compared to only 20 percent of all Title I schools) are
schools where 75 percent or more students are minority and eligible for
free and reduced price lunch.

### Identifying Low-Performing Schools

-   Because of changes made in the 1994 reauthorization of Title I, many
    states have dramatically altered their accountability systems and
    their criteria for designating schools as low performing. Several
    states have not yet completed this redesign process, and as a result
    of incomplete implementation of changes in Title I law, over half of
    the states now have two systems for identifying low-performing
    schools, one for Title I schools and one for other schools. This
    period of transition in accountability systems has been marked by
    large year to year swings in the numbers of Title I schools
    identified for improvement by some states. These changes do not
    necessarily reflect an actual improvement or worsening in the
    quality of the schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Flexibility measures written into Title I law allow each state to
    have a different system for assessing school progress and for
    determining which schools are low performing. These differences have
    resulted in states identifying very different percentages of Title I
    schools as low performing. Percentages range from 1 percent to 76
    percent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The total number of Title I schools across the country identified as
    "needing improvement" was 7,616 in 1996-97. The number had risen, as
    of the release date of this report, to over 8,800 in 1998-99;
    because nine states had not yet submitted data, this count is
    expected to rise further. Changes within state systems and the lack
    of congruence between the varying systems in different states,
    however, makes this rise difficult to interpret. Differences in
    actual performance between states are mixed up with differences in
    states' expectations and identification practices, which makes the
    number of identified schools an unreliable indicator for comparing
    school performance across states.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The data provided by states to the Department of Education on the
    number of schools identified as needing improvement are frequently
    out-of-date and of questionable quality. The Department has begun to
    work with states to create an electronic data collection system to
    produce better, more timely data, while at the same time reducing
    states' data reporting burden.

### Repairing Low-Performing Schools

-   Research on the characteristics of effective schools is plentiful
    and largely in agreement in its conclusions. Research on the
    *process* of turning a low-performing school into an effective
    school is much less plentiful and more difficult to interpret. The
    limited research on the change process does make clear that in order
    to succeed, reform efforts need to be adapted to the needs of the
    individual school and involve the entire school community. Schools
    that engage in successful reform efforts also appear to share a
    four-step process involving a needs assessment, a planning phase, an
    implementation phase, and a period of assessment and evaluation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many low-performing schools cannot turn themselves around without
    help. Low-performing schools are usually the ones least likely to
    have the capacity to turn themselves around. They need critical
    external support to adopt research-based strategies for creating
    effective schools, and they need more information and better
    guidance on what it takes to turn around a failing school. In many
    cases schools not only do not get the help they need, they do not
    even know why they have been identified as low performing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   States and districts have a key role in and responsibility for
    supporting failing schools. At each of the four stages of school
    improvement (needs assessment, planning, implementation, and
    evaluation and assessment) states and districts could, and should,
    provide the resources, including personnel, funds, information, and
    rewards and sanctions that encourage and foster school improvement.
    Many states and districts already have programs in place, but they
    must do more to help struggling schools

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In many cases, research suggests that districts and states are not
    doing an adequate job in helping low-performing schools build the
    capacity they need to improve performance, in part because they
    themselves lack the capacity to assist individual schools. The
    federal government's role is to provide programs and funds that help
    states and districts build their capacity to assist low-performing
    schools.

## Implications

The report findings raise implications for further local, state, and
federal actions in the continued effort to turn around low-performing
schools:

-   Changes in Title I law to strengthen important elements of the
    system must be balanced with the need to allow states to complete
    the implementation of major changes made in the law during the
    previous reauthorization.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   States that currently have different accountability systems for
    Title I and non-Title I schools should be strongly encouraged to
    institute unitary systems; without a single accountability system,
    all schools cannot be held to the same standard.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   States and the federal government must work together to improve the
    timeliness of the collection and reporting of the important school
    data on which programs for assisting struggling schools depend.
    Quality of data must also be improved.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   States must institute and carry out carefully thought out plans for
    their school improvement activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Department of Education must carefully evaluate its programs to
    determine whether or not they are contributing to helping states and
    districts do a better job of turning around low-performing schools,
    especially in terms of whether or not federal programs are
    sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of individual schools.

# Introduction

In May 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13153, directing
the U. S. Department of Education to step up its efforts to assist
states and school districts to turn around low-performing schools. In
order to ensure that national and state efforts in this area are
regularly informed by the best available information, one key component
of the Department of Education's approach is an annual report on trends
in state efforts to identify and intervene in low-performing schools.
This is the first such report. It identifies baseline trends and key
issues for future attention and for local, state, and federal action.

Throughout the country, long-standing rhetoric about school
accountability is just now beginning to be translated into action. As a
result of their own initiatives as well as the requirements of Title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, all states are putting
into place systems of challenging standards for all students, aligned
assessments to measure and publicly report on school progress toward
meeting state standards, and school accountability for results.
Consequently, every state has now identified schools that do not measure
up, schools that need improvement.

The criteria for identifying low-performing schools vary considerably
from state to state, though research shows that the schools have some
characteristics in common. Schools with persistently low achievement are
disproportionately likely to have a large concentration of students from
low income and minority background and to be located in communities with
significant concentrations of poverty and its associated problems.

Low-performing schools typically lack the education resources that
matter the most. They are likely to suffer from low standards and
expectations for their students, watered down curriculum, and limited
parental involvement. Teachers and other instructional staff in these
schools are often less experienced and less well qualified than those in
higher performing schools, and their staff collectively have higher
turnover rates and lower morale than those in other schools. Often, the
school environment lacks order and discipline.

Yet more than twenty years of research and experience teaches us that
there are many high poverty schools that help large numbers of their
students achieve to high standards and that low-performing schools can
be turned around. Effective schools are characterized by an emphasis on
academics and have high standards, a rich and challenging curriculum
aligned with standards, and a system for regularly monitoring student
progress. The school climate is safe and orderly; teachers are well
prepared, receive ongoing, high quality professional development, and
work collegially to improve instruction. And there is strong school
leadership that sets high expectations and a clear direction and strives
to help school staff work as an effective team.

These characteristics of effective schools have been known for nearly
two decades. Unfortunately, as a nation we have not always had the will
or the capacity to make them a reality on a large scale. However, those
who insist on holding schools accountable for results also have an
obligation to help those that are struggling to measure up. The primary
reason for making information about school performance public is to
ensure that identified schools receive the assistance they need.
Parents, educators, and taxpayers have a responsibility to insist that
state and local education officials work together and with them to
improve schools that have been identified as needing improvement.

The federal government also has a vital role to play in this area. The
1994 reauthorization of Title I requires that states and school
districts identify and then assist low performing schools. Yet, as
discussed in this report, recent Title I evaluations show that more than
half of the Title I schools identified as needing improvement report
receiving no additional assistance through professional development,
technical assistance, or financial resources. In addition, many states
have been relatively slow to institute their own policies and mechanisms
for intervening in low-performing schools. A 1987 report from the
National Governors' Association indicates that, at that time, only 9
states had policies in place to identify and intervene in low-performing
schools. Now, almost 15 years later, *Education Week's Quality Counts
2001* reports that 27 states---just over half---have such policies in
place. Of these, 17 provide an external assistance team to assist each
low-performing school, and only 7 provide extra funds to help each
identified school. Clearly, this is an arena in which the federal
government must continue to spur state and local action.

A federal focus on helping low-performing schools is also a logical and
necessary extension of its historic role of providing assistance to
improve the quality of education of our most disadvantaged students.
Starting with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, the federal government has instituted programs to assist
economically disadvantaged students, Native American and migrant
students, and students whose first language is not English. These and
other programs were substantially overhauled in 1994 to ensure that they
all focused on helping students achieve to high standards. Now, the
effectiveness of these programs depends heavily on a system of strong
accountability for results, including deliberate steps to upgrade
schools that are persistently failing.

In recent years, the federal government has stepped up its efforts to
target additional funds to low-performing schools to help them implement
proven practices. The Reading Excellence Act helps high poverty
low-performing schools implement scientifically based reading
instruction programs by disseminating information on what works and
through high quality professional development. Similarly, states target
approximately 80 percent of their Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration program funds on helping turn around Title I schools
identified as needing improvement. In FY 2000, Congress appropriated
\$134 million for states to assist approximately 1,400 Title I schools
needing improvement; that amount was increased to \$225 million in the
FY 2001 appropriations act. In addition, growing numbers of local school
districts target additional federal education funds to reduce class size
and provide extended learning time in after-school and summer school
programs as part of their strategies to boost achievement in
low-performing schools.

In response to President Clinton's Executive Order, the Department of
Education has begun working with state officials to help them design and
implement state strategies for turning around low-performing schools and
to use federal program funds to support implementation. This report is
an additional tool to help federal and state policymakers strengthen
these efforts. It draws on state performance data reported to the
Department of Education for school years 1996-97 through 1998-99, as
well as the latest research on turning around low-performing schools. In
brief, it shows that

-   The total number of Title I schools across the country identified as
    "needing improvement" was 7,616 in 1996-97. The number had risen, as
    of the release date of this report, to over 8,800 in 1998-99;
    because nine states had not yet submitted data, this count is
    expected to rise further.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many states have not yet completed the design and implementation of
    their accountability systems and are still phasing in state testing
    programs, school reporting systems, and standards for judging school
    progress. Consequently, a number of states show large year-to-year
    changes in the number of low-performing schools they identify,
    changes that reflect shifts in assessment procedures far more than
    shifts in student or school academic performance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   States vary tremendously in the percentage of Title I schools
    identified as needing improvement. For example, in 1998-99 Texas
    identified 1 percent of its Title I schools as needing improvement,
    while Michigan identified 76 percent of its Title I schools as
    needing improvement. The other states fell somewhere in between.
    There is little reason to believe that these differences reflect
    differences in performance or program effectiveness among the
    states. Rather, they highlight the variation in state content and
    performance standards, tests, and definitions of adequate yearly
    progress for each school. These differences arise from the fact that
    each state is responsible for designing its own approach and from
    the lack of consensus about how best to accomplish this task. As a
    result, the Department of Education has an important role to play in
    helping states learn from one another as they refine and revise
    their approaches. Further, as Congress approaches the
    reauthorization of Title I, it will be important for it to find the
    right balance between continued flexibility for states in this area,
    and the need to create a more uniform basis for accountability in
    federal education programs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Too many low-performing schools fail to get needed help, even though
    the Title I statute requires states and districts to provide such
    assistance. In recent years there has been a significant increase in
    the availability of federal resources for this purpose, and if more
    recent data were available it should show improvement in this area.
    Nonetheless, states, together with local school districts, must
    assume a larger role in assisting low-performing schools and have a
    specific plan and resources to support each school that needs it.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There are significant gaps in research and data that must be filled.
    We know more about the characteristics of high performing schools
    than about the process of transforming low-performing schools or
    about how states and local school districts can most effectively
    build the capacity to assist the growing number of schools that need
    additional help. In addition, federal and state policies
    increasingly require school districts to provide students in Title I
    schools identified as needing improvement with the choice of
    attending a higher performing public school within the district.
    There is much to be learned about how to design local public school
    choice plans that will provide meaningful choices to students and
    that will help strengthen all schools in the district.

-   Further, data provided by States on the number of schools identified
    as needing improvement is frequently out-of-date, of unknown
    quality, and not comparable across states. To address this problem,
    the Department of Education has begun working with states on the
    design of an electronic data harvesting system that can produce more
    timely and higher quality data, while reducing reporting burdens on
    state and local education agencies. It will take a number of years
    and some additional resources before this system can be fully
    implemented.

# Characteristics of Low-Performing Schools

Despite recent efforts to address the problems of low-performing
schools, we know that there are still many schools that are failing to
provide a high quality education to our children. Despite some gains in
overall achievement on the NAEP and on assessments in many states, the
gap in performance between students in high- and low-poverty schools
remains large. In some schools, expectations of students are low,
teachers and parents are frustrated, and academic performance is poor.
Many problems, including poverty, limited resources, unqualified
teachers, and unsafe learning environments, contribute to frustration,
disillusionment, and discouragingly low levels of student achievement in
such schools. In 1997-1998, 9,195 schools were identified as low
performing under Title I of the ESEA. Final figures for 1998-1999 are
not yet available, but numbers continue to be large.

We know from many sources, including the U.S. Department of Education's
National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, that schools identified as in
need of improvement serve disproportionately poor and minority students.
Almost half of Title I schools in need of improvement (compared to only
20 percent of all Title I schools) are schools where 75 percent or more
students are minority and eligible for free and reduced price lunch.

