U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Planning and Evaluation Service

Evaluation

Brief

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Planning and Evaluation Service

Evaluation

Brief

SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED AS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT UNDER TITLE I: 

RECENT EVIDENCE FROM THE NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF 

SCHOOLS

INTRODUCTION

The 1994 Title I reauthorization required 

states to establish rigorous and explicit 

criteria for measuring school progress.1 

Based on these criteria, each Title I school

is required to demonstrate adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) toward attaining the state’s 

performance standards. Schools (and 

districts) that fail to make adequate

progress for two consecutive years are to be

identified for improvement. These schools

are required to develop or revise their plans 

to address identified needs, and are to

receive technical assistance by the states

and districts through school support teams 

and other support mechanisms. The law 

also requires that these schools spend an 

amount equal to 10 percent of their annual 

Title I funding on professional development 

over two years or demonstrate that they are

effectively carrying out professional 

development activities. 

If schools identified for improvement fail to

show progress, states and districts can take

corrective actions. Corrective actions may 

include, but are not limited to, withholding 

funds; revoking authority for a school to 

operate a schoolwide program; decreasing 

decision-making authority at the school 

level; reconstituting the school staff; and 

 

 

1See http: //ww.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/

sec1116.html. 

authorizing students to transfer (without

having to pay their own transportation

costs) to other public schools served by the

local educational agency. In the case of 

schools identified for improvement that fail

to make progress for three or more years, 

such corrective action is required by law. 

The statute prohibits states from 

implementing certain types of corrective

action until final assessments are in place

(Section 1116(c)(5)(B)(ii)). States are

required to report annually the number of

schools identified as in need of

improvement. Because of the substantial

differences in how states define and

measure “low-performing schools,” these 

data are neither consistent nor can they be

compared across states.2 

PURPOSE OF THE BRIEF

There is a general lack of information on 

schools identified for improvement on a

national basis. Using data from a large,

nationally-representative study of Title I 

schools, this evaluation brief provides 

information on the following topics 

regarding schools identified as in need of

improvement under Title I:

2See U. S. Department of Education (2001). 

1
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

 

Whether principals in these schools 

fully comprehend what it means to

be identified as in need of

improvement under Title I;

What these schools look like in 

terms of demographic and other 

characteristics; 

What kinds of technical assistance

they have received (or failed to 

receive); 

Whether schools have been

subjected to corrective actions by 

districts; and 

Whether some schools have been

successful in meeting AYP targets or 

in moving out of in need of

improvement status. 

DATA

This evaluation brief reports on data

obtained through the National 

Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS), a 

nationally representative survey of

principals and teachers in Title I Schools in 

school year (SY) 1998-1999. Designed and 

conducted by Westat, the principal and 

teacher surveys of the NLSS were first 

fielded during SY 1998–1999; schools that

remained in Title I status were followed for 

the next two years through SY 2000–2001.3 

The surveys focus on whether and how 

schools are implementing the provisions of

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA), as amended in 1994. 

The total sample size for the NLSS was 

1,507 Title I schools; schools identified by 

the district as in need of improvement were

oversampled. The total number of

responding schools was 1,081 in SY 1998-

1999 and 987 in SY 1999-2000. 

• 

• 

 

3In 1998-1999 the NLSS sample was nationally 

representative of Title I schools. The sample was 

not refreshed and consequently is not 

representative of all Title I schools in subsequent 

years. 

CONFUSION EXISTS REGARDING WHETHER 

A SCHOOL HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS IN 

NEED OF IMPROVEMENT UNDER TITLE I 

There appears to be some confusion on the

part of school principals regarding whether 

their school has been identified by the 

district as in need of improvement. For

example:

Overall, in SY 1998-1999, 13 

percent of Title I schools were

reported by the district as in need of

improvement under Title I. 

However, about a quarter of the

principals in schools identified by 

the district were uncertain about 

their status or disagreed with the 

district that their school had been

identified for improvement. 

In SY 1999-2000, about 20 percent

of Title I schools were identified by

the district as in need of

improvement. Among these schools,

37 percent of principals disagreed 

with the district that their school

had been identified as in need of

improvement, and another 4 percent

reported that they did not know 

whether they had been identified.4

4We compared the two groups of schools—

schools where the principal agreed with the 

district that the school had been identified for 

improvement under Title I and schools where the 

principal disagreed or did not know that the

school had been identified for improvement—to 

see whether there were any differences between 

them. Schools where the principal disagreed 

with the district identification were more likely 

to be urban, high-poverty elementary schools 

operating schoolwide programs compared with 

schools where the principal agreed with the 

district. However, there was no difference in the

average number of years that the principal had 

been in his or her current position: 5.1 years. 