These low-performing schools are the focus of this report and of the
Department of Education's response to the President's Executive Order on
Actions to Improve Low-Performing Schools. Chronically low-performing
schools are an enduring problem in American education. However, we are
learning more every day from research and from countless examples of
turned around schools that schools can be dramatically improved if the
right conditions and supports are in place. The goal of the Department's
initiative to turn around low-performing schools is to mobilize
resources to improve the quality of school leadership and the teaching
force and help low-performing schools implement coordinated,
research-based reforms to improve student achievement.

# Identification of Low-Performing Schools: State Systems in Flux

## State Responsibility

The 1994 Reauthorization of ESEA, along with the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act, introduced a new federal approach to K-12 education, an
approach built around a framework of standards based reform. Impetus for
this standards based approach came from the states, particularly from
the 1989 Charlottesville National Education Summit, convened by
President George H.W. Bush and chaired by Bill Clinton, then Governor of
Arkansas.

The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA embraced this concept of standards
based reform. It was based on the premise that challenging standards for
all students would promote excellence and equity, and better link Title
I with other federal programs to support state and local reform efforts.
Specifically, under the re-authorized Title I, states were required to
develop rigorous standards for all children, aligned assessments to
measure students' progress toward these standards, and means of holding
schools accountable for ensuring that students reach high standards.
States were required to develop measures of adequate yearly progress for
schools, measures based primarily on state assessments. Schools that
failed to make adequate progress in moving students toward standards for
two consecutive years were to be identified as in need of improvement
and receive assistance from districts and states. Recognizing that
states have Constitutional responsibility for education, the 1994
reauthorization of ESEA was written so that states, with support from
the federal government, were to take ultimate responsibility for seeing
that local schools measured up to acceptable standards and were provided
with appropriate assistance when they failed to do so.

Although the 1994 reauthorization of Title I directed that all states
should implement standards, align assessments, formulate definitions of
adequate yearly progress used to identify low-performing schools, and
put in place mechanisms for assisting schools so identified, states were
also given the flexibility to design their own systems. Since states
were given several years to create and approve their standards and
assessments, most states are just now reaching full compliance with the
law. Given the flexibility measures built into the law, it is equally
unsurprising that the systems the states have created and the speed with
which they have been implemented vary considerably.

As of October 2000, all but two states had instituted content standards
in reading and math, and 25 states had approved performance standards,
but these standards do not reach uniform levels of rigor. States were to
have final assessment systems in place by 2000-2001, but as of January
2001, only seven states had received full approval, and only nine had
received conditional approval. Five states had received waivers to
extend the timeline for meeting the requirements, and at least two
states were asked to enter compliance agreements in order to remain
eligible for Title I funding.

When it comes to low-performing Title I schools, state efforts are
particularly uneven.

-   Large differences between states exist because each state has a
    different definition of adequate yearly progress as the basis for
    decisions as to which schools are deemed low performing and which
    are not. Some states measure progress solely with a test, while
    others include attendance and other non-cognitive measures. Some
    states expect all students to reach proficiency over an extended
    time, while others set lower, shorter-term goals for their schools.
    Some states define adequate school progress as meeting an absolute
    performance goal, while others focus on movement towards a specified
    target.

-   Not all states are equally far along in implementing new definitions
    of adequate yearly progress, a problem that leads to occasionally
    wild swings in the numbers of schools identified by individual
    states. It is likely that when states have stable systems that have
    been in place for a few years, such year-to-year fluctuations will
    become significantly less drastic.

It is important to note that the wide variation in state definitions of
adequate yearly progress and state accountability systems is a direct
result of the way the Title I legislation was written. The 1994 law was
specifically written with considerations of flexibility and state and
local control of education in mind. The goal of the law was to allow
states to create accountability systems that best fit their needs and
existing state education structures. One result of this legislation is
that states have been able to create systems with which they are
comfortable and which were politically viable for state legislatures,
but the ability to compare data and performance across states was lost
in the process, making it virtually impossible for the Department of
Education to make definitive statements about national data.

States are taking such different approaches to standards, assessment,
accountability, and capacity building that it is not always clear where
we stand as a nation in terms of low-performing schools. What is clear
is that states are in flux both in determining which schools are low
performing and in providing assistance to struggling schools.

## How States Identify Low-Performing Schools

An example of the problematic nature of state progress in dealing with
low-performing schools is how they identify such schools. To begin with,
some states have not yet completed the restructuring of their
accountability systems, in accordance with the last reauthorization of
Title I. Many of these states, as a result, have two separate systems
for identifying low-performing schools, one for all schools and one that
applies only to Title I schools.

States also take different approaches to identifying low-performing
schools. According to the current Title I legislation, states and school
districts must identify for school improvement any Title I school that
has not made adequate yearly progress for two consecutive school years.
While this is a seemingly straightforward process, flexibility measures
written into the law allow states to make a series of decisions in
defining adequate progress and identifying low-performing schools:

1.  States develop their own content standards, assessments, and
    performance standards, defining what students should know and be
    able to do and what levels of performance are satisfactory.

2.  States must select indicators of student performance. Under Title I,
    states must include the annual state assessment results, but may
    also include other measures, such as attendance and dropout rates.

3.  States must establish school performance goals.

4.  States must define what they consider substantial and continuous
    yearly progress toward that goal.

5.  Using their own definitions of adequate yearly progress, states must
    identify schools in need of improvement.

States differ considerably in how they make these decisions, and these
differences produce very different results in the numbers and
percentages of schools identified as low performing. Because of
variation in state policy, schools with comparable levels of student
performance could easily be identified as in need of improvement in one
state, but not in another.

This section of the report uses data collected from the 50 states in
Spring 2000 by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) to
describe how states are holding Title I schools accountable for student
performance. The following sections examine the context for system
reform, the problem of dual accountability systems, and how states have
addressed the decision points discussed above---establishing performance
indicators, setting school performance goals, defining adequate yearly
progress for schools, and identifying schools in need of improvement.

### Context

It is important to note that the discussion below focuses on state
*accountability* policies. It *does not* address the content, quality,
or rigor of state standards or the rigor or alignment of state
assessment systems, although these variables also affect how and for
what students, schools, and school districts are held accountable.

Furthermore, variations in these accountability policies, both before
and after the reauthorization of Title I in 1994, account for some of
the differences in how states identify low-performing schools. First of
all, states were at different stages of standards-based reform when they
started to address the 1994 Title I requirements. Title I required all
states to have challenging content and performance standards in place by
1997-1998. States were to adopt high quality assessments aligned to
these standards and criteria for measuring sustained progress for these
standards by the 2000-2001 school year. States' different starting
points account, in part, for differences in where they end up.

Another challenge in trying to examine the variation in identification
of low-performing schools across the states is the transitional nature
of many state accountability systems. Several states are in the process
of redesigning assessment and accountability systems to meet state
and/or federal policy requirements, including those of Title I. Even
states like Kentucky, which have relatively long-established
accountability systems, have continued to modify their policies in
response to lessons learned through early implementation. Many states
will put new assessment and/or accountability systems into place in
2000-2001. Other states will implement new policies starting in 2001 or
later. Thus, we are studying a moving target.

### Dual Accountability Systems

Differences exist between states' own accountability systems and the
requirements of Title I in about half the states. The intent of the 1994
reauthorization of Title I was to create in each state a single
accountability system that would treat all schools equally and hold all
students and schools to the same standards for performance. In the
period of transition, during which states implement new systems,
variations and problems with systems were expected. We know that in many
cases, however, states' existing systems and the systems created to meet
the requirements of Title I operate separately and overlap only
partially. The procedures used to identify low-performing schools are
the same for both Title I schools and all schools in the state in only
22 states (See Table 1).

In many of the cases where states have two systems, the state's
accreditation or accountability system predates the 1994
reauthorization, and is not sufficiently rigorous to meet Title I
requirements. Often the state system does not include a measure of
progress, as required by Title I. States were required to complete the
transition to a single system by the spring of 2001, but it is unlikely
that all will be able to do so.

Table 1

  ---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
  **Alignment of                               
  Title I and                                  
  General State                                
  Accountability                               
  Systems,                                     
  1999-2000**                                  

  State            Unitary Systems             Dual Systems

  Alabama          X                           

  Alaska                                       x

  Arizona \*                                   x

  Arkansas                                     x

  California       X                           

  Colorado                                     x

  Connecticut      X                           

  Delaware ^1^     X                           

  Florida          X                           

  Georgia ^3^                                  x

  Hawaii                                       x

  Idaho                                        x

  Illinois \* ^3^  X                           

  Indiana                                      x

  Iowa             X                           

  Kansas ^3^                                   x

  Kentucky         X                           

  Louisiana        X                           

  Maine ^2^                                    x

  Maryland         X                           

  Massachusetts \* X                           
  ^1^                                          

  Michigan                                     x

  Minnesota                                    x

  Mississippi \*                               x

  Missouri                                     x

  Montana                                      x

  Nebraska                                     x

  Nevada                                       x

  New Hampshire \*                             x
  ^2^                                          

  New Jersey                                   x

  New Mexico ^3^   X                           

  New York ^3^     X                           

  North Carolina   X                           

  North Dakota                                 x

  Ohio             X                           

  Oklahoma                                     x

  Oregon \* ^2^    X                           

  Pennsylvania                                 x

  Rhode Island     X                           

  South Carolina                               x
  \*                                           

  South Dakota                                 x

  Tennessee \*                                 x

  Texas            X                           

  Utah                                         x

  Vermont ^1^      X                           

  Virginia \*      X                           

  Washington                                   x

  West Virginia    X                           

  Wisconsin \*     X                           

  Wyoming ^1^                                  x
  ---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------

^1^ To be implemented 2000-2001.

^2^ To be implemented 2000-2001, pending Federal approval.

^3^ To be implemented 2000-2001, pending State Board approval.

> \*Profiles on these states have not yet been fully verified by the
> state's department of education.

Twenty-eight states operate dual systems of accountability in which
either Title I and non-Title I schools are held accountable using
different sets of indicators and/or performance standards, or only Title
I schools are held accountable by the state or district outside of the
performance reporting structure. These dual systems cause a certain
amount of confusion in determining exactly how many low-performing
schools a state actually has.

### Selecting Performance Measures 

The first decision states make as part of their efforts to identify
low-performing Title I schools is to select measures or indicators of
student performance. States can mandate what assessments will be used or
let local education officials decide. States must use
criterion-referenced tests to measure performance against state
standards. Some also use norm-reference tests to compare student
performance against a sample of students from across the country. A
state may also decide it will measure student behaviors, such as
attendance or dropout rates, in addition to achievement on an
assessment. States must also decide in which subject areas to test
students and which students' scores are to be included in accountability
ratings. Title I requires that reading/language arts and mathematics be
included at a minimum, but encourages states to include other subject
areas as well.

#### What Tests Are Used?

Each state uses a different assessment tool for identifying schools for
improvement. For the 2000-2001 school year, states were required to have
implemented a state assessment system that met the Title I requirements:
having assessments in at least reading and mathematics at the three
grade spans, elementary, middle and high school; includes virtually all
students in the assessment and accountability system; is aligned with
state content and performance standards; is valid and reliable; and is
reported by mandated disaggregated categories. Fifty states, Puerto Rico
and the District of Columbia submitted their state assessment systems
for review under Title I. For the 31 systems with completed reviews (21
are currently under review), 9 States have met all the Title I
requirements, another 7 are expected to meet the requirements by Spring
2001. Twelve states have been granted a timeline waiver to finish one or
more components of their state systems, while 3 states will be entering
into a compliance agreement to ensure that the Title I requirements are
met.

For Title I purposes, the state assessment system must be the primary
means for determining adequate yearly progress. If a state does not have
a statewide system, local assessments may be used if they meet the same
Title I requirements as a state system. At this time, Iowa and Nebraska
do not have state wide assessment systems. They are currently developing
a review and approval process that will allow the state to ensure that
the local systems meet the Title I requirements. The Department will
approve these state systems.

#### What Subjects Are Included?

Title I requires that states include reading and mathematics in their
standards, assessment, and accountability policies. As shown in Figure
1, all states include student performance in mathematics and either
English/language arts or reading in their Title I accountability
systems. In 1999-2000, many states also included other subjects: writing
(19 states), social studies (20 states), and science (19 states). In all
but one case, the same states assess both social studies and science for
Title I purposes. Three states will add writing in 2000-2001, and one
state will add both social studies and science.