2
This level of confusion suggests the need for 

clearer communication between the district 

and schools regarding identification under 

Title I.

Some of this confusion may arise from the

dual accountability systems in place in 

many states.5 As the recent report from the

National Assessment of Title I points out: 

“In many cases, states’ own accountability 

systems and the systems created to meet

requirements of Title I operate separately

and are only somewhat overlapping.... 

Research shows that state and local 

accountability systems tend to be better 

understood by educators and have more

immediate consequences for schools and 

districts.”6 

In the remainder of the evaluation brief, we

analyze only those schools that were

identified by both the district and principal 

as in need of improvement.7

CONFUSION EXISTS REGARDING HOW 

LONG A SCHOOL HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS 

IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT UNDER TITLE I 

Even where there was agreement between

the principals and districts that the school 

had been identified under Title I, there was

considerable disagreement about how long

a school had been identified for

improvement. For example, among schools

that the district reported had been 

identified for two years: 

 

• 

• 

• 

• 

5Overall, 17 percent of Title I schools had been

identified for improvement in SY 1999-2000 

under a state or district accountability system. 

Only one-third of these schools (about 6 percent 

of all Title I schools) had also been identified for 

improvement under Title I. 6U.S. Department of Education (2001: 25). 7This considerably underestimates the number 

of schools in need of improvement identified by 

the district because, as noted earlier, in SY 

1999-2000, 41 percent of principals disagreed

with or were uncertain about having been

identified by the district. Clearly, this 

introduces some unknown bias in our estimates. 

If principals disagreed, they were not asked this 

set of questions. 

Only 29 percent of the principals 

agreed that the school had been

identified for two years; and

About 37 percent of principals 

reported that their school had been

identified for four years or more. 

MANY PRINCIPALS SEEM TO BE 

UNFAMILIAR WITH STATE MEASURES OF 

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) 

UNDER TITLE I 

Overall, among schools that had 

been identified by both the district

and principal, about 48 percent of

principals reported being unfamiliar

with AYP measures established by 

the state. 

This lack of knowledge differed by 

the length of time the school had

been identified. Those who had 

been identified for a year or less 

tended to be the most unfamiliar 

with these measures compared with

schools identified for longer periods 

of time (65 percent versus 25 

percent). 

This lack of concordance between district 

and principal reports and lack of familiarity 

with state metrics of progress on the part of 

principals highlights the level of confusion 

that appears to exist regarding the entire

Title I school improvement process. 

Districts and states need to make the

process more transparent, widely 

disseminate the criteria on which schools 

are judged, and provide greater followthrough with schools. 

Among principals who were familiar with 

state criteria for adequate yearly progress, 

57 percent reported that they did not

consider these measures adequate to judge 

their school’s performance.

3
SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED AS IN NEED OF 

IMPROVEMENT8 ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE 

SERVING SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF POOR 

AND MINORITY STUDENTS AND TO BE 

LOCATED IN RURAL AREAS

• 

• 

• 

• 

 

Approximately 32 percent of Title I 

schools identified as in need of

improvement were in the highestpoverty category (defined as schools 

with 75 percent or more of their 

students eligible for the free and 

reduced-price lunch program). Only 

19 percent of schools not in need of

improvement were highest-poverty

schools.9 (See Exhibit 1). 

About 55 percent of schools 

identified as in need of improvement

were low-poverty schools, defined as 

those with less than 50 percent of

their students eligible for the free 

and reduced-price lunch program. 

Most of these low-poverty schools in 

need of improvement were located in

rural areas and in lower-poverty 

districts. These low-poverty schools 

tended to have higher poverty rates 

on average than the districts in 

which they were located. 

A third of schools identified for 

improvement served predominantly

minority students (75 percent or

more minority students), compared

with 17 percent of Title I schools not 

in need.

A quarter of the schools in need of

improvement were in the highest

quartile of both poverty and 

minority representation, compared

with 11 percent of schools not in 

need.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

 

8As mentioned earlier, these are schools

identified by both the district and the principal 

as in need of improvement under Title I. 9The comparison group of schools identified here

includes only schools that the district had not 

identified as in need of improvement under 

Title I. Thus, schools that had been identified by 

the district as in need of improvement but where 

the principal disagreed with the district 

identification or did not know the school had 

been identified were excluded from the

comparison group. 