Other states include multiple subject areas in their testing systems but
do not use the results to determine school performance for
accountability purposes. Missouri, for example, tests and includes
scores from all four core subject areas in its general accountability
program, but limits Title I accountability to performance on mathematics
and reading assessments. The Montana Board of Public Education requires
all accredited schools to report student achievement scores for grades
4, 8, and 11 in reading, language arts, math, science, and social
studies but bases Title I school progress solely on reading and
mathematics performance.

####### Figure 1

![](media/image2.wmf)

#### 

#### What Other Factors Are Included in Accountability?

Thirteen states use or intend to use non-cognitive indicators to measure
the adequate yearly progress of Title I schools during the 1999-2000 or
2000-2001 school years. The most common non-cognitive indicators are
attendance (10 states) and dropout rates (8 states). Less frequently
used indicators include graduation, suspension and retention rates (See
Figure 2).[^1]

####### Figure 2

![](media/image3.wmf)

#### Who Gets Tested?

The provisions of Title I require states to include all students in the
grades they test, and assess all students against the same content and
performance standards. If standard assessment procedures cannot provide
this information for students with diverse learning needs, such as
students with disabilities or English language learners, states must
make reasonable test adaptations and accommodations, or provide
alternate assessments; individual student reports are required in these
cases.

In general, states are testing more students with disabilities than in
previous years and report that they offer a range of test accommodations
and modifications.[^2] States appear to offer a broader range of
accommodations and modifications on their own criterion-referenced
assessments. States are developing and beginning to implement alternate
assessments for students with disabilities but face ongoing challenges
in determining student eligibility, aligning tests with state standards,
and scoring and reporting test results.[^3] States also report they are
monitoring exclusion rates, and some are incorporating exclusion rates
into their school accountability measures.

Testing policies in every state are being reviewed this school year.
States failing to comply with Title I requirements are being required to
modify their policies in order to come into compliance and to remain
eligible for Title I funds. Many states have been exempting students
from testing for up to three years if they are enrolled in a bilingual
or an English as a Second Language (ESL) program, a practice that puts
the states out of compliance with Title I. Florida, for example,
excludes students with less than two years of ESL; those with two or
more years must be tested in English, but may have accommodations such
as additional time or division of the test into shorter periods. Other
states exempt students based on their level of English proficiency.
English language learners in Nevada, for example, must pass the Language
Acquisition Skills assessment before being included in the state
assessment. Colorado exempts non-English speaking students who score at
levels 1 or 2 on a 5-stage language proficiency rubric. Texas exempts
non-Spanish speaking students from its grade 3-8 testing program based
on their level of English proficiency, but requires all students to take
the 10^th^ grade exit test in English.

Finally, a handful of states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas offer
Spanish versions of some of their assessments. New York provides
mathematics tests in four languages and will translate high school
examinations in subjects other than English into five languages. Oregon
has also developed tests in languages other than English. The
President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans (2000) has raised concerns, however, about the rigor and
adequacy of tests created in Spanish and of translated versions of state
assessments, as well as the appropriateness of many test accommodations
for English language learners.

#### Whose Scores Count for the Accountability System?

When examining how states make decisions about identifying
low-performing schools, it is important to understand whose scores are
included in school and district accountability measures. Many states
report including the scores of all tested students in their
accountability systems, although some exclude students taking
alternative assessments and other students who took tests under
non-standard conditions. Such practices place states out of compliance
with Title I. States found out of compliance are being required to come
into compliance this year.

### Establishing School Performance Goals 

The goal of Title I adequate yearly progress definitions is to ensure
that schools are making continuous and substantial progress, within an
appropriate timeframe, toward having all students meet state proficient
and advanced levels of achievement. As one looks across states, however,
there is a very wide variation in how states determine the goals schools
must meet to avoid being identified as in need of improvement.

Performance goals vary widely across states. State targets appear to
vary along three dimensions: (1) whether they set an absolute goal or a
progress goal; (2) the level at which the goal is set, determined by the
percentage of students in schools that must meet standards; and (3) the
length of time schools are given to meet their goals.

All but five states have established absolute goals for school
performance. In a few states, like Michigan and Washington, the
performance goals are to increase the percentage of students meeting
state standards and to reduce the percentage of students who are well
below standards. These states have not set a target number or percentage
of students who should fall into each category. This approach, which we
call *narrowing the achievement gap*, is used by several other states in
their definition of adequate progress.

Most of the states that set an *absolute* goal for school performance
expect to bring some or all of their students to the "proficient" level
of performance. The measure of proficiency, however, is not comparable
across states. States use different assessments aligned with different
standards and set different cut scores for each performance level. A
student who is proficient on Rhode Island's assessment, for example, may
(or may not) exhibit a different level and/or mix of knowledge and
skills than a student who scores at the proficient level in Maryland or
Wisconsin. Six states require students to meet a basic level of
performance. Florida, for example, gives grades of "A" and "B" to
schools where at least half of the students reach Level 3 on the state
assessment ("the student has partial success with the state standards").

States also differ in the percentage of students that schools are
expected to bring up to the basic or proficient standard. About a dozen
states *specify* that they expect 90-100 percent of students to reach
proficiency, about a dozen specify they expect 60-85 percent to reach
this level, and about another ten states set the goal at 50 percent of
students meeting the assessment target in order to avoid being
identified as in need of improvement. Other states focus on average
scores.

Finally, states set different timelines for meeting these performance
goals. Fourteen states have established explicit target dates, ranging
from six to twenty years; the modal target is ten years.

### Definitions of Adequate Yearly Progress

An important factor in examining how states identify low-performing
schools is understanding whether states require schools to reach a
threshold above which they will not be identified for improvement or
whether all schools are required to make progress every year.

Twelve states use absolute targets rather than levels of actual progress
as the only measure of making adequate yearly progress. The remaining 37
states incorporate some measure of continuous progress in their
definitions, either as the sole measure or in combination with other
measures.

####### Figure 3

![](media/image4.wmf)

Table 2

+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| **Categories   |            |    |              |    |              |
| of Defining    |            |    |              |    |              |
| Title I        |            |    |              |    |              |
| Adequate       |            |    |              |    |              |
| Yearly         |            |    |              |    |              |
| Progress,      |            |    |              |    |              |
| 1999-2000**    |            |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| State          | Meeting an | an | Making       | an | Narrowing    |
|                |            | d/ | Relative     | d/ | the          |
|                | Absolute   |    | Growth       |    | Achievement  |
|                | Target     | or |              | or | Gap          |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Alabama        | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Alaska         | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Arizona \*     | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Arkansas       | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| California     |            |    | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Colorado       |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Connecticut    | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Delaware ^1^   | x          | a  | x            | a  | x            |
|                |            | nd |              | nd |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Florida        | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Georgia ^3^    | x          |    |              | a  | x            |
|                |            |    |              | nd |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Hawaii         | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Idaho          |            |    | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Illinois \*    | x          |    |              | a  | x            |
|                |            |    |              | nd |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Indiana        | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Iowa           | n/a        |    | n/a          |    | n/a          |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Kansas ^3^     | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Kentucky       |            |    | x            | a  | x            |
|                |            |    |              | nd |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Louisiana      | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Maine ^2^      |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Maryland       |            |    | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Massachusetts  | x          | a  | x            |    |              |
| \* ^1^         |            | nd |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Michigan       |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Minnesota      |            |    | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Missouri       |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Mississippi \* | x          | a  | x            |    |              |
|                |            | nd |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Montana        | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Nebraska       |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Nevada         |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| New Hampshire  | x          | a  | x            |    |              |
| \* ^2^         |            | nd |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| New Jersey     | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| New Mexico ^3^ | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| New York ^3^   | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| North Carolina | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| North Dakota   |            |    | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Ohio           | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Oklahoma       | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Oregon \* ^2^  | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Pennsylvania   |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Rhode Island   |            |    | x            | a  | x            |
|                |            |    |              | nd |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| South Carolina | x          | or | x            |    |              |
| \*             |            |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| South Dakota   |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Tennessee \*   |            |    | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Texas          | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Utah           | x          | or | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Vermont ^1^    |            |    | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Virginia \*    | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Washington     |            |    |              |    | x            |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| West Virginia  | x          |    |              |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Wisconsin\*    | x          | or | x            | a  | x            |
|                |            |    |              | nd |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+
| Wyoming ^1^    |            |    | x            |    |              |
+----------------+------------+----+--------------+----+--------------+

^1^ To be implemented 2000-2001.

^2^ To be implemented 2000-2001, pending Federal approval.

^3^ To be implemented 2000-2001, pending State Board approval.

\*Profiles on these states have not yet been fully verified by the
state's department of education.

Florida and Texas are examples of states that use *absolute* targets.
Florida grades schools on a scale of A to F. A school earns each grade
by meeting specific performance standards. For example, at least 60
percent of a school's students must score at Level 2 ("limited success
at meeting state content standards") on the state assessments in
reading, mathematics and writing to receive a grade of "C." Schools that
do not meet this criterion in *any* of the three tested areas are given
a grade of "F" and are judged as not making adequate yearly progress.
Texas defines adequate yearly progress as achieving the state's
"acceptable" rating. For a school to be rated "acceptable" in 1999-2000,
at least 50 percent of students in each sub-group had to pass the state
assessment in reading, writing and mathematics, the drop out rate had to
be six percent or less, and the student attendance rate had to be at
least 94 percent.

The use of *relative criteria* emphasizes continuous improvement.
California is an example of a state that has established annual goals
for schools that require continuous progress towards a state-specified
performance target. California recently assigned schools individualized
annual growth targets based on five percent of the difference between
their Academic Performance Index baseline score for July 1999 and the
statewide interim performance target of 800.

Eleven states require schools to meet an absolute target *or* make
relative growth. For example, in Utah, elementary schools demonstrating
percentages of students equivalent to the state average percentage at
the basic or higher levels of proficiency are considered to have made
progress. If a school does not meet the state average percentages, an
improvement of three percent in the number of students per year
attaining the basic or higher levels will be considered adequate
progress. In North Carolina, a Title I school makes adequate progress if
it either meets the absolute performance minimum threshold (not more
than 50 percent of students below grade level) *or* its expected growth
goal.

Three other states require schools to meet an absolute target *and* make
relative growth. Massachusetts' new School Performance Rating Process,
implemented in the 2000-2001 school year, requires that each school be
assigned an overall performance rating (absolute target) *and* an
overall improvement rating (relative growth). These measures will be
combined to place each school in a performance category.

Fifteen states have addressed the achievement gap issue by defining
adequate yearly progress in terms of moving students from one
achievement level to the next higher level; nine states use this as the
sole definition of adequate school progress. Michigan, for example,
requires Title I schools to reduce by 10 percent the gap in the
percentage of students scoring in the highest and lowest performance
levels on the state assessments. Each school's achievement gap and
improvement goal are calculated annually and separately for each subject
area that is assessed. Schools are held accountable for closing the gap
in all subject areas.

Six states include narrowing the achievement gap as part of school
accountability criteria. Two states call for schools to meet an absolute
target and narrow the achievement gap, while two states require schools
to both narrow the achievement gap *and* make gains on their average
scores.

The length of time which schools have to meet final progress goals
varies. Some examples are 100 percent of students meeting standards by
2008 (Vermont); a school improvement index of 100 in ten years
(Colorado) or by 2014 (Kentucky); or 70 percent (math) to 75 percent
(English) of students meeting the basic standard in six years (South
Carolina). A second group of states does not specify target dates for
meeting standards, but uses adequate yearly progress targets as an
implicit timeline for moving schools toward the state's performance
goals. California, for example, has set an interim goal for its Academic
Performance Indicator of 800. The state assigns each school an Annual
Growth Target of at least 5 percent, based on the distance between its
current performance and the state goal.

A few states set lower, but more immediate and perhaps, in their
opinion, more achievable performance goals, intending to raise these
goals over time. Texas is an example of this strategy. When the state
enacted its reform, it rated schools as "acceptable" if 25 percent of
their students passed the state assessment. The state raised this
threshold by five percentage points a year, to the current level of 50
percent passing. Virginia has set a passing rate of 40 percent to 60
percent, depending on the subject, on its tests for the year 2000. In
the year 2006, however, at least 70 percent of students will need to
pass the state assessments in English, except for third and fifth grade
students, 75 percent of whom must pass. At least 60 percent of students
will need to pass the state assessments in three other core areas,
except in third and fifth grade math.