About 60 percent of schools in need 

of improvement were located in 

rural areas, compared with 45

percent of schools not in need. 

A slightly higher percentage of 

schools identified as in need of

improvement operated schoolwide 

programs, compared with schools 

not in need. 

A slightly higher percentage of 

schools in need of improvement had 

adopted comprehensive school 

reform models (48 percent)

compared with 43 percent of schools 

not in need.10

SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED AS IN NEED OF 

IMPROVEMENT FACE SIGNIFICANT 

CHALLENGES

Compared with principals in Title I schools 

not identified as in need of improvement,

principals in Title I schools in need of 

improvement were significantly more likely 

to report that: 

Lower percentages of their students 

were prepared to work at the next

grade level (74 percent compared 

with 85 percent); and 

Their school experienced 

significantly higher turnover rates 

for teachers (37 percent compared

with 8 percent). 

10We present evidence later to show that many of 

these schools were encouraged to adopt models 

as part of the improvement process. 

4
Exhibit 1. A Profile of Title I Schools Identified as in Need of Improvement and Title I 

Schools Not in Need of Improvement, SY 1999-2000 

Title I Schools 

Identified as in Need

of Improvement 

Title I Schools Not 

Identified as in Need

of Improvement Selected Characteristics 

Percentage

Percent of students eligible for the

free and reduced-price lunch 

program 

 0-49.9%a 54.5 50.2

 50-74.9% 13.7 30.6 

 75-100% 31.9 19.3 

Percent of minority students 

 0-49.9%a 59.1 68.7

 50-74.9% 8.6 14.3 

 75-100% 32.3 17.1 

Schools with 75-100% of students 

eligible for the free and reducedprice lunch program and 75-100%

minority students 

24.8 10.7 

Urbanicity

 Urban 22.4 22.1 

 Rural/small town 59.7 45.7 

 Suburban/large town 17.9 32.2 

Title I type

 Schoolwide 57.3 52.6 

 Targeted Assistance 42.7 48.4 

School Level 

 Elementary school 80.3 77.5 

 Secondary school 19.7 22.5 

Percent of Limited English Proficient 

(LEP) students 

 0% 62.2 55.3 

 1-24.9% 35.3 33.5 

 25-100% 12.5 11.3 

Schools that adopted a 

comprehensive school reform model 

48.4 42.5

Number of Schools 

Weighted 4,963 33,438

Unweighted 137 745

Exhibit reads: 54.5 percent of Title I schools identified as in need of improvement in SY 1999-

2000 are in the low-poverty category, with less than 50 percent of students eligible for the free 

and reduced-price lunch program, compared with 50.2 percent of Title I schools not in need of 

improvement. 

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section Principal Screener and Common Core of Data, 

1998-1999 

Note: aUnweighted sample size is too small to allow further disaggregation. 

5
In addition, principals and teachers in 

schools in need of improvement were

somewhat more likely than principals and 

teachers in schools not in need of 

improvement to report that content 

standards in reading and mathematics were

too hard “to a great extent” for most of their

students, and that their school faced 

greater barriers to using content standards 

with all students, including lack of parent 

support and difficulty aligning practices 

with content standards. However, these

differences were not statistically significant. 

IN SY 1999-2000, ONLY ONE-THIRD OF 

SCHOOLS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT 

RECEIVED ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANCE OR PROFESSIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT

Although the Title I legislation requires

states and districts to provide technical 

assistance to schools identified for 

improvement, only about 34 percent of

these schools reported receiving additional 

technical assistance or professional 

development from outside agencies. 

Districts appeared to be focusing their 

support efforts on schools that have been in 

this status for longer periods of time, as 

Exhibit 2 shows. 

Exhibit 2. Percentage of Schools Identified as in Need of Improvement that Received 

Additional Technical Assistance by Length of Time Schools Had Been Identified 

0

20

40

60

80

100

P

1 year 2 years 3 years 4 or more years ercentage of schools receiving additional

technical assistance

Length of time schools have been identified for improvement

Exhibit reads: 25.0 percent of Title I schools that had been identified as in need of improvement 

for one year in SY 1999-2000 had received additional technical assistance from outside entities. 

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section E, Q. PE2 and PE8 

6
7

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

 

For example: 

Less than 30 percent of schools that 

had been identified for one to two 

years and less than 40 percent of 

schools that had been identified for 

three years had received additional 

assistance; but, 

Over 60 percent of schools that had 

been identified for four or more 

years had received additional 

assistance. 

Schools received assistance from a variety 

of sources. Overall, we find that: 

25 percent of all schools identified 

as in need of improvement had 

received assistance from the state 

and 22 percent had received 

assistance from school support 

teams; 

22 percent had received assistance 

from the district; 

19 percent had received assistance 

from an intermediate or regional 

education agency; and 

14-15 percent had received 

assistance from university or 

independent consultants. 

In addition: 

About 6 percent of all schools in 

need of improvement had received 

assistance from one to two sources; 

18 percent had received assistance 

from three to four sources; and, 

10 percent had received assistance 

from five or more sources. 

The percentages of schools that had 

received assistance from these sources were 

substantially higher among schools that 

had been identified for four or more years 

compared with schools that had been 

identified for one to three years. For 

example: 

Among schools that had been 

identified for four or more years, 55 

percent had received assistance 

from the district compared with less 

than 20 percent of schools that had 

been identified for one to three 

years; and, 

Among schools that had been 

identified for four or more years, 48 

percent had received assistance 

from the state compared with less 

than a quarter of schools that had 

been identified for one to three 

years. 

 

ALMOST ALL SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED FOR 

IMPROVEMENT FOR TWO OR MORE YEARS 

IMPLEMENTED ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES 

TO ADDRESS THEIR NEEDS

Among schools that had been identified for 

one year, only 37 percent had implemented 

additional strategies. These strategies 

ranged from revising or developing a school 

plan11 to offering more professional 

development than in years prior to being 

identified. Most schools adopted a variety 

of strategies. Exhibit 3 shows the different 

strategies adopted by schools that had been 

identified for two or more years to address 

school improvement needs. 

 

11This is required by the 1994 Title I legislation. 
Exhibit 3. Additional Strategies Implemented to Address Need for Improvement by 

Schools Identified as in Need of Improvement for Two or More Years 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percentage of schools identified for t

wo or

more years

Changes to the

curriculum

Greater emphasis on

test-taking skills

Revise/develop

school plan

More family and

community involvement

Assistance from

outside the district

More professional

development 

than in prior years

Adoption of new,

comprehensive model

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percentage of schools identified for t

wo or

more years

Changes to the

curriculum

Greater emphasis on

test-taking skills

Revise/develop

school plan

More family and

community involvement

Assistance from

outside the district

More professional

development 

than in prior years

Adoption of new,

comprehensive model

Exhibit reads: 81.3 percent of principals in schools identified for improvement for two or more 

years in SY 1999-2000 reported that they had revised or developed their school plan in response 

to being identified for improvement. 

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section E, Q. PE9A 

8

• 

• 

• 

 

Over 80 percent had revised or

developed a school plan. 

Between 70-75 percent adopted 

strategies that included greater

emphasis on test-taking skills; 

increased family and community 

involvement;12 increased 

professional development for

teachers; and changes to the

curriculum. 

About 54 percent had sought

assistance from outside the district. 

• 

• 

12Schools in need of improvement were

significantly more likely than schools not in need

to offer training for parents (84 percent 

compared with 65 percent). 

A little more than one-fifth had

adopted a new, comprehensive

school reform model. 

About 45 percent of schools with

students with limited English 

proficiency adopted teaching or 

learning strategies focused on 

students with limited English 

proficiency; among schools with

migrant students, about 40 percent 

adopted teaching or learning 

strategies focused on migrant 

students. 
9

• 

• 

PRINCIPALS IN ABOUT HALF THE SCHOOLS 

IDENTIFIED FOR IMPROVEMENT FOR TWO 

OR MORE YEARS REPORTED BEING 

SUBJECTED TO CORRECTIVE ACTION BY 

DISTRICTS 

Districts can take additional steps with 

schools that fail to improve for two or more

years. As mentioned earlier, these 

corrective actions can range from making 

alternative governance arrangements (such 

as creation of a charter school) to 

developing agreements with other public 

agencies to provide health, counseling, and 

other social services needed to remove

barriers to learning. 

Between 42-46 percent of principals 

in schools that had been identified 

for between two to three years 

reported that their school had been

subjected to corrective action by the

district, as did 

69 percent of principals in schools 

that had been identified for four or

more years. 

Exhibit 4 shows the percentage of Title I

schools identified for two or more years that

had been subjected to particular corrective 

actions. 