### Identifying Schools in Need of Improvement

Title I calls for districts (states) to identify for program improvement
schools (districts) that have not made adequate yearly progress for two
consecutive years. The process that these jurisdictions use, however,
entails four decisions:

-   How will schools be identified as in need of improvement?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Will the state or the district be responsible for identifying these
    schools?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How will districts be identified as in need of improvement?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How will schools and districts get out of improvement status?

Generally, states identify schools for improvement if they fail to make
adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years. A few states, such
as Hawaii, Minnesota and Virginia have shortened the timeline,
determining that a school that has not made adequate yearly progress for
*just one year* will be placed in program improvement. States have
generally adopted a "two in, two out" rule for schools, and in some
cases districts, to determine who should exit school improvement.
Specifically, states require schools to make adequate yearly progress
for two consecutive years after they have been identified for program
improvement. Some states have varied this rule by allowing schools to
make adequate yearly progress for two out of three years after being
identified for program improvement in order to be removed from that
status.

####### Figure 5

> ![](media/image5.wmf)

As shown in Figure 5, 29 states keep the responsibility for identifying
schools in need of improvement at the state level, while 13 states allow
districts identify such schools. The remaining eight states have
developed varied processes in which the state and the district share in
identification.

####### Table 3

+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| *               |                |                |                |
| *Identification |                |                |                |
| of Schools in   |                |                |                |
| Need of         |                |                |                |
| Improvement     |                |                |                |
| under Title     |                |                |                |
| I,**            |                |                |                |
|                 |                |                |                |
| **1999-2000**   |                |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| State           | Identification | Identification | Shared Role in |
|                 |                |                | Identification |
|                 | by the State   | by the         |                |
|                 |                | District       |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Alabama         |                |                | x              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Alaska          | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Arizona \*      |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Arkansas        | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| California      | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Colorado        |                |                | x              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Connecticut     | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Delaware ^1^    | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Florida         | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Georgia ^3^     | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Hawaii          | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Idaho           |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Illinois \* ^3^ |                |                | x              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Indiana         | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Iowa            |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Kansas ^3^      |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Kentucky        | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Louisiana       | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Maine ^2^       | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Maryland        |                |                | x              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Massachusetts   | x              |                |                |
| \* ^1^          |                |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Michigan        | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Minnesota       |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Mississippi \*  | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Missouri        |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Montana         | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Nebraska        |                |                | x              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Nevada          |                |                | x              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| New Hampshire   |                | x              |                |
| \* ^2^          |                |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| New Jersey      | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| New Mexico ^3^  |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| New York ^3^    |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| North Carolina  |                |                | x              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| North Dakota    | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Ohio            |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Oklahoma        | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Oregon \* ^2^   | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Pennsylvania    |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Rhode Island    | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| South Carolina  | x              |                |                |
| \*              |                |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| South Dakota    | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Tennessee \*    |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Texas           | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Utah            | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Vermont ^1^     | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Virginia \*     | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Washington      |                | x              |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| West Virginia   | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Wisconsin \*    |                |                | x              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Wyoming ^1^     | x              |                |                |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

^1^ To be implemented 2000-2001.

^2^ To be implemented 2000-2001, pending Federal approval.

^3^ To be implemented 2000-2001, pending State Board approval.

\*Profiles on these states have not yet been fully verified by the
state's department of education.

The states with shared responsibility provide interesting examples of
state and district collaboration. These eight states---Alabama,
Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and
Wisconsin---each developed a different process by which both the state
and the district could take ownership for determining which schools were
eligible for program improvement or notifying those schools of their
program improvement status. For example:

-   In Colorado, districts are responsible for determining whether a
    school is to be identified for school improvement. An assigned
    consultant from the state department will review the district
    recommendations and the data that led to those decisions for each
    school to make a final determination. The district staff and the
    assigned consultant will review the body of evidence and determine
    if a school should be exempted from this final list.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In Maryland, the state first notifies the district as to which
    schools are not making progress. The district is asked to identify
    those schools for program improvement as a way of verifying the
    state's determination. If the district and school actions that
    follow do not improve the school's achievement, a school can become
    eligible for reconstitution. The state superintendent and the
    district superintendent make that determination, with the state
    holding final authority on reconstitution eligibility.

### Summary

States differ widely in the goals they set for Title I schools, their
measures of continuous progress, who is included in their assessment and
accountability systems, and how they identify schools and/or districts
for program improvement. It is not surprising, therefore, to see
considerable variation across states in the numbers of Title I schools
that have been identified for program improvement.

## Trends in State Identification of Low-Performing Schools

While states differ markedly in how they identify low-performing
schools, there has been a general, continued increase in the number and
percentage of Title I schools identified as in need of improvement in
the country as a whole. In 1996-1997, state education agencies reported
that they identified more than 7,000 schools (16 percent of Title I
schools) as in need of improvement under Title I. In 1997-1998, that
number rose to more than 9,000 schools (20 percent of Title I schools).
Preliminary figures for the 1998-1999 school year, although incomplete
and subject to change, indicate that the numbers of schools identified
as in need of improvement continues to rise. What, if anything, this
overall rise means in real terms, however, is difficult to determine.

To begin with, not all states have been consistent in how they identify
schools for improvement. In some states, the number of schools
identified has remained remarkably similar from one year to the next,
but this is not true in others. In a few states the numbers have
decreased quite markedly. In Nevada, for example, a large drop between
1997-1998 and 1998-1999 was the result of a change in state definition
of adequate yearly progress. It is not clear, however, that the drop in
numbers and percentages of identified schools is evidence that schools
actually improved in absolute terms.

Several states, on the other hand, have had dramatic increases in the
number of schools identified as being in need of improvement. As with
the Nevada decrease discussed in the previous paragraph, it is difficult
to determine whether the increases are indicative of an absolute change
in the performance of Title I schools. Reasons for the increases vary,
but most can be accounted for by changes in the measures states use to
identify which schools are low performing.

In Kentucky, a sharp rise between 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 in the number
of schools identified for improvement reflects a change in the state's
definition of adequate yearly progress. In Arkansas and Nebraska, new
state laws changed the definition of adequate yearly progress and based
identification for improvement on schools' failure to meet goals for two
consecutive years, using 1996-1997 as the baseline. The two-year rules
account for large increases in schools identified in the 1998-1999
school year, the first year for which two years of data collected under
the new law were available. In both Georgia and Hawaii, increases in the
numbers of schools identified for improvement resulted from new, more
rigorous expectations for performance on established state tests.
Increases in the number of schools identified in Massachusetts can be
accounted for by the replacement, in the 1997-1998 school year, of a
norm referenced assessment test with a test based on the state's
standards. In 1996-1997, California allowed individual school districts
to determine measures for adequate yearly progress. In 1997-1998,
however, California began to move toward a statewide definition of
adequate yearly progress based in part on a new standardized test; this
change accounts for the increases in the numbers of schools identified
for improvement.

These changes in the way adequate yearly progress is defined and
measured make it difficult to determine whether the increases or
decreases in the numbers of schools identified for improvement in states
are the result of real changes in the schools or whether they are simply
byproducts of the changes in definitions and measures. The changes in
the definition and measurement of adequate yearly progress are partially
the result of changes made in the 1994 reauthorization of Title I.
Because states were given a period of several years during which such
changes could be made, it is not surprising that the numbers of schools
identified in some states have swung wildly over the last three years.
If the Title I law remains substantially unchanged for the next several
years, it is reasonable to assume that large, within-state fluctuations
in the numbers of schools identified will stabilize over time.

The sometimes huge variations between the numbers of schools identified
for improvement by different states is more difficult to evaluate. As we
have already established, each state uses its own criteria for defining
low performance, but the results are rather startling. Some states
identify a very small number and proportion of their schools for
improvement under Title I. Texas, for example, has more than 4,000 Title
I schools but identified only 61 schools (1 percent) for improvement in
1998-1999. Of the states that have so far reported for 1998-99, nine
(Alaska, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas) identified 5 percent or fewer of their
Title I schools as in need of improvement. In contrast, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii,
Kentucky, and Michigan have thus far identified a majority of Title I
schools as in need of improvement. These differences in numbers of
schools identified do not, however, necessarily mean that individual
states are doing "better" or "worse" than others in terms of identifying
or improving low-performing schools. The number of schools identified
for improvement in each state reflects not only the number of
low-performing schools in an absolute sense, but also how each state
defines "low-performing." These definitions vary widely, and they have a
pronounced effect on how many schools states identify.

States that have more schools identified for improvement may actually
have more low-performing schools, or they may simply have higher
expectations for performance. Changes over time in the number of schools
a state has identified for improvement may reflect an actual change in
school performance, or a change in the state's practices for identifying
low-performing schools. In short, differences in performance are mixed
up with differences in expectations and identification practices, which
makes the number of identified schools an unreliable indicator for
comparing school performance across states or over time.

Table 4 below shows, state by state, how many schools were identified
for improvement under Title I for the 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1998-1999
school years. The numbers for 1998-99 should be viewed as preliminary
figures, subject to change as additional information is submitted to the
U.S. Department of Education.[^4]

Table 4

  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
  **Title I                                                                                            
  Schools                                                                                              
  Identified as                                                                                        
  in Need of                                                                                           
  Improvement, by                                                                                      
  State**                                                                                              

  **State**       **1996-97**                       **1997-98**                       **1998-99**      

                  **Number in      **% in           **Number in      **% in           **Number in      **% in
                  Improve-ment**   Improve-ment**   Improve-ment**   Improve-ment**   Improve-ment**   Improve-ment**

  Alabama         248              31               26               3                60               7

  Alaska          24               12               11               5                8                2

  Arizona         42               5                107              15                                

  Arkansas        101              13               53               7                499              64

  California      330              8                1,307            34               1,307            34

  Colorado        15               3                13               2                91               15

  Connecticut     95               24               102              24               26               6

  Delaware        29               26               39               36               32               32

  District of     82               85               60               59               100              80
  Columbia                                                                                             

  Florida         29               3                3                0                73               7

  Georgia         236              24               537              52               603              59

  Hawaii          37               32               77               60               91               66

  Idaho           45               12               44               11               14               4

  Illinois        93               4                62               2                727              32

  Indiana         242              29               257              31               98               12

  Iowa            28               4                28               4                148              17

  Kansas          147              22               144              21               171              22

  Kentucky        356              40               634              73               615              71

  Louisiana       30               4                162              19               162              19

  Maine           127              31               307              72               †                †

  Maryland        59               22               31               8                18               6

  Massachusetts   97               12               422              47                                

  Michigan        641              33               1,048            57               1,523            76

  Minnesota       98               11               103              12               \*               \*

  Mississippi     129              19               108              16               100              15

  Missouri        551              44               551              44                                

  Montana         53               9                63               10               62               10

  Nebraska        102              21               80               16               204              41

  Nevada          64               70               62               69               35               36

  New Hampshire   1                0                2                1                4                2

  New Jersey      185              16               \#               \#               \#               \#

  New Mexico      394              81               182              41               149              33

  New York        410              16               410              15                                

  North Carolina  74               8                76               7                46               4

  North Dakota    16               6                16               6                20               7

  Ohio            680              38               450              22               508              25

  Oklahoma        37               3                81               7                31               3

  Oregon          29               4                9                1                                 

  Pennsylvania    215              12               204              12               215              12

  Rhode Island    23               17               1                1                34               25

  South Carolina  88               18               97               20               75               15

  South Dakota    10               3                8                2                0                0

  Tennessee       118              16               118              16               17               2

  Texas           40               1                55               1                61               1

  Utah            7                3                20               8                20               9

  Vermont         14               6                10               5                                 

  Virginia        152              22               152              21               150              20

  Washington      176              19               172              19               71               8

  West Virginia   60               13               146              32               130              29

  Wisconsin       139              8                211              12               166              15

  Wyoming         23               18               36               26               31               22

  BIA             160              92               148              86               147              85

  Puerto Rico     435              32               150              11               200              14

  **Total**       **7,616**        **16**           **9,195**        **19**                            
  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

**Note:** The 1996-1997 figures for Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, North
Carolina, and Washington are early 1997-1998 figures used as a proxy for
1996-1997.

† Maine is in the middle of changing assessments and does not have the
necessary three years of data to determine which schools are low
performing

\* The Minnesota legislature is currently debating how to define
adequate yearly progress. Until this issue is settled, the Department of
Children, Families, and Learning cannot make any decisions about
identifying low-performing schools.

\# New Jersey was unable to provide this information for 1997-1998 or
1998-1999.