Exhibit 4. Corrective Actions Taken by the District with Schools that Had Been 

Identified for Improvement for Two or More Years 

0

10

20

30

Percentage of schools identified for two or

more years

Alternative governance

arrangements

Revoked schoolwide 

program

Social support 

services from other 

agencies

Reconstituted 

school staff

Student transfers to 

other public schools

Decreased authority 

to make decisions

Adoption of 

comprehensive model

Withheld funds

0

10

20

30

Percentage of schools identified for two or

more years

Alternative governance

arrangements

Revoked schoolwide 

program

Social support 

services from other 

agencies

Reconstituted 

school staff

Student transfers to 

other public schools

Decreased authority 

to make decisions

Adoption of 

comprehensive model

Withheld funds

Exhibit reads: 18.8 percent of principals in schools identified for improvement for two or more 

years in SY 1999-2000 reported that their district had developed agreements with other public 

agencies to provide health, counseling, and other social services needed to remove barriers to 

learning, as a result of the school’s identification as in need for more than one year. 

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section E, Q. PE10 and PE10A
10

• 

• 

• 

 

The most frequently adopted strategies were 

arranging to provide social support services 

from other public agencies, requiring 

schools to adopt comprehensive school 

reform models, and reconstituting school 

staff. However, even these strategies were 

reported by only 10-18 percent of 

principals. Authorizing transfers of 

students to other public schools occurred 

very infrequently, in less than 5 percent of 

the schools. 

SOME SCHOOLS WERE SUCCESSFUL IN 

MEETING TITLE I AYP TARGETS IN SY 

1998-1999 

Schools have to meet AYP targets for two 

out of three years following identification to 

no longer be considered in need of 

improvement. In SY 1999-2000, principals 

of schools identified as in need of 

improvement were asked whether their 

school had met the Title I targets for 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the 

previous year. We do not know whether 

these schools have met AYP targets 

successfully for two out of three years, 

merely that they met their AYP target the 

previous year. 

Schools that reported meeting AYP goals in 

SY 1998-1999 included: 

Almost 60 percent of the schools 

that had been identified for two 

years; 

Only 21 percent of schools that had 

been identified for three years; and 

60 percent of schools that had been 

identified for four or more years. 

ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF SCHOOLS WERE 

SUCCESSFUL IN MOVING OUT OF IN NEED 

OF IMPROVEMENT STATUS13

Because our data allow us to track schools 

for two years, we can identify schools that 

were successful in moving out of in need of 

improvement status by looking at whether 

schools were identified by the district as 

needing improvement in SY 1998-1999 but 

not identified as needing improvement in 

SY 1999-2000. Thirty-four percent of 

schools identified in SY 1998-1999 were not 

identified by the district as in need of 

improvement in SY 1999-2000.14 It is 

important to remember that many of these 

schools had been identified for 

improvement earlier than SY 1998-1999. 

The NLSS asked districts to list all schools 

that were in improvement status as of SY 

1998-1999. 

We examined the relationship between 

success (in moving out of in need status) 

and selected characteristics of schools that 

were in improvement status in SY 1998-

1999. Four factors appeared to be 

significantly related to the likelihood of 

success: length of time the school had 

been identified for improvement, whether 

the school received outside support; 

whether the school received support from 

the district; and whether the school 

received support from school support teams 

(Exhibit 5).15 

13It is important to remember that this section 

examines schools that were successful in moving 

out of in need status, not schools that met AYP 

criteria the previous year as reported in the 

preceding section. 

14Unfortunately, we only have data for a subset 

of these schools because some of the principals 

identified in SY 1998-1999 disagreed with the 

district identification. The success rate for all 

schools identified by the district as needing 

improvement in SY 1998-1999 is higher—44 

percent—than the number reported above. 

Principals who disagreed with the district 

identification did not answer this section of the 

survey. 

15Because of small sample sizes, we were not 

able to model the net effect of these factors on 

success in a multivariate framework. 
11

• 

• 

• 

Forty-one percent of schools 

identified for three or more years 

were no longer in need of 

improvement compared with 38 

percent of those identified for two 

years. 

Forty-one percent of schools that 

received additional support were no 

longer identified for improvement in 

SY 1999-2000 compared with 27 

percent of schools that did not 

receive such support. 

Between 46-47 percent of schools 

that received district support or 

support from school support teams 

were successful in moving out of inneed status, compared with 25-26 

percent of schools that did not 

receive such support. 