States reported that of the over 46,000 schools that participated in the
Title I program in 1996-1997, 16 percent (7,616 schools) were identified
for improvement. States reported that of the nearly 48,000 schools that
participated in the Title I program in 1997-1998, 9,195 schoolwide and
targeted assistance schools (or 19 percent) were identified for
improvement, an increase from the previous year. Preliminary data for
the 1998-1999 school year indicate that the increase in the number of
schools identified for improvement across the United States continues.

# Turning Around Low-Performing Schools

The identification of low-performing schools presents sticky problems
for states and districts and raises the additional problem of improving
the performance of schools so identified. Research on effective schools
is plentiful and largely in agreement in its conclusions. Research on
the process of turning a low-performing school into an effective school
is much less plentiful and more difficult to interpret. It is also clear
that even if low-performing schools are aware of what they should be
doing to improve performance, they do not always have the capacity to
carry out improvements. States and districts should play the primary
role in building needed capacity, but the federal government also has an
important role to play in school improvement.

## Research on Effective Schools

Low-performing schools, especially those in high poverty neighborhoods,
are receiving a good deal of attention from education researchers.
Several organizations, as well as the U.S. Department of Education, have
conducted studies to determine why some schools manage to perform at
high levels of academic achievement while others do not. While these
studies tend to be narrowly focused, concentrated on relatively small
numbers of schools, and varied in terms of the rigor and intensity of
their research methods, they come to similar conclusions about what
makes for effective schools. Noteworthy recent studies include the
following:

-   *Hope for Urban Education: A Study of Nine High-Performing,
    High-Poverty, Urban Elementary Schools* (1999), compiled by
    researchers at the Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas
    at Austin for the Planning and Evaluation Service of the U.S.
    Department of Education;

-   *Dispelling the Myth: High Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations*
    (1999), conducted by the Education Trust in cooperation with the
    Council of Chief State School Officers;

-   *No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High Poverty Schools*
    (2000), written by Samuel Casey Carter, a Bradley Fellow at the
    Heritage Foundation; and

-   *Leave No Child Behind: A Baker's Dozen Strategies to Increase
    Academic Achievement* (1999), a report based on the findings of a
    two year study conducted by the Chicago Schools Academic
    Accountability Council.

Although these studies and others like them are products of individuals
and organizations representing a broad range of political and
ideological positions, and despite their varying methodologies, they are
remarkably similar in their findings. While the studies differ in detail
and emphasis, there is general agreement among the researchers about
what works in high poverty schools.

Researchers in these studies repeatedly stress seven important
characteristics of high-performing schools. These findings are
consistent with findings from the effective schools research of the past
two decades and indicate that if low-performing schools were to emulate
these characteristics of high-performing schools, performance would
improve.

## Turning Low-Performing Schools into High-Performing Schools

While the research is clear on what an effective school should look
like, there is considerably less research consensus on the *process* by
which a low-performing school becomes high performing. In fact, research
on process is only now beginning to appear in any quantity. Researchers
who are investigating the process of school reform have a shared sense
that reform is *not* a one-size-fits-all proposition; it is, rather,
highly context-specific. Not all low-performing schools are low
performing for the same reasons or in the same ways; therefore, reform
strategies must also be varied to fit the needs of the particular
school. In addition, researchers agree that reform only works if those
most directly involved in it (teachers, school staff, school leaders,
parents, and students) buy into it. Researchers involved in the High
Performance Learning Communities Project, a five-year research study
conducted by RPP International and funded by OERI, go so far as to say
"No Buy-in, No Reform."

It is clear that in order to succeed, reform efforts need to fit the
site and involve the entire school community. Schools that engage in
successful reform efforts also appear to share a four-step process
involving a needs assessment, a planning phase, an implementation phase,
and a period of assessment and evaluation.

-   **Needs Assessment and Goal Setting**---The school needs to examine
    itself and see where its problems are, which of those problems are
    most pressing and/or solvable, and what its specific needs in terms
    of curriculum, staff, training, outside help, use of time, and other
    resources are for addressing problems.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Planning**---The school must choose reform strategies or models
    that meet its *identified* needs and priorities. Jumping in and
    trying the first reform strategy that comes to hand will not be
    effective; this means that planners need access to research and
    information about what has worked for other schools. All parties
    interested in the school need to be part of the planning in order to
    create necessary buy-in.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Implementation**---The chosen reform strategy or strategies must
    be carefully implemented, which means that the school needs access
    to appropriate resources. These might include staff development for
    teachers and school leaders, access to useful data on student
    performance, increased parental involvement, rearrangement of time
    use, expert advice from outside the school, or a schoolwide or
    subject specific model. Above all, the school needs the
    *flexibility* to choose and use the kinds of resources that address
    its specific problem or problems.

-   **Evaluation and Feedback**---At some point, preferably in an
    ongoing manner, the school must assess the effectiveness of the
    chosen reform in solving school problems. This evaluation should
    feed back into the next round of needs assessment and planning so
    that ineffective programs can be eliminated and replaced. The goal
    is to use regular and systematic assessment and evaluation to
    facilitate *continuous improvement.*

## School, District, and State Capacity for Effective Reform

Some schools can complete the change process described above on their
own, but many low-performing schools are not undergoing this process.
Reasons for failure to initiate change vary, but certain obstacles are
widely shared. Staffs in low-performing schools are often demoralized,
and they frequently have little access to research that would tell them
what to do to improve their schools. The temptation for staff in
low-performing schools is to concentrate on survival, not improvement.
The research on school improvement efforts to date suggests, however,
that *capacity* is the major issue in turning around low-performing
schools. Low-performing schools are usually the ones least likely to be
in a position to turn themselves around. They need critical external
support to adopt research-based strategies for creating effective
schools, and they need more information and better guidance on what it
takes to turn around a failing school.

In many cases, research suggests that districts and states are not doing
an adequate job in helping low-performing schools build the capacity
they need to improve performance, in part because they themselves lack
the capacity to assist individual schools.

Although we have a great deal of information about state systems for
identifying low-performing schools and some information on the number
identified, we know much less about what states are doing to help Title
I schools and districts identified for improvements. We need to examine
the role states and districts play in assisting and intervening in
low-performing schools, and we need to know whether or not states and
districts have the necessary capacity to support school improvement
efforts in struggling and failing schools.

States and districts need knowledge, human resources, and financial
resources to turn around low-performing schools. It is unclear what the
optimum mix and level of resources are, but states and districts report
having insufficient capacity to help the number of schools that have
been (or should be) identified as in need of improvement. California,
for example, designated over 3,000 schools as under-performing in
1999-2000, but included only 430 of these schools in the first year of
its Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program. Some states,
in contrast, appear to identify for improvement only the number of
schools for which necessary resources for improvement are available.

What is clear is that many schools need help but do not get it.
Principals are all too often unsure even of the reasons why their
schools are considered low performing. Recent school level data from the
National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS), conducted by the
Planning and Evaluation Service of the U.S. Department of Education,
raises concern about whether states and districts are currently
assisting and intervening in schools that need help. The 1998-1999 NLSS
revealed that

-   Thirty-one percent of principals of Title I schools identified as in
    need of improvement did not know what their districts considered
    adequate or substantial yearly progress. Urban and elementary Title
    I school principals were much more likely than their counterparts in
    rural Title I schools or high schools in need of improvement to know
    what their districts considered adequate progress.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Of those school principals who were familiar with how school
    performance was judged, more than a third overall, and a majority of
    urban principals, felt that the measures of adequate yearly progress
    were inadequate for judging their schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The NLSS, like the National Assessment of Title I for 1997-1998,
    showed that less than half (47 percent) of principals of schools
    identified as in need of improvement under Title I reported
    receiving additional technical assistance or professional
    development as a result. In general, the longer schools are
    identified as in need of improvement, they more likely they are to
    report receiving additional assistance. Sixty-two percent of
    principals in schools identified for four or more years reported
    extra assistance. However, only 30 percent of principals of schools
    identified for three years reported extra assistance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Almost a quarter of principals in schools identified as in need of
    improvement under Title I reported implementing no additional
    strategies to address low performance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Of schools that reported receiving additional assistance as a result
    of identification for improvement, the majority report receiving
    that assistance from their school district (84 percent), the state
    department of education (65 percent), or school support teams (77
    percent). Eighteen percent reported assistance from the U.S.
    Department of Education's Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers,
    and 14 percent reported assistance from the Department's Regional
    Educational Laboratories.

Clearly, many states and districts cannot or do not provide
low-performing schools with the help they need to turn around
performance. State and district actions need to be directed at setting
high expectations, at building school capacity to improve, at
encouraging innovation at the district and school levels, and at
stepping in to take actions if schools fail to perform at expected
levels.

## State and District Roles in Turning Around Low-Performing Schools

States and districts have a key role in and responsibility for
supporting failing schools. At each of the four stages of school
improvement discussed above (needs assessment, planning, implementation,
and evaluation and assessment) states and districts could, and should,
provide the resources, including personnel, funds, information, and
rewards and sanctions that encourage and foster school improvement.

### Needs Assessment and Goal Setting

Before poorly performing schools can conduct adequate assessments of
their needs, they must know what the expectations for adequate
performance are and where their performance ranks in terms of those
expectations. Without this information, schools do not have a clear goal
at which to aim their efforts or a clear sense of where they are failing
to measure up. States and districts can help by communicating to all
stakeholders in a highly visible way that all students are expected to
meet high standards. To the extent that states and districts have clear,
consistent, and coherent expectations, and focus resources on
priorities, the groundwork is laid for systemic improvement and
accountability.

States need to create clear state standards for what students should
know and align state assessments accordingly. Districts' standards and
assessments, as well as curricula, should be similarly aligned. Without
clear roadmaps for what will be measured, individual schools will have a
difficult time planning their own activities. During the past six years,
49 states developed statewide academic content standards. In accordance
with the ESEA, states are finalizing their state assessments and
accountability systems, and the U.S. Department of Education is
reviewing them to ensure that they meet the Title I requirements.

Once standards are set, states and districts need to create clear,
measurable student performance goals for schools. These goals, and the
consequences for meeting them, must be easily discernable for all
schools, for parents, and for the community. Setting such goals means
that states and districts need to collect, summarize, and report student
performance data on a regular basis. This collection and distribution of
data should be a foundation for schools' needs assessments.

### Planning

Once schools are able to identify their needs, they need to plan
appropriate actions to meet them. In order to choose appropriate reform
measures, schools need information. States and districts have a
responsibility to act as a source of research and information for
schools. States and districts can collect research findings on school
reform methods and distribute them in a format that is useful to
practitioners at the school level. Most teachers are not trained as
researchers and have little experience with translating research
findings into action plans for daily use. They also have limited time to
sift through the volumes of research findings that are currently
available. States and districts can provide analysis of research
findings for schools or provide training that will allow schools to do
this for themselves. States can also provide current information on
school reform models, including research on the effectiveness of the
models. States and districts should act as experts to whom schools can
turn for advice and direction.

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### Implementation

Once schools have made plans for improvement, they need resources to
implement them effectively. States and districts play an important role
in providing access to resources. These resources could include staff,
time, expert advice, parent and community involvement, or schoolwide and
targeted models for reform. States and districts can help schools make
better use of the resources they already have as well as provide
additional resources to fill gaps in what schools are able to provide.

#### Staff Development

A primary resource in all schools is staff, especially teachers and
school leaders. When a school decides to make changes, staff members
need training to carry out new programs and fulfill new requirements.
Quality professional development, targeted toward specific needs
identified by the school, is an often-neglected element of the academic
program in low-performing schools. States and districts can help remedy
this problem by increasing the amount of the education budget spent on
professional development. More importantly, states and districts can
rethink *how* professional development is delivered to schools and
teachers. States and districts must encourage professional development
programs that are regular, sustained, and monitored for
effectiveness---as a general rule, a few scattered workshops will not be
sufficient. States and districts should also work to create mechanisms
that promote ongoing, collaborative work between teachers and school
level administrators. Finally, districts are in a good position to
create and support programs that allow teachers and principals to visit
other schools and classrooms to observe successful teaching techniques
and promising school reform efforts.

#### Time

Time is one of a school's most precious resources, and one of the most
scarce. Teachers need time to work together and collaborate on planning
and time for professional development activities. Principals need time
for professional development and time to fulfill their role as
instructional leaders. States and districts can help low-performing
schools enhance the efficiency and efficacy with which time is used.
States and districts can help teachers find time for professional
development by providing funds to cover development activities and
substitutes for days when teachers must be out of the classroom. States
can compensate teachers financially for time spent on development.

Students also need increased time spent on learning. To help ensure that
every student reaches high standards, states and districts can use
resources to increase instructional time, extend the school day or the
school year, and offer after-school assistance to students who need it.
Participation in high-quality learning environments that build on the
regular school day, such as after-school extended learning programs, can
improve children's academic and social development. State and district
policies can be constructed in such a way that individual schools are
able to use time in ways that work best for them. Freedom to make
modifications in the school day to accommodate block scheduling, or the
reduction of class size to allow teachers to work with students on a
more individual basis are ways that states and districts can help
schools make better use of time in the classroom.

#### Expert Advice

One of the most important things that states and districts can provide
to struggling schools is expertise. State and district employees can,
and in many cases already do, serve as experts, visiting schools and
districts to provide assistance with the planning, implementation, and
evaluation of reform efforts. Many states and districts also provide
funds that allow schools to hire outside consultants. Many schoolwide
reform models, for example, provide consulting help as part of the
implementation of the model, and states and districts provide schools
with funds that allow them to purchase this help. Several states, like
North Carolina, are beginning to institute comprehensive technical
support systems to assist low-performing schools. Other states have not
made financial investments as large as North Carolina's, but many states
have smaller scale programs to provide expert assistance to struggling
schools.

#### Parent and Community Involvement

Schools cannot do their jobs alone. Low-performing schools, in
particular, need the help of parents and the community to improve
student performance. Effective schools find ways to communicate
regularly with parents and to involve them in their children's
education. Successful schools also form ties with the community. Many
schools have formed fruitful partnerships with local businesses,
colleges and universities, and cultural organizations that help students
learn more and help teachers teach more effectively.

States and districts can help schools by forming partnerships and
fostering communication with parents and teachers. The Chicago school
district, for example, has instituted a policy of giving report cards to
parents in an effort to get them more involved in their children's
education. California has worked with the U.S. Department of Education
to implement the Compact for Reading in several California schools. The
Compact is a written agreement among families, teachers, principals, and
students to work together to help improve the reading skills of
kindergarten through third grade children. Many states and districts
have also invested considerable time and effort in forging relationships
with local institutions and businesses. These partnerships can provide
additional funds for schools, mentoring and tutoring services for
students, ways of expanding school curricula, and training opportunities
for teachers and staff.

#### School Reform Models 

For many low-performing schools, the best approach to school reform is
to adopt a schoolwide model, like Success For All or Direct Instruction.
Models are attractive to failing schools because they generally offer a
complete package for change, including a set curriculum, training for
school staff, and on-site assistance with planning and evaluation.
Models do, however, vary in terms of curricular emphasis and
methodology. In order to choose the model that best fits the needs of
the individual school, school personnel need access to good information
about the many models that are available. They need to choose models
whose curricular emphases match the needs of the school. Schools need to
know whether or not the model has been effective in improving student
achievement in other schools, and whether good results are likely to be
replicable. Therefore, a clear understanding of what constitutes
reliable evidence of effectiveness is crucial to schools that adopt
models. States and districts can play a key role in providing schools
with access to information about models and advice about which models
best fit school needs. States and districts can also provide assistance
to schools in reallocating current funds, in addition to providing new
funds to adopt models.

#### 

#### Flexibility

The key to effective school reform is allowing schools to choose
site-specific solutions to problems. For example, if a school identifies
literacy as its primary area of deficiency, it must be able to adopt
reform strategies that address reading. In order for this to happen,
states and districts need to allow individual schools some degree of
flexibility in making changes, whether they are changes in personnel,
curriculum, or how school funds are spent. Freedom to channel more Title
I dollars toward professional development is particularly important.
States and districts should give schools the authority to act quickly,
decisively, and creatively in order to meet school needs, but at the
same time hold them accountable for their actions. For low-performing
schools, this flexibility needs to be accompanied by guidance on how
schools can effectively make decisions around budgets, staffing, and
curriculum. Districts can help schools form school management teams and
provide clear guidelines on school authority and responsibilities.

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### Evaluation and Feedback

Schools need to include assessment and evaluation in their improvement
process so that reform measures can be periodically evaluated for
success. States and districts can help by providing schools with
expertise in and information on ways to conduct good evaluations, help
in evaluating and using school data, and ways to incorporate findings
into the school's continuous improvement process.

States and districts can also encourage schools to regularly assess
performance by creating workable accountability systems. States and
districts across the nation are holding schools accountable for student
performance. To work, accountability measures *must* include clear
consequences, rewards for those doing well and improving, and assistance
for schools that do not improve. Public reporting of accountability
results to parents and the community can act as a further inducement for
schools to engage in regular self-review and assessment.

States and districts can establish award programs for schools,
administrators, and teachers and play an active role in recognizing
excellence. Such programs should be closely tied to efforts to meet
measurable student performance goals.

### Responses to Schools that Fail to Turn Around

There is much that states and districts can do to assist low-performing
schools to improve, but when all available reform measures fail, states
and districts also have a responsibility to take more drastic measures
to see that all children have the opportunity to receive an education in
a quality school.

One way to do this is to provide students with alternatives to their
local schools. Many states and districts have instituted charter school
and magnet school programs as a way of providing families with
educational alternatives for their children.

States and districts can also create systemic improvement mechanisms by
introducing choice into the public school system, thus giving students
in low-performing schools, particularly schools that have been unable to
correct their problems, access to other, more successful schools. Public
school choice mechanisms can be a way to remove students from
low-performing settings quickly, but the threat of choice may also act
as a means of encouraging poor schools to improve. Title I now requires
school districts to provide students in schools identified for
improvement with the opportunity to attend another, higher performing
public school within the district, subject to capacity, unless
prohibited by state or local law or school board policy.

Because low-performing schools often have little capacity to make major
reforms demanded by accountability policies, several U.S. states have
policies for intervening and mandating major changes in chronically
low-performing schools. These policies range from helping "redesign"
schools, through a collaborative process, to, as a last resort,
reconstituting failing schools, which involves closing a school and
reopening it with new school leaders and usually with new teachers and
staff. Reconstitution policies are controversial and there is no
conclusive data about whether reconstitution is an effective strategy
for school improvement. Some believe that the threat of reconstitution
has been an important force for leveraging change in chronically
low-performing schools. Opponents believe reconstitution policies
unfairly place the blame for poor student achievement on teachers and
damage fledgling school communities.

### North Carolina's Program to Turn Around Low-Performing Schools

While many states have programs to address the entire process of turning
around low-performing schools, North Carolina's system is one of the
most established, most comprehensive, and most expensive. It covers all
areas or the process of helping failing schools, from needs assessment
to evaluation.

In 1995 the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation creating
the ABCs of Public Education, the state's school accountability system.
The system identifies both exemplary and low-performing schools, and
offers assistance to schools that are performing poorly.

The North Carolina State Board of Education makes an annual
determination, based on test data, of which schools are low performing.
Schools are required to meet both performance and growth standards. In
1999, 13 schools were identified as low performing. From the identified
schools, the State Board selects the neediest to receive additional
assistance from State Assistance Teams. Schools selected to have
Assistance Teams are those that are far below the growth standards
established by the State Board and where the majority of students are
considered low performing (below grade level and/or below proficiency).
Low-performing schools not chosen to receive help from Assistance Teams
may, however, be eligible for assistance if they volunteer for it.

Teams begin to work with schools in August. Assistance Teams provide
services and support on a daily basis for the length of the assigned
school year to schools required to have teams. Schools that volunteer to
have teams receive less intensive service, usually only 2-3 days per
week, and one team may serve more than one volunteer school. In the
1999-2000 academic year, teams served a total of seven traditional
public schools. Five of these made exemplary growth, while two remained
low performing. Teams also served six charter schools. Four of these
schools made exemplary or expected growth while two remained low
performing.

State Assistance Teams are made up of currently practicing teachers and
staff, retired educators, representatives from the higher education
community, school administrators, and others deemed appropriate by the
State Board. Teams sent to K-8 schools typically have 5-8 members. High
school teams generally have 5 members.

The goal of the teams is to help school staffs devise ways to improve
student achievement. Teams work with schools throughout the academic
year on the following:

-   Reviewing and assessing all facets of school operations, including
    staff development, financial management, school leadership,
    alignment of instruction with curriculum, use of data, etc.;

-   Assisting staff in devising recommendations for improving student
    performance;

-   Evaluating all certified personnel at least semiannually and
    providing them with specific recommendations to improve performance;

-   Collaborating with school staff, district staff, and the local
    school board to design, implement, and monitor the school's
    improvement plan;

-   Reporting school progress to the local board, the community, and the
    State Board; and

-   If the school continues to perform poorly, recommending the
    extension of assistance or more drastic measures, including the
    firing of teachers and principals (although such decisions are
    ultimately made by local boards, not by the teams or the state).

Schools that are assigned Assistance Teams are monitored once they are
out of assistance to make sure that they continue to progress. Since the
ABC program was instituted, six schools served by Assistance Teams have
been unable to sustain progress and have returned to the low performing
list, but the majority of schools served thus far have managed to
maintain their improvement.

While North Carolina's efforts have had some success, the state's system
is not perfect. North Carolina has elected to invest substantial funds
in turning around low-performing schools, but even so, because of
financial constraints, not every low-performing school can be served.
The system's comprehensive efforts are extremely expensive, and even
though a relatively small number of schools are served each year, the
budget for assistance teams is high. The North Carolina State Board of
Education has requested a total budget of \$474.6 million for the
2001-2002 school year, \$4.23 million of which will go toward supporting
assistance teams. Despite the high financial cost of the assistance
teams, the Board considers assistance team funding one of the highest
priorities in the state's education budget.

## The Federal Role in Turning Around Low-Performing Schools

While states and districts are the key players helping low-performing
schools improve, the federal government also has an important part to
play. The U.S. Department of Education provides assistance to states and
districts and encourages and facilitates the improvement process in
schools. Numerous federal education programs are designed to help states
and districts do a better job of assisting failing schools through the
provision of needed funds, expertise, and guidance.

The Administration and the U.S. Department of Education have made
turning around low-performing schools a priority through federal
education programs such as Title I, the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration Program, the Reading Excellence Act, the Eisenhower
Professional Development Program, the Class Size Reduction Program, and
the 21^st^ Century Community Learning Centers Program. These programs
address the pressing needs of low-performing schools and disadvantaged
students.

The Congress has twice responded to President Clinton's call for
increased federal support to help districts turn around low performing
schools. The FY 2000 appropriations act provided \$134 million, and the
FY 2001 appropriations act provided an additional \$225 million to help
districts carry out school improvement and corrective action activities
in low performing Title I schools. The FY 2001 appropriations act
specifically requires that all school districts with one or more Title I
schools identified for improvement provide all students in those schools
the option to transfer to another public school in the district that has
not been identified for improvement with certain exceptions. School
improvement activities coupled with public school choice comprise a key
reform strategy capable of delivering a high-quality education to all
students.

The Department's goal is to make high student performance a reality in
every American classroom. In order to help states, districts, and
schools, the Department has developed programs based on what we know
about the most promising strategies for raising student achievement.
Federal programs provide assistance at all points of the school
improvement process.

### Needs Assessment

Clear state standards that set high expectations for all students are a
crucial requirement for low-performing schools. Without clear standards
and expectations, schools cannot properly assess either their progress
or their needs. With federal leadership and support through **Title I**
and **Goals 2000**, 49 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia
have completed the development of state content standards for all
students. Supporting the development of the same challenging standards
for all children in all public schools has transformed the federal role
in education, linking federal programs to state and local improvement
efforts. While some states and districts are still in the early stages
of implementing high standards, there is a growing body of evidence
suggesting that sustained standards-based reform is a powerful vehicle
for improving student achievement. States are developing performance
standards for what students should know and be able to do at key grade
levels and are finalizing state assessments aligned to their standards
so that they can accurately measure student progress.

### Planning 

In order to implement change successfully, low performing schools must
carefully plan their reform efforts, basing actions on their identified
needs. The Educational Accountability Fund, which provided \$134 million
for FY 2000 and \$225 million for FY 2001 to help districts turn around
low-performing schools, can be used to develop and implement school
improvement plans that have the greatest likelihood of improving student
achievement.

State planning is also important for ensuring that Federal and State
resources work together to help turn around low-performing schools. Last
summer, the Department sponsored a two-day institute on strategies to
turn around low-performing schools. The purpose of the institute was to
assist states in thinking about how Federal resources such as the
Reading Excellence Act, the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
Program, and Title I, can work together to support local school
improvement efforts. Over 400 participants worked in State teams on
developing and refining action plans to turn around low-performing
schools.