Exhibit 5. Percentage of Schools in Improvement Status in SY 1998-1999 that 

Succeeded in Moving out of In-Need Status in SY 1999-2000, by Selected Characteristics 

of Schools 

Selected Characteristics 

Percentage of 

Schools that 

Succeeded in 

Moving out of 

In- Need Status 

Overall 33.6 

Length of time school had been identified for 

improvement 

 1 year 24.6 

 2 years 37.5 

 3 or more years 40.7 

Additional assistance provided by outside entities 

 Yes 40.6 

 No 27.3 

District provided additional assistance 

 Yes 45.9 

 No 25.7 

School support teams provided additional 

assistance 

 Yes 46.8 

 No 25.1 

Number of schools in improvement status in SY 

1998-1999 that succeeded in moving out of inneed status in SY 1999-2000 (weighted) 

1,410 

Total number of schools in improvement status in 

SY 1998-1999 (weighted) 

4,191 

Exhibit reads: 33.6 percent of Title I schools that were in improvement status in SY 1998-1999 

succeeded in moving out of in need of improvement status in SY 1999-2000. 

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998-1999 and SY 1999-2000, Sections Principal Screener and E, Q. 

PE2, PE8, PE8A 
12

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

While we found some differences by school 

characteristics, these differences were not 

statistically significant. Nonetheless, we 

believe the findings are useful in 

highlighting factors that appear to affect the 

ability of schools to get out of in-need 

status. 

For example: 

Lower-poverty schools and those 

with lower percentages of minority 

students were somewhat more 

successful in moving out of in-need 

status. 

Elementary schools were more 

successful in moving out of in-need 

status. 

Principal familiarity with district 

measures of progress also 

contributed to success. 

Among schools that had a model, schools 

that received assistance from the model 

developer also showed higher rates of 

success than schools that failed to receive 

such assistance. 

The additional strategies shown in Exhibit 

3 did not appear to lead to higher success 

in moving out of in-need status, with the 

exception of increased professional 

development. Schools that had 

implemented increased professional 

development were relatively more 

successful in moving out of in-need status 

compared with schools that did not adopt 

this strategy, although it is not clear what 

the focus of this increased professional 

development was. 

SUMMARY

In SY 1999-2000, about 20 percent 

of Title I schools were identified by 

the district as in need of 

improvement. This represented an 

increase from SY 1998-1999, when 

13 percent of Title I schools were 

identified by the district as in need 

of improvement. 

Considerable confusion existed on 

the part of principals regarding 

whether their school had been 

identified as in need of improvement 

under Title I. For example, 

o In SY 1999-2000, over 40 

percent of the principals in 

Title I schools that had been 

identified by the district as in 

need of improvement either 

disagreed with the district 

that their school had been 

identified as in need of 

improvement or did not 

know whether they had been 

identified. 

o Even where there was 

agreement between the 

principals and districts that 

the school had been 

identified under Title I, there 

was considerable 

disagreement about how long 

a school had been identified 

for improvement. 

A little less than half of the 

principals in schools identified by 

both the district and the principal 

as being in need of improvement 

reported being unfamiliar with AYP 

measures established by the state. 

Schools identified as in need of 

improvement were more likely to be 

serving significant numbers of poor 

and minority students, to be located 

in rural areas, and to experience 

higher turnover rates for teachers. 

Principals in these schools were also 

much more likely to report that 

lower percentages of their students 

were prepared to work at the next 

grade level. 

Only one-third of schools in need of 

improvement received additional 

technical assistance or professional 

development. 
13

• 

• 

• 

Most schools that had been 

identified for two or more years had 

implemented additional strategies in 

response to being identified. These 

strategies ranged from revising or 

developing a school plan to more 

professional development than in 

years prior to being identified. 

Principals in about half the schools 

identified for improvement for two or 

more years reported being subjected 

to corrective action by districts, 

including arranging to provide social 

support services from other public 

agencies, requiring schools to adopt 

comprehensive school reform 

models, and reconstituting school 

staff. 

About a third of schools identified in 

SY 1998-1999 were not identified by 

the district as in need of 

improvement in SY 1999-2000. 

Four factors appeared to be 

significantly related to the likelihood 

of success: length of time the school 

had been identified for 

improvement; whether the school 

received outside support; whether 

the school received support from the 

district; and whether the school 

received support from school 

support teams.

REFERENCE

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). High Standards for All Students: A Report from the 

National Assessment of Title I on Progress and Challenges since the 1994 Reauthorization. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

This report was prepared by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Scott Naftel, Mark Berends, and Jennifer 

Sloan McCombs of RAND, 1200 South Hayes St., Arlington, VA 22202-5050 and edited by Paul 

Arends. The project monitor for the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools is Susan Sanchez, 

Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. The project director is 

Babette Gutmann, Westat, Rockville, Md.