### Implementation

Many federal education programs are designed to provide states and
districts with the resources they need to successfully implement reform
strategies. While a provision in the 1994 reauthorization of Title
I---Section 1002(f)---authorized funds to carry out a variety of
improvement strategies at the state and district levels, it was funded
only in 1995 for \$25.6 million. No appropriations have since been made.
Other federal programs, however, provide assistance through provision of
funds, staff development, information and expert advice, programs to
extend learning time and enhance parent and community involvement in
schools, assistance in adopting schoolwide reform models, and many other
programs that allow schools to address specific reform needs.

#### Staff Development

Good teaching matters. A recent report released by the Education Trust
presents research substantiating the claim that teachers make a
difference in student achievement and that the effects of good teachers
on student performance are long-lived. Findings from studies in
Tennessee, Dallas, and Boston reveal that, whatever their background or
disadvantages, students taught by effective teachers achieved
substantially larger gains than students taught by less effective
teachers. But research also reveals a troubling picture of the state of
our nation's teaching force. According to the National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future, one of the most important factors in
improving student achievement is the knowledge and skills that teachers
bring to the classroom. Yet students in schools with the highest
concentrations of poverty or minority enrollments, those who often need
the most help from the best teachers, are the ones most likely to be in
classrooms with teachers who are less fully qualified. For example,
science teachers in our central cities are less likely to have majored
or minored in science than are teachers in other school systems (79
percent compared with 91 percent). The U.S. Department of Education
supports efforts to help ensure that all teachers have the skills
necessary to help all children meet high standards through

**The Eisenhower Professional Development Program** (Title II of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act) is focused on providing teachers
with sustained and intensive high-quality professional development in
core academic content areas. Title II also supports new teachers during
their first three years in the classroom, ensuring that teachers are
proficient in relevant content knowledge and teaching skills.
Appropriations for FY 2001 require school districts to use additional
Eisenhower funds to reduce the numbers of uncertified and out-of-field
teachers. **Title I** funds may also be used for staff development
purposes. The Department's **National Class Size Reduction Initiative**
is helping states, districts, and schools to recruit, hire, and train
qualified teachers.

The Department's 1999 proposal for the reauthorization of the ESEA,
which was not enacted, contained provisions to ensure that classroom
teachers are qualified and prepared to teach to high standards by
requiring each state to include, as part of its certification process
for new teachers, an assessment of both subject-matter knowledge and
teaching skills and by phasing out the use of teachers with emergency
certificates and the practice of assigning teachers to teach subjects
for which they lack adequate preparation.

#### Time

Research indicates that programs that extend the school day by providing
extra, academically oriented activities for students contribute to
improved student achievement. In support of these strategies, the U.S.
Department of Education created the **21st Century Community Learning
Centers** program to fund school-community partnerships that expand
after-school and extended learning programs for school-age children. In
addition, Title I is helping to fund more than 13,000 extended-time
instructional programs across the nation. The **National Class Size
Reduction Initiative** also helps schools make better use of the regular
school day by allowing teachers to give more individual attention to
students.

#### Expert Advice

One of the primary roles of the federal government in assisting states
and districts to turn around low-performing schools is acting as a
source of information and expert advice.

The Department of Education is as an important source of research and
information for school practitioners across the country. The Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) is the Department's primary
center for research. OERI supports basic and applied education research;
collects and analyzes education statistics; identifies promising and
exemplary programs and models of practice; disseminates quality
education information from a variety of sources; provides assistance to
school districts, states, and others; develops information products for
many different audiences; and offers library and information services.
Other divisions of the Department also provide research and information
to states, districts, and schools on strategies for improving school
performance. In addition, specially commissioned groups provide
information and research on important education subjects. The National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, for
example, released a comprehensive plan to ensure that every American
student receives excellent instruction in math and science in September
2000. Most of the research products and reports produced by the
Department are made available to the general public on the Department's
web site (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/index.html).

The fifteen **Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers** and the ten
**Regional Educational Laboratories** also serve as sources of
information and research for practitioners. The Comprehensive Centers
help states, school districts, and schools meet the needs of children in
high-poverty areas, migratory children, immigrant children, children
with limited-English proficiency, neglected or delinquent children,
homeless children and youth, Indian children, and children with
disabilities. The Centers focus on two priorities: assisting Title I
schoolwide programs, and helping local education agencies and BIA
schools that have the highest percentages or numbers of children in
poverty. The regional laboratories work to help educators and policy
makers solve education problems in their states and districts. The labs
conduct research on education issues, print publications, and provide
training programs to teachers and administrators.

In addition to research, struggling schools need direct assistance to
improve the achievement of all students. In response to the Executive
Order on Actions to Improve Low-Performing Schools, the U.S. Department
of Education has launched an initiative to mobilize Department resources
to assist states and districts as they work to turn around
low-performing schools.

The Executive Order, which is the catalyst for this initiative, directs
the Department to use its resources to assist states and districts in
turning around low-performing schools. In addition to providing targeted
support to states and districts as they develop comprehensive
strategies, the Department will continue to publish an annual progress
report on school improvement and will strengthen monitoring of
requirements for identifying and turning around low-performing schools.

The mission of this initiative is to increase student achievement in
low-performing schools. By mobilizing the Department's resources to
support states, local school districts, and individual schools, the
initiative seeks to improve the quality of school leadership and the
teaching force, implement coordinated, research-based reforms, and make
more effective use of local, state and federal resources in these
schools.

To assist state and local education agencies, the Department will take
the following steps:

-   Support State Education Agencies and Local Education Agencies in the
    development of comprehensive action plans to turn around
    low-performing schools using effective strategies;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Summarize, synthesize and disseminate the knowledge base surrounding
    best practices and research on effective strategies for turning
    around low-performing schools;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Build partnerships between states and between states and technical
    assistance providers, foundations and other organizations;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Improve the use of and access to resources, particularly federal
    resources, such as Title I, the Comprehensive School Reform
    Demonstration Program, the Reading Excellence Act, the Eisenhower
    Professional Development Program, the Class Size Reduction Program,
    the 21^st^ Century Community Learning Centers Program, the
    Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Gear-Up;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Improve accountability systems; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increase national awareness of the low-performing schools initiative
    and provide information for policymakers and others.

Through this initiative, the Department will coordinate the many
activities that already support low-performing schools with new
activities that focus federal resources on this issue. New activities
include:

-   Summer Institute: The initiative was launched with a Summer
    Institute on *Strategies for Turning Around Low-Performing Schools*.
    Over 400 participants came in state teams to specifically focus on
    strategies for low-performing schools and to work on state action
    plans.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Network of States: A small group of states are creating a learning
    community focused on turning around low-performing schools. States
    in the network will be able to share resources and expertise with
    each other and also receive support from technical assistance
    providers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Regional Forums: The Forums provide opportunities for researchers
    and practitioners to discuss issues related to turning around
    low-performing schools and to advise the Department on the
    low-performing schools initiative.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Integrated Reviews: The integrated reviews that the Department uses
    to monitor state implementation of federal programs will focus on
    turning around low-performing schools

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Presentations at national conferences, workshops and symposia

#### Parent and Community Involvement

Schools cannot do their jobs alone. Low-performing schools, in
particular, need the assistance of community stakeholders to raise
student performance. Parent involvement is essential. Children whose
parents are involved in their educations earn higher grades, have higher
test scores, attend school more regularly, complete more homework,
demonstrate better attitude and better behavior, graduate from high
school at higher rates, and are more likely to go on to higher education
than are children whose parents are less involved. Local businesses,
colleges, and universities also are invaluable sources of support.
Teacher unions can be cooperative allies in the process of change if
they are invited to work in partnership to improve low-performing
schools.

Because parental and community involvement in education is critical to
academic success, the U.S. Department of Education sponsors the
**Partnership for Family Involvement in Education**. The mission of the
Partnership for Family Involvement in Education is to promote children's
learning through the development and use of
family-school-community-business partnerships that strengthen schools
and improve student achievement. A growing grassroots movement of more
than 4,000 schools, employers, and community and religious groups has
emerged to support local and national efforts, including adopting
family-friendly business practices; providing before- and after-school
activities for children; giving parents the resources, training, and
information they need to help children learn; and promoting family and
community involvement in student learning. The **America Reads
Challenge** is an initiative to further support that goal by encouraging
school and community partnerships to provide high-quality reading
instruction through linking in-school and out-of-school reading
programs. The Department also supports 57 **Parent Information and
Resource Centers** that provide parents with training, information, and
support to help them better understand their children\'s developmental
and educational needs, and that strengthen partnerships between parents
and schools to enable children to achieve to high standards.

#### Models

The U.S. Department of Education provides support for schools that want
to use schoolwide reform models. **Title I** of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and the **Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration** (CSRD) program emphasize the need for schoolwide reform
in high-poverty, low-performing schools. The CSRD program, begun in
1998, is helping raise student achievement by assisting public schools
across the country to implement effective, comprehensive school reforms
that are based on reliable research and effective practices, and that
include an emphasis on basic academics and parental involvement.

The CSRD program supports a number of research-based models and designs
that schools can adopt to help address these multiple aspects of school
effectiveness. For example, about 14 percent of the 1,800 schools with
CSRD grants are using Success for All, a program of reorganized reading
instruction, to help all students meet challenging standards. The
program provides for at least 90 minutes of daily reading instruction in
classes grouped according to performance. One of the key elements is
continual assessment of student progress. The frequent assessments allow
teachers to develop instructional plans for students with special needs
and to move students into and out of groups as they make progress. Many
models such as Success for All provide intensive professional
development focused on curriculum and content, and many provide
technical assistance to help schools implement the designs.

#### Flexibility

Failing schools need to be able to choose reform strategies that meet
their specific needs. The U.S. Department of Education offers a number
of programs designed to meet specific needs. Two areas of particular
emphasis are literacy and early childhood education.

Many low-performing elementary schools require assistance with literacy
training. The **Reading Excellence Act** provides assistance to help
500,000 children learn to read well and independently by the end of the
third grade. Under the program, local education agencies provide
professional development for teachers based on the best research and
practice; operate tutoring programs after school, before school, during
non-instructional periods during the school day, on weekends, and during
the summer; and provide family literacy services by forming partnerships
with community-based organizations, early childhood organizations, adult
education programs, family literacy organizations, public libraries,
colleges and universities, and other organizations to improve the
teaching of reading and the reading achievement of children and their
families.

In some districts and schools the preparation that young children
receive before they start kindergarten is a particular concern. Early
childhood education can help children develop broad knowledge and
higher-level skills, as well as help educators identify children at risk
of school failure and take steps to ensure their readiness for school
and their success at learning in the early grades. In recognition of
this fact, states and school districts can help ensure that more
children benefit from early childhood services. In addition to providing
pre-kindergarten for children, many local education agencies are
partnering with community organizations to implement family literacy
programs, such as **Even Start**, that support early childhood
education, school readiness, and parent involvement in learning
activities. **Title I** funds may also be used to support early
childhood programs.

### Evaluation and Feedback

Strong accountability systems can provide the necessary impetus for
schools to engage in regular self-evaluation and continuous improvement
planning. No school improvement can succeed without real accountability
for results. Across the country, states and districts are raising stakes
by establishing procedures and standards to define expectations for
students, identify poor performance, and hold schools and students
accountable for achievement. The goal of school accountability measures
in **Title I** of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, an \$8
billion program targeted at communities that serve low-income students,
has been to support states in developing a rigorous accountability
system for holding schools accountable for making continuous and
substantial gains in student performance; publicly reporting on school
performance; identifying and providing assistance to low-performing
schools; and intervening in persistently low-performing schools.

In addition to policies to hold schools accountable for results, the
U.S. Department of Education has called for an end to the practices of
social promotion and traditional grade retention. Research indicates,
and common sense confirms, that passing students on to the next grade
when they have not met standards neither increases student achievement
nor prepares students for college and future employment. Both being
promoted without regard to effort or achievement and being retained
without extra assistance send a message to students that little is
expected from them, that they need not work hard, and that they do not
warrant the time and effort it would take to help them be successful in
school.

The problem of social promotion, whereby students are promoted from
grade to grade when they are unprepared and have not yet met challenging
academic standards, is a hidden but potentially large problem in the
U.S. Although most teachers agree that promoting students who are
unprepared is a burden for teachers and classmates and lowers standards,
more than half of teachers surveyed in a recent poll indicate that they
have promoted unprepared students. Research evidence also indicates that
the most common alternative to social promotion---retention, or holding
students back in grade---is often both ineffective and harmful.
Retention in grade also greatly increases the likelihood that a student
will drop out of school, and being held back twice makes dropping out a
virtual certainty.

U.S. Department of Education programs are designed to assist states,
districts, and schools in pursuing a comprehensive approach to helping
students meet standards so that neither social promotion nor retention
are needed. Strategies include multiple opportunities for students to
demonstrate that they can meet the standards performance, well-prepared
teachers, early identification and intervention for students who need
extra assistance, smaller class sizes, after-school and summer programs
for students who are not making progress to meet the standards, and
intensive intervention with appropriate instructional strategies for
students who do not meet promotion standards on time.

### Responses to Schools that Fail to Turn Around

Research tells us that high-performing schools align curriculum,
classroom practices, and professional development with high academic
standards for all students. These schools also build a sense of teamwork
among staff, work in partnership with parents and the community, and use
performance data to inform choices and create a cycle of continuous
improvement. Support for these practices is key for building the
capacity of schools to improve student achievement. Yet, low-performing
schools are sometimes embedded in troubled school systems that cannot or
do not support the school improvement process. Individual school efforts
can be thwarted by districts that fail to provide leadership and that
lack the focus and long-term commitment necessary for turning around
low-performing schools.

Therefore, part of the process of building the capacity of
low-performing schools involves setting priorities on the district
level, such as ensuring strong leadership at the school; helping schools
make tough choices about the ways they allocate their resources if they
are to focus on improving teaching and learning; helping schools use
performance data to drive improvement; and providing incentives for
change and support for innovation.

Measures in **Title I** of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
place pressures on school systems to address such systemic problems.
Schools receiving Title I funds are to be identified for improvement if
they fail to meet performance goals. If Title I schools identified for
improvement fail to make progress for two consecutive years, states and
districts must take corrective actions, including reconstitution. The
reauthorization proposal for Title I, which was not passed in the
106^th^ Congress, would have required states to set aside a portion of
their Title I allocation to help low-performing schools implement sound
programs that improve student performance. However, the 106^th^ Congress
did, during the appropriations process, require school districts with
one or more Title I schools identified for improvement to provide all
students in those schools with the option to transfer to another public
school in the district that has not been identified for improvement
unless such a transfer option is prohibited by state or local law,
including local school board-approved district policy. As a result, many
local educational agencies will be implementing school improvement
activities and public school choice concurrently, so that all
students---both those who transfer out of schools identified for
improvement and those who remain---learn to high academic standards.

The U.S. Department of Education also supports the re-thinking of
education system organization in other ways, including the **Public
Charter Schools** program and the **Magnet Schools** program. Of the
more than 500 federally funded charter schools operating in the nation,
many serve students who are at risk of dropping out, are low achievers,
or are in adjudication. Thirty percent of federally funded charter
schools serve a high-poverty student population, 20 percent are
alternative schools, and many focus on the needs of students with
limited English language skills. Charter schools, as well as magnet
schools, provide additional educational choices for families.

# Implications

It is the assumption throughout this report that future efforts to
assist low-performing schools will be based on the existing
decentralized education system, without national standards or a uniform
national assessment for all Title I schools. This means that states will
have primary responsibility in the tasks of identifying and assisting
low-performing schools. Federal efforts should be aimed at assisting
states in this work. Some measures to improve upon the current situation
should be seriously considered by both the federal government and the
states.

## Balancing the Need to Strengthen State Title I Performance and Accountability Systems with the Need to Stabilize Them

This report makes clear that some elements of the current Title I
performance and accountability systems need to be strengthened in
important ways. The present system is fragmentary, data quality and
reporting are not satisfactory, states need coherent improvement plans,
and the federal government should carefully evaluate how well its
programs support school improvement.

While Congress and the incoming Administration consider ways to
strengthen accountability, however, they should also recognize that the
current state of affairs in the 50 states, however varied it appears to
be, took each state five years to achieve. States will be unable, in all
probability, to make abrupt changes in systems they are just now
struggling to complete. To force them to do so through major changes in
Title I legislation might well mean that states take several steps
backward on accountability, failing to fully implement the changes
required in 1994, and failing to hold schools seriously accountable for
results for another five years. In addition, substantial changes will be
politically difficult for states to make because their systems reflect
strong commitments and significant compromises that have been negotiated
for state purposes, not just Title I purposes. Consequently, as Congress
considers changes to the current law, it may want to phase changes in,
require states to meet the requirements of the current law until the
phase-in deadline, and fund needed development work and technical
assistance in order to speed the process and improve the quality of the
resulting systems.

## Aligning Title I and State Accountability Systems 

Too many states have dual accountability systems, one for Title I
schools and one for other schools. It is clear that having two systems
is fundamentally unworkable. Dual systems cause confusion by having two
different sets of criteria for what is considered low performing. It
appears that when states have two systems, the state system, which is
generally less rigorous, is the one that takes precedence; in fact Title
I schools in states with dual systems often report being unaware of the
Title I criteria that lead to schools being designated as low
performing. A more fundamental problem with having a dual system is that
it violates the basic assumption behind standards based reform by
failing to hold all schools and all students accountable to the same
standard.

The federal government should seriously consider removing or revising
elements in ESEA that foster the development of dual systems. There are
two options for accomplishing this goal:

-   ESEA could be revised to require that all states have only one
    accountability system. The advantage of this approach is that
    confusion about conflicting criteria for the low-performing
    designation and about sanctions resulting from it would be
    eliminated. Additionally, all schools, both Title I and non-Title I,
    would be held to the same standard. The disadvantage of this
    approach is that states could create systems that are less rigorous
    than what is currently required by Title I.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A more stringent approach would require states to have a single
    system that conforms to the current requirements for Title I
    accountability systems. This approach would eliminate the problem of
    adopting systems less rigorous than Title I currently requires, but
    has the disadvantage of decreasing states' flexibility in making
    decisions about education policy.

## Improving Data Quality and Timely Reporting 

Having states track low-performing schools and report progress is the
single most important accountability requirement for Title I, the
federal government\'s most important elementary and secondary program.
States should be expected to gather and report sound and timely data on
their low performing schools; this does not always happen. Although all
states have turned in their state reports, the Department of Education
is still missing 1998-1999 low-performing schools counts for many states
almost one year after the due date, and the data that was turned in may
be questionable for some states. The states' internal reporting of this
information to districts and schools is also weak in many cases; as
noted, many principals do not even know their schools are identified for
improvement.

At the federal level, the Department of Education needs to improve its
own data collection and management. Data submitted by states are not
always recorded and distributed to Department offices in an expeditious
way. The Department needs a modern, electronically-based system for
recording and distributing data as soon as it arrives from the states,
as well as a more organized system for checking on required data that is
not submitted.

To improve data quality and reporting, the Department could:

-   Help states report to the federal government by creating a
    streamlined electronic reporting system (in the long term, the
    Integrated Performance and Benchmarking System would be ideal, but
    in the short run, electronic reporting could be instituted);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reduce paperwork required from states in other program areas of
    lower priority, leaving states more time to concentrate on
    high-priority data on low-performing schools; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Immediately notify late-reporting states and offer assistance in
    expediting the data collection process.

In terms of internal reporting from states to districts, schools, and
parents, it would be desirable for states to

-   Inform the school community (staff, parents, the community) of a
    school\'s designation as "low-performing" through a variety of
    means, including school report cards; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Inform the school community about annual progress.

## State Plans for Improving Low-Performing Schools

At present, Title I does not require states to prepare or submit plans
for how they will improve schools identified as low performing. This is
something that states should be doing on their own, but many states are
not carrying out systemic planning. It is recommended that state plans,
in order to be effective, include the following:

-   State plans should include provisions for prioritizing the needs of
    low-performing schools. Most states do not have sufficient resources
    to give full assistance to every school that needs it, so states
    must consider carefully how and where scarce funds should be
    targeted. This sort of priority setting cannot be haphazard.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   State plans should include provisions for informing low-performing
    schools of the help that is available to them, whether this help
    consist of additional state funds, expert help, staff development,
    assistance with planning, or information about appropriate
    assistance and programs from the federal government. At present, too
    many low-performing schools remain unaware of available help, and as
    a result, receive no help at all; state plans need to address this
    problem.

-   State plans should contain contingency plans for schools that
    continue to fail despite receiving additional assistance.
    Consistently low-performing schools cannot be allowed operate
    indefinitely, and states need to have systems in place for dealing
    with them. Possible actions could include replacement of school
    personnel, reconstitution of the school, or school choice.

## Evaluating the Role of Federal Programs in School Reform

The Department of Education must carefully evaluate its programs to
determine whether or not they are contributing to helping states and
districts do a better job of turning around low-performing schools. The
Department should carefully consider whether or not federal programs are
sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of individual schools and
whether or not schools are able to take funds from a variety of federal
sources and combine them in a coherent school improvement program. The
Department should also carefully evaluate how it disseminates
information about school reform models and techniques to states and
districts. Since many teachers and principals feel that they do not
currently have sufficient information on how to go about changing the
environment of their schools, the Department needs to find ways to
better address this deficiency. The Department must also do more to
benchmark best reform practices and effectively disseminate them the to
school level practitioners.

# Conclusion

There are many ways to improve low-performing schools but no simple
solutions to the problem. Making changes to improve student performance
can be a difficult process for schools. Strong leadership, staff
commitment, and a fundamental belief that all children can learn are
necessary conditions for turning around low-performing schools. Even
then, the task remains great. A history of failure and low expectations
can lessen the ability of low-performing schools to even hope to
improve. Schools must focus, get control of the school environment, and
put in place rigorous curriculum and instructional practices. In order
for schools to be able to do this, education leaders on the federal,
state, and local levels must support changes that will create and
sustain a supportive environment for learning. School reform cannot take
place outside the context of such support.

The task of fixing failing schools is not easy, but the alternative is
unacceptable. As we enter a new millennium, it is time to renew our
commitment to future generations---to raise our expectations for all
children, to refuse to accept failure, and to work together to
strengthen our schools so that *every* child can strive toward high
levels of achievement and learning.

[^1]: Two additional states have included non-cognitive indicators in
    their accountability systems under Title I through legislation
    (California) or state board policy (Vermont). In both cases,
    however, these indicators were not included in the performance
    calculations for the 1999-2000 school year, and the specific weights
    given to these indicators have yet to be determined. When and if
    these indicators will be fully implemented is, at this point,
    unknown.

[^2]: Although states use these terms in different ways, and sometimes
    interchangeably, we define \"accommodations\" as changes in
    presentation, response mode, time and/or setting, and
    \"modifications\" as changes that alter the content of the
    assessment.

[^3]: Alternate assessments can be designed to measure different content
    and skills (such as functional life skills), or to measure the same
    content and skills as other students but in different ways (such as
    through portfolios).

[^4]: Table 4 reveals serious problems with data collection. These
    problems are particularly disturbing because this is the most
    important data that the U.S. Department of Education collects. Data
    for the 1998-99 school year was due to the Department in December of
    1999. As of December 20, 2000, six states had not provided a count
    of low-performing Title I schools to the Department. Late data has
    been a consistent problem. The Department also has concerns about
    the accuracy of numbers provided by some states; departmental
    efforts to check and verify numbers submitted by states often result
    in reports of different numbers. Requiring states to provide the
    names of all the Title I schools they identify as low performing,
    along with the state total, might help alleviate some accuracy
    problems.

    Problems of collection of state numbers are made worse by
    inconsistent and unsystematic efforts on the Department's part to
    collect, manage, and record the data that it does acquire from
    states. It would behoove both the states and the Department to come
    up with a better, more timely, and more accurate system of data
    collection and management. To this end the Department is
    reevaluating the data it currently collects from states in an effort
    to reduce the burden on states, while at the same time collecting
    information, such as data on low-performing schools, that is vital
    to the Department's work. The Department is also initiating a pilot
    data collection project in eight states. This program, the
    Integrated Performance and Benchmarking System (IPBS), will allow
    for the creation of an Internet-based system for harvesting
    information from states regarding Federal program activities at the
    school and district levels. The system would allow users to link
    Federal program participation and outcome information to
    characteristics of recipient states, districts, and schools. The
    IPBS will help to meet policy makers' need for timely, outcome-based
    information while streamlining, modernizing, and reducing the
    reporting burden on states from Federal information requests. States
    will no longer send data to the Federal government. Rather, they
    will collect and store the data in their own warehouses in such a
    way that the Federal government can harvest them. States will
    monitor and ensure the quality of district- and school-collected
    data.